An open letter to Ted Wilson, Lisa Beardsley-Hardy, Larry Blackmer....

[olger]

"In a couple of days, fewer than 100 people will determine whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America will hold onto any of its tertiary educational institutions.

The constituents of La Sierra University have been called to a special session this Thursday, February 21, where they will be asked to approve radical changes to La Sierra’s bylaws that will loosen the University’s connection to the Church. Under pressure from WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, a sub-committee of La Sierra’s Board of Trustees has drafted proposed bylaw changes that dilute church representation on the Board of Trustees, weaken the position of the Board chair, and transfer most of the Board’s governing power to the president of the University.

The proposed bylaw changes ensure that lay Trustees will always outnumber church official Trustees; in fact, the provision regarding Board quorums is amended so that there is no quorum unless lay Trustees outnumber church officials. The new bylaws would make the office of board chair an elected office, elected by the other board members, and would prevent the Pacific Union president from ever serving as chairman, or vice chair, of the Board of Trustees, assuming that he continues to serve as chairman of the PUC Board of Trustees. The proposed bylaws also strengthen the position of vice-chair and make that officially a lay position.

These changes are in response to WASC’s expressed desire for greater board autonomy, by which WASC means greater independence from the official Seventh-day Adventist Church. But all of our union-affiliated colleges’ governing boards are set up exactly like La Sierra’s: the union president is ex-officio chairman of the board, and all affiliated conference presidents are board members. No other secular accrediting organization has ever taken issue with this arrangement. But you can expect that, if La Sierra knuckles under to WASC’s demands and approves these bylaw changes, all the other regional accrediting bodies will try to enforce similar demands of our other colleges. If sound educational policy demands an autonomous board in Southern California, then sound educational policy demands it in Northern California, Washington, Nebraska, Texas, Tennessee, Michigan, and Maryland, as well. Eventually, and sooner than you think, all of our Adventist tertiary educational institutions will be Adventist in “heritage” only; they will no longer be governed by officers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

How did we get to this dangerous place?

We got here because some of “us” do not want our educational institutions to be governed by the Adventist Church, and are willing to go to great lengths to see that they aren’t. This faction has long seen accreditation as a way to secularize Adventist tertiary education. They would love for the SDA Church to be forced to choose between a truly Adventist education, on the one hand, and secular accreditation with its prestige and government money, on the other. They constantly argue, on such blogs as Spectrum, that Adventist education cannot be truly Adventist and still maintain secular accreditation. Indeed, they argue that Adventist education cannot be real education, much less accredited education, unless it abandons the Adventist educational philosophy. For example, T. Joe Willey recently wrote at Spectrum:

Beyond governance issues and outside interference, how will Adventists come to terms with not just biology, but all of higher education? This will be problematic if the church’s traditionalists continue to maintain that Scriptural authority has absolute priority over history, science, psychology, social science, philosophy as well as theology — that it is infallible and cannot be circumvented and is above challenge by methodological naturalism or scientific data or evidence. If this policy is going to be used to cast off outside approvals or accreditation commissions . . . the church could then face closing down its academic colleges and universities [or] transforming them into unaccredited Bible colleges. Willey, “The Accreditation of La Sierra University: Tampering with Financial Consequences,” Spectrum, January 28, 2013.

So far, there is no real conflict between accreditation and upholding the Adventist philosophy of education, just a strong desire for such a conflict on the part of secularists within our midst. Secular accrediting associations understand that church schools exist to further the mission of the sponsoring denomination, which will sometimes include a different view of origins, among other things. Creationists in the Adventist Church and elsewhere want Darwinism taught and understood in our schools—indeed, we want our students to understand it better than students in state universities—but we want it taught and understood as a false theory of origins. The truth about our origins is set forth in the Word of God and in the inspired testimonies of Ellen White.

But although there is no genuine conflict between Adventist education and secular accreditation, certain ones so desperately want such a conflict to exist that they are willing to foment it. They are willing to make it actually happen. Which brings us back to the immediate situation at La Sierra.

Apparently, former La Sierra Trustee Lenny Darnell wrote to the WASC commission with responsibility for accrediting La Sierra and urged them to demand that the board structure be changed. Darnell managed to record himself saying, “And if there’s any way that Lenny can figure out, there’s gonna be a memo to the WASC commission that says that you need to demand that we dismantle this ex-officio structure, or these problems will never go away. And this needs to be . . . whatever language you want to use, you need to say that we’re coming back in two years and it has to be different.”

Even if we didn’t have a recording of Lenny Darnell planning to solicit WASC to demand the exact change to the structure of the Board of Trustees that WASC ultimately demanded, and that the constituents will be asked to vote on Thursday, it could easily be deduced that Randal Wisbey, or some intermediary working on his behalf, had contacted WASC and solicited bylaw changes, based upon the following facts:

Denominational ownership has never before been seen as an impediment to secular accreditation.

All of the union-affiliated Adventists colleges have governing boards set up exactly like La Sierra’s: the union president is ex-officio chairman of the board and all affiliated conference presidents are board members. WASC is essentially decreeing that any sectarian school that is actually governed by the sect–as opposed to just loosely affiliated with a denomination–cannot receive secular accreditation. This is an astonishing position, and may well be a novel argument. As far as I am aware, no other secular accrediting organization has ever taken issue with our standard governing board structure.

WASC would never say, “La Sierra, you’re too tightly bound to your sponsoring denomination; make changes to your bylaws to loosen the connection” without knowing in advance that the suggestion would be agreeable. If the president, Board of Trustees, and the Pacific Union were all united on the present board structure, such a demand to re-structure the board would be expected to draw a lawsuit. Yet WASC made that demand of La Sierra because it had been assured that the administration wanted these board changes, and hence WASC would not be buying a lawsuit by demanding them.

WASC would expect to lose such a lawsuit. When I’ve mooted this issue online, liberals argue that WASC has a free hand to bully colleges because accreditation is voluntary and a college can simply choose not to be accredited. This is a poor argument. Accreditation is effectively no longer voluntary; federal grant and loan aid depend upon accreditation, as does transferability of credits and use of a degree as a prerequisite for admission to graduate schools. Because accreditation is crucial to a college, it cannot arbitrarily be removed; an accrediting association cannot make unreasonable demands. If La Sierra sued, WASC would back down, but they never would have made this demand had La Sierra insiders not solicited it.

Randal Wisbey resents efforts to interfere with La Sierra’s inculcation of Darwinism. He allowed Louis Bishop to be disciplined three times for pointing out that La Sierra was undermining Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on origins, he demonizes those who, like the founders of Educate Truth, call attention to La Sierra’s wrong teaching on origins, he has frustrated all efforts, internal and external, to address La Sierra’s origins problem, he fired Lee Greer over Greer’s rapprochement with Larry Blackmer on the origins issue, and he had three Trustees thrown off the Board for their efforts to address the problem. Wisbey wants these bylaw changes in order to put an end, once and for all, to any efforts by the Board of Trustees to address the origins issue. The proposed bylaw changes will put faculty, curriculum, and normal university operations far beyond the purview of the Board of Trustees.

If the bylaw changes were really driven by WASC, they would address only WASC’s stated concerns: the structure of the board and the close connection to the official Seventh-day Adventist Church. But the overwhelming majority of the bylaw changes take governing power away from the Board of Trustees and give it to the president. This is contrary to WASC’s stated policy on governing boards. WASC intends for governing boards to have strong oversight and strong committees in such areas as finance and academic affairs, but these bylaw changes strip the Board of most of its power to in these areas. In fact, the bylaw changes strike out the committee names (Executive, Membership, Academic Affairs, Personnel, Student Life, Trusteeship, and Finance) because these Board committees will no longer be necessary—the Board will lose its governing authority in these areas. That most of the bylaw changes are contrary to WASC policies demonstrates that WASC was never the driving force behind the bylaw changes. This is a power grab. Randal Wisbey is seizing power from the Board of Trustees and from the Church.

Where do we go from here?

First, we go to California and defeat these bylaw changes. They will require a two-thirds majority to pass, and things are not so far gone that two thirds of the La Sierra constituency will vote for something that has the potential to divest the entire church in North America of its tertiary educational apparatus.

And make no mistake, we are playing for all the marbles. Some fourteen months ago, I was blogging with someone who seemed extremely knowledgeable about La Sierra, but who was using a pseudonym. He wrote:

Interestingly enough, the LSU bylaws are being rewritten under WASC’s guidance as we speak. Presuming the “permanent” (ex-officio) board member positions including the automatic Chairmanship by the PUC President are eliminated or weakened would you expect the PUC to stand idly by and see their “ownership” of LSU diluted by a bothersome third party whom they see as the cause of their problems in the first place? Perhaps they will go to the courts to protect their investment and control.

I responded:

On the question of how much WASC can interfere with curriculum and board structure, my answer is, not much. The strategy of using secular accreditation to effectively wrench La Sierra free of church control is too cute, and it won’t work if the church is willing to sue WASC on First Amendment Freedom of Religion grounds. But, as I’ve said several times, if La Sierra even comes close to setting a bad precedent with WASC, we should close it down and sell the property.

He responded:

As for how much WASC can interfere with board structure – isn’t that what is happening[?] Quite a bit, it seems, if rumors are correct. WASC even visited the LSU campus a couple of months ago to lay out exactly the changes they are demanding. . . . In the end, I don’t think the church will have the option of shutting down only LSU. I think it’s going to be an all-in game. Accept accreditation and accept severe limits on church structural and functional control of the church’s tertiary institutions in the U.S. or close them ALL down.

I have since come to believe that the person I was blogging with was Lenny Darnell, the same former La Sierra Trustee who said he would write WASC demanding that the ex-officio board structure be done away with. Lenny is wrong about La Sierra, and Adventist education, and Seventh-day Adventism, but he’s right about one thing: This is an all-in game, one hand for all the chips on the table. We defeat these bylaw changes or we risk losing all of our colleges."

http://advindicate.com/?p=2793

[Guest]

Thanks for posting this olger.

[Windsor]

Who is Lenny Darnell (other than ex board member)?

If this was 100 years ago, there'd be a "Dear Brother L".

[BobRyan]

Very interesting - but as we all know - WASC is not acting at odds with inside interests at LSU actively reaching out to WASC and enlisting their help in the LSU insider's campaign against the SDA denomination.

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

True, Bob

[Windsor]

Where among the alumni of LSU are the 7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal? It's time for an intense letter writing and phone calling campaign.

[olger]

By Mike Peabody:

http://religiousliberty.tv/abuse-of-auth...in-america.html

[Gail]

Wow- what are other religious institutions in the country doing about this? Are any other denominations having this trouble?

[CoAspen]

Where among the alumni of LSU are the 7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal? It's time for an intense letter writing and phone calling campaign.

Demonizing others is never in Gods best interest. Maybe ours but not His!

[Live4Him]

Is there any way to keep up on what happens with this vote? Like a website or something? I would have to disagree that this is demonizing. I believe we are to be kind and loving in our dealings with our fellow man at the same time when faced with blatant and deliberate opposition to God's work I see nothing wrong with calling it honestly and openly.

Quote:

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

We are in an all out war for souls on this earth. When those who purposefully align themselves on satans side make a bid to take over God's work there is absolutely nothing wrong with warning people. Was Elijah demonizing Ahab in front of his court? Christ always used love and tact when dealing with people but he never varnished the truth, this lost him quite a few followers unfortunately because most don't want to hear the straight truth.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Where among the alumni of LSU are the 7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal?

So saying that LSU alumni are 'Idol Worshipers/Baal' is not demonizing? It's only truth telling? You have got to be kidding!!! Do you or any one else know the all the LSU alumni or their personal spiritual life? Do you or anyone else know all the facts on a first hand basis? Did God set you or anyone up as Judge and Jury? Sounds like a whole lot of presumption!!!

Thank you, but I will stand over in the shadows asking for God's mercy on me a sinner.

[Live4Him]

I don't see anyone saying they are all lost, I see him asking where are the ones who will stand for God, it doesn't look like to many are standing up atm. Would you have mde the above statement to John the baptist after he told the general conference this?

Quote:

Luk 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

We are living in a serious time in earths history. The struggle between good and evil is fast coming to a close. There are movements in our political arena as well as within our church that are fast heading toward persecution of God's faithful. The persecution will be under the guise of accusing them as an intolerable scourge to society. Anything said against what is the worldly standard is already branded as judgement and hate. Yes we should always show the love of Christ but there is not a verse in the Bible that says we should be silent in the face of apostasy. As long as our motive for is from love for those who are lost and it is done to try and wake people up and keep them from being lost then it can and indeed should be done. I wonder, aren't you judging his motive a bit there? It sort of sounds like it.

[BobRyan]

[BobRyan]

Is there any way to keep up on what happens with this vote? Like a website or something? I would have to disagree that this is demonizing. I believe we are to be kind and loving in our dealings with our fellow man at the same time when faced with blatant and deliberate opposition to God's work I see nothing wrong with calling it honestly and openly.

Quote:

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

We are in an all out war for souls on this earth. When those who purposefully align themselves on satans side make a bid to take over God's work there is absolutely nothing wrong with warning people. Was Elijah demonizing Ahab in front of his court? Christ always used love and tact when dealing with people but he never varnished the truth, this lost him quite a few followers unfortunately because most don't want to hear the straight truth.

Well said!

in Christ,

Bob

[CoAspen]

So the words I read don't really mean what they say or is understood by standard definition?

So to question their usage means a person is judging the motive?

Even your post is a judgement, based on what? I would ask you the same questions again, which you fail to answer.

>I see him asking where are the ones who will stand for God, it doesn't look like to many are standing up atm.<

And that statement says those people are not, according to the posters view, without supporting evidence.

>Luk 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?<

Just how is that text supporting anything being talked about? Context! Not text splatter! Using that text in reference to those alumni again suggest you know their hearts, which you do not.

Come on...its really very simple, judge not lest ye be judged!!

[Kevin H]

I am wondering what other religious schools are doing about this. I remember as a child, being taught in Public school that one of the horrors of life in Russia was that the college entrance exam included the question "Do you believe in God?" and if you said "Yes" you automatically failed and was not allowed into college.

While not this blatent a question on a college exam, are not these actions basically us applying the same principle as those horrible USSR college entrance exams?

[Johann]

I wonder if this can be compared with the situation with our schools in Ghana in West Africa about 40 years ago.

It was the time when Kwame Nkruma was the dictator of Ghana and he demanded that his politics were regarded almost like a religion.He required that all schools should teach his "doctrines" and a politcal activist was sent to each school to run a weekly class period.

As a result of this demand some of the mission societies, including the Baptists, closed all of their schools in the country because they reasoned this would curb their religious freedom, and they wanted to have nothing to do with such an indoctrination.

The Seventh-day Adventist mission considered the situation in earnest prayer, and came to the conclusion there was no way the mission could stop the required indoctrination of Nkrumaism to which all the children and young people in the country would be exposed to. Fortunately they would still control all of the teaching with the exception of that one weekly class period. So it was voted to keep the schools running.

Next time I visited Ghana Kwame Nkruma was ousted and his rules were no longer followed. The SDA mission had all of their schools running and now there were no restrictions.

All of the missions who had closed their schools had no schools running, and it would take them a long time to build up a new school system.

I wonder if this perspective would have an influence on how to meet the current challenge to our schools in USA?

The Educational Director of the West African Mission at that time, Oivind Gjertsen, was a good friend of mine since we had been roommates. He died a couple of weeks ago in Norway.

[olger]

Johann, what seems to be at issue here is Wisbey's behind-the-scene string pulling to get WASC to help him accomplish greater control.

It is VERY unlikely that WASC would initiate these "changes" on their own because they would be immediately sued under the First Ammendment and lose big. No, this has Wisbey's 'lust for control' fingerprints all over it.

regards,

G

[Johann]

I have no knowledge of the local situation at LSU, only see the conflicting reports. None of these give sufficient details of what is really going on. Are the "Drama Queens" feeding the fuel?

[olger]

No drama so far. A very real concern for the outcome tomorrow.

be blessed,

g

[Windsor]

Originally Posted By: Windsor

Where among the alumni of LSU are the 7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal? It's time for an intense letter writing and phone calling campaign.

Demonizing others is never in Gods best interest. Maybe ours but not His!

Don't condemn me for quoting scripture.

[CoAspen]

Ah....the old "aint me, but the Bible!"

You are the one applying it!!

[Windsor]

Yes but you are taking it out of context. A good Christian should judge. I judge that eating shredded wheat is healthier than lucky charms. I judge that taking a shower in the morning is better than not. I judge when I pick one car over another. I judged when I picked my wife over other women. I judged when I chose what area to live. I judged when I voted for one candidate over another. I judged when I chose the SDA church. Should I suddenly not judge what is right and what is wrong once I'm in the church? In any church there are gonna be those who have chosen Baal and those who have chosen God. I'm not naming names or accusing anyone in particular. I know I have my own planks.

[phkrause]

I believe the judging the Bible speaks of has to do with who is saved and who is not! Also motives, only God knows the heart.

[BobRyan]

Yes but you are taking it out of context. A good Christian should judge. I judge that eating shredded wheat is healthier than lucky charms. I judge that taking a shower in the morning is better than not. I judge when I pick one car over another. I judged when I picked my wife over other women. I judged when I chose what area to live. I judged when I voted for one candidate over another. I judged when I chose the SDA church. Should I suddenly not judge what is right and what is wrong once I'm in the church? In any church there are gonna be those who have chosen Baal and those who have chosen God. I'm not naming names or accusing anyone in particular. I know I have my own planks.

In Matt 7 we are told "judge not that you be not judged" - then we are told not to believe every leader that comes along but to test them by their fruits for "by their fruits you shall know them".

There Christ says "Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but rather he who DOES the will of My Father".

Yes this is in that SAME chapter that starts with "do not judge lest you also be judged".

In the letter of Jude - (and in Paul's letter to Titus) the letters start out on a nice enough note - but quickly turns to the subject of shutting down the sources of false doctrine in the church.

in Christ,

Bob