It appears we have the answer to the question in my previous post; Letter to the GC Against Teaching Evolution That the letter is from David Asscherick. Well at least as far as we can be certain in the electronic media. Since I don’t use any type of verification process in my comments section. But as I have not had any problem that I know of with fictitious authors I will act on the premise that the letter truly is from Asscherick. I am posting his comment here under its own thread since it does bring up some additional points to consider. Here is his comment:
David Asscherick here. I can confirm that the letter is, in fact, mine. Wow, a true rumor, that's novel! And on the internet no less! Someone call the press…
While I did write the letter it was not originally written or sent as an open, public letter. I sent it to a few colleagues for review. From there it was passed on to a few others, and the rest is history. Bad news travels fast. If only we could get our people this excited about sharing the Good News…
I have mixed feelings about the wide circulation my letter has received. I am happy to see this serious issue receive the attention it needs and deserves, but I could wish that it wouldn’t have happened with a personal letter being made exceedingly public. I have already been in touch with one of the individuals to whom the letter was written. I explained to him that it was not my intent to undercut him by broadcasting a private letter. He was very gracious and understanding. I would’ve expected nothing less, after all he is a fine Christian and a friend.
As for Ron's comments here, I am surprised that he fails to see the utter illogic of his position. The point is not whether or not Darwinian evolution is true (I don't believe it is, but that is another issue altogether). The point is an ecclesiastical one, not a scientific one: Like it or not (and I take it that Ron doesn't like it), the official, endorsed, published, voted, endorsed, sanctioned, (add your own synonyms here _____________) position of the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church is that the Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.
Surely this concept is not difficult to grasp.
No one is compelled to believe this, because no one is compelled to be a Seventh-day Adventist. However, it is logically coherent that if you are a Seventh-day Adventist you do believe this. Note: this also applies to professors, teachers, pastors, administrators, etc. In fact it applies to these persons doubly since they receive a paycheck to promote as true the teachings of the
Surely this concept is not difficult to grasp.
If someone wants to work for Nike, great! Let them sell Nike. But if they like Adidas better, then let them work for Adidas. If they work for Nike and insist on promoting Adidas as the superior product they are unethical. And Nike is delinquent in letting this behavior (provided they know about it) to continue.
There are lots and lots of universities these guys/ gals can teach at. Let them teach "the preferred and normative worldview of most every area of science", as Ron calls it, there. We wish you the best, and commend you heartily for your ethically upstanding decision.
Note: this is my first ever blog post. So I'm feeling very modern and hip right now.
Have a great Sabbath! (That is, if you believe in those kinds of things...)
Warm regards,
David
I particularly want to deal with this statement:
As for Ron's comments here, I am surprised that he fails to see the utter illogic of his position. The point is not whether or not Darwinian evolution is true (I don't believe it is, but that is another issue altogether). The point is an ecclesiastical one, not a scientific one: Like it or not (and I take it that Ron doesn't like it), the official, endorsed, published, voted, endorsed, sanctioned, (add your own synonyms here _____________) position of the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church is that the Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.
Is this really an ecclesiastical issue? That apparently is what makes my position that a science class should teach generally accepted scientific theory and information. Dictionary.com defines ecclesiastical as “–adjective of or pertaining to the church or the clergy; churchly; clerical; not secular.” My feeling is that science classes are secular rather then church oriented. I also feel that the janitor cleaning the classroom of an
Do I agree with the statement that the “Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.” Well of course not. There was not even a sun until the 4th day per the story (Genesis
With all the animosity the
So where is academic freedom if we hold to Adventist colleges and universities as ecclesiastical institutes?
14 comments:
Ron,
I actually went looking for this subject because my "pastor" decided to use this subject as the introductory and main portion of his sermon yesterday. The way that he relates receiving this information was that he received it in forwarded emails. But he "checked it out" and verified the author of the letter to be true. Personally, this "sermon" bothered me a great deal, first because the title of the sermon was "Only Jesus;" Jesus had nothing to do with it and "Jesus" was only mentioned as in "I believe in Jesus," nothing about Christ being mentioned. This "pastor" jumped entirely onto the band wagon that this type of teaching cannot be allowed nor tolerated in schools of "God's Remnant Church." The frightening thing to me were the resounding "amens" eminating from the congregation.
Regarding the letter itself and your comments, now that I have seen it for myself, I feel that the most valid and ultimate objection to this letter is what you pointed out: this is NOT an ecclesiatical issue. In our church, it sounds like the "pastor" is making it a test of fellowship, and totally agrees with the premise that it should be a test for employment. The letter equates teachers with "spiritual leaders" but it fails to recognize or acknowledge that they are probably foremost educational leaders. The function of education is not endoctrination, but teaching us to think. I can understand where a minister might confuse that since his primary function is endoctrination.
There are several points in this letter that raise questions in my mind. If he experienced these issues in 2003, why is he now, in 2009, taking it to the GC? Why not take this issue through the regular channels such as La Sierra's administration and then board? It is obliquely inferred that this did happen, since there is mention of hands being tied and the board not taking action. I would propose that perhaps this did happen and the desired reaction and response did not take place so the attempt is being made to take it to a "higher" level, not just the GC but the circulating among like minded "ministers" that will take it to the highest level of "the ground up." It is being made a political issue.
The Dark Ages were defined as being that era when all thought, including scientific thought, was subject to the interpretation (or call it endorsement) of the church, or ecclesiastical authority. The best text I have that comes to mind for this situation is "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God." While the church would like to cling to the "words of scripture" concerning the seven day creation, it will readily gloss over and dismiss the commandment to kill the rebellious child.
"Night after night I preached the Adventist message--I preached Christ!" If Pastor Asscherick truly preached that our salvation is only through the death and victory of Jesus Christ as pointed out in the bible, then praise God! But by the tenor of his letter, I am afraid that he probably taught the "traditional" Adventist message that adventists are the only ones that interpret the bible correctly. Unfortunately, I find this mindset does not allow for the Holy Spirit to be active in us individually. This further allows no place for any of us to deviate from the ecclesiastics, and unfortunately subjects "secular" thought to be defined by the ecclesastics. Some in their zeal would enslave all, including their minds, to "save" them.
One final issue about his letter strikes me. He states: "I genuinely feel that I have my finger on the pulse of the "average lay person" in the Seventh-day Adventist church the world over." I subscribe to the "rule" that 20% will always be for you, 20% will always disagree with you and it is the middle 60% that need to be swayed. When he places "average lay person" in quotations, has he already discounted those that do not agree? Are they not the "average lay person"?
Whether we believe in the six-day creation or subscribe to evolution has no bearing on our salvation. It may have a bearing on whether we are SDAs, especially as pursued in this "letter." The only thing that effects our salvation is whether or not Jesus Christ has died and gained the victory over death and sin and that we accept that.
NO one said this was an issue of salvation. Being a SDA isn't an issue of salvation either. There will be a huge majority of non-SDAs in Heaven after all. However, this point is completely irrelevant to the unique message that the SDA Church, as an organization, thinks it has to share with the world. If an employee thinks the SDA Church is all wet in what it has said it believes is important, that employee is free to go elsewhere and work for someone else who is more in line with his/her own ideas on "truth".
What is clearly wrong here is for someone to claim to represent what the SDA Church considers to be fundamentally important while going about directly undermining those very ideals - ideals which the Church as so clearly stated. It doesn't matter if the Church is right or wrong here. It does matter, morally, if someone takes money for doing the opposite of what they were paid to do.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Let's keep this really simple.
Point #1.
A SDA university would be--definitionally--a university that upholds and actively promotes the stated, actual, official, endorsed, sanctioned, accepted, authorized (insert other synonyms here ______________) teachings of the SDA organization.
Check? Check!
(By the way, this sentence works for any organization! Just insert "Mormon", "Baptist", "Reformed Presbyterian", etc. for "SDA" in the above sentence. Voila! See how easy this is?)
Point #2:
Does the SDA organization have a stated, official, endorsed, etc. position on, say, Creation?
In fact (surprisingly to some) it does!
And what is that position? That God created the earth in Six days. Literal, solar, continuous, contiguous days, that is.
Check? Check!
Now, maybe we're wrong.
Or, maybe we're right.
But one thing is certain: this is part of what it means, by definition, to be a SDA.
I happen to believe it (along with many other things that define SDA-ness) , thus I am a SDA.
No one is compelled to believe the SDA position on Creation (or anything else, for that matter), because no one is compelled to be a SDA.
For example, I think that the neo-Nazis are wrong about the supremacy of the white race. And therefore I am not a neo-Nazi.
Check? Check!
I don't think that the job of an SDA university is to just spout SDA beliefs. What is the SDA doctrine on partial differential equations? Instead, in a community of believers, scholars are trained in their respective fields. The role of a professor is not just to recite church doctrines, but to engage students minds and develop their critical thinking skills in a variety of fields. So I disagree with your point # 1.
Anonymous,
Sounds like you're talking about public school education - a system that also has an agenda and doctrinal positions to support. Like it or not, everyone has an agenda, even you - the SDA Church is no different.
If a teacher doesn't support that agenda, why should I have to support the Darwinian agenda of a teacher at my church school with my tithe monies? I should be able to support the promotion of any agenda I want - right or wrong.
And, Church employees should at least be honest enough to acknowledge the stated goals of their employer and expect to go elsewhere if they do not agree with those goals.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ron, this is so simple.
If you do not believe in a literal six day creation then find another church. You owe it to yourself to commune with a like minded belief system.
Do I agree with the statement that the “Genesis creation account is to be literally understood as communicating an actual, literal, solar Six Day Creation.” Well of course not. There was not even a sun until the 4th day per the story (Genesis 1:14-19) so that would be an illogical statement.
===============================
Ron, I hear God won't cause sunlight to cause heat in the new heaven - how do you suppose God will pull that off?
Take a look at this Baptist University. It is not compromising and is even adding a new degree in geology which they believe will be enhanced because they uphold to a literal six-day account of Genesis. They also require a Bible minor as part of all academic programs. Perhaps we can still learn from our Baptist friends. . .
Cedarville University is home to 3,000 Christian students, Cedarville is an accredited, Christ-centered, Baptist university of arts, sciences, professional, and graduate programs.
Our faith is not a label or a surface treatment, it is our lifeblood and permeates all aspects of the university, its programs and its people. Missions and ministry are integrated into every facet of the Cedarville experience.
* Unwavering commitment to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture
* Creationist approach to scientific research and study
* Required Bible minor a part of all academic programs
* Daily chapels with relevant biblical teaching and authentic praise
* Discipleship groups that provide opportunities for Bible study, mentoring, accountability, prayer, and open discussion
* Missions and study abroad opportunities that reach nearly every corner of the world.
We are committed to maintaining complex balances without compromising our doctrinal or philosophical distinctives. We produce graduates who are trained to be "in the world, but not of it." We are ambitious, but not elitist. We are conservative, but not old-fashioned. We are relevant, but not relativistic.
Cedarville, Ohio—Cedarville University’s Board of Trustees recently approved the formation of the Bachelor of Science in geology degree, set to begin in fall 2009.
Faculty will equip students for lifelong scientific leadership in career fields such as hydrogeology, environmental geology, petroleum geology and numerous other areas of expertise.
“The degree will offer a whole host of new opportunities for graduates,” shares Dr. John Whitmore, associate professor of geology. “Geologists help us find clean drinking water, petroleum, natural gas, coal and valuable minerals.”
The program will be unique in that no other Christian school, that holds to a literal six-day account of Genesis offers geology as a major for undergraduates. The course of study will be taught from both naturalistic and young-earth paradigms of earth history.
“It is extremely important to develop critical thinking skills within the minds of young scientists,” describes Whitmore. “We believe that using a two-model approach of earth history will be advantageous to our students, since others are only taught a one-model, naturalistic approach. Geologists are important when it comes to thinking about earth history, especially within a biblical context.”
Coursework will be rigorous and emphasize hands-on experience along with required field work. The geology major will include a wide range of liberal arts classes along with calculus, physics, chemistry, biology, physical geology, historical geology, mineralogy, petrology, structural geology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, geomorphology, invertebrate paleontology, and environmental geology among other upper-level areas of study. The major will prepare students for both graduate school and industry.
What is funny is that the Baptist University has added geology and thus also added naturalistic idea, which some call Darwinian or evolutionary theory.
from the comment above:
--
The program will be unique in that no other Christian school, that holds to a literal six-day account of Genesis offers geology as a major for undergraduates. The course of study will be taught from both naturalistic and young-earth paradigms of earth history.
--
Pretty much a clear compromise but as the comment above begins they assert it is not a compromise. It is funny how people delude themselves.
Who is deluded? It is not a compromise if you teach both. Note what David Asscherick says: "This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities. But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. We need our young people to know what it is they are up against, yes, but when naturalistic evolution is taught as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview, then we can be sure that the enemy has breached our lines.
The KEY is FACT and PREFERRED.
So at Cedarville they teach both in this new degree but are still upholding the clearly written core values and charters of the University and Baptist Church beliefs. They see the Biblical view as a KEY ADVANTAGE, not a disadvantage.
Note: * Unwavering commitment to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture
* Creationist approach to scientific research and study
The director states: “We believe that using a two-model approach of earth history will be advantageous to our students, since others are only taught a one-model, naturalistic approach. Geologists are important when it comes to thinking about earth history, especially within a biblical context.”
Well I think you are deluded. Perhaps it is because you are unfamiliar with the word inimical:
1. adverse in tendency or effect; unfavorable; harmful: a climate inimical to health.
2. unfriendly; hostile: a cold, inimical gaze.
So Asscherick's letter is not asking that both be taught, he is asking for a literal 6 day creation be taught and evolution treated as unfavorable or harmful. Which is why that paragraph concluded with a reference to Satan (the enemy).
The Baptist university in adding Geology is most certainly not teaching evolution as inimical in the study of geology.
In a balanced world it would be fair to teach both theories in a neutral way IF in a PUBLIC SCHOOL setting. But when a person decides to attend a Christian institute of learning that adheres to the creation story and the fourth commandment, it is totally understandable that the teaching would be biased toward a literal 6-day creation.
I think you are assuming something that may not be fact about Cedarville's teaching. Why not call the University and talk to them as I have.
This is an argument that should not be! Anything that is under the title "Seventh Day Adventist" must have the SDA belief system or the title cannot be applied. One is called by the beliefs they have. Christians are called Christians because they believe as Christ believed. Likewise an Adventist is because of their (People) or it's (Institution) belief! David Asscherick is on point!!!
www.christianlifemediacenter.com
Post a Comment