Sabbath Discussion: What is a Seventh-day Adventist?

We're experimenting with a new discussion platform called Branch. What's unique about Branch is you can share anything from the internet and begin a conversation about it. You're only allowed 750 character responses though. So we decided to create our own topic. Here are a few features that will help make the conversation interesting:

• Highlights extends Branch’s ability to provide feedback and encouragement to users. Users can double-click any sentence in a Branch to highlight it, and also type in a text box next to the sentence to Branch off that highlight into its own conversation.
• Activity Feed lets you keep track of the changes surrounding the Branches you’re a part of, including number of views, who’s watching your Branches, highlights and other activities, members joining your groups, and more.

You are required to have a Twitter account to participate, but creating one is very easy and fast. If you already have a Twitter account, creating a Branch account will be a snap.

We want you to join the conversation. Click JOIN to share your two cents.

The comment section below will be reserved only for questions about how to use Branch.

La Sierra constituency approves bylaw revisions 69-10

Constituency delegates approved a series of changes to La Sierra University’s bylaws during a special meeting held on the campus on May 23. The revised bylaws document passed by a vote of 69-10, or 87 percent, well beyond the two-thirds vote required for passage. The bylaws revisions provide refinement to La Sierra University’s governance, while addressing some concerns about the university’s bylaws expressed since 1996 by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, La Sierra’s regional accrediting agency. This follows an information session held on February 21 in which constituents offered feedback and suggestions on the proposed bylaws revisions.

“We all need to appreciate the difficult task that our Articles and Bylaws Committee members have had to complete,” said Ricardo Graham, Pacific Union president and current La Sierra University board chair. “During their nearly two years of study and review, committee members have listened to constituency delegate feedback, and have used care to ensure the revised bylaws meet current governance needs while reinforcing La Sierra University’s clear and unequivocal connection to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its mission and philosophy.”

The significant bylaws changes fall into two main areas:

• Changing the way in which the board chair is selected.
• Making clear the specific roles of the Board of Trustees and the university President.

Delegates approved bylaws changes that require, in consultation with Pacific Union Conference officers, La Sierra University’s Board chair to be elected by the board itself from one of the four ex officio member Union officers, rather than automatically being the Union president. This change allows the trustees to select their own chair, while simultaneously ensuring that the chair will always be an officer of the Pacific Union. An additional key limitation would be that neither the chair or vice chair of La Sierra’s board can serve concurrently as chair or vice chair of another university or college board. This resolves Pacific Union Conference’s unique issue in its operation of two institutions. La Sierra University and Pacific Union College both faced questions from the accrediting agency on this issue that are not faced by institutions in the rest of the North American Division.

Since 1990, La Sierra’s board membership has included nine ex officio members (the Pacific Union Conference president, secretary, treasurer, vice president; the Pacific Union Conference education director; the presidents of the Arizona, Southeastern California, and Southern California Conferences; and the university president); and 14 members elected by the constituency. No change in that composition was considered during this process. Additionally, the revised bylaws require all 14 elected trustees be members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Previously one elected trustee could be from outside the Church.

The approved bylaws charge the Board of Trustees with ensuring that the mission and major policies of the university reflect the goals and objectives of the Adventist Church. Other changes recognize the limitations of expecting a board to manage day-to-day details of a complex institution.

The board will continue to appoint the president, provost, and vice president for financial administration, and grant tenure to members of the faculty. This allows the board to have direct interaction with the administrative, academic, and financial leaders of the university. It allows trustees to maintain financial oversight of the university, and to establish the policies necessary to university governance. The president is identified as the university officer accountable for implementing the board’s broad policies into daily operations.

Trustees will also focus on providing strategic vision for the university, establishing governing policies, and protecting the university’s assets. The full bylaws document identifies 18 specific governance functions retained by the trustees under the revised bylaws. The full document will be posted on the university website after the bylaws committee completes editorial changes voted by the delegates

“God’s spirit was evident throughout the session,” Graham said. “I appreciated how delegates cared so much about these issues, as demonstrated through the robust discussion and their insightful questions.

“I am optimistic about La Sierra University’s future,” Graham concluded. “The board, administration, and faculty are committed to building this outstanding institution of higher education and developing the Christian commitment of every student.”

For Immediate Release May 23, 2013 Larry Becker lbecker@lasierra.edu

Denmark suspends ordinations until 2015 General Conference

According to a statement voted yesterday by the Seventh-day Adventist Danish Union, all future ordinations for new pastors will be suspended until the General Conference session in 2015. Also, it will no longer distinguish between genders when appointing pastors because the special priesthood reserved for men, because of sin, was fulfilled in Christ. Read the unions statement:

According to the Seventh Day Adventist Church´s belief in creation, as witnessed in the Bible, God has created mankind – man and woman – in His image and therefore equal.

Because of sin, God instituted a special priesthood reserved for men. This special priesthood with its sacrifices and functions found its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. There is no longer any special priesthood. Jesus Christ is our only true priest, the exalted high priest in the true temple in heaven. Now all have free access to God (Hebrews 4-5).

All of Christ's followers – both men and women – were lifted up to be a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, to declare His praises" (1 Peter 2:9).

This royal priesthood has a common purpose, namely to proclaim the gospel.

This ministry is based on the spiritual gifts which the Holy Spirit gives equally to men and women (1 Chor 12). Paul mentions some specific grace based ministries in the Church, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds (i.e. pastors), and teachers (Eph 4:7-16).

With background in this biblical understanding, the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Denmark will not distinguish between genders when appointing pastors, and wishes to see equality between genders in all areas of responsibility. As a result, the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Denmark will suspend the ordaining of any new pastors until the General Conference session in 2015.

Voted at the Danish Union session, May 12, 2013

ADvindicate becomes ADvindicate, Inc.

I'm excited to announce ADvindicate has legally become ADvindicate, Inc. It is now a corporation, which means our application for 501(c)3 status can be submitted. This is a much longer process and we don't expect to be approved until the end of the year. However, once our application has been vetted and submitted, which we expect to happen within another month, your donations will be tax deductible pending approval of our 501(c)3 application. Now that ADvindicate is incorporated, we will be setting up a bank account and address. Once this is done, donations by check can be made out to ADvindicate. We'll keep you posted.

We would like to crowd source some information on what banks may offer the best accounts for a small non-profit. If you know of a good bank, please let us know in the comments below.

We appreciate all the support our readers have given us both through their readership and financial contributions. Our average monthly page views this year have been over 33,000.

We're still raising funds to have a booth at ASI and GYC this year, both of which are in Florida. Please use our PayPal account to make an online contribution.  You can also support us by sharing the articles you enjoy with your friends. Please use the share buttons on each article to support us. It also lets our writers know their articles are being a blessing.

LSU bylaw vote postponed

La Sierra University constituents were scheduled to vote today on proposed bylaw changes that would weaken the Seventh-day Adventist Church's influence on the school, but due to concerns about the location of the meeting, it was turned into an informational meeting. No official votes took place. The meeting had originally been scheduled for 1 p.m. at the Pacific Union Conference office today, but the bylaws state constituency meetings "shall be held on the campus of the University."

A new date for the special constituency meeting was not given, but it must occur prior to June 19, when the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) meets.

Correction: Sentence corrected to reflect the actual language of the bylaws regarding the location of regular and special meetings. Here is the relevant section from La Sierra University bylaws:

Section 5.4 Constituent Membership Meetings: Constituent Membership meetings shall be held on the campus of the University not less frequently than in alternate academic years. Notice of such regular or special meetings shall be given in writing by:

a. Mail sent not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety (90) days prior to the date of such meeting and shall be effective when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the constituent member, according to a list of constituent members certified by the secretary of the Board of Trustees; and

b. Publication in the Pacific Union Recorder not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety (90) days prior to the date of the meeting.

Related articles

• An open letter to Ted Wilson, Lisa Beardsley-Hardy, Larry Blackmer, and the La Sierra constituents
• Analysis of La Sierra bylaw changes
• University constituency will consider bylaws changes

List of La Sierra University constituent members

LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY CONSTITUENT MEMBERS2013

48 MEMBERS OF THE PACIFIC UNION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 9 MEMBERS (IN RED) ARE ALSO ON THE LSU BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND CAN'T BE COUNTED TWICE

PACIFIC UNION 1. RICARDO GRAHAM, CHAIR 2. BRADFORD NEWTON, VICE CHAIR 3. THEODORE BENSON 4. ARNOLD TRUJILLO 5. VICLOUIS ARREOLA 6. BOBBY MITCHELL 7. JORGE SORIA 8. BERIT VON POHLE

ARIZONA CONFERENCE 9. TONY ANOBILE, PRESIDENT 10. THAINE CREITZ 11. ISABEL FRITZLER 12. CHARLES WHITE

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE 13. RAMIRO CANO, PRESIDENT 14. CURLIE CARLISLE 15. ANTONIO HUERTA 16. CHAD STUART 17. MATT TRESENRITER

HAWAII CONFERENCE 19. RALPH WATTS, LLL, PRESIDENT 20. ELLIE KAANAANA 21. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ 22. WALT NELSON

NEVADA-UTAH CONFERENCE 23. LARRY UNTERSEHER, PRESIDENT 24. MISTEE ARIAS 25. KELLI PERSHING PRIEST 26. SHANNON SKELTON

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE 27. JIM PEDERSEN, PRESIDENT 28. VIRGIL CHILDS 29. HUGO LEON 30. JIM LORENZ 31. GEORGE MILLER 32. BARBARA MORRISON

SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE 33. GERALD PENNICK, PRESIDENT 34. VERONICA CHALCO 35. DEAN HORINOUCHI* 36. CHARLES JOHNSON 37. CHRIS OBERG* 38. ALICE SODERBLOM

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE 39. LARRY CAVINESS, PRESIDENT 40. ALFREDO LEE 41. PETER LOU 42. KATHLEEN MYERS 43. MYRIAM SALCEDO-GONZALEZ 44. MAURITA PHILLIPS-THORNBURGH

ADVENTIST HEALTH 45. BOB CARMEN, PRESIDENT

PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION 46. DALE GALUSHA, PRESIDENT

LA SIERRRA UNIVERSITY 47. RANDAL WISBEY, PRESIDENT

PACIFIC UNION COLLEGE 48. HEATHER KNIGHT, PRESIDENT

MEMBERS OF THE LSU BOARD OF TRUSTEES 13 ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

49. JOAN COGGIN (Retired Physician) 50. HENRY COIL JR. (Businessman) 51. KAREN GAIO HANSBERGER (Physician) 52. ERNIE HWANG (Bank President) 53. MEREDITH JOBE (Attorney) 54. DONALD KANEN (Businessman) 55. ALVIN KWIRAM (Academic Administrator) 56. GERALD MCINTOSH (Businessman) 57. CHRIS OBERG (Pastor) 58. ALINA SANCHEZ (Businesswoman) 59. MARILENE WANG (Physician) 60. JUDY ST. JOHN 61. ALVARO BOLIVAR

REMAINING CONSTITUENT MEMBERS

THE PROVOST 62. STEVE PAWLUK

THE VICE PRESIDENTS 63. NORMAN YERGEN, Vice President for Advancement 64. DAVID GERIGUIS, M.B.A., Vice President for Finance 65. YAMI BAZAN, M.A., Vice President for Student Life 66. DAVID LOFTHOUSE, B.S., Vice President for Enrollment Services 67. MARILYN THOMSEN, Ph.D.,Vice President for Communication

THE DEANS 68. ADENY SCHMIDT, Ph.D., College of Arts and Sciences 69. JOHN THOMAS, Ph.D., Dean, School of Business 70. GINGER KETTING-WELLER Ph.D., Dean, School of Education 71. JOHN WEBSTER, Ph.D., Dean, School of Religion

THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY SENATE 72. SANDY BALLI

PLUS 4 ELECTED FACULTY SENATE REPRESENTATIVES 73. 74. 75. 76.

PLUS TWO STAFF MEMBERS 77. 78.

TWO ELECTED STUDENTS ASSOCIATION MEMBERS 79. 80.

SIX ALUMNI ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS 81. NORMAN POWELL, PRESIDENT 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

TWO ARIZONA CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVES 87. 88.

THREE SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVES 89. 90. 91.

THREE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVE 92. 93. 94.

This list is incomplete.

The immorality of relative morality

Ideas that reject the biblical perspective and propose a humanistic view of morality don’t surprise me, but when such ideas are published by supposed Seventh-day Adventists I become incensed by the gross misrepresentation of our faith. Our church can’t continue losing its unique identifying markers in favor of a buffet style approach to theology. The biblical worldview most powerfully explains why we have objective moral values, because it is based on the Word of God and any alternative leads to absurdity. The Bible, inspired by God, is authoritative and foundational in explaining the existence of objective moral values and human nature.

Fundamentally, the concept of right and wrong is rooted in the Genesis account of our origins. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve did not possess a knowledge of good and evil, but the serpent promised Eve once she ate the forbidden fruit her eyes would be opened, and she would be like God, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:4). It wasn't until Adam ate the fruit also that the couple became opened to a knowledge of sin. This is why Paul said, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). God made it clear to Adam and Eve that death would be a result of their disobedience. Transgression of God's law allowed sin to enter our world.

In the great controversy between God and Satan, misrepresenting God’s character and exciting rebellion against God’s law have been Satan’s main objectives.

John said sin is the “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4) - God's law. This is significant because the God of the Bible is the one who created the heavens and the earth, and said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen.1:26). The implications of this statement are significant when discussing morality. God has authority over us and has the right to hold us to his standard because he created us. His standard is an extension of his character, which is the reason God's law is not arbitrary. Since we were created in God's likeness, we would expect humans to have the capacity to know and make moral judgments.

God has revealed his law to everyone. He has explicitly told us through his commandments, as revealed through the Bible, but not everyone has had access to the Bible and yet they are still aware of right and wrong. Paul explains this seeming phenomenon in Romans 2:14, 15:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

If God's law had not been revealed to humanity then we would have no understanding of what is right or wrong. Paul said in Romans 3:20 the law gave him knowledge of sin and that he “would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet’” (Romans 7:7). The biblical concept of sin gives us a framework for understanding morality.

Contrast the above points with a recent article published at Adventist Today titled “Sin: The Dirty Little Word that Trivializes Morality and Warps Ethics” by Chris Barrett. The article proposes that human behavior should not be described in terms of sin, but in terms of “normal or natural.” This reassignment would offer a level playing field, writes Barrett.

Barrett abandons the biblical definition of sin in favor of Oxford Dictionary's definition, which says sin is an “immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law.” This definition presupposes moral relativity and the existence of multiple gods, which is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

Sin is a dirty word that shouldn't be used because it trivializes morality and warps ethics, says Barrett. The irony is that he suggests an alternative that completely trivializes morality by relegating it to the whims of the collective voice. He suggests, along with other relativists, the majority determines what is natural or unnatural, normal or abnormal. The Bible contradicts this theory on many occasions and in Isaiah 45:5 when it says, “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” Barrett gives the collective voice godlike status, supplanting God as the ultimate arbiter of objective moral values.

After discarding objective moral values, Barrett then tackles the issue of human nature, “What is natural for humans has to do with our nature: What we are. This is no different to any animal. All exhibit behaviors that are ‘natural’ for their nature.” For example, what sociopaths and rapists do may be natural to them, but it is not normal behavior to the collective. So what does this mean in terms of overcoming sin in your life? Here's how Barrett explains the implications:

If you have to get on your knees and scrape, grovel and beg God for victory, chances are what you are struggling with is natural to you as a human and is not sin. (If what you struggle with is socially unacceptable and harmful to others - face up to it or await the consequences.) If it is normal to human society and behavior - stop losing sleep over it. Enjoy your life, your relationships, your body. Do no harm to others, bring them joy if you can. Live life in the best way you're able in the body and mind you have.

Barrett’s self-indulgent view suggests there is no need to ask God for victory over sin. Chances are what you're feeling guilty about, that still small voice of conscience, should be ignored. So why not stop by the porn shop or liquor store for some harmless joy? Under Barrett’s thinking, there is no need for the rapist to ask forgiveness and victory over his sin because this behavior may be natural to him and if it's socially unacceptable or harmful to others he should be prepared to face the consequences, if he gets caught. All this obviously contradicts a major theme of the Bible, which is God’s power giving us freedom over sin so we can be saved. The Bible counsels us to die daily to self and submit ourselves to God. “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you,” James said (4:7). Barrett suggests bondage in this life and an ultimate loss of salvation, while the Bible offers peace and joy in this life and eternal life in the world to come.

Seventh-day Adventists cannot abandon the Bible as their foundation. It presents the only source for objective moral values--Jesus Christ. It presents the only solution to our sinful human nature--the gospel. God has revealed himself, through Jesus Christ, to humanity that all might be saved.

Instead of Christ as the source of object moral values, Barrett gives us the collective voice of humanity, or in essence, the will and way of the human heart, which the Bible explains in Jeremiah 17:9 as deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.

Instead of acknowledging our sinful nature and calling us to look to Christ for freedom, Barrett denies our sinful nature and calls us to embrace it, which is ultimate bondage. Instead of revealing Christ as the solution to the problem, Barrett gives us nothing.

“The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly” (Proverbs 15:2).