"For religion teachers at Adventist colleges and universities, an official endorsement process by the
General Conference is part of the plan spelled out in Handbook of the International Board for Ministerial and Theological Education (IBMTE). But many are resisting the idea, and the resistance includes the leadership of the North American Division.
IBMTE focuses on ministry throughout its life cycle, from formation to hiring, ...
Maury Jackson launched a lively “Independence Weekend” conversation when he suggested that the IBMTE “scrap the whole project” of requiring regular General Conference/ Division endorsement of theology faculty upon hiring and every five years thereafter as outlined in a chapter of the Handbook. ....
In his six reasons why the church should not pursue an endorsement process, Skip Bell, Andrews University, noted that the practice would contradict biblical teaching of the nature of the church. ...
Robert Johnston, retired professor of New Testament at AU Theological Seminary, evoked early Christian history comparing the endorsement process with what occurred at the “falling away” when a gradual process of ever increasing creedalism and hierarchicalism led to a ripened papacy. ....
From Friedensau Adventist University in Germany, Stefan Hoschele wrote that his institution suggests any procedure of endorsement or other type of certification should be done in a different way, which builds on (1) trust in faculty, (2) trust in institutional boards, and (3) actual ministry (teaching, research, and ministry to the church and society). He said... “We deplore that the suggested handbook sows seeds of distrust, and we desire to work for a church in which we can cooperate without casting doubt on each other’s true Adventist Christianity.”
This latest outcry over the control element of the endorsement process is not new. It has been voiced at various times during the life of IBMTE. Asked why the provision remains in the Handbook, Bearsley-Hardy says, “Because the Seventh-day Adventist church is losing a large part of its young people.”
North American Division leaders were themselves working on a proposal for an “alternative” to the process. The Division’s college presidents, although aligned with IBMTE’s goal of accountability in the teaching of religion, objected earlier to the “endorsement” provision as compromising college-board responsibility and introducing risk with respect to institutional accreditation.
The document at the same time embraces IBMTE determination to “foster dynamic theological unity,” “promote professional excellence,” and “energize” Adventist spiritual life ““through committed faculty.” CVV
BOTTOM LINE- They want to teach what they want--but still get a pay check & benefits package from the church.
The real reason is they don't like the Biblical doctrines of the church - from the issue of ordination, to the Sanctuary Doctrine, to the LGBT issues & more. ... TOTAL REBELLION.
Look at who's for changing the policy: NAD under Dan Jackson, the German school (remember, it started in Germany with the move to ban Walter Veith from European conferences), etc.
Also, when the sound the alarm about "accreditation", (the church universities were threatened in California with losing those over not teaching evolution) this is what they mean. To be able to teach what they want. Maybe evolution like the scandal at La Sierra?
Another point, they decry the loss of youth in the church. JUST HOW DOES ALLOWING FACULTY TO NOT BE HELD TO A SET OF DOCTRINAL BELIEFS CHANGE THAT....UNLESS YOU ARE OF THE MINDSET THAT THE DOCTRINES ARE THE PROBLEM...BINGO...& THERE IT IS....
And finally, throwing out phrases like "creedalism and hierarchicalism" , or suggesting something like the IBMTE led to the Papacy is INSULTING to your intelligence.
SOLUTION: How 'bout we fire them all and start over with men & women dedicated to the Word of God and not to themselves? Just an idea...
 |
| The culprit who wrote this article decrying the IBMTE.... Charles Scriven----figures |
IBMTE focuses on ministry throughout its life cycle, from formation to hiring, ...
Maury Jackson launched a lively “Independence Weekend” conversation when he suggested that the IBMTE “scrap the whole project” of requiring regular General Conference/ Division endorsement of theology faculty upon hiring and every five years thereafter as outlined in a chapter of the Handbook. ....
In his six reasons why the church should not pursue an endorsement process, Skip Bell, Andrews University, noted that the practice would contradict biblical teaching of the nature of the church. ...
Robert Johnston, retired professor of New Testament at AU Theological Seminary, evoked early Christian history comparing the endorsement process with what occurred at the “falling away” when a gradual process of ever increasing creedalism and hierarchicalism led to a ripened papacy. ....
From Friedensau Adventist University in Germany, Stefan Hoschele wrote that his institution suggests any procedure of endorsement or other type of certification should be done in a different way, which builds on (1) trust in faculty, (2) trust in institutional boards, and (3) actual ministry (teaching, research, and ministry to the church and society). He said... “We deplore that the suggested handbook sows seeds of distrust, and we desire to work for a church in which we can cooperate without casting doubt on each other’s true Adventist Christianity.”
This latest outcry over the control element of the endorsement process is not new. It has been voiced at various times during the life of IBMTE. Asked why the provision remains in the Handbook, Bearsley-Hardy says, “Because the Seventh-day Adventist church is losing a large part of its young people.”
North American Division leaders were themselves working on a proposal for an “alternative” to the process. The Division’s college presidents, although aligned with IBMTE’s goal of accountability in the teaching of religion, objected earlier to the “endorsement” provision as compromising college-board responsibility and introducing risk with respect to institutional accreditation.
The document at the same time embraces IBMTE determination to “foster dynamic theological unity,” “promote professional excellence,” and “energize” Adventist spiritual life ““through committed faculty.” CVV
BOTTOM LINE- They want to teach what they want--but still get a pay check & benefits package from the church.
The real reason is they don't like the Biblical doctrines of the church - from the issue of ordination, to the Sanctuary Doctrine, to the LGBT issues & more. ... TOTAL REBELLION.
Look at who's for changing the policy: NAD under Dan Jackson, the German school (remember, it started in Germany with the move to ban Walter Veith from European conferences), etc.
Also, when the sound the alarm about "accreditation", (the church universities were threatened in California with losing those over not teaching evolution) this is what they mean. To be able to teach what they want. Maybe evolution like the scandal at La Sierra?
Another point, they decry the loss of youth in the church. JUST HOW DOES ALLOWING FACULTY TO NOT BE HELD TO A SET OF DOCTRINAL BELIEFS CHANGE THAT....UNLESS YOU ARE OF THE MINDSET THAT THE DOCTRINES ARE THE PROBLEM...BINGO...& THERE IT IS....
And finally, throwing out phrases like "creedalism and hierarchicalism" , or suggesting something like the IBMTE led to the Papacy is INSULTING to your intelligence.
SOLUTION: How 'bout we fire them all and start over with men & women dedicated to the Word of God and not to themselves? Just an idea...
And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils,
after whom they have gone a whoring.
Leviticus 17:7
The decisions regarding the character of our schoolwork should not be left wholly to principals and teachers."
Testimonies for the Church vol.6, p.143 E.G.W.
The decisions regarding the character of our schoolwork should not be left wholly to principals and teachers."
Testimonies for the Church vol.6, p.143 E.G.W.