Christ Kona?

world. So also, there is always the constant
temptation, even for Seventh-day
Adventists, to allow the world’s influence
to compromise fidelity to God’s Word, to
synthesize or even substitute contemporary
worldviews for the biblical worldview.
The intellectual systems of the age
are sometimes viewed as superior to the
Bible, and what is accepted as truth in
the Bible is measured and then accepted
or rejected by the “truths” of the age. The
Bible is reinterpreted with reference to
unbiblical worldviews.
New concepts of the role of
education are developed in
harmony with new philosophies
presented as “truths” of
the age. For some it becomes
the task of the educator to
indoctrinate the student in
these new “truths,” irrespective
of biblical teaching or the
position of our church. Allegiance
is given to “the truth”
without consideration to
whose “truth.” Present truth
is not perceived as an understanding
of our place in history
with reference to Bible
prophecy; it is the “new truths
of the age.”
With this allegiance to contemporary
philosophies presented
as truth rather than to
the truths of the Bible, some
behave as if it is no longer necessary to
allow the larger church body to agree
together on new understandings of the
Bible. Some teachers consider it their
duty to take new theories and philosophies
directly to the student without the
awareness of the church, parent, and
sometimes, because of the subtleties,
even of the student.
For example: Some may consider it
appropriate because of the consensus of
“science” to teach that our ancestry is to
be traced through animal lineage rather
than back to God in Eden. Some professors
take it upon themselves (against
the decisions of our church) to teach
theistic evolution as truth, thinking that
it is better for a student to remain at
least a theist rather than take the “risk”
that in teaching biblical truth some students
might abandon the church when
confronted with challenges to their
faith. Influenced by modernism, some
teach that the Bible is the result of folk
literature passed down through many
centuries, rather than the divinely
guided Word of God transmitted
through His prophets and apostles.
A Question of Loyalty
The morality of such actions is based
upon allegiance to “truth” as the professor
sees it, not to the church body that
expects that the allegiance of educators
be to the Word of God. It is assumed
that students will seldom ask challenging
questions; after all, our church has
asked these individuals to be our professors.
And if the student questions
what is taught, it can always be asserted
that the student misunderstood, or that
the professor was merely informing
“about” this new concept. Students may
hesitate to discuss what is being taught
because their grades might be on the
line, future admission to graduate
school may be at stake, or they may fear
administrative harassment.
In these ways, some rend asunder the
fabric of our churches and homes. Since
the end (“telling the ‘truth’ ”) justifies
The Christian
church
has always
had the
challenge of
remaining
faithful to
God’s Word.
the means for these individuals, they
deem it appropriate to use institutions
built by our forebears, to accept the
tithe and offerings of church members,
and to accept children of unsuspecting
parents, all under the guise of academic
freedom and allegiance to the “truth.”
I was an executive in the food industry
for several years. Part of my job was
hiring salespeople. It never occurred to
me that I should hire a salesperson that
was more excited about my competitors’
products than our own. Nor did I
ever consider hiring a person who
would, under my paycheck, devote his
or her time to coaching my competitors
and selling their products.
Ninety percent of our business was
private label. That meant that we were
producing under trademarks that
belonged to other companies, including
Walmart, the largest retailer in the world,
international in scope. Thus the quality
and food safety of what we manufactured
was extremely important. If we made a
mistake, it would damage not only our
own credibility but also the credibility of
the entity placing trust in us.
That put the obligation on us to know
our suppliers, to protect our food chain,
to develop a sophisticated plant capable
of producing quality, to develop the
right procedures, and to hire the right
people. We were constantly monitored
and audited to assure that we were in
compliance. Our failure at any point
reflected back on our customers. That
would have been disastrous for our customers
and for us.
In a sense, we were like a university
that promises to do a job for our
church, parents, and students. Should
Adventist educational institutions be
any less rigorous in the delivery of Adventist
education than we were in the
delivery of food? After all, the eternal
lives of our students are at stake!
Had we delivered something other
than what was expected and promised,
we would have had an issue of truth in
advertising, of pretending to deliver one
thing while delivering another. If we do
not approach Adventist education with
the same rigor, our schools may lose their
purpose, and the next generation may
not care. Our churches may stand as great
memorials to the heroes of ages past—as
cathedrals to be admired rather than
active places of worship and witness. n
E. Edward Zinke, a theologian
and businessman, was on the
staff of the Biblical Research
Institute of the General
Conference from 1971 to 1986.
www.AdventistReview.org | May 16, 2013 | (445) 29