The
Revision
Task
force
has
no
authority
to
change
church
policy;
its
job
is
to
make
the
policy
work.
efficiency.
And,
as
happened
before,
objectors
see
the
process
as
an
effort,
from
outside
col-
leges
and
universities
themselves,
to
control
thought
on
Adventist
campuses.
|
asked
several
members
of
the
Revision
Task
Force
to
respond
to
four
question
(here
briefly
stated):
Why
put
energy
into
this
now?
Why
isn't
board
oversight
of
college
and
uni-
versity
goings-on
adequate?
Is
anyone
consid-
ering
New
Testament
justifications
for
such
bureaucratic
interest
in
classroom
uniformity?
Might
administrators
bend
before
overwhelm-
ing
opposition
to
the
endorsement
initiative
in
the
church's
long-established
areas?
With
respect
to
the
last
question,
|
was
told
that
the
endorsement
idea
is
enshrined
in
General
Conference
Working
policy,
and
has
been
for
at
least
fifteen
years.
The
Revision
Task
force
has
no
authority
to
change
church
policy;
its
job
is
to
make
the
policy
work.
In
the
end,
three
persons
from
the
Revision
Task
Force
responded
to
me,
all
in
a
kindly
and
open
spirit.
One
was
Daniel
Jiao,
the
Executive
Secretary
of
the
Chinese
Union
Mission:
another
was
Richard
Sabuin,
Direc-
tor
of
Education
for
the
Northern
Asia
Pacific
Division.
Both
are
comfortable
with
the
endorsement
initiative
as
a
means
of
useful
collaboration.
As
Dr.
Jiao
said,
it
just
assures
that
when
far-flung
Adventist
colleges
hire
someone
from
elsewhere
to
teach
Adventist
thought,
the
person
can
be
counted
on
to
do
so.
It
will
be
helpful,
he
suggested,
in
just
the
way
ministerial
credentials
(for
persons
with
pastoral
responsibility)
are
helpful.
(Jiao
did
not
mention
that,
typically,
religion
teachers
hold
such
credentials
themselves.)
Ben
Schoun,
now
semi-retired
from
the
General
Conference
but
still
at
the
Revision
Task
Force
helm,
sent
thoughtful
responses
meant
to
assuage
campus
worry
but
not,
cer-
tainly,
to
eliminate
it.
He
made,
besides
nuts-
and-bolts
clarifications,
these
key
points:
1.
Higher
education
boards
tend
more
and
more
to
limit
their
attention
to
the
per-
formance
of
institutional
presidents,
and
4
|
SPECTRUM
VOLUME
44
ISSUE
3
WE
2016
“too
often”
the
president
and
his
adminis-
trative
colleagues
“do
not
do
anything
about
problems”
the
endorsement
initiative
is
meant
to
address.
Some
teachers
do
shift
away
from
full
affirmation
of
the
Funda-
mental
Beliefs,
or
even
“lose
their
faith”
altogether.
The
church
cannot
allow
such
teachers
to
put
Adventist
college
students
at
risk.
2.
Although
endorsement
proper
would
be
a
function
of
the
division-level
committee,
the
process
leading
up
to
it
would
depend
heavily
on
colleges
and
universities.
Schoun
said
that
appropriate
school
reviewers
would
“make
sure”
each
religion
teacher
supports
Adventist
doctrine
“as
reflected
in
our
Fundamental
Beliefs,”
and
make
their
recommendation
in
that
light.
If
the
Division
BMTE
should
still
have
“questions
about
some
teacher,”
these
would
be
referred
to
the
school
for
resolu-
tion.
The
question
of
employment
itself
would
remain
with
the
school.
3.
The
Twenty-Eight
Fundamental
Beliefs
can,
according
to
its
preamble,
undergo
change.
So,
teachers
may
certainly
ask
questions
and
develop
new
ideas,
but
the
proper
test-
ing
ground
for
these
is
“with
other
Adven-
tist
scholars”
and,
ultimately,
with
“the
General
Conference
in
session.”
Conversa-
tion
of
this
kind
should
not
occur
“in
the
classroom.”
These
views,
|
emphasize,
came
in
early
August
from
someone
who
has
responsibility
for
re-drafting
the
section
of
the
denomina-
tion's
ministerial
training
handbook
that
deals
with
this
process.
I
cannot
be
sure,
of
course,
that
they
reflect
the
feelings
of
the
entire
Task
Force.
Certain
premises
do
appear,
however,
to
hold
sway:
substantial
distrust
of
Adventist
higher
education,
and
confidence
in
bureaucratic
enhancement
as
a
meaning
of
coping
with
dis-
trust:
the
use
of
a
voted
doctrinal
statement—
Scriven
editorial
«3
continued
on
page
64...