Breaking: John Wesley Taylor V Chosen as Andrews University President

John Wesley Taylor V, an associate director of education at the General Conference, has been chosen as the next president of Andrews University. 

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

TW strikes and scores again… :slight_smile:


We need to hear more, but I fear chaos on campus, racial mistrust infecting too many students, faculty disillusionment and prospective student recruiting climbing as steep a hill as one can imagine. A fundmentalism that sees a worship to begin class as inadequate has confused spiritual practice with spiritual insight and authenticity. My alma mater begins a predictable and avoidable downward spiral that will do nothing to enhance its identity or mission.


Indeed … sources tell me that enormous pressure has been extended by the General Conference to make sure their candidate would win. That in itself … will make the match between the new president and AU a difficult one at best.


i think TW really has been concerned about the spiritual tone of adventist educational institutions, as expressed at last year’s annual council:

apparently Taylor’s selection is TW’s way of keeping Andrews adventist…

1 Like

Who will be blessed with the first diploma from Weimar Andrews University?


Keeping it “Adventist” as he alone defines it will mean the loss of more young people and people aware that without some flexibility on a number of issues, Adventism has no intellectual or ethical credibility.


Winning young people by changing the beliefs of the church isn’t beneficial for them, it is leading them away from the truth.

Praising the Lord for answered prayers.

Who’s is changing beliefs? Can you give verifiable examples?


I hope that TW is preparing for probation. Not the “end of the world” probation but the kind the accreditation bodies will place on AU with regards to the offering of degrees. This is a reflection of the late 60’s and Robert Pierson.


Poor choice of words, I apologize. Please allow me to clarify that winning a young person into the church by telling them they do not need to adhere to principles in the Bible, or that they can pick and choose which ones they feel they want to follow, is not helping them, it is misleading them.

1 Like
  1. The insider v. outsider dilemma is extensively debated in the business literature. There are so many offsetting pros and cons. Andreasen was an outsider when elected AU president. In contrast, Luxton was an insider when elected AU president. In picking Taylor over Arthur, the board opted for the outsider.
  2. The vote for Taylor was a supermajority of 68.6 percent. A close vote would have been problematic and worrisome. I’m glad that there was a strong consensus in favor of one of the two candidates.
  3. I think the Ted Wilson angle is overblown. Our farm system is thin. I don’t believe for a minute that there were 150 people who can be regarded as serious candidates for the position. My sources all along have said that there were only about three, and that the third guy (as many of us know) withdrew and took another job. I don’t think we should construe Wilson’s involvement as an attempt to impose his ideological stamp on AU. Instead, I am inclined to think that he has acted in good faith and has tried to be helpful by suggesting someone he knows who can do the job.
  4. This is not a “course correction” or the choosing of a conservative over a liberal. AU is a conservative institution of higher learning. Assuming that there is a difference between an intelligent conservative and a right-wing nutcase, both candidates are highly conservative. Interpreting this election through the polarizing lens of our society’s secular culture wars is mistaken and twisted, in my opinion.
  5. I have formed an assessment of Taylor. I have never met him, so I guess I should keep it to myself for now. But he seems to be an interesting guy and I think he can be a successful president.

Andrews is in a crisis. If it is no longer a an Adventist institution, it will fail, so keeping it Adventist is quite the priority.

No credibility?? The church has been running universities for decades, and has actually gained some notoriety as a church institution that can run universities. The issue is not flexibility, but standing for an issue that is worth standing for. If an institution cannot stand with those that have brought it into being, it will fail.

Nothing done by TW can be seen as “overblown”. This is simply placing another of his people in a position. TW will try to be “elected/appointed” again at the next GC session and this is part of a long gambit chess game.


Well, I understood that, but you seem to think someone/s might be attempting to do what you are warning against. I would thing the first one would need to know what constitutes a ‘principle’ and who or whom makes that decision. Being able to to have honest discussions over belief systems would be one way of not having people misled. When there is only indoctrination, in other words no allowance for differing opinions, one is more apt to find out they have been misled perhaps, in future retrospect.


May I suggest you read the book, Ostriches and Canaries by Gilbert Valentine. What is happening is very reminiscent of that period!!


according to Fulcrum7, Freshman enrollment at AU has declined again this year…if this decline is really an ongoing White flight, given the paltry 30% White student body make up now - and Whites generally aren’t good at being a minority - Andrews may be on the same path that led to AUC’s demise, which means that whether the emphasis at the school is conservative or progressive may be missing the point…

that is, there may be an undercurrent of racism going on that administrators and others are thinking it for the best to overlook, but that is impacting the situation far more than whether traditional adventists see Andrews as adventist…for one thing, it isn’t so unusual for “spiritual concerns” to really be a euphemism for racial angst…


I am not willing to discuss the qualification of John Wesley Taylor V.

What bothers me in the process and in this thread is that we find it normal and good when a GC president interferes in democratic selection processes and installs his closest fans whereever he has a chance. A top down hierarchical church structure - even if well intended - is NOT what the SDA church is standing for.

What bothers me is that smear campaigns by a fringe are intentionally used to discredit a viable candidate. That we make ourselves judges of spirituality, just because they ask tough and encourage thoughtfulness (in Europe this is called “critical thinking” - meaning something quite different from criticism)… That we praise uniformity, when God, the creator is a God of diversity.


Always appreciate your commentary but want to emphasize again that 2015 Pew stats show the Adventist church in America at just 37% white. I agree that white people are not good at being in the minority, but white Adventists need to come to terms with this. It is who we are and presents us with significant opportunities. I also very much agree with you that “spiritual concerns” can be a proxy for racism and white people’s racial discomfort. Not many people see this, so thank you for noting it.