I am sure some have wondered why I have been so hard on Adventist Today Website. If one does not critically read their articles it is not uncommon for them to only see what they want to see. But what is actually happening is manipulation of information for a set objective. Maybe later I will deal with their objectives which require such manipulation. First I want people to start reading and thinking about how the articles are presented and if they are truthful and accurate. This week ATODAY came out with an article from one of their board members. The article entitled United in What? By Bill Garber begins with this paragraph:
When Michigan Conference President Jay Gallimore accuses the
leaders of ten union conferences from four divisions of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church of having “surrendered to carnal worldliness” and
having placed their regions into a state of “insubordination” and
“rebellion” through “witchcraft,” starting with the issue of women’s
ordination, something unusual is happening within the church.
Scary stuff, especially that rebellion through witchcraft! What is that? Is that women's ordination, women Elders being witches? Well I don't know, but I can tell you unlike the other quotes which are more or less accurate to the Jay Gallimore article. The rebellion through witchcraft is completely bogus. here is what the article had to say about witchcraft.
People in the church may have differences of opinion. That's fine as long as we treat each other with Christian courtesy. And respect due process! But an attitude of rebellion is like witchcraft 2 (1 Samuel 15:22)
The Jay Gallimore article in the Michigan Memo incorrectly lists the bible verse above but that appears to be an error and they meant verse 23 Which reads:
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king.” 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
You may think that is a minor point, but it seems to me to show that someone is not paying attention to what the article says and they did not intend to say "through" witchcraft, or and this is more likely they want to make Jay Gallimore sound more like a fool so they choose to say "through" witchcraft. Personally I think one can quite well show Gallimore's specious position by using his statement:
"In Western Adventism much has been surrendered to carnal worldliness for example, when unfaithful secular churches opened the doors to the degrading and rebellious rock music culture, many Adventist churches ignored the Church Manual and followed suit."
The AToday author would not have to create a false statement by simply using the actual words of Gallimore. Most likely judging by the comments on Facebook the commenters did not bother to read Gallimore's article. Which presents a big problem when AToday is posting false information and people like me who might point it out are persona non gratis, so we can't point out their errors and bad logic. They don't seem to be able to handle that in their Big Adventist Tent! Apparently not a terribly big tent if you pay attention to the thrust of their articles.
Spectrum online has an interesting article by Alex Carpenter which to my mind speaks of the failure to separate theology from political ideology which tends to harm both views. For theology even if the writer is on the right track his thesis will be derailed because of foolish comments that have nothing to do with the theological subject. This is the case for Alex when he writes in his article Bloggin' the 28: The Great Controversy:
I hate to say it, but sometimes I'm not sure which side our existence
helps out. I could see Satan pleased with millions of people thinking
they are on God's side because of what they believe metaphysically while
doing little to alleviate the physical horror around them. One of the
weirder examples of this are those opposed to women's ordination and gay
marriage. Here we have self-proclaimed and very sincere followers of
God fighting to NOT allow more pastors. Huh? And fighting to NOT allow
people who want to publicly commit to each other, sometimes even in
church. What? It's almost humorous it is so backward. I'd laugh if it
weren't so painfully true over and over and over again.
As if the view against homosexual marriage is because people don't want the homosexuals to publicly commit to each other. Which is sort of like saying the reason for a U.S. trade embargo to Cuba is because they make cigars...it has nothing to do with anything It is a complete distortion of the opposing point of view. Thus also doing damage to his political objective by use of fictional arguments of the other side. You can tell as he continues that he does not really have any facts to support himself as later he writes:
Within this ancient language there is an echo of the moral paradoxes we
see today. Those condemning marriage equality to save marriage are, in a
very real way, destroying marriage for others. Those fighting against
ordaining women to save the church actually weaken it by limiting full
participation by more than half its members.
Condemning the redefinition of marriage does not in any way destroy marriage, the statement above has no backing...he is unable to tell the reader how either one of his two targets destroys anything they are merely gratuitous assertions. Though one could say that he attempted on the women's ordination to give some kind of reason. The fact is that even if a woman cannot be an ordained Pastor does that limit full participation? As if full participation is found only when one goes to seminary and becomes an ordained Pastor. Such logical fallacies defeat his purpose because they can't support the argument and can be easily shown to be irrelevant to his argument. Which is something that John Osborn did in the comments section.
Linking each of the 28 FBs to the
three or four issues that consume Spectrum, takes a certain creative
genius - that genius to see things that the non-creative types just
don't see. Just like a sculptor, who sees the figure of a man in what
other people see as just a slab of rock, the spectrum blogger can see
the issues of homosexuality, woman's ordination, and Darwinism, in other
issues that other people would consider...well, other issues. This
piece was particularly masterful. How many people would read the great
controversy and think of Women's ordination? Some of us view these
issues as a family disagreement between fellow brothers and sisters in
Christ about how to interpret Scripture. But now we know those who
oppose the Spectrum party-line on culture-war issues are simply on the
wrong side of the Great controversy and fighting against God. And in the
professional and nuanced words of Mr. Carpenter, that's just "weird."
This is good to know, now that it's been settled that Spectrum's
opinions on the culture war are one and the same as God's opinions we
can stop all this debate about such issues and just decide to be on
God's side and stop being weird. After self-congratulatory declarations
that your ideological opponents are weirdly on the side of evil, we have
a little discourse on how the greatest evil is the self-deception of
thinking your ideologically opponents are on the side of evil, this is
immediately followed by more declarations that your ideological
opponents are on the side of evil. Not only that, but apparently the
denomination you choose to identify with and remain a member of, started
out as the very epitome of evil (but this was probably before the clear
headed thinking demonstrated by blogs like this). In the imitable words
of this article: huh? what?
In fact I do rather agree with Alex on the irrelevancy of the Adventist Great Controversy motif. But he has not really advanced the argument in any way other then brought some attention to the idea that there are those that find it faulty. Which he could have done years ago simply by referencing one of my earlier articles on the subject such as: The Great Controversy View, and The Great Controversy if it only worked, and the short article on Is the Great Controversy Really Unique which shows that the idea of a battle between good and evil is common in Christianity but when Adventists use the term they really mean the extra's that Ellen White inserted into her Great Controversy view.
Perhaps Unwittingly John McVay of Walla Walla University has presented us a way out of the women's ordination mess that has caught up with the Adventist church once again. In McVay's article he quotes 8 points from William Tyndale. They are in general the points of the Reformation against the abuse of the Roman Catholic Church in it rulership of the people through Priestly abuse. He points summarized simply are these: 1. Ordination is not a sacrament 2. The various orders and titles are simply names of offices and services. 3. Faithfulness matters 4. Christ is a Priest forever none other is needed. 5. A new testament Elder is the counterpart of a old testament priest and is nothing but an officer to teach. 6.Taking advantage of people is condemned by the Bible 7. No Office or "ordination" bestows any special status before God. 8.There is no special ceremony at all required in making of our spiritual officers than to choose able people. For years I have said that there is no Biblical instruction for our practice of one person in charge of a church. That we are simply taking the Old Roman Catholic tradition of one Bishop per city which then became one Bishop per church and instead of calling them a Bishop which simply means Elder we called that Elder in the SDA church a Pastor. We then followed those practices and developed our whole ordination system. Perhaps it is time for the ordination system to stop and fall by the side of the road and begin a new tradition more in line with the Bible whereby a pastor is someone that looks after other people. As in its word predecessor the shepherd. Of course people are not sheep and just because a small flock may have only one shepherd to push the animals around in a certain direction we should take the concept into the meaning of someone one guiding and directing, teaching and caring and comforting people. Just as we don't have one teacher in a church there is no need to be limited to one pastor. This allows people who have the ability in the church to exercise their particular gifts to their follow believers in the church. So does the Adventist church need to allow women to be ordained and become pastors and divide the church between the contemporary Western world and the rest of the world. ( I am refusing to use the terms first (aligned with the United States), second (aligned with the Soviet Union) and third world (unaligned) as they are obsolete terms when the Soviet Union collapsed, the unaligned 3rd world is no longer a valid concept). Would there be any question in the cultures of the non westernized world that a woman can guide and direct or teach and care for other members of their church. Of course not that is perfectly acceptable. What was not acceptable was to go against the Westernized traditions accepted in those cultures of a male dominated clergy. Sadly taught to them by a poorly thought out tradition produced by a less then credible Roman Catholic church tradition. The Reformation gave us so many great ideas and most of them were lost as the people simply formed sides for or against the church organizations at the time. Reformation ended when they accepted that they could start new churches who would then create concrete traditions as unmovable as their fore fathers they rejected. The Adventist church stands at a point where it can break with it's own mistakes and traditions and create a contemporary and more relevant and thinking religion. Or it can attempt to continue with the mistakes of yesteryear. When it speaks of God made sacraments that are simply man made traditions.
The Adventist church is currently all
abuzz about the subject of women's ordination as Pastor/Ministers.
Even if we agree to set aside the man created tradition of ordination
and the idea that there should even be a head pastor at a particular
church...both of which are concepts taken from the early Roman
Catholic church. The question arises for the SDA church what to do
when Conferences vote to ordain women as Pastors. At first some in
the SDA church felt that playing word games would do as they
“commissioned” instead of “ordaining” women. A semantic
peculiarity which seems to have stalled the actual showdown for
several years. But the showdown is now here as another Conference
prepares to vote on the subject and like the previous Conference it
will probably pass.
In an attempt to end this uprising of
SDA church divisions (the SDA church has Conferences, Unions and
Divisions for more details see
this) The President of the SDA church who is elected by a popular
vote of delegates at the convention but is assumed to be chosen by
God because he was elected (sort of a divine right of kings concept)
which again is based upon human traditions. As set forth his
opposition to the ordination of women. His plea is to unity. Unity
defined as submission to previous General Conference decisions.
[President Ted]Wilson
quoted White’s statement in Testimonies
to the Church, Volume 9, pages
260-261: “But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the
brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private
independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained,
but surrendered.” He added that submission to the collective
decisions of the world Church is an essential part of living in
unity: “We have a worldwide administration; we have working
policies – agreements we abide by collectively to provide for a
strong push for the mission of the church. When we don’t see unity
in what we are doing, then we see a fractious and divided spirit,”
Wilson said.
The desire to
control is pretty clear from Ted
Wilson's comments here. He wants the Conferences to surrender to
the will of the General Conference and somehow equates the community
decision of the Conference vote as private independence and private
judgment. Of course if Wilson had actually used the full quote his
attempt at equating the Conference vote with private independence
would be shown to be at odds with what Ellen White was actually
saying.
“I
have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment
should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never
should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as
sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what
plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the
judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is
exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be
stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard
as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of
independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.
At times, when a
small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work
have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out
unwiseplans
and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer
regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few
men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions
of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed,
representative men from all parts of the field should not be
respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church
from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference,
shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing
is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group
of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has
vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General
Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of
His work.”
Ellen White's
objection is to one man or small group of people acting as the
General Conference or going against the General Conference. So it
does not really fit any situation here as these Conferences are not
really small groups of people. What it does try to do through
manipulation of the Ellen White quotes is to assert supreme power in
the General Conference and sadly the small group of people at it's
head. So in simple terms he has turned the quote on its head to
further his goals. What I have found is that people who misuse
information in this way are; first not honest and second using the
power of selective information as a tool of manipulation. It is often
called propaganda today and since the first half of the twentieth
century we have seen the devastating effect of propaganda, even so it
has become common place in politics, church politics not being an
exception. Though if people took Paul's advice to study things out
like the Bereans propaganda
would have only a negative effect upon them, which is how it should
be, we should deal with factual information and reject those who
twist information.
The question of
Women's ordination will ultimately come down to two things. First are
women due equal pay for equal work. Second can such work as women
Pastors be Biblically acceptable. In many places around the world the
answer to the first is no they won't pay women equally and the answer
to the second is no women must not be Pastors because they must be
submissive to men or a man. This is generally the view of the third
world countries. In other parts of the world First and Second world
equal pay is expected and women can be Pastors as the cultural
attitudes of the first century is not expected to have been forever
enthroned because it is mentioned in the Bible. (for those who don't
know First world is defined as the Western World, it is of cold war
era where first world is US aligned and Second world is Soviet
aligned and Third world are the none aligned countries, but today is
still has some geographical meaning see
this.)
The issue is not
unity as in a culturally divergent world there really is no unity.
Unity in the cause of Christ is noble but unity to traditions and
cultures which are foreign to us can not possibly by called unity. It
is sadly an argument of power based upon misinformation. From my
perspective those who traffic in misinformation are usually on the
wrong side of truth, and thus on the wrong side of right doing.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VIII: Morality - Petersen
Ordination and Tradition have gone hand in hand for hundreds of years, so much so that ordination is assumed to be part of the Biblical New Testament method of doing things in the Christian church. As the Seventh-day Adventist church is confronted with the controversial idea of ordination/commissioning of Adventists Pastors this would be a good time to reconsider the whole process. As much as women pastors may break Adventist tradition I would suggest that our whole system is based upon early church authoritarian standards which don’t work that well in the modern Western world. I won’t go over the evidence for that conclusion other than to say that in general Christianity is in decline in the Western World and Christianity is more often the joke of society because it has held to traditions which are counter productive.
From New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge vol 8 page 266 says:
“The distinction between clergy and laity arose gradually in the second century. It shows an influence of the Jewish differentiation between priesthood and people. Traces of it are seen in the first epistle of Clement and in the apostolic church order. Clement of Alexandria uses the three terms, presbyters, deacons, and laymen {Strom, III., xii.),..”
It is with this early church history in mind that most look back at the New Testament verses and read them with the idea of clergy and laymen in mind. To understand the method I will be referring to a well written article entitled “WHY DOES THE CHURCH ORDAIN FOR MINISTRY?”. Most knowledgeable people know that the New Testament gives no instruction for ordination, it has been a tradition which is felt to be implied by various New Testament texts. The article linked to above present these texts and offers the traditional Christian interpretation but I would suggest that the traditional interpretation is not necessarily the interpretation that was intended by the authors. In simple terms the idea of clergy and laity is not consistent with the New Testament context of church.
We first begin with the Pastor, this word comes from the Greek for a shepherd. The idea being someone who guides and helps support and comfort other people. With tradition separating clergy and laity and even later the idea of one Bishop per city and then one Bishop per congregation the idea became that there should be one Pastor per church. This seems to even remain today in huge churches which have multiple Pastors with one generally classed as the head Pastor. But what if we got rid of the clergy laity definition, what would a pastor be then? Pastors then would be like teachers in that the church could have many pastors even small churches as the pastors would be people who possess the ability to guide people, to comfort and support their fellow church members. Pastors then like teachers could be capable of directing their efforts to those they feel most comfortable with. Just as we don’t assume that a kindergarten teachers is going to be a good youth teacher or a good grade school teacher will be a good adult teacher we would accept that a pastor is not adequate to comfort and guide everyone but that they have a talent for certain people groups.
Can you imagine the difference in a church if we took the pastoral role and allowed the laity to perform those duties which in fact are the main duties that the New Testament ascribes to Elders/Bishops. For far too long we have assumed that the Pastor in the clergy laity division is the one who is responsible to preach and baptize and visit and head the day to day activities of the business of a church. The fact is that without the clergy laity division there are numerous people who could preach though I will admit that preaching is probably the least useful method of teaching, reaching or inspiring people. With multiple pastors multiple methods of instruction inside the church could be preformed at the same time. (I will use pastors for the multiple pastor concept and Pastor for the traditional Christian Pastor concept.) We don’t all have to sit around like lumps listening to someone pontificate from the pulpit. The making of disciples could be far more active and engaging, more social and more fun than our tradition has made it. Further there is no Biblical indication that baptism is only appropriately performed by a clergy member.
Once you move beyond the clergy laity division many of the traditions which the church holds become little more then hindrances upon the church, denomination traditions being no less hindrances. This is what we are finding now when the Adventist church declares that they cannot support women’s ordination as a whole denomination. Some conferences do support and others don’t and both assert they have Biblical authority on their side. Yet without a clear Biblical definition of ordination neither side really has Biblical authority they just have different methods of interpretation and acceptance of tradition and culture.
Now let us look at the arguments that a denomination would use to back up their position for ordination but let us remember that it could be possible that the clergy laity division is not the proper method of interpretation. How can we look at the classic Christian traditional interpretations when we keep in mind the idea of one body made up by the many members acting with Christ as the head?
Ordination is not intended to bestow honor; it is intended to bestow authority for service. When one thinks of this authority, the need for certification is obvious. A minister is authorized to teach the Scriptures and the doctrines of the church. This requires more than Sunday School knowledge; it calls for serious prior supervised study and eventual certification. In their line of duty, ministers may enter the homes of the community to visit a young family, or to pray with a housebound elderly person. Ministers may call on hospital patients on the eve of their surgery. Or they may be called on to counsel parties to a crumbling marriage, or to hear the painful confessions of a deeply troubled conscience. Ministers may also be called upon to represent their church at a community function.
As with the clergy versus laity division the assumption is clergy has authority, we all know of course that clergy can be just as wrong as any member of the laity and that members of the laity can have a better understanding of God then the clergy. So what authority do they mean here? Answer; denominational authority. This is the hierarchy goal of a denomination. Where they can ensure that their denominational beliefs are maintained, this serves to stifle innovation and relational development, it seeks to cling to denominational concepts above all else, right or wrong. When you cling to something because it is your tradition the possibility of recognizing areas where you are wrong is very limited. But that is what the authority of one Pastor sets in place. When you read the rest of the quoted paragraph you see that all of those duties could be handled by multiple people with their multiple areas of expertise. Personally I think it would be unwise to get marital counseling from a Pastor just because the denomination has certified him/her; specialized training would be advisable and since there could be multiple pastors at any one church it would be possible to have people who can do the various tasks. The difference here is again authority because the Pastor gets paid by the denomination to do these things. But the local church actually pays the cost and if they were not attempting to support the denominational authority they could support their active pastors. Certainly small churches are exceptions in such cases it may not be possible for the small church to obtain specialized training for the laity pastors but still with the multiple pastors concept it may be possible for people to find supportive pastors who can help since often just listening is useful and they can certainly direct to local counselors in the community.
The article states:
The detail about the preparation of persons for ordained ministry is buried deep in the history of the New Testament church. There we are not told everything we would like to know. Even so, although the explicit word for ordination does not appear in the Greek Scriptures, there are a number of indications to show that care was taken to set apart certain believers for the special task of ministry or oversight. For example, from his wider throng of disciples, and after a whole night of prayer, our Lord set apart twelve of his followers as “apostles” (Lk. 6;12-16). The word means, “one sent with a commission.” Jesus gave them authority to carry out a special ministry on his behalf.
There is nothing here I am disagreeing with but I think it is useful to point out that all believers are given a special task of ministry and oversight. It is incumbent in the New Testament command of making disciples of all men. Being a follower of Christ includes concepts of treating your neighbor as yourself and not judging by a standard that you are not willing to be judged by. As ambassadors of Christ we preach reconciliation to God, all Christians are set aside for a sacred purpose.
The second point of the article on why ordination is:
The fullest insight into the developing practices of the early church is given in the pastoral epistles. In writing to Timothy, the Apostle Paul exhorted, “Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you (1 Tim. 4:14). Three things stand out in this concise word. (1) What he was to exercise was given to him as a gift (charisma); in other words a spiritual endowment he would need for the work of ministering. (2) The gift was apparently bestowed in his case through a prophetic message. (3) The gift was conferred by means of the laying on of hands.
It is unfortunate that when seeking to make scripture conform to tradition people jump to conclusions like this. We in fact don’t know what the gift was other then Timothy should not neglect it, we don’t know what the prophetic message was and what have no reason to think that the laying on of hands initiated the gift. But somehow this instance become the “fullest insight”. We could debate what the laying on of hands means or symbolized, I would submit it represents a connection of the community to the one who they are laying their hands on. I would not tend to believe it represents the commutation of authority upon someone rather the blessing of the community on someone. Support and acceptance and encouragement as well as connection, similarities to the laying on of a hand to an animal to be sacrificed, where the idea is this is my sacrifice I am connected to it, the laying on of hands represent the connection the relationship between those involved.
The third point in the article:
One thing that stands out in the pastoral references to the setting apart of leaders in the New Testament church was the emphasis on integrity of character. Much is said about this. The overseer must “fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience” (1 Tim. 1:19). He must be “above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self controlled, respectable ...” (1 Tim. 3:2ff). In the same passage, he must be “apt to teach” and therefore is expected to be well taught in the Scriptures and the formulation of Christian doctrine. Given such high requirements, it is not surprising that Paul’s instructions included that an ordinand “must not be a recent convert ...” (1 Tim. 3:6) and this is matched by the Apostle’s later instructions “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands,” (1 Tim. 5:22). This is an obvious reference to what the church through the centuries has called ordination.
The exhortation to live as a Christian is essential to all Christians. We all have to fight the good fight and hold on to faith. The context of “not be hasty laying on hands” is most likely dealing with accepting someone into the community of believers befor they are sure that they are really believers. This is particularly important when the Gnostics were about with their distortion of Christ and God while using much of the same language as the proto Christians. It is interesting to read 1 Timothy in the light of its church organization topics as it does give a good indication that the book is much later that Paul’s writings. It reflects the usage that the 3rd century leaders had assigned to themselves as authorities yet it is written so completely differently from Paul’s other books. But that is another subject. The advice in the book is still sound as those who help to shepherd or teach should not be new converts and should be sound thinkers and familiar with Christianity.
Ultimately ordination is not the problem it is the problem of denominational authoritarianism and employment. Laying on hands or acknowledging that a member of a congregation is set apart for a task in God’s community is completely reasonable. A symbol that the entire church can see and get behind and acknowledge; but that can become a problem when we deny that symbol to someone based upon their gender. It become an ethical problem when we deny someone equal employment compensation as well. But as it is we have become a denomination that is far to top heavy and we are in need of serious overhaul.
A funny thing about the Adventist women’s ordination controversy is that in the same portion of the Bible that talks about pastors it talks of teachers. Yet our educational system has no problem employing male and female teachers at equivalent pay. It is so interesting to see how cultural traditions work to interpret the Biblical text and how difficult it is too move people away from their traditions.
(Eph 4:11-12 NIV)It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.
Even the most popular text used of Elders may not be meant at all in connection with Pastors as it was a specific instruction for Titus in attempting to start new churches in new towns and combat those opposing Christians.
(Titus 1:5-9 NIV)5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Of course given the cultural climate one would certainly not have sent out a woman to be a founding Elder but as we can see there is something more than Biblical hermeneutics going on here with both ordination and Pastoral roles, that is there is an attempt to make tradition both Christian and denomination our authority. That is something that we have to get away from, so go ahead and call me post modern I will accept the title gladly I just won't accept the status quo.
The issue of women's ordination will not be added to the agenda for the 59th General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the church's President Jan Paulsen said April 6.
Speaking to leadership at Spring Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland, Paulsen said that a canvass of the church's 13 world church divisions revealed only three willing to accept a change in the current policy of not ordaining women to pastoral ministry, and eight divisions reporting the move would negatively impact membership. Two other divisions apparently did not respond.
After all the arguments both pro and con on the subject of the ordination of women we see the true colors of the method of decision making in the Adventist Church. The President of the GC will ask the divisions leaders for their opinions, because of course they are all Bible scholars who would never allow their cultural traditions and personal biases to intervene with their opinions. Therefore the church cannot deal with the issue in the General Conference session because the majority of the World Division leaders don't want to accept the idea of the ordination of women and they think it would negatively impact their divisions. Because of course they have researched it well and they are all scholars and cutting edge researchers.
The problem here is that the World Division leaders are not in the main scholars they have not done any research into what will happen to the church should women be ordained. All they have is their opinions taken to the extreme as if their opinion is the will of all the divisions or even any divisions. Would it really upset the members of Division A if Division B ordained women? It is silly to expect the opinion of a Division leader to have any real value in that question. But it is given supreme value and the President Jan Paulsen takes it upon himself to veto any discussion at the GC session.
How can it be that our church has fallen into this state of arrogant leadership. It is of course symptomatic of the whole delegate process which is heavily weighted to employees of the church, who of course owe their employment to those same leaders of the SDA church.
It is always for me at least a humorous experience to fact check Doug Batchelor. I sometimes think that is why he calls his ministry “Amazing Facts” because half of his so called facts are incorrect and the other half we are amazed he got right. He does however carry on the Adventist tradition of evangelists whose information is usually biased to develop a particular response in the audience rather then really make the audience think or give them accurate information.
So going through a transcribed copy of one of his sermons provided by Adventist Today is simply too hard to resist. I also think that for many Adventists there is a convoluted view of tradition intertwined in the Genesis story that makes it difficult for Adventists to know what is actually from the Bible and what is not. In this article I will only use the King James Version of the Bible so that the Bible version will be acceptable to even the most fundamentalist of Adventists.
From the Second paragraph (Batchelor’s quotes in blue):
…But God named Adam. God brought Adam’s wife from his side. Adam named Eve. Adam was looking among all the creatures, he noticed they all had their pairs, but there was something missing. So woman came to be the help mate for man to really be the completeness of God’s creation of man in his own image.
Actually there is no record of God naming Adam. Adam is actually not intended as a proper name but means red or earth. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
The etymology of the word "Adam" is of importance. The writer of Gen. ii. 7 gives his own explanation when he says: "God formed man of dust of the ground." That is to say, the man was called "Man" or "Adam" because he was formed from the ground (adamah). Compare Gen. iii. 19…
A closer examination of the narrative will show that the word is primarily used in a generic sense, and not as the name of an individual. In Gen. i. its use is wholly generic. In Gen. ii. and iii. the writer weaves together the generic and the personal senses of the word. In all that pertains to the first man as the passive subject of creative and providential action the reference is exclusively generic. Indeed, it is doubtful whether "Adam" as a proper name is used at all before Gen. iv. 25 (J) and v. 3 (P). Here the same usage is manifest: for in the two opening verses of chap. v. the word is used generically. It may also be observed that the writer in Gen. ii., iii. always says "the man" instead of "Adam," even when the personal reference is intended, except after a preposition, where, however, a vowel has probably been dropped from the text.
As regards Eve, Batchelor is a little closer to being accurate as the Bible says: (Gen 3:20 KJV)And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. This is interesting as the name has nothing to do with being a helpmate but is based upon the idea that she was the mother of all living. Though if one were to take the Genesis story in a literal timeline Eve was not the mother of anyone at the time. It is certainly over-reaching to say that a man needs to have a woman to be complete in the image of God (after all that seems to depart from what Paul has to say) I would say that Batchelor there is a bit confused. By the story both male and female are complete in themselves and created after the image of God.
(Gen 1:27 KJV)So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
But you see in the beginning, right after the temptation and sin entered our world that trouble began, when woman wandered from man’s side and then, she instead of listening to the clear instructions she had received from the Lord and from her husband not to take from that forbidden tree, she independently made a different decision.
Wandered from the man’s side? That is not part of the Bible story is it? No it is not there at all in fact in the story Adam was with her.
(Gen 3:6 KJV)And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Then she brings it to her husband and offers it to him and man now [defers] to his wife; instead
of leading, he submits. And he takes her advice and all the problems that you see in the world today, both in our relationships and in the world, spring from this interruption of God’s design for the relationship between God and man and woman.
Just a bit more reinterpreting the story to have Eve bring Adam the fruit instead of Adam being with her at the tree as the Bible story indicated. Once you have reinterpreted the story in such a way it becomes easy to assume that God’s original order in the story was that woman submit to man even though that is later defined in one of the curses for the sin. But as I have said accuracy is not high on the priority list of evangelists.
(Gen 3:16 KJV)Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
At this point we find that Batchelor is not getting the information from the Bible but from Ellen White:
“…you can read about this by the way in the book Patriarchs and Prophets, page 53 and 54; “The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden. With him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task she unconsciously wandered from his side. Sin came into our world as a result of man neglecting and women disregarding the husband’s leadership role.”
What is interesting to me here is that Batchelor has used the Ellen White’s version of the Genesis story instead of the Bible version and yet Ellen White was a woman who according to Adventist tradition was called by God to be a prophet when the first two men God called refused to fulfill the role. Speaking of women and culture Batchelor states:
“And I think what you’re seeing in the church has been a reflection of what’s been happening in our culture. Where because there has been a vacuum of leadership among the men both in society and in the church. That wherever there is a vacuum of leadership something will flow in and take its place. And women have been flowing in to fill the vacuum. Now that has led beyond what the Bible, I believe, teaches us what’s appropriate.”
In effect he is saying what I am telling you happened in Eden is actually taken from the teachings of an inappropriate source. If only he realized what he was saying, but that may be another of the hallmarks of evangelists. Although perhaps I should look at this as Batchelor as a Pastor, since that is how the sermon was intended. It is just that realizing his roots and his main ministry help explain so much of what he says, but I am sure there are numerous Adventist pastors who are just as inattentive to the facts as Doug Batchelor.
Batchelor then says the following but cuts off, though it is really funny to think how his mind must work:
“…By the way, the word seminary comes from the same word as semen. So it’s interesting that you’ve got so many women in the seminary studying for – that’s just where the root of the word is…”
The word comes from the Latin for seed but through that little twist and the context of women in the seminary verses the majority of men in a seminary he distorts the meaning from seed to the fluid from male reproductive organs containing spermatozoa. Technically neither man or woman have seeds in the reproductive tracts and each is required for the process.
Origin of Seminary from Dictionary.com:
“1400–50; late ME: seed plot, nursery < href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semen">semen + -ārium -ary”
I did find a portion that I actually agree with Batchelor on. That is the labeling of ordained and commissioned pastors. Still it is only limited agreement since the whole concept of ordained pastors is not Biblical anyway as it came out of the Roman Catholic system when they were attempting to have one Bishop per city. Batchelor says:
“They call it commissioned but it’s really the same thing as being ordained as pastors. And it’s… you know you can call it commissioned but in every other way it’s the same as ordination with all the rights, privileges. It’s like Abraham Lincoln used to say, ‘you can call a dog’s tail a leg, but it’s still a tail.’ And so just changing the label of something doesn’t change the definition of it.”
Granted he gets Lincolns quote wrong but the label commissioned vs. ordained is meaningless except for the denominations monetary reimbursements. Oh and Lincoln’s actual quote: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
A little later he actually gets into his Biblical arguments; which I am not going to deal with. I just wanted to point out the factual errors and assumptions which he uses as his foundations. There is really no controversy that in ancient times the patriarchal society dominated most of the world and that it is reflected in both the Old and New Testaments. The question today is does the methods of the past dictate our future, does the culture of the past represent God determined order or the reality of male dominance in past societies. The other question that should be answered is what does leadership in the New Testament represent? Is it anything like what we practice today by Pastors and Ministers? What has tradition produced in the Christian church? One thing you can be sure of with pastors like Doug Batchelor you will not hear the above questions fairly examined. Though you may hear some amazing false facts used to support his understanding of things, but then when your understanding is based upon false information and interpretations is it really an understanding at all.
Update here is the link to the video since we have mentioned it in the comments section:
