Adventist Today falsely inspires fear for denomination employees

 Adventist Today's fundraiser newsletter asserts that denominational employees cannot talk to independent organizations. On Dec 6 2024 they wrote

 "A fundamental shift has occurred in our church that directly affects your right to know what’s happening within our denomination. This fall, the General Conference adopted item #6 — a GC working policy addition that makes it a disciplinary offense for any church employee, including pastors and communication staff, to share information with independent Adventist journalists. In simple terms, if a church worker speaks to publications like AT about important developments in our church, they could lose their job."

Most things on Adventist Today should be taken with a huge grain of salt. You can search the internet and you won't find this item 6, but Adventist Today wrote about it earlier in Oct. 19 2024 in an article entitled:

 Editorial: “Will Disciplinary Item #6 Be the Death of Us?” Item #6: “Unauthorized or improper disclosure of information–unauthorized or improper use or release of personal, confidential, private, or proprietary employer or denominational information by any means.”

Now when we read the quote we see that the question asked in the title does not in fact prevent employees from talking to independent organizations but says they are not authorized to relate improper disclosure or use personal, confidential, private or proprietary employer information. Which is pretty much the same thing that any large employer requires of their employees. 

You notice that in this editorial, the question is asked. It never states that the employee cannot talk to an organization like Adventist Today, it just asserts that maybe it will mean that. Then a couple of months later in their fundraiser letter, it has become a fact. "for any church employee, including pastors and communication staff, to share information with independent Adventist journalists." 

I heard this recently as if it was a new rule to keep Adventist Pastors from going on podcasts not run by the denomination. Item # 6 does not do that, once again Adventist Today shows they can't be trusted.

Rethinking Ordination and Pastors

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?

The first reason from the article “WHY DOES THE CHURCH ORDAIN FOR MINISTRY?”:

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 3^rd 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) 5 The 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. 6 An 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. 7 Since 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. 8 Rather 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.

Progressive Adventism and the Christian Church

From last year the blog Seventh-day Adventist to Roman Catholic wrote the following on the subject of Progressive Adventism:

The rejection of these distinctive intrigues me in three ways…

1. The reason the SDA Church has existed for as long as it has is because it is distinctive and unique. This builds a sense of community and separation from those who are not within the “walls” of the mainstream. Progressive Adventism seeks to disrupt those very doctrines that create the walls of separation and hence maintain the community. Unfortunately, if those who are “progressive” want to see the end result of this strategy, all they need to do is look at the Catholic Church since the 1960’s. After the Vatican II council removed several of the practices that made Catholics very unique from their protestant brethren, the Catholic Church began to lose her identity among the youth and eventually a large majority of the Church, especially in America. The loss of distinctiveness turns a community from themselves, to the world, creating little CIA agents: the members look, and dress, talk, act, and think like everyone else.

Aside from the comments about the Roman Catholic Churches modernization (which I would say are some of the most positive aspects that the Roman Catholic Church has done short of ending the persecution of so called heretics) I would like to focus on the first part of his statement.

I would say that the reason for the continuation of a denomination is not simply because they are distinctive. Every denomination has something distinctive and unique. Whether it was a particular founder who is highly respected or who claims prophetic ability or something doctrinally different from the other churches such as the Baptists who sought to get back to submersion in water over sprinkling. From that unique idea other Baptist distinctives emerged and now there are several Baptist denominations.

There is a community found in people building walls of separation, but that is often not what is best for the community or the surrounding society. What we often think today of racism is the product of building those walls of separation, keeping in those who are similar and excluding those who differ. The Jewish nation at the time of Christ were very good at building those walls. Not simply based upon race but based upon beliefs. You were part of the chosen nation because you were a Jew even though your nationality could have been anything. You were only a good Jew if you believed what you were supposed to believe and followed the rules you were supposed to follow.

Jesus Christ came and tore down those walls. Today many Christians are seeking to rebuild them, because then we have a "community". But I can't accept the idea that the Christian community is to be built behind the walls we build around ourselves.

Perhaps that is why Progressive Adventism is no longer simply about reinterpretation of SDA distinctives but about changing the way the Christian church interacts with society (you can't do one without the other). It is a movement like the "emergent" church which seeks to change Christianity from the bottom up, from the local church to the denomination. No doubt a difficult task when the Pastors are paid from the denomination down which is perhaps why the tension is so great. Why so few Adventist churches try anything innovative.

In the Western world the Christian Church is in an identity crisis and I don't think doctrinal distinctives will help our problems. Understanding God as best we can, a rational and relational Christianity that spends time thinking about our beliefs and how those beliefs effect us and those around us, that is the only cure for Christianity in decline. Our understanding will not come from a community behind walls. In my view Christianity has been in decline because Christians have misunderstood God and made Him out to be an angry God who saves us only because Jesus died for us. I don't see any real need to preserve a church or denomination that makes God out the fool or worse a God who declares cruelty love and injustice justice. So we are left with rebuilding the name of Christianity and God from the abuses of those who have gone before us. Progressive Adventists are simply working within their faith tradition. I sincerely hope that other denominations have begun their reforms also I tend to think that some have.

In many ways we are in a battle between the fundamentalism found in traditions versus the rational and inquisitive pursuit of God. One side has many walls and the other is slowly tearing down the walls and on the outside there are billions of hurting people...in fact inside those walls are numerous hurting people also. My denomination is a tool to build the Christian Church someday I won't need it anymore.