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.
In the Science vs. Faith presentation “Pastor Jan Paulsen, world president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church talks about miracles and challenges posed by the world of science and the world of faith..”
The following is my transcription of the almost 2 minute video:
The world of science and the world of faith, two seemingly separate worlds are they on a collision course or do they run parallel to each other or maybe occasionally both.
The world of science generally will accept only that which is empirically verifiable for which there really is, they can look back and say this is it how it happened and this is an actual pattern for how it will happen. I tell you what my problem with that is. That when you lock things into that kind of a model they cannot accept something in which the world of faith call miracles. To me the world of faith is a world in which God’s creative powers are constantly on display.
From the beginning, go to the book of Genesis the first chapter of Genesis through the mighty acts of God in history. You see it in the resurrection of Jesus, you see it in the second coming of Jesus, in the resurrection of our own bodies. The way scriptures present it. In the creation of earth made new. These are all displays of God creative power and it’s full of miracles.
The mind of science generally will not accept as reality that which is miraculous. To me this exists this is real. Miracles that is not a problem I have it for breakfast every day. If you cannot accept the miraculous God’s creative powers revealed in miracles ah…your done, finished you have no future.
This is the reality of my life and I observe God’s creative power on display all the time. To me as an Adventist this is important. To accept God’s creative powers and that is being manifested in many many ways.
The series seems professionally done. I did notice several times when he said miraculous that the camera was focused upon his open hand, which I though was kind of a nice subliminal symbolic message. But most of the message was really utter nonsense. That is the reason I transcribed it because somewhere I had read about this and the person thought it was a really good little talk. After I watched it I wondered if we had seen the same thing.
Let’s look at it in more depth:
The world of science generally will accept only that which is empirically verifiable for which there really is, they can look back and say this is it how it happened and this is an actual pattern for how it will happen. I tell you what my problem with that is. That when you lock things into that kind of a model they cannot accept something in which the world of faith call miracles. To me the world of faith is a world in which God’s creative powers are constantly on display.
Our SDA world president has a problem with Science dealing with empirical evidence for what really is and being able to predict what will happen based upon the empirical evidence. Science has given us so many wonderful things we no longer have to think that because it rains or the wind blows it is a miracle of God. Sure that is the way most all ancient religion including the Israelites thought, but we actually have evidence of things like water cycles. It is really not a problem that science has locked into a model of observation and evidence for cause and effect. There would have never been any real progress had they locked into the faith model. Of course recorded human history had a few thousand years of that, times in which man did not really improve himself or his situation and knowledge was limited to a few and even those few limited in their knowledge.
Paulsen continues with the account of God’s creative power’s constant display:
From the beginning, go to the book of Genesis the first chapter of Genesis through the mighty acts of God in history. You see it in the resurrection of Jesus, you see it in the second coming of Jesus, in the resurrection of our own bodies. The way scriptures present it. In the creation of earth made new. These are all displays of God creative power and it’s full of miracles.
Actually we read about the creative power of God in Genesis we don’t see it; neither did the writers of the book of Genesis. They are stories about the creation, the faith is about the belief in God as creator, it is not about how God created, and we don’t have to assume that the stories were meant as the literal method of creation. Even the resurrection of Jesus is not something we have seen. We do count it as credible because we have accounts of people who witnessed or were informed by witnesses and held to their witness even under persecution, more than faith it is a faith based upon some evidence. The other areas mentioned; the resurrection of our bodies and the creation of an earth made new are entirely based upon faith. We have not seen those things; in fact neither have those who wrote those statements in the Bible. We accept them because it is part of our understanding of the kind of person God is. It is our faith and our hope in the gift that God will give us. But it is not seen as a display of God’s creative power, it is an expectation as yet unfulfilled. It may be that we are living in the midst of multiple miracles or it may be that we are not; just as the ancient world thought everything was caused by God only through time and examination and compiled evidence do we see that perhaps the creator creates natural processes which make constant miracles unnecessary. It may even be that the creator’s miracles are so slight, acting upon DNA that we could never witness them until we have greatly advanced in science.
The mind of science generally will not accept as reality that which is miraculous.
And we should be ever thankful that science does not purport the reality of the miraculous. I can’t imagine a more fruitless source of knowledge than to try and study a miracle. Let us assume someone died and after a couple of days came back to life. Documented, the scientists were there and saw the whole thing. They could study the person for the rest of their lives but if the miracle was caused by an outside source say God they are studying the wrong thing. Empirical data may not tell us the origin of something but the processes involved with the thing can be studied. And no one is really studying them if their first or primary reaction is this is a miracle, I eat them for breakfast. If you don’t, then you have nothing, your done, finished; rather an obnoxious put down of science and the scientific method.
All and all Paulsen has presented us with total nonsense but we have to ask why? What is the purpose for such nonsense where he finds the problem of science in that it does not embrace miracles? Even if it did, even if you thought the world was filled with miracles it would not mean that they were produced by your particular God or your particular religious view. There are all kinds of faiths out there in the world, there is simply no reason to pit science against faith in the way that Paulsen has done. This makes me think there is a larger agenda to this. That it is a way to deny scientific reality in favor of the current fundamentalist young earth creationism. At a time when many Adventist theologians and science professors are attempting to reconcile scientific ages and processes with other ways God could create besides by the literalistic 6 days of creation. Paulsen is offering the traditional faith in the literal Genesis account. In other words the same old thing delivered by the science that he decries.
This is the final segment in the review of It’s Okay not to be a Seventh-day Adventist. The book ends with much of the same antagonism and misinformation that it began with. It was set under the guise of Transitioning out of Adventism. Of course it would be irrational of me to think that something that began poorly was going to get better with more researched and honest information. But I do confess that I had some hope in that regard. As it stands I don’t think this book should be published or circulated regardless of the occasional good arguments used. The book should be revised but clearly the authors have no interest in doing that. They rather keep claiming that two dozen editors went though the book. Teresa wrote on Bill Cork’s blog :
We had almost two dozen copy editors and people who volunteered to help do “checks” on the book (many were SDA) who said the book was copiously documented–even when they disagreed with my conclusions.
You won’t find attributions to those people in the book, not even in the thanks section which makes me think that these were simply people who were asked to look over the manuscript. As some of you know if a friend asks you to do that you usually say nice things to them about how well they did, few people really spend much time critically analyzing such tasks. Before I get to the part of the book about Transitioning out I am going to cover a few more of those areas where a little research would have helped them and where even some of those copious notes are simply wrong. Yes I have done this before but these really demonstrate the writer’s attitude and sloppy methodology, and remember the authors claim that they aren’t sloppy or inaccurate that it is just over sensitive Adventists.The subject of transitioning out of Adventism is very important so I will deal with my thoughts on the subject in a forthcoming article. Before I move on I see Bill Cork had quite a dialog with Teresa on his blog. There we find that the authors transitioned into the Roman Catholic church.
On page 236-7 under the heading Theological Dissonance the authors write:
An example is the pro-life controversy. Many believe that speaking against abortion will lead to enacting laws to protect unborn humans. They fear that involvement in this political issue will break open the floodgates of morality legislation and lead to blue laws fulfilling the prophecy of their demise. Because this fear is so strong, all attempts at legislating morality are taken as a sign of the end and must be condemned. According to this thought pattern, all legislation that protects their beliefs (and them) is constitutional, but any attempt at laws to protect unborn children would be oppressive and conspiratorial.
So the General Conference has in the past been aligned with the pro-choice movement. 431 [footnote 431 states: George Reid, former head of the Biblical Research Institute, theological arm of the G.C. once told us that Adventists are pro-choice under certain guidelines. Some Adventist-run hospitals perform abortion-on demand.] They will agree that abortion is a terrible offense to God, but cannot agree that there should be laws against it in America. However if this line of reasoning is carried out thoughtfully, we shall reach a very ominous and confusing conclusion. Adventists believe that God would have us sacrifice the lives of unborn children in order to preserve their freedom to go to church on Saturday. It comes down to this – their lives or others’ lives. This is in direct opposition to scripture that says there is no greater love than this, that a man should give his life to save his brother.
Unless you have close connections to Adventism, this may be a difficult concept to grasp. Although there may be some legitimate arguments made against enacting legislation to regulate abortion, to Adventists the reasoning is purely self-centered. They place their potential suffering above all attempts at alleviating the suffering and wholesale slaughter of the unborn. This is but one of countless theological dichotomies Adventists find themselves in.
This is one of the clear examples where the authors inject their ideas into Adventism. The denomination has for many years published it official statement entitled Guidelines on Abortion you can read it here. What perhaps could George Reid have meant when he said Adventists are pro-choice under certain guidelines? If the authors had done their research they would have seen the following from the Guidelines on Abortion article:
4) The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.
Now I don’t care if the Beems agree or disagree with that statement the fact is abortion is not simply about some fear Adventists have of losing religious liberty. We have a whole statement on the subject yet the Beems offer us nothing, no statement to back up their assertion, nothing to corroborate their opinion. Note even a footnote to direct the reader to what the Adventist denomination actually says.
So is the above example just a chance mistake? Well let’s continue with the next paragraph and see if they become more accurate as they change subjects.
Page 237 under the heading Pride and Separatism:
Recently, SDA General Conference President Jan Paulsen used the idea of Adventism being the zenith of religious knowledge to encourage young people not to leave the church and equated it with abandoning Christ: “Just don’t walk away from it. For walking away, that is the worst possible thing you can do. Look, it’s Christ we are talking about. Don’t turn your back on Him. For if you do, all you are left with is Peter’s haunting question, ‘to whom can we then go?’”432
[Footnote 432 says: Newly re-elected Paulsen in his address to the assembly, General Conference 2005, St. Louis.]
First the footnote is wrong Paulsen was not the newly re-elected President, this is from the opening presentation given on the opening day. Second I can find nothing that indicates that Paulsen ever asserted that Adventism was the zenith of religious knowledge. Here is what the Adventist News Network reported on the speech (the words in red are those the Beem’s quoted):
But it was Pastor Paulsen's report that was the main feature of the evening. After paying tribute to his wife, Kari, for support during 50 years of marriage, the Paulsens presented stories of church members serving their communities in various parts of the globe. A question for church members, he said, was "is your city, your community, your country a better place because you [as an Adventist] are there?"
To the youth of the church - members between 15 and 30 - Paulsen said, "I want you to come in and to partner with the rest of us. I want to make room for you, for you have energies and ideas which no one can quite match. If you don't find the church interesting, you can make it interesting. Just don't walk away. That would be the worst possible thing you can do: It is Christ we are talking about. Don't turn your back on him, for if you do, all you then all you are left with is Peter's haunting question: "To whom shall we then go?" (John 6:68)
Lay members, youth and women each and all need "to claim and accept a much greater share of ownership in our church," Paulsen said. "The church is not defined by election nor is it by who pays your salary. The church is defined by faith. Do you have faith? OK, you're the church."
"They [young people] represent in large measure the future of this church," he says. "There must be a more intentional dialogue with young people, and a greater recognition of the contribution that they can and do make within the church. I recognize that many, many of our young people feel distanced from the church—they feel as if they don't have a voice, they don't feel that they have been heard, they don't feel that they have been understood," says Pastor Paulsen. "But I want them to know that the church cannot be defined and cannot survive without them."
What a difference between the context of the speech and how it is presented in the Beem’s book. If Paulsen had actually said that Adventism was the zenith of religious knowledge I would be right with the authors. But that can’t be found, I don’t think they were at the G.C. session and again they offered nothing to support their statement. The book is largely a self indulgent vent against Adventism. I admit Adventism has a lot of problems, there are a lot of insensitive people and a lot of trivia in place of gospel and a lot people who would lie to get their way. But that is the same thing I could say of the authors of this book. Over these past 5 articles I trust I have offered sufficient evidence as to why I can make that statement.
I had hoped the book would offer some salient information about transitioning from the Adventist church but what it offers is not to relevant to my perspective. One paragraph I thought was interesting. On page 249 under heading We Are Family:
Don’t expect too much from other Christian denominations. They may have healthier theology, but they are just people with more foibles than merits – like all of us. Mainstream churches can be cold and unfriendly too. Go in with the idea that you are going to love them and accept them. These are the new brothers and sisters in Christ that God has given you. You are going to spend eternity with them, so enjoy getting to know them now. If you don’t learn to accept other Christians, you will end up in lonely isolation. Find a church that spiritually uplifts you in both worship and doctrine. They can be hard to find but don’t give up.
Before we think of transitioning out maybe we should think about what is happening in Christianity that makes finding a church so hard. Why are practically all the denominations shrinking? Why is Christianity which is built upon love and acceptance of God to the human race so filled with lack of love and lack of acceptance? Why is it that if I think about transitioning out of Adventism I can’t think of any church or denomination to go to.
There was one noticeable area of Adventist theology that the book never mentioned, that is the idea of eternal torment in hell. If you don’t believe that doctrine you will find it very hard to transition out of the Adventist church. The book chapter 17, Conclusion on page 259 by saying:
Ellen was wrong. The great controversy between Christ and Satan was not how to rid the cosmos of sin. It was to reveal that Satan was a liar about God. God’s (sic) is not foremost a lawgiver. The mystery of iniquity, the mystery of redemption was to show that that (sic)God is love.
God is love but He is going to torment you in hell for all eternity, well at least that is what the Roman Catholic Church and most mainline denominations believe. So yes it is going to be hard to find a church where you can be uplifted in both worship and doctrines.
To transition or change that is the question that we will deal with in the next article and we will leave behind this book and once again try to use our God given intelligence for some useful task. Because frankly if it is hard to find a good Christian church something, is terribly wrong. Certainly God can save us in our numerous misunderstandings but maybe we could help God just a bit and be real ambassadors to help others rather than to be so concerned with losing or gaining our own salvation. I am with Jan Paulsen, you (we) are the church where ever you (we) are, so now what are you (we) going to do?
The following links will take you to the previous reviews.
Thanks to a mention onintersections I just saw the following article in the Review:
Our churches are meant to be places of healing and renewal – they must be,” General Conference president Dr. Jan Paulsen declared December 9, 2008, during the twenty-ninth Annual Pastoral and Evangelism Council held at church-owned Oakwood University in Huntsville, Alabama. “The church should not be a battlefield, but a city of refuge.”
Carrying forward a theme he began at the 2008 Annual Council in Manila, Philippines, Paulsen expressed concern over those who would seek to separate the tares from the wheat in today’s Seventh-day Adventist Church, violating the spirit and letter of Christ’s parable in Matthew 13:24-30. “The church is a very mixed lot,” Paulsen conceded, but it is Jesus’ role to judge its members, not our role.
And while “the church has a right a right to church discipline” in situations where such discipline is called for, “however, it must not skew a day to day relationship” with its members.
Emphasizing that some who might be viewed negatively are in fact wrestling with the demands of God the Holy Spirit, Paulsen said “sinners are meant to be received warmly” by the church.
“I wouldn’t want to be only with those who have it all figured out,” he added, saying such people can become “arrogant, clinical and judgmental.”
Paulsen said, “It is within our reach to shape and create the spiritual atmosphere of our community.” Adventists should “create a good home in our local congregations, [and be] a warm family.”
Would not it be nice if our local churches actually took Paulsen's advice. It appears to me there is entrenched in many local churches a coterie of people who really do think they have it all figured out. The trouble is if you ask them a question they won't answer, they are quick to declare others to be unbelievers if they don't think just like themselves. They are killing the Adventist church just as surely as any unbiblical doctrine will, come to think of it they tend to use a good number of unbiblical doctrines anyway.
Oh well read the article on Paulsen and think positive and try to put in place his above mentioned ideas into your local church, maybe you will have more luck than I did.
