Noteworthy and timely, hopefully of value in tying down a loose canon. Suggest it be rewritten in a generic sense and submitted to Ministry mag. Tom

this makes me sad & angry. it's sad how the southeastern california conference can proclaim such spiritual bankruptcy without being reprimanded. today, i am ashamed to be part of this conference. it can speak against a Godly man who teaches biblical truths, yet it says nothing about evolution being promoted in its universities? God have mercy on such darkness. what pastor batchelor said was courageous and right on, and we pray he continues to stand for the apparently unpopular truth.

I would like to know who this Southeastern California Conference Executive Committee is!!! and also for those of you who do not agree with Doug Batchelor's position, surely you are not a Bible beveling Christian I am ashamed of the Southeastern California Conference. May God have mercy on the leadership there!

Mary, may I suggest you perhaps start looking into starting a home church?
Doug got called out on his inflammatory rhetoric, sloppy scholarship and out of bounds denunciation of conference policy. But I guess Mary sees him as part of her "team" so I guess a reactionary defense is not surprising. "Unpopular truth" is a bit strong, no? Since the GC just put the official kibosh on ordination, it seems odd to describe non-ordination as somehow the marginalized view.

Michael - "Failure to Respect Colleagues and Church Authority" Is it respectful to characterize people as angry lesbians trying to emasculate men? Seems like someone's been listening more to Rush than the holy spirit.

Oh Delroy, God have mercy? Whaaaa? God is just soooo angry that women might be ordained, pretty much the core of his plan of salvation that men and not women should spread the gospel.

Mary, I'm sorry your church isn't as intolerant as you are. The members of the SDA church who are seeking justice and equality may not be as loud as those who promote clinging out to out of date unjust customs, but the church is full of them nonetheless.

It is with sadness, yet understanding that I read these comments. Then I read SECC, and am more saddened. Did these people actually read the article carefully. Southeastern was gracious truthful and honest, which cannot be said for Batchelor's representation. I commend Southeastern for their action. Ephesians 5:21 following is a simple case in point.

After this letter wouldn't the SECC be obliged to send off a similar document dealing with some of their textual uses in evangelism?

Healthy dialogue in the spirit of charity and grace always leads to growth and understanding in Christian fellwship and brotherhood. This is no exception! ... This is an important yet not urgent issuE that the church will need to address in its due time. The Gospel of Christ is still bring preached, and women HAVE an active part in ministry. Doug Batchelor has a right to express his voice, as does the SECC. Let us not judge or condemn anyone because of their personal and private views on the topic of women in ministry. The bible, when understood culturally, appears to support inclusion of women in ministry. Biblically, arguments for both sides rests on texts that are interpreted literally or interpreted with a Patriarchal culture in mind. Let us dialogue and move forward in a spirit of grace and love!

Would that I had a serious lack of inconsistency! (Smile.)

Amazing that the SECC can go after an official SDA Church representative, in public forum, for, among other things:

1. A misuse and distortion of Scripture in a variety of ways
2. Not using the best Adventist scholarship
3. Not speaking for the Church

and, most amazingly:

4. Not representing the position or practice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The SECC then goes on to recommend that:

1. Church leadership needs to hold them accountable.
2. Official church entities need to go on record disavowing the distorted content of such presentations. And
3. Media outlets that are controlled by the church and carry such presentations need to recruit credible voices to offer appropriate, biblically sound responses that show the church's true position.

________

This is all in light of complete silence regarding decades of LSU professors directly undermining one of the most foundational pillars of the SDA Church?! - the doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week?!

How can the SECC decide to take such sudden and dramatic action over this particular issue, not even a fundamental doctrinal issue in Adventism, but say absolutely nothing regarding a direct attack at the very bedrock pillars of the Adventist faith?

How hypocritical can one get? Why doesn't the SECC also demand such action from the Church against LSU professors and administrators who are actually attacking fundamental SDA doctrinal positions? Why not demand that the Church leadership hold them accountable as well? Is this not a complete double standard for the SECC? Frankly, I'm rather shocked at the brazen disregard of the SECC for the attack against fundamental issues when they are so willing to stand up for those issues that seem much more politically correct to support. Kinda wimpy if you ask me...

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

So let me get this straight, SECC cares that many of God's children are being discriminated against more than it cares that some view certain "fundamental" abstractions as being attacked? Yeah, what hypocrites!

"I can show you the first 100 Adventist women in Southern California who are women's right activists which also stongly disagree with women ordination..." Posted by: Agatha Weaver

Would you like to explain to us how a woman can be a "women's rights activist" and "strongly disagree with women's ordination"?

There may be one or two like this, but 100? I find that very difficult to believe. Are you stretching statistics to try to make your point?

Mike MacLennan said,
"There may be one or two like this, but 100? I find that very difficult to believe. Are you stretching statistics to try to make your point?"

Dear Mike, my name is Laura. I don't know about the female posters here but I just wanna share some little facts about the numbers.

You really know about "mailing lists", Facebook, Twitters, Friendsters or other social networkings, right?

Btw, just within my bestfriends alone it's already 16 Adventist girls altogether... the Adventist women which disagree of women's ordination. (All of them are also women's rights activists)

They also have some female friends in the same boat.

Hi all, I am also a Californian Adventist girl. To be more specific...Southern Californian lady :):) Never been married and never have a kid.

While strongly disagree with women's ordination, my focus here is for us to...please...don't open the floodgates. This women's ordination issue is only as the golden tool in driving us to the next compromise such as lesbian/homosexual issue, and want us to watering down our Biblical principals and then perhaps they start trying to loosen our obligate to keep the Sabbath holy by honoring and being more respect to Sunday. This will go on and on and so on.... and finally the pillars of our Biblical faith shall be gone and we don't care.

Let me tell you something: It's not by getting or heard too many messages, but I saw it by myself that one of the largest SDA churches in the world--with it's modern meds school and Hi Tech Hospital--that largest SDA church has been employing several women pastors. The biggest dilema is that all the pastors there always rejecting the Present Truth to be preached in the main sanctuary thus limiting the real issues to their small classes/Sabbath Schools only, if any.

But the fact is: Try by yourself or by your ministries you have...see if you are allowed to make such as "Daniel & Revelation" seminar using the main sanctuary. Do you think it will be allowed there? or maybe a "Fundamental beliefs seminar" or any "Bible studies". See what's their response.

One of the tactics they're using is by having 'musical concerts' all the time of the Sabbath especially in the afternoon. Though I am a musician, but I must aware the subtle way satan uses to silent the Present Truth... sometimes by using "Christian musical free concert" so that church members never aware that the precious time supposedly being used to share the truth...but sadly gone forever in the name of "musics" or Concerts...what a subtle deception since satan doesn't use any terrorists nor criminals to damage the pillars of our Bible-based faith.

I know that's not my home church-because it's a littie bit too far for me. But some of my non-Californian friends asking me to obeserve the church living by myself. Surprise...this largest SDA church eventually are the most stupid Adventist Youth/teenagers dealing with the Bible knowledge, and usually have the generic messages in the sermons, musical sacredness, and the tendency is less and less Adventists but more and more with the Ecumenical mentality. They have no idea why they are Seventh-day Adventists. Seems to be more like social entertainment rather than a place to prepare the teenager Adventists for the coming crisis and for the great tribulation. But they mostly say, "Take it easy"

Especially during this graduation season, there should be a lot of families, friends and alumni come from across the US and even from around the world. I heard some testimonies from non-Californian Adventist families admitting that they are not so comfortable with the "comfortable messages"... try to make everybody happy and refusing to rebuke in the Sabbath sermons. Just to make Californian Adventists to be proud and happy. Oohhh...

Doug,

even when one is presenting arguing for a true proposition, the arguments and the manner in which they are presented can both be wrong

Seriously - women have an IQ lower than men? Doug Batchelor really put his foot in his mouth - and swallowed.

/Bevin

I love our church with all its authentic relational complexity. I love our God even more. Thank God He loved us first.

Sometimes I wish we could put our insecurity regarding gender to the side and get on with gospel and loving.

When a woman has the fire of God in her bones, I dare Pr Batchelor to inhibit her ministry! He is a brave man. But not the mouthpiece of God - hence this complex conversation.

Paul, with his Classical Greek education, would certainly have had no difficulty with women as "oracles" or mouthpieces of the gods or God. In Pagan Greece the most public role a woman was allowed to have was that of Oracle and men would appeal to women for guidance from the gods. Ellen had a classical pagan role as an oracle, or prophet. However, for the SECC to conclude that the common role of women in Paul's day as "oracle" leads to the conclusion that women have a role as leaders in teaching and administration is misleading at a bare minimum.

Paul does not seem to know about the sayings of "Jesus". He never quotes Jesus, nor uses Jesus' alleged acts as authority for any of his teachings. Its hardly credible to attack Batchelor with the claim that he was not Christ-like when he was arguing from the writings of Paul. The SECC paper would have a legitimate claim if Jesus had chosen a couple women as disciples instead of having them washing his feet with their hair, crying at the foot of the cross, and comparing them to dogs.

The question of women's ordination goes to the heart of the Biblical family structure. The civilization we have today in highly developed countries is not what was accepted, condoned, legal, or probably even imaginable in either the OT or NT. The Adventist church's membership is that of a predominately 3rd world church even in some highly developed countries. Political Position Papers ahead of the GC such as the SECC document will not carry much weight when the baptisms are happening in agrarian cultures of Africa, Asia, and S America where men rule.

As an aside, several of the women posting above seemed to be writing in such a hurried, emotional manner that it was difficult to read through the grammatical errors to comprehend what their thoughts were. This does not help your case, IMO.

A little of topic but I am left wondering whether Cheryle Davidson, Laura Murphey, SEC Women and Agatha Weaver, (all of whom have posted above and are of like mind regarding the topic under discussion) are in fact the same person; or is a just a coincidence that while agreeing on the topic they also all make use of the same interesting style of grammar?

"God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe His word to awake out of sleep.

Precious light has come, appropriate for this time. It is Bible truth, showing the perils that are right upon us. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold.

God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth.

Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God so that when the testing time shall come and they are brought before councils to answer for their faith they may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear.

Agitate, agitate, agitate.

The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound.

These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny."

5T 707-708

Jim Roberts said:
Anyone know of an SDA woman preacher, who they think is the best at delivering sermons... who has a sermon/sermons on the internet that I can listen to?

I would be happy to do a review.

I tell ya, 99+% of the sermons I have listened to as an SDA are pathetic, so I don't expect much from the other gender.

-------
I really hope no one will respond to this seriously. Are we now going to base the worthiness of female pastors on their Jim's opinion of their ability to preach? Did someone make Jim the arbiter of homiletical skill?

I do, in fact, know several women that I very much enjoy hearing preach. I would know more of them if we let more women preach!

When can we expect the Southeastern California Conference Officials to send out their statements challenging the biology professors at LSU for their promotion of evolution and lack of support of the church's position on creation? Also, when will they send out a statement to Chris Oberg, Julius Nam, David Larson, Fritz Guy, and many others for their very public and unbiblical support of homosexual marriage? I'm not holding my breath. The SECC is going to push this issue irregardless of what the Bible and the world church says. Unfortunately it is the spreading of the gospel that suffers from these distractions.

What does God think? God gave the commission to all of us to go and preach the Gospel to
the world...Women and Men...are we doing that? He has called us to a Holy Priesthood and we are all Ordained by Him, to do His work. Who can change that? Certainly not Dougs opinion!
Whether the SDA church and its male dominated committees want to ordain women or not is a mute point, God already has!
So refocus, it isn't about us, or who thinks women can or can't do something as well as men, God see us as the same and we a equal in His eyes, that's all that really matters! Is irrelevant, except maybe in having a paycheck, leverage and power to influence the direction the SDA church is taking. Jesus had none of these, and He didn't have any support from the official Sabbath keeping Church of His day. That did not stop Him from going forth with His work of revealing the Love of the Father, though His love for all, men and women, equally.
So what if the SDA church is oppressive towards women, God isn't and that's all that matters...just go do the work. Each individual person who accepts, love and lives in Him is His Temple, with His indwelling Spirit in us. We are His church individually and collectively, regardless of the stand taken officially within any church including the SDA!

It pains and frustrates me to hear anti-women's ordination (AWO)advocates toss around elitist rhetoric like 'neglecting Bible Truth' and pushing the issue 'regardless of what the Bible says'

This article and many, many more show that the Bible is not as clear cut and dried as the AWO folks would like to think. Yet, despite logical arguments and an obvious cultural foundation that Paul is speaking within, these people still imply that everyone who favors women's ordination are going against the Bible.

Yet these people in their zeal to defend 'bible truth' ignore Paul's clear counsel on women being saved through child bearing, not speaking or teaching in church, and having NO authority in church. Somehow they gloss over this and still claim that they are defending 'Bible Truth' while all others are going against God's Word.

Unbelievable hypocrisy.

Ignore the evidence, hold on steadfastly to their own views no matter the evidence or faulty logic and premises their beliefs are based on. Such methodology is typical of those too close minded to admit that their views may be incorrect and their interpretation faulty.

They have all the truth, if you speak against their version of the truth, you are going 'against Bible Truth'. The Pharisees thought the same way.

It is interesting that so many who support Sunday sacredness, eternal torment and immortality of the soul also hold this same mindset and can staunchly hide behind their convincing proof texts and say that we SDAs not following 'Bible Truths' and call us heretics.

Yet the AWO folks would expect those people to open their minds and see that their interpretation is wrong. Somehow they don't apply this same expectation to themselves. Like the Catholic Church they believe 'the SDA church and EGW have not erred, nor cannot err'

Close minded, tight fisted, legalistic Pharisaism that determines they have all the truth, their interpretation of the bible is correct and all others are 'going against the word of God'.

Sad, sad, sad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood Batchelor was not condemning ordination of women, but the types of positions they should be ordained in.

d.fender wrote:

"The SECC is going to push this issue irregardless of what the Bible and the world church says."

"irregardless"--not a real word.

I mean no offense, just trying to fight the good fight against fake words.

Also, I second keafan's statement:

"As an aside, several of the women posting above seemed to be writing in such a hurried, emotional manner that it was difficult to read through the grammatical errors to comprehend what their thoughts were. This does not help your case, IMO."

Sean,

You and the "Educate Truth" attack squad do enough self-promotion. Please save your advertisements and non sequiturs for a different thread.

Geoff: "You and the "Educate Truth" attack squad do enough self-promotion. Please save your advertisements and non sequiturs for a different thread."

There is absolutely no need for Educate Truth to advertise. The hypocritcal statement made by the SECC is painfully obvious to anyone who has been tracking their (lack of) reaction to La Sierra.

I think it's funny you accuse Sean and other's of being an "attack squad" because that is exactly what the SECC is doing and many people who stand with them on this forum. Sorry, any finger pointing now only amplifies the hypocritcal tone from SECC and its supporters here.

They can ignore an entire department at LSU undermining church doctrine, but woe to any single man who dares to utter a contrary view that isn't even doctrinal.

I'm happy the SECC can at least stand for something.

Shane: "There is absolutely no need for Educate Truth to advertise."
Great, then we agree!

Now, back to the controversial topic at hand: The radical notion that women are equal to men.

By the way, the decision to ordain Batchelor came likely from a conference committee (Northern?) that included women. If not then, the renewal of his credential comes from the vote of the Northern California Conference Executive Committee which does include women today. Thus, the authority of Batchelor's own credential derives from the evaluative authority given to some women who sit on the conference executive committee. I wonder if he considers his own credential to be tainted in some way.

And yet Bill, you continue to ignore the inconsistencies of your position and interpretation while claiming to follow the 'truth' of the bible.

Read my last post...and perhaps you should actually address the issues that this article has raised instead of accusing people who agree with women's ordination as not following the bible and yourself as being on the side of the good guys.

Bill are you saying God/Holy Spirit is dependent on the Bible?

Thus, the authority of Batchelor's own credential derives from the evaluative authority given to some women who sit on the conference executive committee.

***********

So, this is saying that women in the church have authority over men, who happen to be pastors. They can be part of the process of hiring and firing them, so to speak. But, to be absolutely literal with the text from Timothy, Paul said that he would not allow women to have any authority over men in the church. That means if we are to follow what he said to the letter, these women, as well as any other women who have any authority over men within the church structure, should be relieved of their duties. Their positions should be filled by men. After all, how can women be barred from pastoring because of gender, while having authority over those same male pastors, despite being of the female persuasion?

To this point, no one who is claiming to be following the Bible in defense of barring women from pastoral ordination, has dealt with this inconsistency, or their own inconsistent reading and application of the text they claim to follow. None! They all say that women can teach, preach, administer over men, can perform all the duties of male pastors, but are barred by the bible from pastoral ordination. It's not what Paul is saying. Not only does he not allow women any position of authority in the specified texts, he also never even addresses the idea of lifetime, pastoral ordination itself. Why? Because it didn't exist! It was a later development of the medieval church. Speaking of being biblical, that entire inconsistency is never addressed, either.

This total mishandling of the biblical text has helped to generate way more heat than light. It leads the so-called defenders to draw lines in the sand over issues that are based more on church and patriarchal tradition than on biblical principle. Yet, they never even slow down to closely read and so consider. Nor do they consider the observations of others about the utter inconsistency and logical non sequiters of their own positions. When challenged with such, all I've seen are epithets hurled backed denouncing the questioner as being a liberal heretic, who stands against the Bible.

Sadly, I expect more of the same to continue.

Thanks...

Frank

1. LaSierra University is a Pacific Union school so why would South Eastern California Conference feel a need to comment one way or the other on LaSierra?
2. SECC voted in duly called constituency meeting in the early '90's to treat men and women equally in pastoral ministry - including the credentials given them. The Executive Committee is elected by the constituents who are elected by each of the churches in SECC. It is to do the business of the conference between constituency meetings. Thus it was carrying out its duty. In addition the Pacific Union and the NAD have affirmed the call of women to ministry and have asked the General Conference on several occasions to allow the Division to ordain women to ministry. Most of you posting on this are way out of touch with reality.
The inconsistency is with the DB crowd here.

Two further comments: First, even if the SECC is being hypocritical in its treatment of women's ordination and the evolution controversy, that issue is irrelevant here. Let's let the SECC's paper stand or fall based on the merit of the arguments presented. In this discussion, evolution is a red herring.

Second, I'm amazed by all the posters who freely toss around accusations of liberalism and worse without bothering to respond to the arguments raised by the SECC. The SECC isn't denying scripture. They're defending it against what they believe to be Doug Batchelor's misuse of it. They aren't saying that you can ignore scripture when culture demands; they're saying the opposite and pointing us to the Bible in support of their position. Whether the SECC is right or wrong, that's the issue at hand. The apparent inability on the part of many posters here, especially those who are against women's ordination, to respond to the SECC's arguments is telling. Should I conclude that the SECC's opponents aren't willing or able to make coherent arguments, or should I conclude that they realize that they can't make a scriptural counter-argument and are unwilling to admit it?

All this doesn't let the other side off the hook. I've read some rather off-the-wall posts from those who agree with women's ordination. But since the point of controversy here is the SECC's paper, it seems reasonable to me that the burden of proof should rest with those who disagree with the SECC.

Finally, in this and other controversial issues, we should all remember that we'll get much farther if we let our emotions cool and discuss the scriptural facts of the issue, leaving aside accusations of motive.

Bill, Bill, Bill...

You never addressed the arguments. You simply said 'Some of Paul's words are cultural, some are biblical', but you never addressed what you mean.

Read and re-read Frank7's post. He speaks the truth on this matter; truth that you are continually choosing to ignore. Paul's problem in ALL his quotes (based right from the divine order of authority after sin, as you seem to base your views on) is that women should have NO authority over men in the church.

How exactly do you get around that, Bill? What scriptural twisting and two-stepping do you need to do to admit you are in a quandary? Seems pretty close to what Sunday sacred advocates have to do with the scriptures, doesn't it? You seem to be in the same boat but like them, refuse to admit it.

You can't have it both ways, Bill as much as you'd like. Either there is no authority for women in the church including talking, preaching and teaching (all of which EGW has made history doing), or Paul's words don't really mean what you think as far as being a biblical mandate.

Come on Bill...pony up and be a man on this issue instead of hiding behind Pharisaical elitist 'we obey the plain truth on the matter' rhetoric that is as transparent as those who advocate that the bible supports Sunday sacredness.

I answered all your questions, but you don't like the answer. If you don't see the answer, it is because you don't want to.

None the less, the lines are being drawn. My basic argument was and is, those who abandon the bible, will eventually admit it. The bible speaks for itself.

The only reason someone mentioned the creation/evolution discussion was to show the duplicity of the conference in how it deals with the various issues.

If you don't see the perversion of the gospel in the church today, it may be that you never will. Just as some Sunday keepers will never come to the light, while other will.

I would hope that at least some will see the clear issues involved, not only in the ordination controvery, but in the general tenor of the whole spiritualistic movement that has gripped much of the church.

To claim the curse God prouounced was descriptive and not perscriptive is typical of how the scriptures are perverted. And to appeal to Gal. 3:28,29 as "proof" women are equally qualified to be head of the home or head of the church is ridiculous.

But, as I said, the bible speaks for itself. In a very real sense, it needs no qualifier. We simply point out some obvious things, and those who are looking for truth see it.

Bill Sorensen

Now show us one scripture that mandates women's ordination. I don't mean some insinuation by cultural implication. I mean one clear bible text that states women have equal authority with men and should be ordained as bishops and elders as the norm for the Christian community.

Bill Sorensen

Well Bill, I guess He/She is not a very big God then. God is dependent on an ancient book and the devil could still win.

Shane & Sean,

I will not comment on the evolution controversy one way or another as to which side I think is "right" (I have colleauges & friends from BOTH the faculty AND the student population there). But I will tell you why it's different from commenting on Batchelor's sermon.

As a teacher and minister, I know all too well, how people-students, congregants, whoever-have an ability to hear a lecture/presentation/sermon and misunderstand/misconstrue/misinterpret what was said. Sometimes it's due to innocent mistakes...sometimes it's more insidious. I'm not suggesting that this is the case in the LSU situation. I'm just saying that it DOES happen in life. We can agree on that right?

In the LSU "evolution situation", there are two sides disputing the facts. So much disparity is in the accounts given by the faculty and the EducateTruth group that church officials got involved and there are even some legal entanglements arising from a portion of this saga. Whether or not LSU or EducateTruth is being honest, deceptive, or misunderstood is still a matter of debate even now. For the conference to choose a side while there are still ongoing investigations into the matter would be imprudent. Other than affirm the upholding of our doctrine short of naming the "good guys vs. bad guys" the conference shouldn't make a statement.

This situation with Doug Batchelor, on the other hand, is different: Batchelor recorded, aired, distributed and promoted the viewing of his thoughts on women's ordination. By these actions, he INVITED comment-even if some of those comments are critical of his position. There is no debate about "if" he said this or that. His perspective is clear, his viewpoints are out in the open-it's on video AND transcribed verbatim! The SECC is responding to the MERIT of what he said--the CONTENT of Batchelor's message is undeniable. That's very different from a situation (LSU) where the very retelling of WHAT was said is debatable.

Thanks Tom

Shane, you said, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood Batchelor was not condemning ordination of women, but the types of positions they should be ordained in."

In his sermon Doug said that "God has designed only men should be ordained as pastors and elders from the New Testament." So he specifically doesn't want women ordained as either pastors or elders. The only NT verse that specifically backs up his position is 1 Cor 14:34-35, which says:

"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

However, if we take this verse seriously, as Doug wants to, then we must go further than the ordination of women, and specifically condemn the entire career of EGW. I'm not willing to bite that bullet, and I suspect Doug isn't either.

Is Spectrum an Adventists magazine? How do we know?

I want to include some data , that most preachers/teachers hardly ever use in polemics.
It is a chronological time line of Paul's journeys and writings for a 3 decade period.

http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/actstime.html

Of course, there will be different opinions as to the exact dates , but generally speaking it adds to insight/perspective. I use it , on the internet, to dialog with LAW and 4th commandment trashers.

Notice when 1 Timothy was written. You know..the letter which includes the main passage that freaks out pro-women preacher adherents.

After having gone on 3 missionary journeys, spent time with the Lord for 3 decades, experienced starting several churches and establishing leaders, adddressing and dealing with false gospels and problem people in the church....he makes that statement in 1 TIM 2:12 as counsel to Timothy????

Uhhh.. how many decades did Paul need to get progressive enough for the N.O.W. crowd?

"Notice when 1 Timothy was written. You know..the letter which includes the main passage that freaks out pro-women preacher adherents." Posted by Jim Roberts

Jim, if we apply 1 Timothy 2:11-14 literally, then no women would be allowed to post here on this blog! Also no women would be allowed to speak in church! Do you Jim represent this extreme view?

So what we have to do is to take this passage in it's cultural context. It was a revolutionary step for women to be allowed into the Christian worship services, because of the Jewish custom to sequester women behind a screen in their synagogues. They did make advances in accordance with the culture of their times, and so are Seventh-day Adventists making advances in this area.

Whether Paul is the author of Timothy is not established. Luke Timothy Johnson says that all three of the epistles: Titus and first and second Timothy cannot be authenticated as Paul's. This represents most NT scholar's opinions.

So to say that it represents Paul's thinking is not valid.

To Steve Moran:

I started working in denominational service when I was 21 years old, now I'm 51 years old. One thing that I have learned is that the SDA world is very small when it comes to connections and information. And in light of the fact, that the liberals are in large part now in control of our medical, educational, administrative committees these days, you must be very careful in commenting on controversial topics otherwise your "head may roll" sooner than you think, hence my pseudonym "TruthWave". Another thing that I've learned is that when you offend liberals by sharing truth with them, the wrath that will incur in short order will be more wicked than anything that you've ever experienced in your life. This is what DB is experiencing no doubt as we speak.

regarding my view of WO: I have share my biblical position regarding women's ordination on other parallel threads to this one. Basically, my view is this we simply do not have a biblical example for doing it in the OT, or the NT. If it was God's will for women to be ordained, Jesus would have ordained at least one or more women in the 1st century. But, He did not. Case closed.

A very obvious note on this is the area of jurisdiction. Doug Batchelor is under the Northern California Conference, not the Southeastern California Conference. What business does Southeastern California Conference have in this? It would be like the Minnesota Conference weighing in on something that is transpiring in Dakota Conference or Montana Conference.

Also, Southeastern California Conference has done nothing to censure what is being taught in La Sierra in regards to evolution, which is against one of our basic teachings. (Last time I checked, the issue of women's ordination was not one of the 28 fundamental beliefs).

I have one word for this: hypocrisy. Pull out the beam before looking to take the piece of sawdust from Pastor Batchelor's eyes.

It needs to be realized that Doug B. is not confined to NCC. He broad cats across North America and I suppose the world. What he preaches affects the whole church.

TruthWave, do you have examples of Jesus ordaining anyone, at least using that term? It has now been mentioned several times but still worth mention that women were not even permitted past the outer part of the temple. Jesus had disciples or students. I don't recall him setting up pastors.

TruthWave, when did the term Apostle become Evangelists, Ministers, or Pastors?

Bill Sorenson, Truth Wave and Jim Roberts - and anyone else who opposes women pastors: did you read my post above? If you believe that Sister White had the gift of prophecy and that her writings are "a continuing and authoritative source of truth," how do you reconcile her statements in favor of women in ministry with your own opposition on this issue? Are you aware that there were several women who served as licensed ministers in the early SDA church? Ellen White fully supported their ministry.

So . . . do you believe Ellen White had an incorrect understanding of scripture, or that she was not inspired when she wrote these passages?

Are you opposed to women serving as pastors, or are you opposed to them receiving the same pay as their male counterparts? Sister White would obviously disagree with you on both counts.

You've been accusing those in favor of women's ordination as being "non-Adventists" or taking a stance against the church's historical position - but the true historical position of the Adventist Church is clearly one in favor of women pastors.

What say you?

I already posted this once,......does anyone know how to read?

If so, quit claiming no one has "answered your questions". You don't like the answer, but that won't change it.

Bill

"PastorBatchelor assumes that this prediction that women will be ruled over by men is
prescriptive rather than descriptive-in other words, that men are to rule over women. However, this is
partof a list of the results of sin and is better understood as descriptive."

As usual, this is nothing but "human reasoning" that totally contradicts the context. But, so what? They have no real interest in clear and solid bible exhortation.

Does EGW agree with their convoluted conclusion?

God's Instruction to Eve.--Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation, God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter, and made her life a burden. {AH 115.1}
Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. {AH 115.2}
Wives Submit; Husbands Love.--The question is often asked, "Shall a wife have no will of her own?" The Bible plainly states that the husband is the head of the family. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." If this injunction ended here, we might say
116
that the position of the wife is not an enviable one; it is a very hard and trying position in very many cases, and it would be better were there fewer marriages. Many husbands stop at the words, "Wives, submit yourselves," but we will read the conclusion of the same injunction, which is. "As it is fit in the Lord." {AH 115.3}
God requires that the wife shall keep the fear and glory of God ever before her. Entire submission is to be made only to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has purchased her as His own child by the infinite price of His life. God has given her a conscience, which she cannot violate with impunity. Her individuality cannot be merged into that of her husband, for she is the purchase of Christ. It is a mistake to imagine that with blind devotion she is to do exactly as her husband says in all things, when she knows that in so doing, injury would be worked for her body and her spirit, which have been ransomed from the slavery of Satan. There is One who stands higher than the husband to the wife; it is her Redeemer, and her submission to her husband is to be rendered as God has directed--"as it is fit in the Lord." {AH 116.1}

This is not "descriptive" but "perscriptive".

But of course, our church has abandon EGW long ago. Why would they even try to support any position in harmony with hers?

Bill Sorensen

It is within the realm of probability that Batchelor has set his sights on a Division presidency.

(Schneider's health is a perfect excuse to throw him under the Amazing Discredited Facts Bus for "The Call" to the NAD position.).

What is known is that Teddy Boy is calling in as many chits as possible to succeed Paulson.

Would Batchelor want to be an "overseas" Division president ?

However, Batchelor may face a reduction in pay and perks.

His accountant and tax attorney will surely run the numbers for him.

Moving on up on the SdA ladder is what Atlanta is all about.

As in TIger Woods, Sarah Palin, Educate Truthiness etc. there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I am a young American; I must be proud of my ancestors as founding fathers who built this great nation. That's why I will honor and respect anyone else who honor and respect my American culture. I'm demanding this respect, you know!

However, I'm also a Seventh-day Adventist. To my respect for my great country, USA... yet at the same time I am also a servant of the Living God who'd love me to share his love through His Everlasting Gospel to every nations, kindreth, tongue and people all around the world!

Regarding "Culture" VS "Thus saith the Lord" issue, this Spectrum anti Adventist magazine make some people more angry due to their sublte political agenda or so especially about Spectrum fanatical effort at any cost to brainwash the Adventist world that the Bible is not clear, vague and can't be trusted; and so modern opinions are more worth/realistic compared to the Never-changing "Thus saith the Lord" in the Bible.

Sorry my friends, I'm not belong to a local culture-oriented Adventists Church who feel obligated to share any Spectrum agenda to every States, Counties and cities all over the USA.... But I am a SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST!!! The world-wide, global movement church with a special job God has given us in proclaiming The Three Angels' Messages to every nations, kindreth, tongue and all people around the world. (Then Jesus will come)

Call me fanatic or judgemental. It's OK. But when this conflict comes about "Culture" issues..... I will stand up and must to choose: Not my American Culture, Not at all! But the Bible and the Bible alone as the only one standard in which all cultures and doctrines must be tested and purified. Yes, that should be my final and the only one guidance. Not vica versa. Thank you Jesus for this absolute truth.

I'm hoping now that Spectrum Magazine will share us the reason why this 'Adventists' magazine never reviving the Adventist Youth with the story about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as well as Daniel.

Hi Lorelei, You've been cowardly busy by asking Adventists in N.America only.

Do you believe Adventists outside N.America have a less perfect understanding of scripture than American Adventists?

Just go and ask your questions to non-American SDA....the same questions (and rationale?)as you constantly asking here to the American SDA.

I think we should accept Doug's suggestion. Recall he did a play on words semen and seminary. Maleness is defined, not by secondary sex attributes like facial hair, depth of voice, male pattern baldness but by sperm count and motility. Therefore, ispso facto, an essential pre-ordination test should be sperm count and threshold motility factor. Since neither of these are constant, the test should be retaked every five years until the age of 55 and there after every three years. If the count and the motility fall below a pre-established norm then the ordination should be lifted and the impotent male be assigned to sell Bible Readings for the Home Circle door to door and "His" sustentation based upon "his" sales record. Certainly with "his" years in the pulpit "his" ability to persuade should be non-pareil. To do less would do violence to the plain word of Doug and Bill. Tom

I'm opening a market. It seems that there is an abundance of red herrings here, so I thought I'd capitalize on it. Who wants to buy some?

Let me remind everyone what the point of this thread is: The SECC voted a statement taking a position on women in ministry. They cited scriptural evidence which they believe supports their position.

While Bill has directly challenged one small portion of their paper, no one (not even Bill) has really taken them on and explained what specifically is wrong with their reasoning. How come? This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want one or more SECC opponents to answer it.

Here are some of the red herrings that we should sell in my market in order to get rid of them in this thread:

1. Someone (Spectrum, Doug Batchelor, the SECC, etc.) has less-than-pure motives (or is hypocritical). Even if this is true, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is what the Bible says.
2. Labels (such as liberal). Can we discuss the issue at hand without name-calling? This is especially important since opinions on this subject don't break down according to the stereotypical liberal/conservative divide.
3. Debates about culture. While cultural issues are relevant to this topic, the general trend of such discussions here has been to ignore those relevant points in favor of supporting one's pet peeve.
4. This is only a North American issue. This is a red herring because the issue is what the Bible says, and last I checked, we use the same Bible worldwide. Thus, even if it were an NAD-only issue, it still would be a valid one. However, this statement is also false. Even if it isn't an issue where Non-NAD is, it is an issue beyond the NAD in some areas. As a case in point, I'm in Korea and Doug Batchelor's sermon has stirred up some debate here, too (though I must admit I don't know how much debate, if any, there has been among Koreans here).

C Ray wrote:
That's very different from a situation (LSU) where the very retelling of WHAT was said is debatable.

The LSU professors are also on video. Their lecture notes have been published. The papers have been published. Their students have spoken. They have been quoted in secular journals.

I'm sorry, but your notion that the what is really being taught in the LSU science classrooms isn't known is simply ill-informed. It is known, quite clearly, despite the rather desperate attempts of the LSU PR department to cover up the reality of the situation.

So, if the SECC can suggest decided restraint and censure of a paid representative for going against, from the pulpit, what the SECC sees as "The position and practice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" for which the "Church leadership needs to hold them accountable", then why is it somehow wrong to use this very same argument to suggest that similar restraints be imposed on LSU professors who are doing the very same thing? - "speaking against the position and practice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church"?

The only difference, really, is a difference of what clearly stated ideal of the SDA Church is considered to be more important. That's it. It isn't like LSU professors really aren't attacking an SDA fundamental pillar of faith. They are and they have been doing so for decades at LSU. Why then don't the very same arguments used by the SECC against Batchelor apply to LSU?

It's a clear double standard if you approach these issues with a candid mind...

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

On the subject of women pastors, I was browsing the TV directory the other day and saw a time slot for "Pastor Scott." I remembered from many years ago the crazy old Dr. Gene Scott, who "pastored" the "Los Angeles University Temple." I put "pastored" in quotes because he was really a TV "preacher." I put "preacher" in quotes because he never delivered anything resembling a conventional homily. He scribbled Greek words and phrases on blackboards until the blackboards became an unintelligible mess. But for long periods of time, he would just glower and glare at his live and TV audiences and chomp on a cigar (which he frequently had in his mouth), and demand that they send him money.

Well, anyway, I clicked on the listing and it was a "Pastor Melissa Scott" a relatively young woman. She was trying to imitate Gene's inimtable "style" and was scribbling stuff on a blackboard. I thought, "isn't that sweet. Gene's daughter took over the family business." Then I did some internet research. Oops . . . she wasn't his daughter (although she was young enough to be his granddaughter). She was his widow, and a former porn starlet. Doesn't it just warm the cockles of your heart when the widow is able to make a go of the family business, to step right into the shoes of her deceased husband?

Well, I listened to her for about 10 minutes, and although she wasn't exactly making sense, she was a marked improvement over her late husband (who died at Glendale Adventist in 2005). Dr. Gene Scott had a Stanford Ph.D, but I think Melissa's former gig better prepared her for her current post.

I think I hope I'm missing the point.

David Read,

Are you Ok? Your post seems a bit psychotic... What on Earth?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Hi Chuckie "Hurrah for the Southeastern California Conference!
Do those of you who admire Doug Batchelor not realize that anyone can quote scripture in support of slavery? In support of polygamy? In support of genocide? In support of obeisance to dictators (although this is a bit harder)?"

Chuck you now commend the SECC when it has no business criticizing Pastor Batchelor. As a person whose salary is dependent upon the church aren't you a little bit ashamed? Your reasoning is hardly consistent with a person who has some sort of advanced education.

It's just another situation , existing also in the media world to a great extent, as a liberal you want freedom to promulgate avant garde ideas but everything breaks loose when a conservative advances a position that has already been adopted by the church whether you wish to admit it -- no ordination for women. You just don't get it.

Sorry for my post. It doesn't really have a point, or any relevance to ordination debate. I was tired and sleep deprived.

Sorry - I just realized by reading my post just now that the websites I had included do not show up - I'm sure I'm doing something wrong technologically. Well, if you go to Sligo's web site www.sligochurch.org and click on the "Listen Live" tab and look for 3/27/10 you can find both the sermon audio file and the photo gallery (if you're interested).

Peace,

Why has this topic been overlooked for hundreds of years and only now is the ordination of women taking place?

Why is the Southern California Conference one of the only conferences looking to go through with this? Is this conference right for hiring ordained women to be pastors and the rest of the Adventist world wrong? The church hasn't come forward saying that they agree with women ordination. For some reason they are just allowing it to happen in conferences such as the Southern California one. It was voted in the last general conference that ordination of women in the church would not be allowed, but for some reason members of the committee have gone against that vote.

I was raised in the North East and now live in Southern Cali. The churches out here are definitely more laid back then the ones back East and because of that I think this kind of thinking is more acceptable. Since moving out here I've met head deacons in the church who don't think having a few beers on the weekend while playing a game of poker is a bad thing, or that it goes against our beliefs. As long as it's done in moderation it's okay. I've also met Pastors who say that Jesus literally made wine in his first miracle (REALLY?). I'm not judging anyone because I'm a sinner myself, I'm just trying to give examples of how liberal the churches out here are.

I'm also not trying to put women down in any way but I believe that in the church there exists a set of rules and standards that don't pertain to the world we live in. I have a beautiful wife and daughter whom I love very much, and have the utmost respect for my mother and all the women I know, but even then I still believe that they have a different role in the church than men do.

The letter to me didn't really prove anything! I think it diverted a few issues into other topics rather than disproving what Pastor Bachelor said. For example, in the letter they mention how Pr. D. Bachelor left out Ephesians Ch. 5 v. 21 where it says that Christians should submit to each other. However, nothing was said about verse 23 where it states that a husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. How come they didn't try disproving that verse and only focused on something that was left out? Even when I read it from verse 21 it still doesn't change the meaning of verse 23.

This is not prophecy people! We don't have to break down every verse or word to try and figure out the meaning of the passage. This is plain old English! It's right there is front of us. Don't try to make it something it's not.

Since I was a little kid growing up in the church (I'm only 31) I was taught that a family should resemble the church. A man as the head of the family as Christ was the head of the church. If we start questioning that structure we should also start questioning the structure of the family. Should men be able to have relationships with men and women with women? Should the church also change their views on homosexuality?

Women can be great witnesses of God and reach many people in ways that a man cannot. However, there is a way to go about doing this and ordination is not one of them, and definitely not what God intended.

David,

That question shouldn't even be something we should be asking ourselves. The Bible doesn't change regardless of the political state around it. Church and State should not mix but unfortunately it's something we are getting deeper in to these days.

However, as a sign of times we know that this is inevitable.

Concerned Adventist wrote:

"The Bible doesn't change regardless of the political state around it."

Amen, amen and Amen brother!

We need the progressiveness in our thinking for the rest of our life, including about the Bible truth.

But don't change it.

David

What could he possibly say? He obviously won't retract, He can't apologize, He can't say your out of order. To stand pat he keeps his radical base. What more can a TV idol Cave Man want than global attention? Tom

I would like to stand alongside Doug Batchelor, not for theological reasons, but for humane and procedural reasons.

Please hear me out.

First, this is not a theological rant. Though I disagree with Doug's interpretation of scripture and culture on this issue, that is not my point here.

And though anyone who knows me knows I have stood long and strong for women in ministry and the ordination of women, and have "supervised" four outstanding women (and ten equally excellent men) on my staff at various times, and have exchanged my ordination credentials for commissioned minister credentials to stand beside my sisters in ministry, there are some reasons I also stand beside Doug in this particular situation:

1) Despite my theological disagreements, the guy works hard, and improves many people's lives through what he does. Does his approach inspire me? No. His ideas make me wince sometimes, and I know that ideas like I have must make him wince, or worse. But he reaches people for God that I can't. Do I really want his converts to hear the pastor who means so much to them being maligned and called names? No. Is this large denomination big enough to absorb our theological differences? I think our early church history says yes.

2) I resent anyone being trashed in a blog. Debate the ideas, but don't de-humanize someone. It is unbecoming for people to argue for women's ordination as a human dignity and equality issue, then to call someone else derogatory or inhumane names, or to attribute evil motives to them.

4) While I happen to agree with the theology of Southeastern's executive committee, I am deeply concerned about conferences responding to sermons of pastors of other conferences. This is a precedent that alarms me. Do I want NAD conference committees to begin reviewing sermons and issuing rebuttals to sermons that pastors preach in their own church? Is that what conferences are established to do? I don't think so.

(And I don't buy the argument some make that just because Doug is well-known that everyone has a right to attack him publicly. I like the dictum that we should praise publicly and rebuke/coach privately. If one believes Doug's methodology is unethical, be aware that you don't create homeostasis by modeling after it. Remember that Jesus called us to a higher standard than the Mosaic "eye-for-an-eye.")

6) When we attack people in public we make it much more difficult for them to conduct self-evaluation, refine their thoughts or even repent of the false ideas if such is needed. I have been a pastor for 34 years, and I promise you that my views change. I have preached sermons, passionately, only to find that a gentle member of my flock may show me a better way. It takes me a while to think it through, put a new "system" of thought together in my head, and to say it better next time. In times like those I thank the Lord the blogs either didn't exist yet, or that I didn't tape my sermons (smile).

Do we want mercy or sacrifice? Pax on both houses!

-- Tim Mitchell

Mike, thanks for your reasonable question asked in a kind way.

Yeah, I have thought about this, and I have "felt" about this. I'm going to explain to you where I am today (subject to change). I'm going to use some rhetorical questions and other comments running through my head to illustrate my process (no one else's).

* Do I want to live by the lex talionis? Does retaliation or a retributive spirit really restore honor to my sisters in ministry? In order to show kindness to them must I stand silently by as those who disagree are abused?

* There are three SDA blogs I watch, two "liberal" and one "conservative." All three are violent, whether or not it is the intent of the operators. Considering what I've read about ethnic cleansing in the last twenty years, is there something I can learn and apply about the ending of the violence?

* If this is the "style" of the Adventist church, then do I believe the "substance?" For me the conversation reveals the quality of the faith/love/fidelity. So let's say we ordain women--to what? Ministry in a madhouse?

* Part of me enjoys seeing my philosophical opponents get waxed. Somehow it feeds this dark, insecure part of me. (cynicism coming:) "Sure, let's fire someone--a principal, a president, a pastor--that settles everything." It sounds silly but it's what Adventists do over and over and over. It's our cyclical false atonement--someone is crucified for the sake of the community. But the cross should silence everyone's hubris. However, the only hubris I can control--if ever--is my own.

* I know it's an odd response, but my statement of support of Doug is a way of chiding the ones with whom I am most in agreement. I don't want to "win" at the expense of someone else. Not women. Not Doug. I have decided to try to move forward whatever opponents think...but not at their expense. I'm not sure that can be done.

Best regards,

-- Tim

Tim, it sounds to me that you are choosing to do precisely what Elder Jan Paulsen has done. I respect you both, as you have the well being of the church in your hearts. I know that Pastor Batchelor's ministry is respected by a large number of Adventists. Whoever is a leader has an incredible balancing act between the two extreme sides.

Tim,

Are you willing to invite Doug to your church to give that sermon to the collegiate audience? Why, or why not?

Thanks, Tim.

I can understand the reluctance. While one shouldn't speak disparingly against a fellow clergyman, the theological reasoning would be sufficient to limit his speaking engagement invitations.

It appears that the problems many of us have found with his presentation is that he has a much larger pulpit than most pastors and also the endorsement and wide advertising from the church. Is there any denominational policy with those who present divisive issues? Certainly, Des Ford and many pastors have lost pastorates when they diverged from official church positions. Evidently there is more liberty allowed today.

Tim:

I understand your desire to further the work and to keep peace as a vehicle for moving the message of Jesus forward. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's suppose that instead of woman he had come out and made a Scriptural case against allow African American's to be pastors. Would you still take the same position?

My point is that DB is not just some pastor in some church who preached a controversial sermon. In this case it is clear that Doug intended this sermon to go beyond his local conference and local congregation. Given that, the struggle I have is that his sermon his words, caused a lot of hurt, anger and frustration. What you seem to be saying is that because his end game focus is the same as yours and mine, he should get a pass. If he had not with great deliberateness promoted this sermon and this position outside his local congregation I would agree with you completely. However, he was quite aggressive about moving beyond the local congregation and because of that I think it fair and appropriate to have a response from outside his immediate influence.

The issue of public v private is a very difficult one. I would have to say that I think that private is better, but that it is better only if he is willing to engage in the dialog, meaning that he would be willing to respond Structurally to the SECC concerns. I have no idea if there has been any private discussion, but I would hope so.

In the grip of grace

Steve Moran

Or they could have published an open letter on the subject not even mentioning DB.
The fact is someone wrote the letter and everyone else signed their name. It wasn't a committee document conceived and developed by them.

Elaine, I understand your points.

I think (only think!) there are some additional distinctions to make.

The most critical distinction I would make is between orthodoxy (ie, the 28) and heterodoxy (something other than either orthodoxy or heresy. Heterodoxy in Adventism might be our individual views about abortion, acceptable sabbath observance, proper music, women in ministry, or whether individuals think homosexuals ought to have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.). Ford challenged the pre-Dallas orthodoxy, while Doug challenged the policy of his local conference, which is not universally held in Adventism.

Re the size of his pulpit, or the range of his exposure: I don't see how that is germane, but I'm willing to have you expand on it for me.

The reason I personally reject that argument is that you can't blame a guy for his success. It feels silly to me for people to complain that it isn't "fair" because he is a popular speaker. The conference does not pay for Amazing Facts. People enjoy what he does and send money. And this is the nature of TV religion. On satellite, for every "Thirty Good Minutes" that might nourish me, there are 50 fundamentalist, pentecostal or catholic programs that don't. But I am in the small minority. I don't have a sassy tone when I tell you that if you don't like it, you can start a new station of your own. Create a bigger pulpit for progressive viewpoints. But good luck raising the money.

As an aside, it is my understanding that this was simply a video of his usual sabbath sermon on his website. Am I incorrect in this?

Now, I'm going to raise a separate issue. And I want to make it clear that I have NO knowledge of anything like this happening...it is only hypothetical. But suppose Doug preached this sermon in full conviction, and the uproar began. And suppose a friend, or even a friendly "boss" called to say, "Wow, this is becoming divisive, Doug. Do you have any ideas for turning the heat down on this? And suppose Doug said something like, "Well, I really believe in what I said, except maybe it would have been wiser not to say X and Y; Do you think it might help if I took if off the website?" And the friend might have said, "Yeah, that might be good. Thanks." Again, this is a purely fictitious scenario as far as I know. But the reason I suggest it is that a lot of changes occur because of quiet, backdoor discussions, that give people a chance to re-evaluate their words and actions in quietness and freedom. I'd like to give people a chance for people to adapt, because that is how I would like to be treated when I do or say unwise things. And since humanity is what it is, I find that it generally isn't helpful to pressure someone under a spotlight. I think of Jesus writing in the sand, maybe?

Again, Elaine, I stand strongly behind women's ordination. I just have a visceral reaction against piling on as a way of solving the debate, whether it's this blog or another one. If the "other side" piles on, I can't control that. I can only try to control myself.

Cheerfully,

-- Tim

Bonnie,
Good advice for everyone isn't it.
"The committee members did discuss the sermon together before voting to make an official response as a committee."
that much is obvious. No one said any different.
"They did contact Doug before they shared their report with the wider world, as suggested in Matt. 18--that is why it did not go up the same day that it was voted."
The sermon had been preached before. No response then. Your remarks are only partially pertinent.

They rebuke DB from relating a story from his mother in charge 1.
In charge 2 they rebuke him saying the church has ordained women knowing the CG has never made that decision although the SECC has. Just because the SECC has, does not make the SECC "the church".
Charge 3 goes on and on about submittal but they fail to note that any construction they come up with says nothing on pastoral ministry or ordination of women. Their own estimation of the text says they agree that it is excluded. Quote, "The passage however says nothing about pastoral ministry or ordination. It simply forbids teaching and authority." As if Christians submitting to each other is an exact corollary to ordination whereas teaching and authority is not related in any way.

It would seem any body as obsessed with submittal as the SECC would submit to the GC in business session on the subject. However since they haven't, they now find themselves guilty of the same thing they charge DB with in charge #2. Failure to respect colleagues and church authority.

Unfortunately, the letter continues on with the same caliber of reasoning.

Might it not be better for everyone concerned, so we can stop this public trial by media, if the SECC were to take their case re: DB with union conference officials (elders in the biblical sense) in line with denominational protocol? Perhaps unknown, or has been overlooked by most SECC committee members and many people here, is the fact that the Pacific Union Conference has in/direct oversight of Amazing Facts since it's the unit of administration that issued DB's Minister Credential.
http://www.adventistyearbook.org/default.aspx?page=ViewAdmField&Year=999...

Tim:

You ask a really important question about dialog. I guess I am kind of thinking that Spectrum would not be a great place for that dialog, but I am not sure what would be. I would not blame DB for not responding here.

In early Adventism we used "The Review" and "Signs of the Times" to debate theological positions and I sort of long for that openness, in Adventism today. I rather think processing theological differences in the open is healthier than the pot shot approach we often see here in the blogs, with people essentially reposting the same diatribes and talking points without ever really responding to the legitimate questions posed.

I do appreciate that some of those early Adventist salvos' were pretty brutal, but I still think transparency is better.

I am not sure exactly the best way to do this. I guess ultimately I think that for something as major as WO maybe deserves a Glacier View, type conference that would be open to whoever wanted to attend and would have presentations from both sides, and the presentations would be widely available to anyone who wanted access to them. My sense is that the Glacier View conference on origins and creation did a nice job of allowing different views to be expressed and discussed in a cordial way.

The thing that is so puzzling specifically about WO is that the way it is being argued seems all backward:

- The anti-WO people say, that is is all about bowing to culture and yet the primary defense is not scripture but Adventist Culture.

- The pro-WO people say, the time has come because culture has changed, but then turn to scripture to make their case.

For all of that, as I understand it the vast majority of Church leadership (conference, union, division and GC levels) no longer see this as a scriptural issue, meaning they have studied it out and concluded this is not a scripture does not prohibit WO. That the only reason not to is cultural.

This almost makes it harder than if it were legitimately a scriptural issue because it really forces one to ask which path causes the least damage.

And yet for all of that, this really is in my mind a moral issue, because we are in effect telling God that he cannot use 1/2 of the population as ordained pastors.

I think we are less open to God's leading today than our early pioneers. We believed, right after the great disappointment the door was shut and there would be no new converts, then we started seeing the Holy Spirit convict and convert people so we revised our understanding. Today we see that arguably the most effective pastor in all of Adventism is a woman in China, with 20,000 church members and yet many refuse to even consider that maybe God can use women in that role.

Finally, I really do think WO should be in play at GC even if it is unlikely to pass. Two reasons: It is an important enough issue that it deserves open consideration; and, The Holy Spirit does have the power to convict and change minds, and to bring peace.

In the grip of grace.

Steve Moran

P.S. It is nice that someone had something nice to say about me.

He Elaine,

You need to start with the unchanging "Thus saith the Lord" before promoting about the "difference".

Now do this math with your friends (or enemies):
1+1=? ---> just one question but by using 5 different "cultures":

- Calculator
- Manually
- MS Office Excel
- OpenOffice Calc
- Another Program

You know the question, but do you feel offended and disagree due to the same absolute answer?

Relax, Elaine...slow down. Don't get mad. Just relax, pls...

you want some water?

Elaine

There is only two differences and three similarities between the Roman Catholic Church and the Seventh-day Adventist Church: The Roman church is older and bigger. Both claim divine origin, both claim infallibility, and both claim absolute conformity.

I agree that Rome is older and bigger.
Tom

Carolyn

I have news for you. The "Message" of Adventism is neither present nor Truth! So in the time of Noah, God saved even a drunk and an ingrate. You expect a perfect 144,000?

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and Righteousness!"

The ego-centricity of Adventist Eschatology is its greatest fault. At least on a par with Mariology.

In the span between time and eternity we stand no different that Paul. "I know in whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able!" Tom

Tom Zwemer wrote: "I have news for you. The "Message" of Adventism is neither present nor Truth! So in the time of Noah, God saved even a drunk and an ingrate. You expect a perfect 144,000?"

Ego-centric?? ...hhmmm...How about Israel ppl? What were their responsibilities and what's the purpose God chose them? Why?

144,000??? Oh my God. One of the Advent Messages is in Rev.7:9 "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands..."

Dear Tom, I have news for you too: I believe that God raise up a Seventh-day Adventist worldwide Movement to give the world the last warnings with the Present Truth through "The Three Angels' Messages (Rev.14:6-8)--whether you like it or not.

(We don't talk about the Adventist people here in particular but rather the Advent Movement)

Just because you have too many bad experiences with some Adventists people....doesn't necessarily mean....aah you know what direction I'd like to say and yours too.

But anyway, may God bless you, Tom. *Keep Smiling*

Steve
What is driving this debate is a desire to bring church values in line with more advanced secular values, in this case gender equality. We had the same debate before the Civil War, when Southern preachers hammered home the uncomfortable fact that the Bible, Old and New Testaments, take slavery for granted, and that Paul urges believers to submit to the slaver's whip if they were born slaves.

Some biblical positions become untenable when people of good will no longer will put up with them. It was values, not exegesis, that won the battle over slavery. The same goes for equality of gender and sexual orientation. One reason why the Christian church is faring so poorly in the Western world, especially in Europe, is that people have embraced an ethical standard that's superior to that advanced in the Bible, and any attempt on the part of the Church to use exegesis against admired values is bound to lose.

PS
I'm not contesting what you're saying about the Review and Signs being at one time a forum for different ideas--but it sounds far-fetched. Do you have any examples of real debate in any SDA publication, ever? The minute EGW embraced a position, it became impossible to debate it.

Dear Kirch,

I'd like to offer you absolution on the basis of your sincere and heartfelt confession.

As penitence you must re-watch the episode, "Freedom is a Worship Word" from the original Star Trek series depicting the battle of the cons and the yangs.

God bless you.

Carolyn

Some of my best experiences had been with Adventist Christians. I have had a life full and rich in fellowship with Seventh-day Adventist Christians. I have repeated named a few of the more outstanding persons that would be recognized by a large portion of the readers of this Web Site.

On the other hand, I have had some outstanding fellowship with a host of other Christians and even Agnostics. One of my best neighbors is a J. Witness, A number of close friends are Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Southern Baptists, Church of the Latter Day Saints. Through the years, I can recall the ministry of Dr. Otto Christiansen, Dr. Len Wood, Elder C. B. Haynes, Seventh-day Adventists All. I also recall the ministry and witness of Father Mac a Jesuit, The pastor of the Red Door Lutherian Church, The pastor of St. Paul's Anglican Church, Dr. Dan McCall of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church and Dr. Leslie Holmes current pastor of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. I hold as personal friends many SDA college presidents, conference presidents, Division of religion faculty at Andrews, and LLU and others.

This issue is that Christian thought, ethos, and ethic are universal not proprietary. The ego-centric position that "Present Truth" a tag label of the eschatological package of the SDA Church defines the sum of Christian thought and is essential to redemption of a final generation--has absolutely no foundation in Scripture. Salvation in Paul's day is the same as in our day--based completely on the "finished worked of Jesus Christ" To accept that with gladness, to go forth in gratitude and generosity is Christian living. Given that, it is not necessary to withold judgment and condemnation for the unchristian and dastardly official acts of any church based institution. Christ did in His Day, Paul did in his day, Ellen White did it big time in her day.

Some of the worst vindictive acts of man have been done in the name of the Lord. The Seventh-day Adventist Church unfortenately has not been immuned. The SDA church has been particularly harsh with former Adventists who point out the errors of exegesis, acts of vengence and retaliation. All unChristian at the core.

I am on a first name basis with the President of the Southern Union Conference. That does not mean that I believe that the young men who come to Augusta with a canned "Revelation Seminar" come with the "Present Truth". The amazing thing is on a one to one basis they are really very nice sincere young men. But put a remote control in their hand and they are transformed to dogmatic, pompous, ego-centric-zealot in overdrive.

Some of the saddest moments of my life have been listening to sincere young men try to "sell" a product they don't understand but are compelled to do a head count for every $800.00 spent on the effort. Christians are to sow seed. Christ is the reaper. My "beef" is with the distructive influence of a fear based message with no Scriptural foundation. To define fear as the Holy Spirit--is a terrible "unforgivable?" sin.

Yes I know, believe, and acknowledge that I am a sinner who sees through a glass darkly. I also know that I place my full trust and hope in the "Finished Work of Jesus Christ on my behalf and yours. I proclaim without reservation Christ is Lord, My Redeemer, and coming King! Praise be to God. Tom

There have been reprints of the old Signs showing their arguments as conducted early in Adventism. I have some in my possession and have read them. At what time these were eliminated, it was long ago and such discussions must have been seen as detrimental to the SDA message. What a pity! Freedom of expression is something the church does not easily tolerate.

Steve
Waggoner and Jones wrote copiously for the Review and Signs of the Times before falling out of favor but the debate that ensued, mostly driven by a very upset Uriah Smith, took place outside the magazines. To read the Review of those years you'd come away thinking that they were promoting views that nobody contested.

In the 1850s James White argued against the food taboos of the Torah and he inveighed against those who attributed too much importance to his wife's views but I can't remember seeing any back-and-forth debate on these and other emerging views. I may be wrong and welcome correction.

In the years I was in the church, its magazines would at times introduce controversial material, such as the Review's 1975 issue on Herbert Douglas' (or M. L. Andreassen's, if you will) harvest principle, but again, nobody let you know that this was a point of view hotly debated within the church. Inviting debate has been avoided in the SDA church because it implies that a church position on an issue might not be infallible.

If I might add this....

Women certainly would NOT be allowed on the platform during the church service to offer prayer, take up the offering, do announcements, or any other platform duty according to Paul's command to be silent. We are not following the authority of Paul as we should according to those of you who feel strongly that we should follow Paul's advice.

Good one, Elaine. I gotta remember that one.

SELECTIVE DEFENDERS ALWAYS !!!!!

John...do you KNOW how OLD Renie, Elaine and I are???

Too old to have children & too old to shut up.

Aage

Thank you, Recently, I was interviewed for over two hours about the history of a project that I was the prime force in establishing. The contributions of that project are now being celebrated for 50 years of service. The official published account--gave primary praise to one who had absolutely no part. I was hurt, stunned, and angry. I expressed those feelings out loud to a friend of 62 years.

I later apologized. The apology was accepted with the question: "Tom have you totally rejected and abandoned Christianity and the Kingdom of Heaven?" I felt like Peter after denying his Lord. I have sought the Lord with tears and the hymns of some mighty sinners who found Grace. But your note at this time is the answer, I needed thanks.

Who gets the credit for the trailings of man's petty projects is dust compared to the accomplishments of our Lord and Savior. Thanks again. Tom

John...what would we do without your tongue-in-cheek comments. Boy, do you know how to express what a lot of us think.

Maggie....you are sooooooo right. We won't shut up.

I just can't understand the thinking against ordination of our women. Why fight such a good thing.

My pastor's wife has been ordained as a elder in our church. I'm so proud of that. Her sermons are even more of a blessing than her husband's sermons. The church is full when she is on the platform.

Maggie, I'm sure you know that NOW stands for the National Organization of Women, so are those code words you're using?

No, not hostile takeover, but women will no longer be ignored, and however and whatever action they take it will have been warranted for a very long time--like forever.

For some of us, we are even more proud not to belong to the SDA exclusive membership club which we voluntarily surrendered. This is just another nail in the coffin of a dead and dying club in first world nations that find women's subordination abhorent to a very primal belief. As my son told me many years ago, it was fear of women that drove them to dominating women; I think he is even more correct today. This is also what was expressed by Tertullian, Augustine, and the Jews, Christians and Muslims to this day. Refusing to acknowledge equality of the sex: their mother, from where they had their beginning is the worst form of denigration. Would they tell their mother to her face that she is inadequate to become an ordained pastor solely because of her sex?

Unfortunately, the church hierarchy feels that it is "good for the unity of the church" to subordinate the majority of its own membership. That women continue to allow it is to their shame.

One woman who frequently posts here, suggested that a large sheet should be let down from the balcony at the G.C. when Paulsen and the others are up in front, declaring their position. Double-dog dare ya! (Make sure the press is there to video.

"Would you sic the press on your father if he held those beliefs? Your brother?"

In a heartbeat! My daddy didn't raise no little slack-jawed biddy. I've got no brothers, but a son and sons and grandsons-in-law (our out) and I'd do it any of them--they'd run when I got through with'em. I've stood up to guys that were unrelated to me, so t'wouldn't be a bit of trouble to go git 'em, maybe wash out their mouths with old Lava soap! They'd know better not to mess with this old granny!

Wow, Elaine.

I guess I don't want people to run when I get through with them.

Tim: I admire your compassion. (hmm, talking things through--"tend & mend" instead of "fight or flight"--according to the sermon, you aren't displaying very pastoral characteristics! Are you sure you're not a woman?)

True enough, people don't have to be nasty towards the man. But I don't think a quiet conversation to the side would've been an adequate reaction either. Maybe we shouldn't adopt the practice of scrutinizing every sermon from every pastor's pulpit (although it might nip some things in the bud! lol! jk!) However, I think there is a big difference in this case because of 1) the timing relative to the GC session & 2) the intentionality and breadth of this message's distribution.

The SECC was not merely setting out to 'attack Doug'. I feel they (as well as the British Union and the Dean of the Seminary, and several Old Testament scholars, and other entities) wrote their response because they were under obligation to try to mitigate some of the damage that would've been caused by people hearing this message unchallenged. Silence would've been akin to complicity. Particularly for an entity that actively employs women in ministry, that would have been an unacceptable response. Here in the NAD, at least 4 other conferences actively employ and commission women. I'm a bit disheartened (but not surprised) that my own conference didn't provide a rebuttal that stands in solidarity with women in ministry.

Issuing a private statement urging him to "take the sermon off his website" might've been nice if he were in an obcure country church in the backwoods of Oregon. But in this case that would be too small of a response. A public rebuttal was necessary because so many heard it, transcribed it, emailed it, re-posted it...Doug himself even tweeted it! You couldn't simply delete it off the site and act like nothing happened: it's like the saying goes, "you can't un-ring a bell".

p.s.: I should HOPE that if the same were said about African-Americans (or any other group), you would call for a public response from church leaders...similarly, a public response was needed in this case.

In case SECC keep demanding response and apology from Pst.Doug Batchelor but at the same time choose to be quiet in the Evolution issue....then the "victory" over Doug will soon became a fatal tragedy. Go with your priority.

BTW, Pst.Mark Finley also doesn't approve in having women pastor to babtize after his Evangelistic meetings. How about that?

To repeat, I witnessed my granddaughter's baptism last month by the female pastor of the church she attends. It also happens to be the largest non-SDA institutional church in that conference, and probably many others.

Is ordination the requirement before baptizing?

Just a little scenario: Though in California, why our female pastors keep using their husbands' last name? This really is a violation of women's right since the law and culture as well here in California are NOT allowed to officially use the wives' last name as family names (@_@). Men/husbands are so arrogant,'eh?

C'mon ladies; Make a move.

Exodus 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who [is] the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.
The greatest form of worship that God wants is obedience. I pray sincerely that God will touch individual hearts so that we each ask ourselves what excuse we would give for challenging the authority of God ‘s word when on the other hand we claim to be His followers. The same God who struck Miriam with Leprosy for speaking against her Priest brother, even though both were prophets is the same one who spoke in 1Timothy 3:1-7.

Brothers and Sisters God is not the author of confusion. If He intended to include females in this sacred role of Pastoralship, He would have made it clear. What a shame that we are all so readily fulfilling 2 timothy 4:3 which says:: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
The devil is not bothered who wins the argument, as long as we are arguing and not focusing on developing Christ-like characters. All those who disobey God will perish it’s that simple. What makes you think God would admit anyone into His Holy dwelling place who has a tendency to question and challenge His authority. Don’t you see, this is of the Devil.
How interesting that at church I could be the Pastor, counselling men how to run their homes and yet at home in order to fulfil the requirements of God’s word I’d have to submit to my husband’s authority. So now our sin-filled homes have better order than His house? It gets worse, some of these women are not even married or they are divorced. What confusion! Women have their place in the order that God has given even as can be seen at creation.
Praise the Lord for men like Pastor Doug Bachelor, men who will not be bought or sold......the heavens fall. Education pg 57 E G White.
Consider the texts below:
Mathew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
2Timothy 4
4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
(3 and 4 already quoted above) 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Let us put away this evil tendency of questioning God’s word and giving it a meaning that suits our carnal mind’s desire.
Is there a chance by trying to promote women Pastors we are directly challenging scriptures like 1Timothy 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24(read it), Colossians 3:18 etc,2 Timothy 3:16-17?? I think so, Let us seek God and seek to understand His word and we won’t get this understanding if twist it to suit our desires. God bless

Someone said irregardless is not a word. I guess they should have checked first. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Advocates for Women's lib or whatever it is called should look at what some SDA women are saying at www.movingtowardmodesty.com

continued

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching men or having spiritual authority over them. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors/preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.

@ C. Ray. You're just a bit too logical. Are you sure you're not a man? ;-) [And please, people, don't berate me for that comment until you read her good natured, friendly poke at me above!]

Thanks for the comeback. I think your comments are perfectly defensible and relevant. I'll sure think about them.

It's great bantering with you. Keep your voice strong.

-- Tim

Hi, Emanuel.

I like your fervor. It's a good move to try to discuss issues.

However, you did ask in your next to last paragraph for some feedback about the sermon. So since you asked, I should say that some parts made me literally gasp for female partners in ministry. Some parts made me shake my head about what I considered illogical leaps, non-factual musings, and deformations of scripture.

About women leaving the church over it--some will, probably not many, because they probably don't believe Doug represents the center. However, if Doug's hermeneutics were to become the centrist position of Adventism, the norm, many would indeed want to leave--not just women. I don't encourage that, but that's what I think would happen.

I wish Doug well, both personally and professionally in a "big tent" movement of Adventism. I just don't happen to convinced of or nourished by that particular approach to truth.

Cordially,

-- Tim

Folks,

Women are equal to men, there is no doubt about that. But don't be fooled that equality means identical roles. That is rubbish. Consider:

• On average men are stronger than women
• On average men are faster than women
• On average men are taller than women
• Men are motivated sexually by sight, women by touch, on average
• Women are undoubtedly more attractive than men
• Women are considered more caring and nurturing than men
• The Bible outlines consistently that women should submit to men and elders are husbands. See Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1-7; 1 Cor 11:3, 11-12; 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:11-14; 3:2; and Titus 1:6

Consider Jesus and His Father
"I and my Father are one" [equality]
Submission

• "My Father is greater than I" John 14:28
• "Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak." John 12:30
• more

The concept of women's ordination arose out of the women's lib movement which was based on spiritualism. Fortunately, many women are losing faith with that lie and are finding happiness in being women, rather than trying to be men.

This issue was intended by the devil to divide the church and stifle the work and witness of faithful servants of God. If a woman tries to be what God did not ordain, she is saying she rejects the idea she was made in God's image and is trying to achieve what she really already has.

It seems like we are in the Garden of Eden again. deja vu. There woman was convinced she could be like God (and she was already in His image) if she partook of what was forbidden. And man went along with it, even though he was not deceived.

Any similarities here? Many men are pandering to this debacle to secure approval of women and other worldly constructs and are ignoring a thus says the Lord. There is nothing new under the sun indeed.

Emmanuel wrote:
"•On average men are stronger than women
•On average men are faster than women
•On average men are taller than women"

which of these generalizations are germaine to the topic at hand? If pastor=professional wrestler, perhaps there would be some relevence to this part of your post...

"•Men are motivated sexually by sight, women by touch, on average
•Women are undoubtedly more attractive than men"

Sorry, is this article about ministry or America's Next Top Model?

"•Women are considered more caring and nurturing than men"

That's right! *I HATE it when I have a caring & nuturing pastor! I'd sooooo much rather have a cold and disinterested one!*

"•The Bible outlines consistently that women should submit to men ."

Anytime submit is used particularly in reference to a woman submiting to a man, it's stressed that it is her OWN husband, not ALL men in general. Interestingly you leave out the statement addressing the mutual submission of all Christians to one another in general.

"and elders are husbands"

so not only do you disagree with the churches resolutions in 1976 & 1984 to ordain female elders, but also with the fact that single men are ordained as elders too!

"Fortunately, many women are losing faith with that lie and are finding happiness in being women, rather than trying to be men."

Women aren't trying to be men...they happily continue to be women--women who pastor. Since when does an occupation change the definition of who you are? I will say alot of these women would be ALOT HAPPIER without all the hatred and ignorant comments!

Since the early days of Adventist history, women have been utilized as pastors with endorsement from the church and Ellen White. (do you need an adventist history book or some references?) We've only ever had contention over the ceremony of "ordination" (the MODERN practice of which is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible--let alone in conjunction with the "office" of pastor)

Amazon.com:

Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America

Braude explores America's spiritualist movement in the context of 19th-century social, denominational, and political history.

Spiritualism claimed, through contact with the dead, to be a scientific investigation into the immortality of the soul. The movement was associated with free speech and the abolition of slavery.

Because it maintained that divine truth was accessible to any individual, female or male, and thus was accessible outside the male hierarchies of family, church, and politics, it became associated with feminism as well; many early women leaders in all three movements were also spiritualists.

A fascinating, well-researched, and scholarly work on a peripheral aspect of the rise of the American feminist movement.

Customer Review:

I first met this book in a seminar about Spiritualist history, and was most impressed by the research and breadth of the coverage.

I was also startled by the involvement of the Spiritualist movement in all the major reform movements of the 19th century.

Change was happening everywhere in the lives of women! Dress reform, marriage reform, divorce reform to mention a few.

Also the involvement of major figures working in the suffrage movement, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

In the mid-nineteenth century, women became the leaders on the Spiritualist platform, as mediums. They brought through the messages and information.

From being in charge on the platform, they went into other areas where they were dominated by men and began to take more control. This book is the story of that tremendous period on change that has landed women where they are today. Today's women stand on the shoulders of those courageous women of the 19th century.

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Spirits-Spiritualism-Nineteenth-Century-Am...

Hmmmm....

Maggie,

An interesting bit of history. But what is the connection between those women who were involved in spiritualism as well as women's rights?

Is there an inference that this background has anything to do with the movement in the 50's of rights for blacks and women? The equal rights champions in the last 50 years surely would not painted with a wide brush that covers all women since then who are for equality?

It's no different than associating all the evils of the Christian church through the centuries with those of today. The past does not precipatate and predict the future. This is an illogical fallacy.

Anyone else getting this message on their screen?

This website has been reported as unsafe
www.spectrummagazine.org

We recommend that you do not continue to this website.
Go to my home page instead

This website has been reported to Microsoft for containing threats to your computer that might reveal personal or financial information.

Maggie, you've done us all a great service with you almost photographic memory of EGW's writings, as you've said, you were enmeshed in them.

This should help those who quote her on their favorite subjects. She always has a counter argument to deflate her fondest supporters.

But remember: she is an authoritative source of truth.

Renie Longfellow,

------------------
Mr Smith.......your statement "The concept of women's ordination arose out of the women's movement which was based on spiritualism"......"This issue was intended by the devil to divide the church"........ is very hurtful to me and those who just wish a little acknowledgement for all the work we do in our churches.
Spiritualism was NEVER a part of our movement, ever!!!
-------------------------

There are times you do things and only God in heaven will take note. If you work for the Lord your reward is in heaven.

Having read about Ellen White's experiences, no true SDA can doubt that God will use women mightily.

But I have seen proper research which shows it is a clever trap of the devil for women to agitate for what was not given. This is the same tactic used in the Garden of Eden.

This goes for all

Consider, Eve was more intelligent than all of us and she was fooled by the devil. Are we going to be arrogant and think we cannot be deceived? I was fooled early in the Ernie Knoll business and I perhaps will be fooled again. The fact is, the devil is wiser than all of us, when we operate in our own strength and opinion.

Prayers to God to confirm that our path is acceptable are wrong. Our prayers are to know our path. And even those can be wrong if they go against a "thus says the Lord."

Pride has no place in Christianity. We must humble ourselves no matter how we believe we are put down. The issue is not whether women can preach and counsel and do all the things males usually do as pastors. The real issue is "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" Luke 4:4.

Our questions must be, "What saith the Scriptures?" "What is written?" Our answers must be "to the law and the testimony,..."

I would like for all to know that God is not beholden to anyone at all - we are beholden to Him. He will receive us in heaven under His terms, not ours.

• Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt 7:21-23

Our wonderful works are unacceptable if they are not according to God's will and not according to the right motives.

Renie Longfellow... .Scripture upon Scripture is the best way to come to solid conclusions on any issue in the Bible. I will begin by addressing the slavery issue. In Paul's day, less than a third of the people living in the empire were citizens, a large portion were slave. Slaves were often numbered among the professional class of teachers and physicians. While Paul did not attack slavery he gave principles that ultimately unravelled it. Notice the amazing counsel he gave to slave masters "Masters provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in Heaven. Colossians 4:1. In Rome Paul met a runaway slave Onesimus who had been converted. He ministered to the needs of Paul who then sent him back to Philemon his owner in Asia.But notice how the Apostle instructed the master to treat Onesimus:"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good, watch this.... no longer as a slave but better than a slave as a dear brother(Philemon 15,16). While Paul didn’t directly attack slavery he laid out principles that ultimately led to it’s abolition in the Christian world. See Galatians 3:26-29. The Apostle Paul was called primarily (mark the word) for Gentiles Galatians 2:8 he undoubtedly encountered a lot of bad practices, if he had focused on castigating these he would have spent a lifetime before telling them about Godly living. Hence it makes sense to conclude he was actually against slavery because treating your slave like your brother hardly sounds like saying keep treating them like a slave.
However, this oneness seemingly preached by Paul in Galatians 3:26-29 is with reference to access to Salvation. And in no way does it undo the separation of roles established by God. I think there is a tendency to equate preaching with being a Pastor that is not the same thing at all. Any one can preach without necessarily having to execute the office of Pastor/Bishop which involves a lot more than preaching. If you read especially Ephesians 5:22 etc. We would have to do away with a lot of scriptures for this women-pastors thing to work. Now I will address the specific issue of women speaking in church. You can cross reference this with any source
Paul sent this instruction ( on two levels) to the church of Corinth where the temple of Aphrodite crowned the acropolis. This temple possessed more than one thousand female priestesses, who were in effect temple prostitutes. Paul didn’t want anyone to mistake Christianity for this immoral worship at Corinth. So he instructed women to keep silent in the church so there would be a clear distinction between the two religions.On level two: Orthodox Judaism means “separated” Men and women sat in different sections of the synagogue and women often sat behind a veil in the gallery. Since the early church was patterned after the synagogue Paul instructed women not to interrupt the service by asking their husbands questions about what was being said or had been said since they would not be sitting together basically it resulted in commotion and noise.
My brother there are things God has instructed and we may not know why? But when infinite wisdom has spoken it is folly for man to question it. I would so much as say God could easily have called at least one female Priest. Weren’t there female Prophets, Judges, there were and yet He has chosen to make it in such a way that the Men have to occupy the position of teaching authority, not preaching. But the role of being a Shepherd is not a woman’s. Even in our nature the truth is if someone were to confide a very heavy burden I wouldn’t be able to deal with it the way a man would. I am a woman and I know our nature very well. By that I don’t mean I’m a tale bearer but we are the weaker vessel and that’s just the way it is.
Say we were all wrong. Why then if it’s a man he has to be married to one wife etc and if it’s a woman it doesn’t matter?? Come on my brother we serve a God who deserves more order than that. God is not confused. I am very sorry but to all those women who think God has called them to be Pastors, he hasn’t. I can assure you someone else has, to sow such discord. God says in Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. See also Psalms 119:89. For you to change the requirements for the Bishop’s office you will have to go to heaven and change this “settled” word. Think seriously about the course you are taking. Rebelliousness is as a sin of witchcraft. To go against God’s counsel and then claim to have been called by Him is just arrogant. This is probably as far as I will go remember many are called but few are chosen. Just how narrow is this narrow road and how few are the few who find it? How do they find it? Obedience ,obedience and nothing short of total obedience will do.

Even a cursory look at the many nations who continue to vote for a dictator, it is apparent that there are millions who prefer a dictatorship. Being told what to do relieves an individual from making decisions.

renie longfellow said
----------------
To the subject. Those of us wishing for ordination are not in rebellion, we are just trying to discuss the issue. Have you seen any violence? Any picketing in the streets? NO!!!! Just expressing our opinion.
By the way. Nobody was more in rebellion against the established church than Christ and his disciples. So much so that they crusified Him.
Are you one who believes there should be no discussion, no disagreement? That we are to march lock-step with no questions? That would be a dictatorship, wouldn't it?
---------------------------------------
Renie,

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss what the Bible says - to get a proper understanding. It is necessary for all Christians to operate this way.

However, it is not acceptable to question God's word to the extent where we want interpretations that suit our fancy or disposition (I am not saying you are doing that).

Until recently I was neutral on womens ordination because I had no interest in the topic. Then I heard or read something by Stephen Bohr, heard Doug Batchelor,read reviews of "C. Raymond Holmes, The Tip of an Iceberg: Biblical Authority, Biblical Interpretation, and the Ordination of Women in Ministry", read reviews of "Women in Ministry" and "Prove all Things".

I also learned of the North American Division's stubborn and sneaky methods to ordain women in opposition to the decision of the GC in open session.

My conclusion is that to push the argument for women's ordination on any reasonable grounds (you CAN find reasonable grounds) is no different from the confrontation in the Garden of Eden where the first woman wanted what was not ordained.

Though you will abhor spiritualism, it was spiritualism in the Garden of Eden and it is spiritualism now. The same question of the serpent is being asked "Hast God said...?"

Think about it

More on Spiritualism and Women's Ordination by Laurel Damsteegt, M.Div., M.S.P.H.
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/proveallthings/15.01chapter15.html

Finding out about Victoria C. Woodhull opened up for me a whole study on spiritualism in the women's rights movement. My conclusions, drawn in 1975, were that there was legitimate concern enough for Adventists to distance themselves from the women's rights movement: "SDA publications were quick to link Mrs. Woodhull's gross immorality first to spiritualism and then to the surge for equality, or woman's rights. In the final analysis one could get the idea that early Adventists considered such rights to be a facet of Spiritualism."10

Imagine my amazement in reviewing current secular literature to find newly published evidence supporting this early study! In the last three years four major works have come out about Victoria C. Woodhull and spiritualism.11 Some devotee has even made an extensive web site listing a complete bibliography of books, videos, articles, and reviews about Victoria C. Woodhull!12

While other women's rights activists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony had struggled vainly to make an impact on society, Woodhull, at the direct leading of the spirits, proclaimed herself a candidate for President of the United States and was granted a hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the Joint Houses of Congress! She drew up "The Woodhull Memorial," a document dealing with woman's suffrage, and presented it to the joint committee. Astonished women's rights advocates couldn't believe her inroads and welcomed her into their inner circle (for a while, anyway).

But fascinated as I was by these assertions, I was astonished when I came to understand the strong spiritualist trends among many of the other women's rights activists in the early post-civil war years. Spiritualism was a "new" religious movement dominated by women.13 Its two strong attractions were "rebellion against death [espousing necromancy] and rebellion against authority."14 Spiritualist women were among the first to speak in "promiscuous assemblies" (gatherings of both sexes), giving special messages said to be from the spirits of such men as Socrates and Benjamin Franklin. "Not surprisingly, the rights of women were very much on the minds of these great thinkers."15

"At a time when no churches ordained women and many forbade them to speak aloud in church, Spiritualist women had equal authority, equal opportunities, and equal numbers in religious leadership."16 "Spiritualism validated the female authoritative voice and permitted women an active professional and spiritual role largely denied them elsewhere."17

10. Laurel Nelson, "Attending Spirits," p. 60.
11. Lois Beachy Underhill, The Woman Who Ran for President: The Many Lives of Victoria Woodhull (Bridgehampton, N. Y.: Bridge Works Publishing Co., 1995); Barbara Goldsmith, Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (New York, N. Y.: Harper Perennial, 1998); Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (Boston, Mass.: Beacon, 1989); Mary Gabriel, Notorious Victoria (Chapel Hill, N. C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 1998).

12. http://members.tripod.com/~Victoria_Woodhull.
13. Goldsmith, p. 27.
14. Braude, p. 2.
15. Goldsmith, p. 35.
16. Braude, p. 3.
17. Alex Owen, The Darkened Room: Women, Power and Spiritualism in Late Victorian England (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), p. 6.

I am so thankful that SECC took a stand. The GC action on woman's ordination was so un-Christ like that I had a hard time staying in the church. I have lost all respect for Doug Bachelor. My first impulse was that he should be fired, but on second thought, that would be the same action that "Educate Truth" is advocating for teacher at La Sierra. I think both parties ought to be allowed their own beliefs, even to teach their beliefs, and to keep their jobs, but the church should also be able to disavow their beliefs.

Even though I abhor everything about "Educate Truth" and Doug Batchelor,I still think our church should be big enough to allow Shane and Doug to retain their positions while ignoring their theology.

Re: "Jesus would have ordained at least one or more women in the 1st century. But, He did not. Case closed"

Jesus also never baptized. Would you also abolish Baptism based on that argument? Besides, Paul references women apostles and deacons. Why would you assume that the male apostles and decons were ordained but the women apostles and deacons weren't? Case open.

The Bible is constantly used to shut any kind of discussion up, Ron. "We believe in the Word" is often used to shut off any reasonable conversation. Elaine and I believe that,right Elaine?

Do you suppose God is like that?

If only we would study the scriptures we would find that the scriptures does not oppose women in ministry and neither does Pastor Doug Batchelor. I would encourage all those who oppose Pastor Batchelor on his stands againts women ordination as pastors, priests and elders to listen to his sermon and study the bible on this subject matter using a good bible concordance. Women are very vital in ministry and has played very key roles in ministry since the inception of the church. Never once did the bible made mention of a female priest, pastor or elder, that was the point Doug Batchelor was making and I agree with him because the scriptures support the message. Let us stick to the scriptures brothers and sisters. Further more all the quotes from E G White never once did she say or made mention that these women in her quotations were ordainded pastors, priest or elders. There is a big difference between a priest and a prophet or between a pastor and an evangelist or between an elder and a judge. I sure do hope that we will get the point. May the LORD have mercy upon us all. GOD bless

Brilliant stuff! I'm glad the SECC responded in an academic, scholarly, and Bible-based way. Dough Batchelor has been granted authority based simply upon his sensational story. This has to end!! SDA's need to wake up and smell the coffee (not necessarily decaf either), and realize that the anti-intellectualism burgeoning from the Amazing Facts ministry is a blight upon rational Christianity and the progressive (read: ever-increasingly relevant) relationship with Christ that we are called to have through diligent study, not mindless acceptance of archaic tradition.

It's a shame to see Christians divide in this way. SDA's place such a high value on 'logic' that many are actually confused about their beliefs. Logic makes reading the Bible argumentative & distasteful, and tells Holy Spirit He isn't needed to teach any more. This whole matter saddens me. I'd rather be in love with ABBA than right. It's better to be thought a fool (for Christ), then fight like this.

I read the SECC comments. They are garbage and hypocritical and promote rebellion . The world church twice voted NO to womens ordination therefore to promote womens ordination is to promote rebellion against the General Conference.

Doug Batchelor is promoting the view of the world church. He is also promoting scripture. Many people make the mistake of confusing spiritual gifts with church office. they are not the same. Women are forbidden teach or have authority over men ie church elder.1 Tim 2:12. Prophets on the otherhand are chosen by God. Prophets do not have authority over congregations. You will not find one instance in scripture were a prophet had executive authority. This is why a woman can be a prophet because the office does not violate the biblical mandate that a woman cannot have authority over men.

Based on the comments on this post, I'm not the only one who thinks this is too little too late. I'm sick of the SECC blowing smoke and dodging questions. How long until we demand a straight answer?

Tina, Sales Director
http://www.goldenrule.com/health/short-term-health.shtml

So Chuck why didn't Christ replace Judas with Mary?