Adventist Today

Good thoughts, Elaine!

As the RC church has discovered, it takes more than acceptance of a leader to keep unity.  They also have the idea of 'the church', from which authority and identity is derived.  Even people who dislike the Pope, and don't believe in papal infallibility, continue to believe in 'the church' and remain RC.  The more people you have, the more you need unity based on an idea, or a set of beliefs.  Then you have to be prepared to allow a lot of dissension and varity of practice on just about everything except those beliefs.  Our church is set up to allow that to a much greater extent than the RCC.  But it requires us to trust each other, and God.  I suspect we need a little more than James White provided, but it isn't a bad place to start.  Work the 28 down to a good biblical number like 12, 10 or 7, emphasise unity and servant leadership, and I think we might be surprised at how well it would work.  As long as we could get on with our work without constantly watching to see our neighbours are doing what we would do.  And that may be where it would all come apart.

The church began to encourage women to study for ministry after the decision in 1974 (1975?) to allow women to be ordained as elders.  It would seem they expected that ordination as pastors would follow soon after.  It does seem to me to be unfair - perhaps even cruel - to encourage women to consider ministry as a career and then still be arguing 40 years later (assuming it comes up in 2015) as to whether to go ahead with that or not.  Should the conservative view that women cannot be ordained become policy, it will cause a lot of unrest in many circles, as it will make women pastors and elders impossible.  It may not be possible, in a wide-ranging review of ordination, to restrict the question simply to 'can women woking as pastors be ordained?' as the GC has managed to do for decades. 

I would like to see the GC come out and say that, if the result is the same as in the past - that the Bible neither commands nor prohibits the ordination of women - that they will allow those areas [divisions or unions] who want to ordain women to go ahead.  It would be extremely unfair to ask for unions to wait until the review is finished, and then again say 'wait, some people will be upset if you go ahead'. 

The level of education has nothing to do with salvation; but those who are poorly educated can much easier be told what to believe without question.  This worked for most of Christian history:  the clergy read parts of the Bible, usually in Latin, and gave their interpretations.  The illiterate parishoners could not question as they could not read the Bible for themselves.

This has not changed much, and even occurs in the U.S.  The SDA evangelist holds a few weeks' seminar warning from D&R and probably 99% of the non-SDA in attendance have never read these books and so they are amazed at the acumen of this itinerant preacher and within a few weeks are dunked in the tank.  Don't tell me I'm wrong, I've seen this for more than 80 years and nothing has changed.

Why do so many SDAs accuse the Catholics?  The Bible makes no mention of them; it is the SDA interpretation that fostered anti-Catholicism just as anti-Semitism began with early Christianity.

Actually, quite a number of SDA theologians, including those who are otherwise conservative, do not see 'male headship' as applying in the church in the NT or today.  That may be why the decision has been taken out of the hands of theologians at Andrews and placed into the hands of the BRI and its branches at the divisions.  I think the administrtators learnt long ago that they cannot rely on the theologians to come up with the 'right' answers.  I am not sure what happens if the consensus turns out to be the same as all previous studies.

Perhaps like Muslims in Saudi Arabia, who aren't even allowed to attend the Mosque but must pray or home.  Or I beleive Hasidic Jews are wholly seperated, and just watch in the upstairs gallery the men in worship.  It would simply make life easier for many of those posting here.  Who knows, perhaps we should run it past Pres Ted.

Do you object to the men who dress well and attract the attention of women?  How are the guidelines for dress set for men?  And, the quesion at issue is not women preaching, or working as pastors, but the credentials they receive.  Should the unions back down and things stay as they are, the same women will be up the front preaching.  As will the women elders, deacons, song leaders, musicians, singers, etc doing what they do.  Not to mention the good looking women in the pews or in the foyer between SS and church.  Choosing not to ordain women will not solve this problem.

Steve, I can appreciate your concern that "all this will go on if the door is opened wide for womens ordination."  It is my experience that the problem of how any man looks at any woman is already an issue, on the podium or off.  We live in a world that is saturated with images of sexy-looking women wearing clothing specifically designed to elicit a sexual response from men.  It cannot be easy for men.  But if a woman dresses modestly in line with Biblical principles she is acceptable to God.  I would respectfully respond that it is each individual man's responsibility to control his own thoughts as he looks at a woman.  Each woman has the responsibility to dress modestly so as to not provoke.  A "dress policy" will not answer this question.  Only you can thoughtfully harness your own thoughts in response.  The Holy Spirit will strengthen you. Thank you for raising a valid question with which many men struggle.

What if the wife (or husband) is not called to ministry?

Thank you, David.  I too feel that these wonderful articles shine bright light into many dark chasms and can soothe anxieties on both sides of the instant issue. Andrew Bates shows us how to do that without violating one's conscience.  In The Use and Abuse of Authority he begins by noting that "When people end up in charge, they are easily tempted to demand obedience from others."  I shake my head in disbelief remembering how Ted Wilson asks church members to subvert personal conscience in the service of a mythical unity that he himself cannot even define.  Conscience is the voice of the Holy Spirit, and surrendering my conscience to any human being is not safe.  I simply cannot fathom being asked to do that by any godly leader. 

Bates goes on to cite EGW's statements about leadership:  "For clarity's sake we may contrast two extremes:  'Demonic' authority is anchored in the coercive use of power.  Its goal is self-preservation.  It appeals to fear and ultimately resorts to violence to gain its ends.  In contrast, 'Divine' authority is anchored first in the prosperity of true goodness, that is, using power only insupport of goodness.  Its goal is reciprocal love. It appeals to joy and seeks to win through a demonstration of goodness rather than through corecion by a show of force."  What a stunning contrast.  I strongly encourage everyone to read and refresh your spirits.  There is a way out of this mess.  What a shame these articles  were not accepted 10 years ago and 17 years ago, respectively.

I read the two articles thoroughly. One point that Andrew Bates made in number 6 of the second article stood out. He wrote: "Peter, taking the floor after "much discussion" (verse 7, NIV), did no exegesis of Scripture. He simply told the story of how God had demonstrated the equality of Jew and Gentile, . . ."

It was demonstration and not exegesis that brought a decision. 

I read the articles.  They are saying nothing new.  Church politics often gets in the way of common sense. 

Could it be done while being 'submissive'?