Adventist Church in North America Appoints Theology of Ordination Committee
by AT News Team
The officers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America have appointed a 13-member committee to participate in the study process on the theology of ordination that was announced at the 2010 General Conference (GC) Session in Atlanta. This is the third major, official study of the topic conducted by the denomination since the 1970s when church units in Europe asked for guidance on the appropriateness of ordaining women to the gospel ministry. Both of the two previous studies ended in an impasse when Bible scholars reported that there is no reason not to ordain women as clergy, but administrators were afraid to allow non-discrimination to be implemented.
The committee will prepare research materials from the perspective of the North American Division (NAD) over the coming year and present those to the 2013 annual meeting of the NAD executive committee for approval. This document will then be subjected to a lengthy and complex process in which a second committee, to be appointed by the GC administration in November 2013 for the purpose of reviewing similar reports from all 13 divisions, will prepare a combined report. This combined report will then be reviewed by the three top officers of the GC, three other administrative bodies and then presented to the Annual Council of the GC executive committee in October 2014. This body will make a decision at that point as to what, if anything, resulting from this process is presented to the delegates at the 2015 GC Session.
Although the purpose of this process is not specified in any policy document, it is generally understood that there are high hopes for the development of a consensus that will break the deadlock that has developed as a result of a mixed bag of decisions voted at the 1990 GC Session in Indianapolis. At that meeting it was voted by the delegates to (1) accept a report from a study commission made up of Bible scholars which stated that Scripture neither demands nor prohibits ordination from being extended to women; (2) authorize the ordination of women as local elders; (3) allow women to serve as pastors; and (4) not to ordain women to the gospel ministry in order to preserve unity in the denomination.
The 13 members appointed to the NAD study committee are all scholars with a doctoral degree or enrolled in a program to earn a doctoral degree. Six are faculty members at universities affiliated with the Adventist denomination. Four are pastors leading local churches. Two are denominational officials who supervise and resource pastors. One is a staff scholar at the GC’s Biblical Research Institute (BRI).
The committee exhibits the diversity of the Adventist membership in North America. Six are white, five are black, one is Hispanic and one is Asian. There are four women in the group.
It also seems to balance the range of views that exist on this topic. At least two are current or past officers or board members of the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) which is the more conservative scholarly group and several have been speakers for or active in groups that have advocated for the ordination of women pastors. One participated in the unauthorized ordinations that took place in 1995.
The committee is also a highly qualified group. At least two have written chapters in or edited books on the topic of the role of women in the ministry and life of the church. All are well-schooled in the methods of Bible study used to fully understand the text in its original languages.
At least seven of the members are on record approving the ordination of women, including some who are among the more conservative scholars. Three more are not on record so far as Adventist Today could determine, but likely to favor extending ordination to women pastors based on the guesses of close associated interviewed by Adventist Today. No information about their views could be found on two of the members and one is seen as having taken a negative position on the topic.
“It is likely that this group will prepare a report making a case for permitting women to be ordained,” one retired NAD officer told Adventist Today. “There is a strong consensus among the leadership in North America to move in that direction and it would be unfair not to make a strong statement supporting that consensus.”
Profiles of the Committee Members
Gordon Bietz was appointed chairman of the committee. He has a long track record of bringing together conservatives and moderates to effectively accomplish goals for the denomination. He is president and a theology professor at Southern Adventist University. In 1998 he was co-convener with Larry Geraty, the president of Atlantic Union College, of the first joint meeting of the conservative Adventist Theological Society (ATS) and the more moderate Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS). He has continued with ATS, speaking as recently as 2006 at a symposium on the trinity organized by the group.
Kyoshin Ahn has been vice president of the Illinois Conference since 2005. He was previously a pastor in Virginia and coordinator of Korean churches for the NAD. He is also a board member for The Hope of Survivors, a support group for victims of clergy sexual misconduct. Although he has a PhD, Adventist Today could find no record of his belonging to either ATS or ASRS. He was a speaker at a 2009 symposium on campus ministry organized by the Center for Youth Evangelism at Andrews University and received an award for excellence in ministry from the Ministerial Association at a recent NAD Ministries Convention.
Dedrick Blue is pastor of Ephesus Church in Harlem, West 123rd Street and Lenox Avenue, New York City. He is involved in many social causes as a board member for Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement (HCCI), a multi-faith community organization, and cofounder of Adventists Against AIDS in Africa, and international relief agency, but evidently is not active in ATS or ASRS. He has been a faculty member and administrator at Oakwood University. His wife, Elfreda, is an associate professor at Hofstra University with a PhD from the State University of New York (SUNY). The couple conducts marriage weekends together.
JoAnn Davidson is a professor in the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary at Andrews University. She wrote a chapter entitled “Women in Scripture: A Survey and Evaluation” for the 1998 volume Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives. Both she and her husband, Richard Davidson, the Old Testament scholar at the seminary, are on record in support of extending ordination to women. He has been an active member of ATS and the author of a chapter in the book mentioned above which demonstrates that there is no biblical support for the Southern Baptist doctrine of headship which is championed by some Adventists in opposition to women’s ordination.
Dwight Nelson is senior pastor at Pioneer Memorial Church on the campus of Andrews University and one of the most widely-known Adventist television preachers. He was the lead evangelist for the NAD’s NET 98 campaign. He is clearly on record in support of ordination for women, helping his large and influential congregation to work through conflict about ordaining women as local elders more than two decades ago and speaking to current issues on January 21 with a sermon entitled, “Of Perfume and Tears and Grumpy Old Men.” This sermon can be seen online at www.adventistonline.com/video/dwight-nelson-on-women-s-ordination.
Kendra Haloviak-Valentine is an associate professor in the H. M. S. Richards Divinity School at La Sierra University and a New Testament scholar who has written on the Book of Revelation. She was one of the women clergy ordained in 1995 at Sligo Church in Takoma Park, Maryland. Both of her parents were employed for many years as part of the General Conference staff, where her father retired as Director of Archives and Statistics.
Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson is also a professor at La Sierra University and the editor of the 1995 volume Women and the Church which includes a number of scholarly papers related to the current assignment. She has served as president of the Association of Adventist Women (AAW) which has repeatedly urged the GC to approve ordination for women and recently signed a petition in which thousands of church members have expressed their support.
Stephen Richardson is the administrative pastor at Dupont Park Church in Washington DC and a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University specializing in the Hebrew Bible. He has been principal of Pine Forge Academy as well as the pastor of a number of suburban and inner city churches in the Washington area for the Allegheny East Conference. Both he and his wife are the children of well-known Adventist clergy. Sources have told Adventist Today that he is supportive of extending ordination to women.
Edwin Reynolds is a professor in the School of Religion at Southern Adventist University and editor of the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. He was one of the coauthors of a report in 2004 which recommended that “the General Conference consider initiating an appropriate process which would enable Fundamental Belief #6 on creation to speak with greater clarity regarding the historicity and timing of Genesis 1-11” which seems to have played a key role in the decision by the new GC president in 2010 to announce such a process. So far as Adventist Today has been able to find he is not on record about the issue of women’s ordination.
Russell Seay completed a PhD in religion at Vanderbilt University in 2008 and more recently became an assistant professor at Oakwood University. His dissertation was on Martin Luther King, Jr. He served as a district pastor in rural Alabama; Memphis, Tennessee; and Jackson, Mississippi. He was also senior pastor of the South Nashville Church. Sources have told Adventist Today that he is sympathetic toward the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
Tara VinCross is a pastor in Philadelphia and working toward the Doctor of Ministry at Andrews University. She is the director of a successful urban ministry program in which young adults engage in community service and sell Adventist books door to door. Sources have told Adventist Today that she definitely favors extending ordination to women.
Clinton Wahlen is an associate director at the Biblical Research Institute at the GC. He earned a PhD in New Testament at Cambridge University in 2002 and was a faculty member at the denomination’s seminary in the Philippines which serves two divisions in Asia and the Pacific, the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies (AIIAS). He has published numerous scholarly articles in respected, refereed journals and was a contributor to the InterVarsity Press Dictionary of the Old Testament. He is a member of both ATS and ASRS. Sources have told Adventist Today that Wahlen opposes the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
Ivan Williams is ministerial director for the NAD, a role he was appointment to as part of the new administration in late 2010. He has served as a pastor in the Pacific Union Conference and ministerial director in the Northern California Conference. Sources indicate that he is supportive of ordaining women in ministry. Last year his department sponsored a major gathering of women clergy from across North America and his keynote address affirming women in ministry can be found online in video form.
An interesting list of capable people Under Clinton Wahlen, it is mentioned that AIIAS is a denominational seminary for the two Asia Pacific Divisions. Actually, AIIAS is a General Conference institution that serves the world church. It was interesting for us former AIIAS faculty to note that 1/3rd of the theologians and church leaders at the large International Bible Conference this summer in Israel were former AIIAS students or current/former faculty!
Excellent article. Great work and thanks!
While ordination without regard to gender is a notable aspect, is there any information concerning the appointees position(s) on ordination itself, which is not Biblical as now practiced, but is reminiscent of the orthodox practices established after Constantine? I do believe this is the more critical question to the veracity of the denomination.
Many years ago Viggo Norskov Olsen, president of Loma Linda University, wrote a book on this question of ordination. We trust the members are well aquinted with this question.
Thanks, Johann. I will try to find it: is it still in publication? Was it a big seller? <br> Where does it fit with Darius Janiewicz "History of Ordination"?
<a>http://youtu.be/ScKb3teILmI</a>
You will find it more easily if you search for V Norskov Olsen. Amazon.com has it for sale at a reasonable price second-hand in the US/Canada. Hard to find if you live outside NA – unless you are prepared to pay a lot more.
Spectrum's last week's published sermon was a professor at Andrews who looks explicitly at the history of ordination, especially comparing its biblical model in the NT vs the model the arose out of the proto-Catholic Church based on Apostolic sucession.
My opinion is this:
With the current turn of events and the boisterous disregard for due process accompanied by open sedition within our organisational structures where even the honourable President of the GC is being backstabbed together with other world leaders who have acted prudently in handling the matter; can the NAD really be trusted as spiritual gurus? Methinks not.
What should be of concern to the world church now is: “What socio-political issue will the culture club lobby for next?” Can we still look up to the NAD as a reliable source of spiritual direction as in the past considering how compromised and customised they have become in my view and the way they have lowered Christian standards which has now led to insurrection even openly twisting the arm of the GC in order to have their own way. Should we entertain their playground bullying of the church? I wouldn’t be so gullible to put my trust in theologians at this point in time especially when they seek to gate-crash the church with issues of minor import. Political and social justice frenzy shouldn’t dictate and disrespect our church in order to achieve their ends. It only erodes any real credibility for the course which they pursue. I thought Christ was the head of the church – not disgruntled tithe paying activists who keep harping about getting their value for their money – or else!
I believe as reported in previous AToday articles, the main issue is that these studies are all so pointless because:
1. They have already had several such studies before, all of which found there is no significant theological barrier to WO, but rather held it should not occur at this time because of cultural sensibilities in the Developing World. Thus, there is a strong suspicion that the announcement of this newest study was nothing more than a stalling tactic to prevent the CUC, PUC and German Union from doing the very thing it has done.
2. The strong suspicion is that this study of ordination is designed to fail, much likely the others. It is rather a quantitative, rather than a qualitative study. By getting each division to do a study, it is a foregone conclusion that the BRIs in the Developing World will not support WO. Then when the various division-level reports are combined into a consolidated report, the conclusion will be there is no consensus on the subject; therefore, the current moratorium on WO will be upheld. It wouldn’t matter if the NAD had all the best scholars, and the other divisions lesser-qualified scholars.
3. Contrary to your claims, rather than breaching due process, expecting the Unions to wait for yet another theological study is arguably an abuse of process. Moreover, as to claims about adhering to culture, it is patriarchal culture, not theology, which is preventing the WO.
4. However, I do agree about having little faith in theologians, because as I said, it is going to be very much a quantitative rather than qualitative study. Similarly, the GC in Session is likely to be anti-WO by the simple fact that most delegates come from the Developing World where this is a patriarchal culture. Thus, it doesn’t matter if the best theologians in the world produce fantastic reports in favour of WO, I doubt many people will read them, or will be open to changing their minds, and it will make little difference.
1) The 'cultural sensibilities' are not all in the developing world. There are parts of Europe and Central and South America where WO is not supported, and NA, SPD and Western Europe are not entirely united in support of it. The study is more than a 'stalling tactic' as there are serious issues even with the ordination of men that need to be addressed. There are theological issues at stake here.
2) It is not a foregone conclusion that other divisions – or that any division – will be against WO. There are some good scholars in all divisions, and I don't believe we can assume they will put culture above theology. You should perhaps look at some of the names of the scholars at Andrews and other US universities before assuming that they would all be from NA. One of the scholars speaking out in favour of WO is Darius Jankiewicz. You could assume that, being Polish he would be consevative and not favour WO. Quite a few Poles think that would be a reasonable assumption, but it is wrong. He has done a good job looking at ordination (among other topics) and pointing out where we have borrowed from catholic Christianity rather than following the Bible or our pioneers. He has a good grasp of ecclesiology – better than many involved on both sides.
3) There is fault on both sides – it should not have taken 40+ years to come to a conclusion on WO in practice (in theory we came to the conclusion it was OK in the '70s), but the unions may have been better waiting – if they could be sure the GC would not close the door in the meantime. Both sides are using culture as much as the Bible. The claim that one side uses the Bible and the other bows to culture is a myth. Theology is as much involved as culture in both the 'yes' and 'no' vote on WO.
4) You use 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' somewhat oddly here. I know what you mean – and suspect you might need to reconsider what you're implying. It has a tinge of cultural imperialism about it.
Kevin, I strongly suggest you re-read the article ‘Why Wait’ of 28 July 12 (you may have forgotten):
https://atoday.org/article/1312/news/july-headlines/why-not-wait-appeal-to-union-constituency-delegates?search=wait
This is the article I referred to in my own response. As noted in that article by an 'insider' as to why this whole process of a new study is a foregone conclusion against WO:
“Then the reports from the 13 executive committees will be forwarded to the GC administration’s own handpicked Theology of Ordination Study Committee. This committee, we are informed, will include representation from all 13 divisions. The GC administration’s committee will read the 13 reports, then produce a new “combined” report that will replace the 13 individual reports in subsequent discussions of the issue. The new combined report will next pass through three groups of GC administrators, each group chaired by the GC president. Then the GC administrators will “process” the combined report. Then, if they choose to, GC administration will present a recommendation—one they wrote, reviewed three times, and processed—to Annual Council. From Annual Council the combined and processed recommendation may go to the 2015 GC session—if the GC administrators recommend it and the Annual Council agrees.
Given the discussion that has gone on in previous GC sessions and meetings, and given the stated positions of many of those involved in the study process, it seems likely that the recommendation will say something like the report on women’s ordination voted at the 1990 session (with possible additions underlined):
1.While the
commissionTheology of Ordination Study Committee does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry, it concludes unanimously that these sources affirm a significant, wide-ranging, and continuing ministry for women, which is being expressed and will be evidenced in the varied and expanding gifts according to the infilling of the Holy Spirit.2. Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world church and in view of the possible risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the church, we do not approve ordination of women to the gospel ministry—in any division, union or local conference in the world, until approved by the General Conference in session.”
As to your claim that me last comment was or was close to cultural imperialism, what I meant was a reference to the following comment from previous AToday article:
“With this in mind, we have to remind ourselves that President Wilson did not say that the GC would establish a blue-ribbon committee under the direction of the Biblical Research Institute and Andrews University, that this committee of scholars would determine the true biblical theology of ordination, or that he would champion their findings at the next GC session. Exactly that kind of study was commissioned by the General Conference in 1973, under the direction of the Biblical Research Institute (at Camp Mohaven). That 27-member committee reported to the GC at Annual Council that fall that “we see no significant theological objection to the ordination of women to church ministries.”
Perhaps recognizing that this report would not be well accepted in some parts of the world church, the GC voted to “receive” the report without endorsing the theological statement or the recommendations, to provide the recommendations and certain papers to the world divisions for their study, sequestered the Mohaven papers for ten years, and promised to study the subject more in the future.”
Given this GC ‘insider’ notes this ordination study is indeed a little bit of a farce, because the GC processing of the combined report will no doubt recommend against WO in the name of unity, this ‘insider’ suggests the Unions act now – which is exactly what they did.
GC 'insiders' may not necessarily be prophets. And theologians from outside NA may not necessarily be second-class, nor committed to an anti-WO position. The opportunity to view the WO issue from a non-Western perspective is a good thing. There is nothing stopping the Divisions from publishing their findings before sending them on to the GC – this is meant to be an open process. I also don't believe we have reason to believe the GC committee – the makeup of which has not yet been announced – will edit the results to reflect a certain position. I believe almost everyone wants to see this issue settled, which means being open and not giving any side a reason to say the study was biased. And I would not be placing bets on how any of the divisions will go – not even Southern Africa-Indian Ocean. To do so is assuming that certain areas will place culture above the Bible, and that there is no theological basis on which to make a negative decision.We seem to be leaving God out of our calculations, and that is always a mistake. I don't believe Africans are any less willing to listen to God – or more controlled by culture – than North Americans or Australians . We should wait and see what happens before condemning the process or the outcome.
Kevin I guess we will have to see whether you or the GC 'insider' is correct. Let's pray that you are, because the insider's prediction very much appears to be based on the church politics of the past decades, not much on listening to God.
I guess mark the discussion here and come back when we have the reports from the various divisions. I would personally think of NAD, SPD and Europe as supporting WO, and the other divisions against. I would doubt the Southern African-Indian Ocean division will support WO, but again I hope you are correct.
I realize that some are very upset over the developments in the Columbia and Pacific unions, but certainly identifying one another as treacherous and rebellious seems to move into verbal territory unbecoming a Christian—at least on this particular issue. Since when in the history of the church is one's position on acknowledgment of spiritual gifts a testing truth of loyalty to Jesus Christ? That said, the manner in which we show support and loving kindness toward one another is exactly that—a testing truth, Christ's new commandment. In facing change, let us not turn our backs on the changeless ways of Jesus. We can be direct and forthright as Christians without hurling the verbal hardware of the heathen.
From the church's inception there was not agreement. But it did not break up the church because the wise decision was made to allow both the Jews and Gentiles not to have the exact same requirements; requirements that had nothing to do with the Gospel message; they were all peripherals.
It was that decision that allowed the church to grow, rather than to shrink–which it surely would have had circumcision been a requirement.
Now the church is facing a similar situation: there are two groups, with at least one group wanting to have them enforced on the entire church. Just as in Jerusalem, making everyone follow the same plan could have disastrous affects on the growth of the church. If the Bible is to be a guide, this should be the ideal situation to follow the guide set in the church's beginning: allow each group to function in the best way to convert their prospects to the Gospel. Otherwise, it could be a decision that diminishes the world church's growth in unexpected ways.
From the church's inception there was not agreement. But it did not break up the church because the wise decision was made to allow both the Jews and Gentiles not to have the exact same requirements; requirements that had nothing to do with the Gospel message; they were all peripherals.
It was that decision that allowed the church to grow, rather than to shrink–which it surely would have had circumcision been a requirement.
Now the church is facing a similar situation: there are two groups, with at least one group wanting to have them enforced on the entire church. Just as in Jerusalem, making everyone follow the same plan could have disastrous affects on the growth of the church. If the Bible is to be a guide, this should be the ideal situation to follow the guide set in the church's beginning: allow each group to function in the best way to convert their prospects to the Gospel. Otherwise, it could be a decision that diminishes the world church's growth in unexpected ways.
I agree. If James (the Lord’s brother) had got his way, the early Church would have stayed Judaizers, and as that faction of the Church got wiped out in 70 AD in the destruction of Jerusalem, the whole Church probably would have died then and there.
In the battle between very liberal Paul and very conservative James (the Lord’s brother), one can only hope there will be a moderate Peter. I think having a liberal Paul or conservative James in charge (the latter being the situation at the moment) appears somewhat dangerous for today.
The key point is that Peter ensured neither circumcision nor uncircumcision was foisted on everyone. Rather, the Acts 15 compromise was that it was possible to have two different practices or approaches within the same broad movement.
In our culture war battles today, many liberals try to assert their liberal practices onto conservatives as much as conservatives assert their conservative practices onto liberals. Neither approach can prevail or it may be the end of us all.
Stephen
It is interesting how the Crisis of circumsicion was dealt with. Both sides had somewhat strong theological arguments and guess what was the final arbiter on the whole matter? The spirit of prophecy!
Peter was not the moderate you claim he was, He was probably more with James. The only differece was that he was "shown" (the cornilius issue) and told bretheren what he was shown and that settled it for them. Of course some could have argued that they would not take Peter over the bible but Thank God the spirit of prophecy prevailed. Do you sense where I am going with this?
“Peter was not the moderate you claim he was, He was probably more with James.”
I would argue that Peter was indeed much more moderate, or at least more open minded to Gentile and Gentile practices, than James. You might be right though in the sense that Peter was more aligned with James on a theological spectrum than with Paul, as Peter did obey James when commanded to stop eating with Gentiles in the subsequent Antioch incident.
Despite Paul saying in Gal 2:7 that Peter was to be the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Gal 2:12 suggests Peter was at least going into Gentile areas and mixing with them, whilst James was staying behind in Jerusalem. Moreover, James appears to be a hardliner (at least according to Paul’s version here), sending men to tell Peter off because he was eating with Gentiles. Meanwhile, Paul tells Peter off for being a hypocrite, but in doing so Gal 2:14 suggests that until James’ men arrived, Peter was at least willing to dispense with Jewish customs when in the presence of Gentiles. Thus, Peter is very much stick in the middle here between James and Paul, and obviously we don’t really have Peter’s own version of events here.
“The only difference was that he was "shown" (the Cornelius issue) and told brethren what he was shown and that settled it for them. Of course some could have argued that they would not take Peter over the bible but Thank God the spirit of prophecy prevailed. Do you sense where I am going with this?”
Not completely sure what you are saying, sorry no.
Yes, Peter was shown a direct vision to take the message to the Gentiles. However, Peter also justifies these actions, not merely on his own revelation (Acts 15:7), or on Paul and Barnabas’ own experience (Acts 15:4), although both relevant considerations. Rather, Peter quotes Amos 9:11-14. Peter does something similar when he explains Pentecost in Acts 2:16-21 by quoting Joel.
Thus, some Elders and Apostles in Jerusalem perhaps may well have rejected these personal revelations of Peter or Paul – as well they should, because Deut itself says all prophecy must be tested. Peter wasn’t contradicting or suggesting his personal prophecy should prevail over the Bible, but rather says his personal prophecy is in support of the Bible’s own predictions.
The SDA Church has historically down the exact same thing. It has likewise quoted Joel’s predictions of sons and daughters who shall prophesy, demonstrated in the person of Ellen White, as proof that we are an eschatological movement of the last days. We have always taught, like Peter, that revelation is progressive, but must not contradict or take precedence over the Bible.
As to the issue of WO, may major reason in favour of it is the biblical prophecy in Joel and the ministry of Ellen White. If you are suggesting that because Ellen White didn’t have a vision positively requiring women be ordained, or that none of the Apostles were women (despite Junia), I don’t think that absence of proof is proof.
The Council in Jerusalem recognised the very important notion of progressive revelation and present truth – perhaps we should too? Our own preamble to the 28 Fundamental beliefs says as much.
Since studies have repeatedly been done, and no Biblical reason for denying ordination can be found, yet the church is reluctant to change anything for fear of destroying "unity", perhaps they will suggest going a different route and do away with "ordination" altogether. They could simply license pastors or give them tenure or come up with some other verbage and 2-step process to acknowledge acceptance of the person's spiritual gift and authorize them to fully participate in their role as pastor.
It destroys male unity. When any position is available to men only, it becomes more tightly controlled. Allowing women in that club, means it's lost its value; less important if women are admitted.
A committee of 13 scholars for 2012, committees for the 1970's research and more for 1990 and 1995. Doesn't it seem a little excessive? Do we expect a different outcome doing the same thing over and over again expanding over 30 years!! And the suggestion to "do away with ordination altogether" seems so condescending. Think of the thousands of dollars that has been spent and will be spent by 2015.
Just keep the tithe coming and trust us.