Adventist Leaders Plead for Civility in Debate
by Monte Sahlin
From ANN, November 5, 2014
Facing the fact that strenuous arguments pro and con will occur leading up to the decision on ordination at next summer's General Conference Session, the governing body of the Adventist denomination for North America adopted a resolution this week asking for “respectful, Christ-like dialogue." The statement was voted unanimously by the executive committee of the denomination's North American Division (NAD) during its annual meeting this week.
The resolution resulted from a concern expressed earlier this week. Many committee members, including Pastor Dan Jackson, the NAD president, expressed concern about the tone of the debate that has been raging in various meetings and media. Jackson reminded the leaders that "as Christians we are called to discuss issues with the understanding and compassion modeled by Christ."
Jackson said, “I don’t think it’s part of our mission to start attacking each other just because we don’t agree. I’m not saying for a moment that we don’t have the right to disagree, but God has given us the responsibility to share His love.”
The document voted unanimously by the committee sets the following guidelines for Adventists who enter into the discussion of the ordination issue:
"(1) We resolve to encourage expressions of disagreement that are honest and open based upon a sincere desire to arrive at truth as expressed in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy; (2) We resolve to first communicate with those with whom we disagree and listen non-judgmentally to their positions so that we can represent those positions accurately before critiquing them; (3) We resolve to avoid the use of sarcasm, cartoons, anecdotes, parody or any other form of insinuation to diminish the reputation or personhood of others; (4) We resolve to refrain from sponsoring or countenancing online or offline dialogue that vilifies or depreciates the good name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in general or the reputations of its individual members in particular.
"We, therefore, resolve to avoid participating in, or being party to, all forms of unhealthy and demeaning discourse. Our aim is to govern our communication according to the high standards of Christian conduct found in the guidelines this statement so that God may be glorified in all we say and do.”
Jackson asked Adventists to seek “higher ground during these challenging times while the discussion about ordination builds up." Privately, other NAD officers worried that a relatively small group of church members in North America, including some pastors, who feel strongly that the position put on the agenda by the GC executive committee two weeks ago is a mistake will generate widespread misunderstanding and anger.
"This is a topic that generates very deep feeling," a retired denominational official told Adventist Today. "For those who want to end gender discrimination it is a matter of fundamental justice and morality. For those who want to keep women out of the clergy it has become something like a Bible doctrine that if violated will send the Adventist Church into apostasy. The fear is that this will become such a schism that the two sides will not be able to live together after a decision is made."
"Things are said in the heat of the moment that can do permanent damage to relationships," a delegate to the 1995 GC Session in Utrecht remembered for Adventist Today. "Some of the things that were said on the floor at that time simply are not true when looked at in cool deliberation and careful Bible study. There were people who went home and decided that the Adventist Church could no longer be their spiritual home. I do not know if we can avoid the same this time, but I am happy to see that the leaders are doing something about it."
The Adventist News Network (ANN) is the official news service of the denomination. It provided the basic news bulletin on which this story is based. The AT News team did additional reporting and AT edited the final product as it appears here.
I heartily endorse the call for civil discourse (i.e. mannerly discourse). At the same time I hope those discussing the issue will not be using the mindset that has become so dominant in American politics where the functional definition of "civil" and "reasonable" is demanding that someone who has a different point of view surrender their view simply because you have a different view and are demanding they adopt it.
This is a case study in something. Forgive me William, but don’t you demand that others, particularly those who don’t see economic or political liberalism as you do, “surrender their view simply because you have a different view and are demanding they adopt it,” lest they’re called satanic agents? (The same can also be said of those who have a different theological/spiritual perspective; or a different perspective of personal ministry.)
I had to take this opportunity to point out how we sometimes ‘miss’ ourselves. Undoubtedly, I’m guilty of this as well. People sometimes disagree; yet should be civil. Being uncivil toward those with “a different view” is generally not a good thing.
If the shoe fits, it probably belongs to you.
That is mighty big of you, William. (Yes indeed, this is a case study.) Have a Happy Sabbath, dear brother. Hilarious!
On a number of different issues where there has been very little civil discourse laterly, I am proud of our North American Division leadership for their stand! It's not easy when you've been villified and threatened to not respond in kind but instead to opt for higher ground.
i concurr with brotherly love in all our associations. But be aware of the practice of the hierarchy utilizing a holy stance, and often have swayed the majority of constituents to unpopular decisions, through "God Talk", And
they go home knowing they've been had, again. The Holy Spirit is speaking to the hearts of SDA's of the "TIME IS NOW", for the women of Earth to be raised up to the wholeness of witnessing, pastoring, and prophesying, as per Sola Scriptura. The study of this issue has been jawboned for many, far to many years, to be sandbagged again. Don't let the hierarchy grieve the Holy Spirit.
Does is mean that we, those who support WO will no longer be called 'Satan's agents?'
Does Laurel Damsteegt support this vote?
Does Ted Wilson support this vote?
What about Bachelor, Paulson, Bohr?
There has been no shortage of name-calling and accusations on both sides of this debate. Those who are most convinced of the moral rectitude of their own opinions tend to have the least patience for others with different opinions.
Especially if I am accustomed to speaking-out for God (preachers and teachers take note 😎 then it is all too easy for me to conclude that those who disagree with me must be speaking for Satan. And then it becomes my Christian duty to muzzle the dissenters to not give Satan any voice. And the stronger the dissent the more I feel called in the name of God to use whatever means I find expedient to stifle the dissenters.
By this all humans will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another, even those who strongly differ with your opinions. Be as perfect as the God who loves and even blesses the just and the unjust. Father forgive us for we do not know what we are doing.
Well said! I wish I’d said that.
So how does loving one another – absolutely agree with you there – help to resolve theological and ecclesiastical differences when each side feels that the Church's vitality/witness is enervated/stymied by accomodation with the other side? The reality is that, when one side in a religious organization abandons the notion that its position is religiously or morally superior, it better get ready to hoist the white flag.
I think it's more important to avoid ad hominem, personal judgments, straw man arguments, false choices, and other logical fallacies in debating the issues that must be debated, than to yield to relativism by conceding that a position one believes to be morally/theologically untenable has validity.
Of course it is always important within a faith community to humbly acknowledge that, in passionately advancing our positions, we should not implicitly or explicitly discount or diminish the integrity of our opponents' spiritual walk, or the mysterious ways in which the Holy Spirit may be working within the faith community.
George,
Glad to see you paying AToday a visit … Let's agree that not everyone will be civil … How about this — the great thing about civility is that it does not depend on reciprocity to be effective. Indeed, it can be aruged that it is made more effective by its absence in the presence of civility.
Just doing a self check here, is there a type of conversation in the community of faith in which civility is a potential weakness? Or is a lack of civility always where the weakness shows?
Just kind of thinking out loud here.
" …the great thing about civility is that it does not depend on reciprocity to be effective."
Hi Bill,
I guess this is a good place to spend more time since Spectrum is now messed up with that "ERRO 500" showing all the time and preventing us from a fluent conversation . (Though I miss the SpellChecker here very much!!!)
I like your point about civility. Yes, we don't practice it because other people do, but because we are civil ourselves – when it actually applies. This is more than fair. What otghers do is their business, and should not affect our politness and civility.
If we are a church founded deeply in the gospel (ie. that while we were sinners Christ died for us, justified us, forgave us), then difference of opinion is not only OK and tolerated, but welcomed and encouraged. It is SO important that our church is a safe place to disagree. But if we think correct doctrine determines our salvation we will require uniformity and we will find it unsafe to disagree. What Jesus did for us makes us saved, not what WE do (ie. believe correct doctrines). Correct doctrines and teachings are important but only in the fact that they draw all men – believers and non-believers alike – to the good, loving picture of God that Jesus painted for us. "I, if I be lifted up will draw all men to me."
The outcome of this GC vote does not change anyone's salvation, but it might result in some people not being drawn to Jesus via the church. How we love or not love each other with our different opinions might repel some good people from our particular church family or it might attract some Pharisees to join us. The decisions we make might repel or attract certain people as well. I guess the question is what do we want our church to look like? There may be very smart, sincere people on both sides of this issue. Deeply spiritual and intelligent Bible scholars in every church have found themselves on opposite sides of so many important Biblical doctrines. If one person is smarter or one person is more spiritual does that determine who comes up with the real truth about a particular doctrine?
All individuals, churches and denominations have walls of tradition made up of stones or blocks – teachings and doctrines and practices and policies that we feel are good and help us as individuals or a church lift up who God is as Jesus did when He was here. But if the blocks in our wall of tradition are set in concrete so that the Holy Spirit is not able to remove or replace them, we are in danger of doing what the religious leaders did in the days of Jesus when one of the doctrinal blocks in their wall of tradition (Their Messiah doctrine) did not match up with who Jesus was, and they concluded He was not the Messiah. The Holy Spirit was not their source of authority, their particular interpretation of scripture was, their wall of tradition was their source of authority. And consequently, they repeatedly rejected the Holy Spirit's conviction that this man was the Messiah, the Son of God.
Probably, the most important thing we can do is to go into the GC session asking the Holy Spirit to lead us personally and He will if we will utilize Jesus and His Gospel as the cornerstone from which all else should be measured. Our final decision as a church must be in agreement with the gospel that loves, accepts and forgives while we are sinners. What does that look like in this decision?
I just received a booklet by Doug Batchelor, sent out to all SDA pastors. I had the sense that Doug definitely believes that if I do not agree with his interpretation of scripture I was disagreeing with God as well. Andy Stanley delivered a great message on the 3rd commandment in which he states that to put God's name on my opinion (The implication being that this is not merely my opinion but God's) is to take God's name in vain. But Batchelor quotes Paul's letter to Timothy in order to "prove" that it is improper for women to teach men or have authority over them. A couple pages later however he describes women in the Bible such as Deborah, A Judge of Israel, who indeed taught Barak a thing or two and exercised authority over the men of Israel in order to deliver Israel from the King of Hazor. Priscilla "taught" Apollos more perfectly what the gospel was. The fact that neither Jesus nor Paul spoke against slavery did not condone the practice, but both men knew the Gospel in our hearts would abolish the practice. That didn't happen in many Christian nations for centuries, The fact that Paul says women should not teach and should be silent in church is (I believe) no more a Biblical principal than is the approval of slavery in the Old Testament and the absence of disapproval in the New Testament. Thank God, I pray, that perhaps the Gospel of Jesus is finally eliminating this offense towards women in the Adventist Church as it did for slavery in America 150 years ago. God is marvelously patient with our wickedness and He knows that the best way to conquer sin in our hearts is via the Holy Spirit from the inside – not from laws and policies on the outside. I personally believe that the Adventist Church in America is awakening not merely to the fact that Women's Ordination is perhaps finally acceptable in our culture, but awakening our hearts to believe the Gospel and embrace women like God embraces women whose hearts are knit with His as was the hearts of women in the Bible that God selected to "Serve" His church. And perhaps this is the problem we men have. In our arrogance, do we look at these positions as ones of authority instead of service?
"I had the sense that Doug definitely believes that if I do not agree with his interpretation of scripture I was disagreeing with God as well."
Aparently God got new "partners" down here, other "gods" that gave themselves the power to be as He is. Now they are speaking for God as well.
Fortunately the "worldly gods" are the opnly ones pursuing the perpetuation of discrimination of women. They are false gods, though.
It's very comforting to know that our true GOD is still in charge of the Universe, and that at the end of the day all false gods will be swept out.
Veritas Vincit!
Truth Prevails!
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am always disturbed by some so-called Christians that run a true crusade in favor of discrimination of women, and with the applause of many in the congregation. Discriminating against other human beings is one of the most despicable attacks against decency and against humankind.
But the discriminators just don't care. They have their own "male motives" (or, problems, I would say) and their priority is to project those "motives" onto women no matter what.
Why does a religious organization that calls itself Christian promotes such a barbaric doctrine is yet to be understood. Can it ever be actually understood? I doubt!
Don and George,
Just in time, President Wilson and the presidents of each of the 13 world divisions of the Seventh-day Adventist church, with 97%+ concurrance of the Autum Council delegates just last month, have determined that the matter of Women's Ordination is not a theological matter.
Or did I miss something?
(Please note that I am noting that I am passing along second-hand observations, and welcome citations that correct this second-hand reporting) — So a contemporary, ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister with no formal education in scripture, and, for that matter, apparently not even a diploma from a formal high school, is seeking to recruite support for his vision of the role of women in the world based on his personal understanding of bible texts, typically mere sentences or sentence fragments.
Now, this is perfectly fine in terms of his willingness to share his understanding. What is not fine is to make any judgments with regard to those who will not come to share his belief in regard to women's role in human society based on his personal reading of the bible.
Let it be said Matthew quoted Jesus in regard to this very behavior. Jesus, in instructing the fictional character, 'Thou hypocrite …" Read for yourself …
Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Matt 7
The difference we find ourselves in today in the church is that for the most part, there is no interest in learning. There is only interest is convincing. Truly these two interests are mutually exclusive.
I regret, personally, my all-too-often mistaking the two as identical, when they are poles apart. Thanks for, inadvertent as it may seem, reminding me of this.
Bill, as far as I understand there was no official document providing that information. One of the VPs (just forgot his name) made a pronouncement after a certain meeting (on that Thursday if I am not mistaken) saying that WO is not a theological issue. But I never heard from my sources that, "President Wilson and the presidents of each of the 13 world divisions … have determined that the matter of Women's Ordination is not a theological matter."
By the way, Ted Wilson has never declared his positions on the issue. What we know is only what we can infer from his acts an behavior. He wants us to believe that he is on the fence still…, but he has not actually been on the fence.
But from this to what you informed there is a huuuuge gap.
Thanks George for the clarification.
The general vice president at the General Conference level, head of the BRI, and the chair of the committee that failed to come to a consensus regarding the biblical authority for or for not ordaining women by the Seventh-day Adventist church, is Artur Stele and it is he who openly and without correction declared that denominational leadership had come to agree that women's ordination was no longer considered a theological issue for the church.
Clearly members are divided over this matter theologically, though administratively the vote is in. Nine of 13 Divisions, after their biblical research committees submitted recommendations, reported that so long as they were not required to ordain women in their devision, they would accept the ordination of women in other Divisions of the church.
What happens in San Antonio cannot be known ahead of time. Elder Wilson may or may not declare his personal possition before and during the session.
However the vote may, indeed, be moot.
There remains for some serious doubt that whether a vote to authorize Divisions to authorize women's ordination in their territory will be sufficient to empower the Dividions to prevent Union Conferences anywhere in the world to ordain ministers without regard to gender. Indeed it is quite obvious that the best legal minds in the General Conference were unable to preempt women from already being ordained within a Sabbath day's journey of the General Conference headquarters, as well as at sites across a continent and an ocean.
Whatever the decision, it is not couched in theological terms. And as such, it will not have any impact on ordinations already having taken place, or will likely prevent future ordination of women if the vote is not to authorize Divisions to authorize women's ordination. That vote is to leave the situation as it now is, in which Unions are authorizing the ordination of women on a Union by Union basis.
You are right about there being many opportunities for spinning by any interested party.
Don and George,
About your booklet from Doug Batchelor, Don. (For everyone's convenience, one can read it here http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/2/t/gods-role-for-women-in-ministry.aspx )
Here are the first few sentences …
After reviewing hundreds of applications, a Fortune 500 company’s search for a new marketing director had been narrowed to just three candidates. The first person called for the final interview was asked just one simple question: “What is two plus two?” Surprised by the inquiry, she wondered if it was a trick question—but in the end, she answered “four.” The CEO thanked her for coming and ushered her out the door. The next candidate received the same question: “What is two plus two?” She thought about it for a moment and replied, “Statistically, it is the number between three and five.” Though more impressed with this answer, the CEO thanked her for coming and ushered her out the door. Finally, the last candidate to be interviewed was also asked, “What is two plus two?” Without pause, she replied, “What do you want it to be?” She was hired on the spot.
In today’s culture, when it comes to marketing, absolute truth is a rare commodity. Morals are more often determined by popularity or political correctness than by the simple truth. This is not how we should approach the Bible’s teachings, no matter how sensitive the lesson to be learned can be.
And then the author continues by engaging in an effor to turn a church tradition into a morality backed by a mathematical-like rationale wholy originating in the author's mind, as it is nowhere to be found simply in scripture.
The simplist statement with regard to whethere scripture supports the tradition of a male-only pastorate is Paul's statement: …There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
It is instructive to read the final sentence in the booklet.
"I know the Lord wants to shower His Spirit upon His people again, but first we must turn away from the politically correct teachings of the world and with the mind of Christ humbly submit to the clear teachings of His Word."
"I know …" The evangelist's willingness to traffic in whatever credibility he has otherwise established with the listener.
"but first we must turn away from the politically correct teachings of the world …" The call to action.
"and [we must] with the mind of Christ humbly submit to the clear teachings of His Word." The rationale of every evangelist seeking to get people to do what the evangelists wants them to do.
If it takes several pages and several sermons, it cannot ever be called 'the clear teachings of His Word", let alone 'simple truth'
"The simplest statement with regard to whether scripture supports the tradition of a male-only pastorate is Paul's statement:…There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ."
Actually, Bill, I think the simplest statement is that scripture does not explicitly support the tradition of a male-only pastorate. But by characterizing it as a "tradition," you have already "loaded the dice." Slogans and question-begging conclusions serve less to enlighten than to entrench true believers in the moral rectitude of their positions. I think they tend to undermine civility rather than promote an honest exchange of ideas.
Isn't there abundant evidence, in the writings of the Apostle Paul, that he did not think gender oneness in Christ, and gender moral equality, obviated gender-based functional and role distinctions in the body of believers? Scripture certainly does support the reality of gender differences, from which biological, anthropological, and sociological differences can reasonably be inferred. You can't very well use one or more proof texts to trump other evidence in scripture, can you? No one can say with certainty what, if any, impact WO in the NAD will have on SDA spread of the Gospel in North America. If the rest of Christendom is any indication, I suspect the answer is, "very little." I still favor it, as a matter of principle.
As you have implied in your most insightful post to the So, What Shall We Do With the Prophet blog, elsewhere on this website, the simplest, and most persuasive statement with regard to this issue is, and will continue to be, Holy Spirit power demonstrated in the lives and words of women who feel called to the ministry, whose gifts are recognized, affirmed, and supported by their communities of faith.
The simplest statement, in the early Christian church, with regard to whether scripture supported the tradition of circumcision was that it did. But the evidence of Holy Spirit power working in and through uncircumcised gentile communities of faith was the statement that won the debate, and the statement through which scripture came to be viewed.
Thanks for the clarification, Nathan. I agree with your differential with regard to gender oneness in Christ not being the same, for Paul, as gender-based roles in the body of believers. I should have paid more attention to that. Simplification has its limits.
I am especially attracted to your approach in the closing paragraph and the one just previous.
The challenge is whether we can trust our observations of the Holy Spirit at work when the evidence leaves us without obvious biblical support for what the Holy Spirit is obviously accomplishing.
Of course, if we assume the Holy Spirit will never disagree with scripture, observing the Holy Spirit is unwarranted by reason of either being redundant or confusing.
It is one thing to deny the Holy Spirit is doing what is right before our eyes because we cannot find evidence of that in the bible, and quite another to say the Holy Spirit is doing such and such, even though we cannot find evidence for supporting that in the bible.
I think you see the trend is to deny the Holy Spirit.
Absolutely agree, Bill! This is the unfortunate place where fundamentalists and liberals seem to find common ground. They both seek truth in propositions and formulations that can be rationally proven, deduced, or inferred from given premises. Leonard Sweet calls this "propositional impotence." Once that truth is locked in, how is there any room for the Spirit? God seldom tries to argue with human logic except through divine action.
Perhaps we don't really deny the Holy Spirit. We just render It logically irrelevant for any purpose other than as a fortress against logic and reasoning which might cause us to doubt our propositions and formulas.
Leonard Sweet got that right, Nathan!
The maneuvers and manipulations aiming to perpetuate discrimination of women in our Chruch are astonishing.
Sometimes I have the impression that those people have no clue on what it is to be a Christian.
Here, George, you have offered a perfect example of the incivility that the NAD seeks to end. Was that your objective? "maneuvers and manipulations"…"perpetuating discrimination"…"no clue on what it is to be a Christian…"
Perhaps, as long as one is manning the rhetorical guns on the right side of a great moral battle for truth and justice, he should be exempt from petty Marquess of Queensberry concerns like civility. : -)
Nathan,
The terms you are inquiring about have a very simple definition in the dictionaries and are certainly helpful to those who may not be sure about their meaning.
But, from my perspective,
– "maneuvers and manipulations" – Any long term Adventist knows how this works in our system. It’s also known as “politics” and using political power to influence decisions. Even a 90-second election can be “arranged” with such tools. Or trying to influence constituents with “grave consequences” if they vote different than someone with political power expects.
– "perpetuating discrimination" – I don’t even know what comment to make to a person who appears to be challenging this fact. Yes, our church discriminates against women in several ways. And the anti-WO is nothing but another attempt to keep women in our church under the lid firmly held by those males that are declared (and proud!) discriminators.
– "no clue on what it is to be a Christian…" – A “Christian discriminator” is certainly an obvious, evident oxymoron. It only shows total disregard for some of the most important Christian values, allowing the human “machismo” to supersede them.
I hope these issues have now been clarified, though they were actually self-explanatory in the first place. Therefore, there won’t another attempt to do so.
Remarkable response, George –
Where did you get the idea that I was unclear about definitions or your intended meaning? I actually understood your intended meaning and perspective very accurately, even before you elaborated. What struck me as unclear is whether you agreed with the NAD leadership's call for civility. In view of your response, doubling down on incivility, I am forced to wonder whether you even understand the meaning of "civility" in debate.
Wouldn't it have been simpler, and quite reflective of your feelings, to merely say, "Civility is overrated," or "Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of incivility?" How about "Incivility in pursuit of truth and justice is no vice?"
“…whether you agreed with the NAD leadership's call for civility.”
Nathan,
Any call for civility is always a good reminder. Of course I agree with the NAD’s (or anyone’s) call for civility. Why wouldn’t I? Especially when such call, if respected, may actually help some people stop accusing those who they don’t agree with of “Satan’s agents.”
It is only your personal opinion that I am “doubling down on incivility.” Just because I made some statements that are too clear and too straightforward? It’s not the first time that someone goes ad hominem when I point out to some issues that should not be present in a religious environment. Some people get a little nervous when they see the status quo being discussed. Nothing new, though.
Oh, yeah, be concerned with the possibility that I may not “even understand the meaning of ‘civility.’” Sure…
The Holy Spirit is God. God is LOVE, perfect love. The Holy Spirit would never lead you in any other direction but Love for God, and Love for your neighbor. This is how you discern whether it is the Holy Spirit influencing you, or another spirit.