Adventist Seminary Theologians Condemn “Headship” Theology
by Monte Sahlin
By Adventist Today News Team, August 22, 2014
The faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University has released a statement clearly opposing from the Scripture and Adventist heritage the headship theology which is used by some to argue against the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. It is a very clear indicator that thinking among the denomination's Bible scholars is moving away from blocking permission for the ordination of women clergy.
The six-page document includes a careful Bible study and extensive references to the writings of Ellen G. White to support its conclusions. It was adopted by a very strong majority vote of the entire seminary faculty, the most important group of Bible scholars and theologians in the denomination.
In the conclusion the document affirms four things as biblical and rooted in Adventist heritage: (1) "That there is only one Head of the Church, Christ, and this headship in the Church is non-transferable and inimitable." (2) "That leadership in the Church should be modeled after Christ’s servant leadership and grounded in love, with the recognition that Christ’s manner of leadership is to be reflected by Christian leaders." (3) "That Church leaders possess stewardship responsibilities of the affairs of the Church, carrying out the decisions of the Church made in committee and business sessions." And (4) "The priesthood of all believers …"
And the document denies four things as unbiblical and out of line with the Adventist heritage: (1) "That any human can rightly assume a headship role within the Church." (2) "Any Church government that results in sacramental, elitist, and headship-oriented leadership, which are counterfeits of Christ’s moral government of love and usurp His unique role and authority as Head of the Church …" (3) "That any mere human is invested with final decision-making authority in regards to Church teaching, ritual, or doctrine. (4) "Any elevation of Church leaders as … head of … the Church."
The document also specifically states that "the role of 'head' in the home (Eph 5:23) is not transferable to the realm of the Church" just as "one's role in the home obviously does not translate into a similar or analogous role in one's workplace." This clearly counters a common argument against women serving as leaders in congregations which is taught by the Southern Baptist Convention and other Evangelical religious leaders and has been proposed by some Adventist clergy.
The entire document can be seen without commentary by clicking this link: On the Unique Headship of Christ in the Church – A Statement Of The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Very well stated. it is going to be a very interesting Annual Council coming up in October.
All those who wish well for the Adventist church should pray for this assemblage that will basically set the agenda for GC next year. And every participant needs to prayerfully and carefully study John 17. And then ask "Lord what will you have me to do?" rather than "What do I think I should do?"
The Statement is a beautiful document. It is important on multiple levels.
1. On the point of women in ministry and leadership, it draws deeply on principles of who God/Christ are and the basis of divine as well as church governance, rather than on a few proof texts which describe practices at one point in history. It places the emphasis and analysis where it should be.
2. It makes strong statements which diminish the human tendency to elevate clergy above laity inappropriately. Implicit is guidance in thinking about the meaning of ordination.
3. It strikes at the heart of an authoritarian style of church structure and leadership. Such clarity is vital at this time.
The Statement feels like a badly needed stake in the ground right now. I have been concerned about a creeping, de facto theology of headship, which has never been part of our belief system as far as I can tell.
PRAISE GOD. IT'S TIME FOR THE HIERARCHY TO KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, AND HAS NO CELEBRITES ON EARTH. The church is the laity, not the ivory tower sitters. They are not the 24 elders sitting in the presence of GOD ALMIGHTY. The Holy Spirit has Spoken through the School of Religion at Andrews. The General Conference should consider this warning, they are out of line with scripture.This is a wakeup call. They should duly accept their role as servants of the laity. They are to manage the "BUSINESS" of the church, within accepted parameters of "good business practices" subject to AUDIT by the laity's direct representities. The School of Religion at Andrews University should be the single authority of theFundamental Beliefs, along with resentatives of other SDA Church related accredited Schools of Religion, world wide. The organized Church Unions should be eliminated. The SDA Church Conferences to be the voice of authority, with "ONE FIVE YEAR TERM", AND OUT. SUBJECT TO RECALL BY THE CONFERENCES, should they overstep their determined work agreements. Many hierarchical positions to be eliminated, and roles to be determined by Conference in General Business sessions. All expenses to be sharply scruinized by Conference authority, to eliminate luxury travel and accommodations. The Conference officers to be chosen strictly by the laity, without the oppressive sitting Conference officers presenting "FIXED" agendas. The Conference committees to be chosen with majority of members of representive churchs, subject to membership of numbers. Conference leaders to be subject to recall should they lord it over conference workers, and coerce their membership rights. Conference workers to be remunerated according to average earnings for a similar position in the private sector. The General Conference 5 year meeting agendas to be determined by the world wide Conference offices. JESUS CHRIST, ONLY, IS LORD, and head of the FAMILY OF GOD.
Are we ready yet as a church to let the headship of Christ and the indwelling guidance of the Holy Spirit be superior to the authority of the local church board?
Or the myriad of other institutional committees and boards?
We had a meeing yesterday over lunch, of the team that is responsible for recruiting and enabling servants in our church. At the beginning of the meeting I prayed honestly and earnestly that God would guide us in our deliberations and I believe our prayer was answered. At the end of the meeting another person prayed honestly and earnestly that God would move upon hearts to step-up to the challenges and opportunites we were placing before them. I dare to believe this prayer also will be answered.
I wrote an essay about Male Headship theory that was published on the same day that the Seminary's statement was released. I hope my essay will be regarded as a worthy contribution to the present discussion. http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2014/08/21/eves-higher-sphere-hopes.
An objective observer would easily conclude that the Seminary, as a body, has no authority to issue a statement about the issue while it has been the subject of much study by members of TOSC and it does not represent the views of the entire faculty. Also the matter is supposed to be decided by the GC in official Session next year.
It is an obvious effort to influence the decision and unworthy of scholars seeking the truth. Rebellion is not a desirable attribute by an organization that purports to educate young men to be Pastors.
How does such action encourage unity?
Seeker,
It is not a question of authority that the scholars at the seminary have been given, but of the respect attributed to them for the depth of their study. In the same token, I ask upon what credibility you accuse others of rebellion? Simply that you are of a different opinion? Or the strength of the arguments you present here? Accusing others of rebellion is not an effective way to persuade others to consider the basis for your views because it positions them as opponents from the start. Such accusations do not unify, but divide.
What is clearly destructive of unity, my good brother, is for a church entity to attempt to preempt a forthcoming decision of the General Conference in Official Session. If that is not a species of rebellion I don't know what is.
Maranatha
Where is it written in scripture that the General Conference in Official Session has to do anything?
Truth and William …
Phillip Brantley and David Read have a useful exchange regarding how to address issues like this along about comment 81 and 82 here http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2014/08/21/eves-higher-sphere-hopes
While we are dealing with opinions, the seminary providing a document that represents the sense of the seminary with reagard to this topic is important for reasons other than the topic of the document.
By issuing such a paper, the seminary in effect is now committed to protecting its members individually from attempts by other minorities or majorities at any level of the church from going on a witch hunt in the seminary with regard to any issue that fails to marshal consensus.
This is for that reason a very important document, quite independent of the topic and conclustions in the paper itself.
It is as though the faculty of the seminary has taken note of, I believe, Benjamine Franklin's advice to his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence, "We now must hang together, or we will surely hang separately."
That's an interesting observation and one that I had not considered. After the purge of theologians that happened after Glacier View under the dictum of the father of our current General Conference President, I can appreciate the strategy of their action. It would appear they are drawing a line on those within the church leadership who would subvert them before they can be subverted. I'm not sure if I agree with your thesis, but I don't disagree with it.
It is true the plan of the elected church leadership is to present a report of a committee carefully chosen to represent many if not all views of SDA thinkers on the subject of ordination of persons as pastoral leaders.
We can only assume this effort was launched to find a global solution as to how to deal with this issue and that it is a serious and honest attempt to arrive at a Biblical conclusion. It matters not what any one leader of the GC thinks or feels on this subject anymore than any individual in any Sabbath morning pew when it comes to a voice or a vote in the GC Session. In the sight of God we are all equal and all are to be valued and respected.
It is to be expected that any position taken by the faculty of the SDA Seminary at Andrews University would bring expressions of support as well as unhappiness dependent on our individual views. Having said that should we not expect that this body of individuals which makes up the faculty of the seminary, which the organization has chosen to as thought leaders, should express their thoughts? At what point in this process was this group of very influential thought leaders asked to express their views? We need to hear from them now. We will hear from them in years to come as our new North American pastors are sent forth by them to share the gospel. It is actually somewhat amazing that the expression of their views is considered to be a source of concern as in some way to be thought of as anything but unifying.
Please consider that when balancing the check book there is a rise and fall of emotion as another error is found putting us farther out of balance. We do not rail against the one who finds the error. We swallow it and push forward knowing we are one step nearer to reconciling the check book. Sure it would be great if everything fell into place just how we think it should, but that is not what life is like.
We must only be fearful of coming to a conclusion without fully hearing the views of all God's people.
In the end unity will be based on diversity as indicated in Scripture. Uniformity will not unite the church for service. This is why there is such a struggle now. Uniformity has not worked. Perhaps we can trust the Lord to take His church, of which He is the head, through this storm. We need not manage the outcome, only the process in fairness, respect for one another and submission to the leading of the Holy Spirit to lead us in our understanding of His Word.
We can believe in one another including your GC leadership to submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit as we approach Annual Counsel as well the GC Session. Whatever the solution the result will be that we move forward together in service. Anything else is not of God. God will make changes during these meetings and none of us knows what He will do. God is the One Who is managing His church people both in the SDA Church and in other faith groups.
Allen,
You wrote: "We must only be fearful of coming to a conclusion without fully hearing the views of all God's people."
There is but one big problem with that view: God doesn't ask for our opinions. He wants us to be asking for His opinion. Things would be a lot better if more of us were asking that question instead of shouting our opinions.
Actually God does ask us to come together and arrive at an understanding of His will as revealed in His Word. Does He not speak to the body through exchanges?
Hearing each others views is one of God's ways that we sharpen the understanding of each other.
Believing is about understanding God's Word, not a vote of ANY legislative body. The vote helps us know the thinking of everyone else who heard the same things we have heard. It gives expression of the majority. It does not change belief. It provides organization. It does not force any person to agree. We must respect the decision. We don't need to agree with it. We must find a way to serve within the decision. Fragmentation is not from above.
We can rest assured that when the vote is taken it will prompt unity in fulfilling the gospel commission. This is how God works. If it does not can we say God is leading this people? Can we say we are hearing His voice?