Theological Introduction to Ellen White’s Counsel on an Inclusive Church [footnote 1]
by Cindy Tutsch
How does Ellen White’s example and counsel help us sift through conflicting claims in the increasingly divergent multi-cultural Seventh-day Adventist church? First, I note that Ellen White herself embodies an essential leadership concept– cultural position, wealth, power, education, gender, and physical appeal are no predictors or limitations to God’s leadership calling.1 Next, I present an illustration of Ellen White’s progressive social voice that helps clarify her egalitarian and inclusive empowerment of the body of Christ.
Ellen White’s clarion call is that God would have His human creation work to restore the image of God to humanity.3 This imago dei motif is threaded throughout her counsels to educators, administrators, parents, pastors and teachers, in short, to all who lead or influence others. In Ellen White’s view, this restoration begins with character development—the human mind becoming sanctified, by His grace, into the likeness of the mind of God.4 To extrapolate that motif into today’s context, when the mind of humanity becomes one with the mind of God, leaders will seek restoration of the Edenic plan of male/female relationships.
Additionally, leaders will seek restoration of God’s plan for relationships between people groups and ethnicities, as well as the restoration of Earth to its original Garden state, to the best of limited human ability.
In a discussion of the original Eden state, Joseph Coleson states, “Genesis 1:27 states very clearly that women and men are created equally in the image of God. . . Females are in God’s image. Males are in God’s image. Neither is more nor less in God’s image than the other.”5 Concurring with Coleson, Phyllis Trible says “Sexual differentiation does not mean hierarchy.”6 Hierarchy is sometimes used to deprive women of opportunities to find joy in participation in the area of church life for which they are best suited.
Ellen White also took the position of equality at Creation. “Women should fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband’s equal.”7
Thus, it seems evident from the Genesis account that male and female were created by God as equals, with no hierarchical system inherent. Those who oppose women in leadership and ministry may believe, however, that God put Eve in subjection to Adam as part of the consequence of her sin.
Two key words in this study are “sin” and “redemption.” Sin is the cause of female subjection. Hayter states “Man and woman have disrupted their relationship with God. This sin leads to a disruption in their relationship with all creation, including one another.”8
For Adventist Christians, the great hope, the good news, is the redemption theme, the restoration in humanity of the image of God. If God’s original creation included equality between the sexes, I could extrapolate from that pattern the premise that it is His will that equal opportunities to evangelize be extended in our present culture. I should then press on toward that ideal as part of my reception of the gospel.
“It is,” after all, “human sinfulness which initiates and maintains prejudice and inequality between the sexes.”9 Ellen White also decries the arbitrary exercise of authority by leaders, declaring such domination as in opposition to God’s plan for His redeemed people.10
Since Jesus’ and Paul’s own teaching and practice were radically egalitarian, male dominance and female subjection in the structure of the Christian church are post-apostolic, not apostolic. Further, if man and woman were created fully equal, fully autonomous, yet interacting in complement physically, spiritually, emotionally and intellectually, the words of God in Genesis 3:16 are more of an announcement, i.e. descriptive, not causative or prescriptive.
Biblically-based11 feminism attempts a critique of the oppressive structures of society and the church. Ellen White’s counsel to leaders is not in opposition to Christian feminism, if that feminism is about independence, family balance, education, competence, and call to mission—in contrast to class, social maneuvering, hustling for jobs with sexuality, and whining about petty incidents (when many women within ecclesiastical structures are in real danger of abuse and oppression). Militant feminist activism has caused some to regard the goal of feminism to be the ascendancy of women, but biblically-predicated feminism is primarily striving toward human equality in which oppressed and oppressor, aged and youth, black and white, reconcile in a unified return to the prioritization of personal evangelism. The inclusive body of Christ united for a mission worthy of His church is a concept which Ellen White repeatedly affirms.12
It is my view that if the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be true to its calling in Christ, if leaders of the church consider that the prophetic voice of Ellen White carries authority, those leaders must teach and practice the biblical equality of men and women predicated in the Creation story and demonstrated existentially in the New Testament practices of Christ and Paul. Additionally, leaders who find Ellen White’s voice authoritative must motivate and equip the church to evangelize cross-generationally and make joyful, intentional provision for diversity.
We are still in the midst of a war—the war which Ellen White called “the Great Controversy.” Men and women are presented with God’s offer of eternal life, surrounded by an enemy who doesn’t want them to understand or accept it. We are living in the final stages of this war. And when we see our lives in that context, it is easier to understand the urgency behind Ellen White’s statements on the roles of women. Today the call to a gender-inclusive church to give its energies for God is greater than at any time in earth’s history.13
Is it possible that Jesus is waiting for the church to recognize God’s call to women and empower each person to use the talents God has given? Perhaps the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Latter Rain power will not come until we are united in our understanding of the inclusive events described in Joel 2.
Maybe God is longing to help us get past our long-held prejudices so that Jesus can come and bring the family of God home at last.
————————————————
1Text in this blog is largely drawn from Cindy Tutsch’s book Ellen White on Leadership: Guidance for Those who Influence Others (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2008).
2Skip Bell, 18 April 2005, personal email (18 April 2006).
31 Cor 11:7; Education (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1903, 1952), 15-16.
4Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 2:16.
5Joseph Coleson, Ezer Cenegdo: A Power Like Him, Facing Him as Equal (Wesleyan/Holiness Women Clergy, 1996), 6.
6Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 23.
7The Adventist Home (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980), 231.
8Mary Hayter, The New Eve in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 96-97.
9Ibid., 116.
10Letter to O. A. Olsen. Letter 55, 1895 written at Norfolk Villa, Prospect St., Granville, Australia, 19 September 1895. Archived at the Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD.
11Isa 58:1-12.
12The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1911), 600; The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1898, 1940), 822.
13Cindy Tutsch and Laura Wibberding, Ellen White and the Roles of Women, 20 September 2004, (PowerPoint workshop prepared for the Department of Women’s Ministries, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists).
Excellently stated, (if I may take advantage, once again, of being blogs editor by putting in a comment before anyone else even reads it!) I would add one thing to the Genesis argument. If, in fact, we believe that the "curses" God gave at the fall are actual statements of God's will rather than sorrowful descriptions of what's going to happen now that they've opted for Satan's way, then true Christians should never seek to make a farmer's life easier, by putting a/c in his tractor, for instance, because he's supposed to work by the "sweat of his brow," and we should never seek to ease childbirth because it's supposed to hurt.
When I was in college, about a million years ago, I told my then-boyfriend that I believed Christians were to do their best to bring an Edenic way of life back to the earth. This includes healthful living, foods as they are grown, outdoor work when possible, and a return to THE head of the house–that is, man and woman as one flesh, and that one the head, under Christ.
We didn't marry. . .
The church and its members seem to have an uncertain interpretation of scripture:
Did the Bible writers describe how sin came about and how it affected humans; or
have they written to prescribe how all humans should live based on those stories?
There is a world of difference and has not been considered very worthy of study.
Here we go again. "Prejudices," "oppressive," "maintains prejudice and inequality," "arbitrary exercise of authority by leaders." Loaded terms; selective references to the SOP. I must live in a bubble because I've not found any of these oppressed ladies. I've run across some male chauvinist pigs, of course, but that's to be expected, as is the presence of man-hating feminists. People can be equal in the sight of God and still fulfill different roles. Jesus was equal to the Father, but subjected Himself to Him. Being subordinate is not to be equated with being inferior. If Ellen White thought that an exclusively male ministry was "arbitrary exercise of authority by leaders," it's rather odd that she didn't speak out against it. She had no qualms about speaking out against slavery when it was not politically correct to do so.
We can agree to disagree about this, but I object to the way many supporters of WO vilify those of us who oppose it on Biblical grounds. We are nearly always accused of being prejudiced, sexist, hungry for power, and other more pejorative terms.
If David had had the attitude of many WO proponents he would not have been inclined to stop his men from slaughtering Saul. After all, he was the Lord's annointed, and Saul was an apostate. We need more Davids and fewer Jehus.
Do you object to those of us who support WO on biblical grounds being villifed by those who oppose it? Or are you like some others I have met who believe we are deceiving ourselves because it simply can't be supported on bibilical grounds by any honest person.
I'm opposed to name calling on either side, and I would not go so far as to attribute dishonesty to those who try to support WO on Biblical grounds. Many of them, maybe most of them are probably honest, but I believe they're confused and they've been duped by the activists in the movement. Activists often have a predetermined agenda and don't want to be bothered with the truth or the facts.
As we all know, many honest Sunday keepers try to justify their theology from the Bible. But we also know that they are wrong. I'm not equating Sunday keeping with WO, but it is easy to make the Bible look like it says just about anything one wants it to (e.g., "Judas went and hanged himself, . . . . go thou and do likewise.") An extreme example? Perhaps, but no more far-fetched than some of the other teachings supposedly derived from Scripture.
that is so true
"If David had had the attitude of many WO proponents he would not have been inclined to stop his men from slaughtering Saul. After all, he was the Lord's annointed, and Saul was an apostate. We need more Davids and fewer Jehus."
Not sure if David is the best example on the proper treatment of women. His own life illustrates that otherwise godly men, even the Lord's own annointed, can be very, very wrong on issues, including the proper treatment of women.
Cindy I feel your post is riddled with intellectual dishonesty and the tone of your article is to make the views of those against you repugnant. I also find it interesting that you use ellen white. I would be interested to know your views on dress reform, health reform, last generation theology, QOD and Des Ford. I am simply trying to ascertain whether your use of SOP is disingenuous or genuine. Is it possible that maybe your backgroung in a feminised society is affecting your views?
I believe you have a wrong conception of equality. Equality does not mean a duplication of responsibilities. This is where I believe most proponents of WO make the error. Fathers can never be mothers and vice versa although they are equal. I sincerely believe yours is a counterfeit equality but hey wouldn't be the first time the devil tried to pull a fast one on us.
Christian Feminism??!!!!! I can as well be a catholic protestant! this is perhaps the biggest oxymoron if I ever heard one. How about the rights of boys and even men! Your interpratation of SOP are highly speculative and have got bias. Ellen white supported christian feminism!!! I am still trying process everything. Have you even read the roles of men and women in adventist home? I am somehow sensing that you insinuating the climax of the great controversy is when the whole gender thing is sorted. wow
I'm sorry if the tone of my response is a little harsh but of all the articles written on this issue (AT is really coming out guns blazing) I believe yours is the weakest argument. Final question should wives submit to their husbands? just curious. Maybe as a child since all are equal I should not recognise my parents authority? Hierarchial order do not negate true biblical equality.
Finally I would like you to expound on what you mean by family balance and show me the verses of biblically predicted feminism?
Tapiwa, I would be interested to know your views on dress reform, health reform, last generation theology, QOD and Des Ford.
As to catholic protestants, perhaps you should look in the mirror with such attacks, given you are the one sticking up for Papal Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession.
Re you claims about gender, perhaps you should explain why we shouldn't discriminate on race? Jesus picked Jewish men after all – not just men. Paul's central internal Church mission was pretty much to abolish barriers based on race (Jew vs Greece), gender (male vs female) and status (slave vs free).
Why should we allow Developing Nations, largely comprising inferior races (who statistically have lower IQs), to dictate to Western Nations, with superior races with statistically higher IQs? Why shouldn't we demand Jews to still rule our Church, given they are the 'Chosen People', and statistically have the higher IQs, with the highest number of achievers than any race on earth?
Yes, I am being completely riddiculous, and I am sorry to do so, but so are you with your insistent upholding of discrimination based on gender. If you pick gender, you pick race – because one can also cherry pick many racist texts in the Bible, including those which advocate outright genocide. Yet we all know in our hearts the central message of the Gospel is the abolitions of stupid human categories, because God sees a way human beings doesn't see, and that in Christ there is no race, gender or status (Gal 3:28).
No, of course wives should not submit to their husbands. Get a proper Bible translation. Hypostasis is better translated as Support, not submit. Wives should support their husbands, not bow to them. Don't you believe the 2nd commandment applies to women as well as to men? We submit to no one except God and his law. We support and serve one another, as husbands must to wives, as wives to husbands, as the General Conference to the Columbia Union, as Jesus modeled to his dirty disciples feet. Support, Tapiwa, not Submit.
Stephen
Firstly I wanted Cindy to answer but perhaps you can elighten me on the questions that I asked her, the self procalimed christian feminist. You are definately becoming a master of employing the straw man in that sense perhaps you are more intelligent? I stated that this western equality is a counterfeit to biblical equality. Paul's reference was about access to salvation which all have. Equality does not mean duplication of responsibilities if that were the case maybe christ should have refused to die for us If the God head are all equal was it discrimination to send Christ to the cross. This is also a direct analogy as the same way Christ submitted is the same way Women are to submit to their EQUALS. Unless Western women do not want to be Christ like ( which is a privilage) and be like the disciples and jostle for positions I will see them persist in WO. there are many Godly women who oppose WO so are they discriminatory?
If you are referring to Gal 3:28, it is not a reference solely to salvation. The issue was not only salvation, but how to live together in the church. If the church is to be an embodiment of salvation, then you cannot have one principle for salvation and another for the church. Paul not only states that gender does not matter, but also race and class, We would never allow either of those to exclude someone from church office. Yet Paul effectively limits ordained ministry to the wealthy upper class when he says that a deacon and elder must be in control of his 'oikos'. We like to pretend it simply means 'family' (= wife and children) but no C1st Jew or Gentile would have read it that way. The cultural and economic conditions made it impossible to give church office to slaves or freedmen – or even to ordinary working people. If we are going to insist we must follow Paul literally when it comes to a deacon or elder being a man, can we ignore the rest of what he says about what sort of man he must be? Nor did Paul suggest Philemon free Onesimus, but rather treat him as a brother despite his status as a slave. It is also interestign the almost complete lack of Jewish names in the list of church workers outside Palestine. Perhaps (non-Hellenistic) Jews were effectively excluded from leadership even in NT times. We would (and do) quite happily put all of this down to the context of the times, but insist we must not let these issues affect us today. Then, when we come to the issue of women, anyone who allows for it also being a matter of the context of the times is accused of twisting Scripture. The irony is that we have more examples of women working for the church in the NT than we do of Jews (outside the Apostles) or of slaves.
And again, Tapiwa, you still have provided no explanation as to why, if you say Gal 3:28 is only about salvation and not Church leadership (thankyou Kevin excellent as always), we should not continue to discriminate on the basis of race as well as gender?
To apply your same logic back to you, no one is saying other races can't have access to salvation, or be involved in the Church. But why should we allow certain 'inferior races' to take leadership positions in the Church? Why shouldn't Jews be on top, as all the Apostles, including Paul, were Jews? Why shouldn't blacks be given the same inferior leadership roles in Church, given the curse of Ham?
Again, whilst racist arguments are clearly absurd, so are you misogynist arguments! But I can equally cherry-pick biblical texts to uphold such neo-Colonial views, as Eurpoean Empires and White Americans did for generations.
Stephen
You keep accusing me of misygony talk about misrepresentation! your analogy between race and gender are disingenuous at best. Can you show me one text where leadership is dependant on race? the same authour who wrote Gal 3 28 also expounded on hierarchy in the home and in the church and he makes no differentiation on leadership based on race. Your illustration is false and and you are beginning to also exhibit elitist and racist tendencies. By the way if it were on race I believe both you and I are both Gentiles! so don't feel so smug. My opposition to WO is biblical. I did not accuse Cindy of misandry even though she is a self confesssed feminist!
Tapiwa
Cindy Tutsch has no need to defend herself. It is ironic that you are "attacking" an associate secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, one of the most conservative entities in the church. She is certainly no feminist. Ad hoc arguments (attacking a person's charater) have no place in Christian discourse. It helps when each of us deals with facts not assumptions. If anyone will know what Ellen White says in this area she would know. She has also published an excellent book on Christian Leadership as defined by Ellen White.
One of our challenges and I include myself in this is to read with an open mind. That is very difficult. We are very good (and I am aware I do this at times) at filtering out the facts we don't like and keeping the ones we do like. Part of the challenge is that we rarely state the assumptions with which we come to Scripture. And we ALL have assumptions. These assumptions decide how we look at the text. That is why we can read the same text and come to opposite conclusions and each of us claims to be led by the Holy Spirit. We do live in interesting times.
J. David Newman
I am not attacking Cindy I simply wanted to understand where E G white supports feminism. Read her post carefully "Biblically-based feminism attempts a critique of the oppressive structures of society and the church. Ellen White’s counsel to leaders is not in opposition to Christian feminism" these are her words not mine she further says "but biblically-predicated feminism is primarily striving toward human equality" I notice that the questions that I asked her are not yet answered So lets stop falsely accusing me of ad hominem and discuss. lets not try and deflect but answer questions
Tapiwa asks, "where E G white supports feminism."
I would say where she demanded equal pay for equal work, and if the church didn't pay she would pay it herself out of her tithe–and did as I understand it. Also to black pastors if I understand correctly. That would make her both a 'feminist' and 'civil-rights' worker.
I think where the hindrance may be is that 'you' have bought into someone's perjorative definition of the term 'feminism' therefore do not know what it really means.
Cindy,
An excellent review of relevant comments on the topic! Thank you.
How many leaders in the church around the world who are against the ordination of women will read what you have presented? If they do, will it have any impact on their opposition? I am doubtful many minds would be changed even if Ellen White were alive and personally writing to each of them.
Thank you, David and William.
Tapiwa, you have an intriguing checklist for orthodoxy! If you are really interested in my views on a range of subjects related to our walk with Jesus, please check my archived blogs on this site. You will find 26 of them.
I appreciate and support your conclusions, Cindy. Thank you for reminding us of what Ellen White had to say on this subject. Could you enlighten me on what, if anything, Ellen White and the Church had to say on the subject of womens' suffrage? That would be interesting to know, though not dispositive on the WO issue. Would you be against WO if Ellen White had expressly counseled against it in the context of her cultural and theological milieu?
I wince at your tendency to use politically charged language in route to your conclusions, though many will applaud you. Ellen White could hardly be described as a social progressive. She did advocate for some progressive causes, and against others. An attempt to argue that Ellen White would have been in favor of WO because she was a socially progressive voice is IMHO neither accurate nor necessary to your conclusions, except for conservative Adventists on the political Left who view Ellen White as an authoritative voice for present times.
The characterization of Jesus and Paul as "radical egalitarians" is an even greater stumbling block in your analysis. What do you mean by that term? Certainly Jesus and Paul had egalitarian views of salvation and the Kingdom of God. But when it came to culture and politics, it is difficult to reach that conclusion, especially in reading St. Paul. "Radical egalitarianism" is a politically charged term that would certainly suggest the sacrament of ordination should be extended to the LGBT community. Is that where you would go? Paul encouraged Christians, even slaves, to joyfully submit to the injustice and cruelty of oppressors, because they would thereby glorify God. Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor." Somehow, those positions don't strike me as radical egalitarianism.
The justifications and analytical paths one uses to reach conclusion are often as important, or more important, than the conclusion itself.. Unnecessary overreaching can pave an ideological path for church policies and practices that you might not be so comfortable with. The early Adventist Church was active in support of prohibition. But it was careful to maintain distance from fellow prohibitionists who used Sunday Laws as a pathway to prohibition.
Paul was radically pragmatic. So was James White, and I suspect Ellen WHite also. To enunciate and do what you can to move towards an ideal is good. To insist on accepting nothing else is often foolish. Paul was clear that neither race/ethnicity, social status nor gender counted in salvation or in the church. That was the ideal. He then went on to deal with the reality of his time. Only the upper class had the ability to be church leaders, so he set out what to look for when choosing them. That did not in any way detract from the ideal. I believe he took the same approach to gender. If a woman leader would hinder the preaching of the gospel, then he would say 'no' to that. But he also wrote to Philemon to accept his runaway slave back 'as a brother', and in the final chapter of Romans he lists a number of women who were 'fellow workers'. He proclaimed the ideal, then put it into practice to the extent that he could. Ellen White did the same with issue of segregation in the South. Where we make a mistake is failing to see when something is a pragmatic compromise – a step on the way to the ideal – and when it is the ideal itself. Ordination (and almost everything else) without regard to race/ethnicity, social class or gender is the ideal. Doing the best we can to move towards reaching it in the context in which we live is the reality. Which is why I support allowing women to be ordained where it is acceptable, and allowing the church not to do so where it is not.
Nathan question for you:
When Paul told slaves to obey their masters, to suffer like Christ so you may win your masters over, was he positively endorsing that system of slavery – or merely working within the historical-cultural reality of his day?
In our own Churches, being beachheads for the Kingdom of God that has come on earth, now merely will come in the future, should we aim to perpetuate such injustices – or should we rise above worldly standards as a peculiar people set apart?
Were our pioneers doing the right thing in being strong abolitionists against slavery?
Were our pioneers doing the right thing as being strong advocates of the temperance movement against alcohol abuse?
Were not our pioneers 'social progressives' for thier times?
Thanks, Nathan, for your observations. You are right, I don't want to lead down a path that I myself would not follow, so perhaps some clarification is in order.
EGW had little to say on women's suffrage. It simply was not "her thing." Or perhaps not "her time." When one of her friends spent some time trying to explain the importance of women's suffrage to her, she remarked afterwards that (paraphrase) she really didn't get it, though she acknowledged her friend seemed to be quite passionate on the subject! I don't think she was for or against women's suffrage—it seems that her overwhelming passion was Christ, Christ crucified, and Christ coming again, and preparing people for that great event.
I chose the words "social progressive" because that is how she seems to me–willing to stick her neck out for social causes that were unpopular in her time. I am not trying to make a political statement with that nomenclature.
Again, in the time of Christ and Paul, their inclusion of women in ministry, evangelism, and even conversation was pretty radical for the time. If that term means acceptance of the ordination of the LGBT community, than I need to find another term. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
EGW seems open to the idea of new light on topics that have not been fully studied in the past when she says, “In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God to the people of that generation. The old truths are all essential; new truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new.” COL 127
“That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea, ‘Why, Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.’ God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things. “ 3 SM 217
“When a doctrine is presented that does not meet our minds, we should go to the word of God, seek the Lord in prayer, and give no place for the enemy to come in with suspicion and prejudice. . .Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy. If a brother is teaching error, those who are in responsible positions ought to know it; and if he is teaching truth, they ought to take their stand at his side. . .If the light presented meets this test [Isaiah 8:20], we are not to refuse to accept it because it does not agree with our ideas.” CW 43,44
“We must study the truth for ourselves. No living man should be relied upon to think for us. No matter who it is, or in what position he may be placed, we are not to look upon any man as a perfect criterion for us. We are to counsel together, and to be subject to one another; but at the same time we are to exercise the ability God has given us to learn what is truth. . .We must not become set in our ideas, and think that no one should interfere with our opinions.” CW 45
“When new light is presented to the church, it is perilous to shut yourselves away from it. Refusing to hear because you are prejudiced against the message or the messenger will not make your case excusable before God. . .They are not to make up their minds that the whole truth has been unfolded, and that the Infinite One has no more light for His people. If they entrench themselves in the belief that the whole truth has been revealed, they will be in danger of discarding precious jewels of truth that shall be discovered as men turn their attention to the searching of the rich mine of God’s word.” CW 51
These citations seem pretty progressive to my mind!
One thing I found interesting reading through a book that was pro-feminism but also Christian was that there was a debate within the suffragette movement over whether the fight to gain the vote should be post-poned until after winning equality in the church. We sometimes forget that most (not all) of the early feminists were also committed Christians. There is also a difference between feminists who are fighting still for the original ideal of women (and women's work) being equal to men without being in any way the same. Being a feminist does not automatically translate to being in favour of WO. The range of views among feminists on many subjects is as wide as it is among Christians. In many of the cultural issues (like pornography) conservative Christians often would have no problem with working with even the most radical of feminists. Perhaps something like Ellen White suggested with the Temperance Movement of her day.
"Being a feminist doesn't automatically translate into being in favor of WO"
Wow, Kevin! Your going to have to elaborate on that. And being a Playboy bunny doesn't automatically translate into being in favor of pornography. Right!
Nothing against feminists. And I'm certainly not comparing them to Playboy bunnies. (Don't take offense at that either.) I just can't imagine how a feminist could not be in favour (I love the British spelling of that word)of WO.
I think you are missing Kevin's point.
Some feminists are extremely anti-pornography, as they see it as exploitation of women. These are often your 'traditional' burn-your-bra Germain Greer feminists.
Other feminists are very pro-pornography, saying for too long women's sexuality has not been acknowledged, and pornography gives women a form of sexual empowerment. These are your more modern Sex-in-the-City style feminists.
These 'sides' are both hard core feminists, believing in the empowerment of women; however, they have diametrically opposed views on how to address the issue of pornography.
Thus your comment about Playboy bunnies makes no sense at all. Perhaps many Playboy bunnies might seen themselves as Sex-in-the-City type of women. But they certainly are not traditional Germaine Greer feminists. The fact that you seemingly don't grasp these differences perhaps illustrates you don't quite understand the nuances of the WO debate?
By the way, Kevin is an Australian – not British. We have our own spelling, although in most cases it does match the British over American. We are our own country.
There are feminists – inside and outside the church – who believe equality is not gained by women doing what men do, or in the same way that men do. The ones in the church in some cases accept that women should not be pastors but still believe women can be equal without that. They strongly stress that difference does not have to mean inequality. So a woman can be a deaconess, and in all respects be equal to a man who is an elder or pastor. Of course, many women with the same beleif are in favour of ordaining women as pastors because they beleive the Bible allows that.
It seems to be surprising that some people realize the feminists, usually women;)
have as many and varied opinions as the opposite sex. Why is that unusual? Some women prefer to be homemakers and stay home (a luxury today); others seek professional careers. The whole program of feminism was, and still is, to allow women to have all doors open to them and they could be free to choose which one, or whether any, would be for them.
Most of the world's cultures assigned specific roles for women–by the men–and they must obey those roles. Feminism freed up women for choice, something men have always been granted. Laws had to be initiated to create mandatory rules against discrimination against women. Again, what is unfair or unbiblical with that?
While women are typecast by their gender, men the world over have ordinarily been typecast by their family name and bloodlines, and women have sought some redress from their gender-specific drudgery by "marrying up" to men of higher status. In most Third World nations today, a family of low-prestige-surname or racial characteristics finds it virtually impossible to better their socioeconomic position through hard work alone—but those same people can come to the United States and use their talents to rise rapidly to become physicians, attorneys, clergy-people, and the like. This is "The American Dream."
I studied with some very low-social-class Adventist kids as a missionary, and found that the really smart ones determined to accept Adventism, avail themselves of the healthful-living standards and educational opportunities, and move up, generation after generation, to subdue and improve land and acquire more, to reach a lower-middle-class socioeconomic level where they could become electable to higher office. This is one reason the Adventist faith provides so much hope in the Third World and is so highly accepted, even by the Roman Catholic Church. The Adventist community offers an alternative to crime as an escape mechanism from poverty (though the escape may be very gradual, and require several restarts. This is also a reason growth of the church is far more laid-back in First World nations, where socio-ecomic rise is less dependent on dynastic connections and surnames.) If somehow in these nations the privilege of surname and other historical amenities could be phased out, along with discrimination against women, many highly unstable societies would reach a point of higher productivity and per-capita wealth, and the wealthy would keep their money in town instead of exporting their capital out of the country and starving their own economies. (Yet, with these improvements we would also see a decline in raw numbers of accessions. Poverty is probably the greatest "Adventist evangelist" in the denomination's Three Angels' quiver of proclamation.)
The determination to keep the lower classes "in their place" is surely as strong as the urge to "keep women in their places." Yet in the 1st World, if we agreed only to elevate men of defined, aristocratic heritage to leadership in the church (as the Mormons tend to do), the howl would be heard to heaven. Lest we pat ourselves too heartily on the back, however, I do recognize that men of means and education ARE generally given the first opportunity to sign on as church elders, delegates to church decision-making bodies, and the like. Various reasons are given for this tendency, but fundamentally it's the same base human nature that tends to marginalize Adventist women. There seems to be something almost genetically reassuring about the charisma of a rich, Alpha Male—whom God has surely blessed. (I point out these things as matters of fact, not as the way things ought to be in an enlightened Christian society. These are seemingly built-in status markers that Christianity is duty-bound to resist and remedy, where possible.)
The most effective method for improving the qualify of life in a nation is to educate its women. This been proved many times. When women are educated they no longer rely on their fertility for status and also want more for their own children.
This applies to all nations by educating all children: they want a better life and have learned how to achieve it. Prosperity of a nation depends on the education of its citizens.
The emphasis Adventism has traditionally placed on quality education is highly praiseworthy, and is responsible for much of the comparatively rapid rise in socioeconomic level of Adventist members everywhere. But with that education have come "unanticipated consequences," including a growing reluctance to accept silently the edicts and plans of the powers that be. Education teaches us to question, probe, and offer alternative suggestions. It makes it virtually impossible for a top-down leadership style to keep the peace and makes it imperative that we elect top-rung leaders whose minds are able to encompass the complexities of leading a complex church.
The growth of Adventism at such a remarkable rate throughout the world has also "rubbed off" to a great degree on Protestantism and even Roman Catholicism. What was my surprise a few years back to walk into a Catholic church in Mexico and hear the priest proclaiming the soon-coming of Christ and exhorting his flock to stay away from the booze "like those Adventists. For once, let's be a little bit more like the Adventists." We can justly feel considerable satisfaction in many ways for what the church has accomplished and the imitators that have sprung up to afford us the ultimate compliment.
Our oversight was to educate people without at the same time re-packaging our answers so they made sense to educated people. To give high school answers to high-school educated people worked well; to give high school answers to people with PhDs does not work well at all. I believe those 'PhD' answers exist, we often don't hear of them though, probably partly out of a fear (not unfounded) that the high school educated people, and those who cherish the high school answers, will object strongly to our changing the faith. I suspect also that some administrators – even in high office – may object because they personally either don't understand or don't relate to those 'PhD' answers. People often have an irrational fear of what they don't understand, and fear that a different packaging must mean a different answer, and either that answer or their answer must be wrong.
You make an excellent point Elaine regarding the benefits of educating a society’s women.
Kevin, I wish you had been prompted to make your point about “re-packaging our answers so they made sense to educated people” after my Education is Overrated blog.
I see no problem “re-packaging our answers so they [make] sense to educated people;” as long as what is inside the package is in fact the same product.
It is not clear whether you are suggesting that the product remains the same or that it can indeed be different.
The basic product remains the same. It is hard to draw a clean line between packaging and product, but I believe we could basically keep the 28 FBs intact but present them differently. There are, believe it or not, a number of very well educated people who accept the basic premise of each of those FBs and are able to explain them in a way that makes sense to themselves and others. The details are sometimes different, so for those who believe we must not onlt preserve the basic premise, but the entirety of the details, there may be a problem.
Why do you suppose that there is nothing like creed in the Bible or a list of fundamental beliefs? Or for those in this forum believe in the inspiration of Ellen White with almost Biblical authority to speak to us in modernity, why do her writings not include a set of fundamental beliefs? If God meant for us to embrace such a set of ideas with unquestionable devotion why didn't He spell them out?
Does it never occur to anyone that the reason(s) God has for letting us mine this kind of truth from His Word and our spiritual journey may also deny us the right to treat them as something that must be assented to by every believer exactly the way some other believer sees them? Why would it not make sense to state the FBs as the consensus beliefs of the SDA church while at the same time clearly stating that Christian fellowship is based on some very simple precepts shared with all true Christians? IMO it appears we believe there is some divinely recognized merit in assenting to a correct set of doctrines. This belief and the fears attached to it will always obscure the Gospel in these circumstances.
The 28 FBs seem like a reasonable statement of what SDAs in general believe today. They are not a creed, nor should they be. If we want a creed, the Nicean Creed works just fine – and is short enough to memorise. My point was that we can explain our beleifs differently without making substantial changes to what those beliefs are. I have no problem with us changing those beliefs should we believe it is necessary.
Kevin, I think you missed my primary point. Which is the FBs are an unnecessary source of contention because we have no statement of the unchangeable beliefs that are the basis of our fellowship in Christ. We are left with confusing attempts of some in the church to require absolute loyalty to a changeable set of beliefs. For many the FBs become their identity as both Adventists and Christians. Many cannot in good conscience assume this identity as synonymous with their identity as Christians + Adventists.
I personally struggle with identifying myself as Adventist because I feel that what most people hear from and about Adventism is that it equates itself with "true" Chritianity. If Adventists had always recognized the difference between what makes us "true" Chritians and what makes us Adventists this would not be a problem. Our adoption of the FBs in the manner we have makes this undesirable outcome (IMO) inevitable.
I didn't miss your point – but my reply was to Stephen who does see some importance in the FBs. To me, they are a convenient, pragmatic summary of what most SDAs believe. The problem, as I see it, is that some want to use them as a statement of what SDAs should/must believe. They are, like WO, a matter of contention because we choose to make them so. If we want a statement of what a true Christian is – beyond someone who accepts Christ, which is pretty much sufficient – then the Nicene Creed works fine for that. We need to go back to publishing the preamble that Uriah Smith published with our first set of beliefs, stating that they are a summary of what is generally believed, not of what should be believed, and cannot be used to judge a person's Christianity or Adventism. It wouldn't stop everyone from using the FBs as a creed, but it would give the church administrators a reason to refuse to do so.
I wish there was such a preamble as you describe. The Nicene creed works fine or as you suggest something even simpler would work for me.
Kevin I didn’t pick up on the FB’s as what you may have been referencing, and didn’t have them in mind. However, in retrospect, perhaps I should have; since we were talking about our beliefs.
My point is that as long as the way we “package” our beliefs to those with the most formal education does not at all alter the beliefs themselves—if it’s only a matter of presentation—then personally I have no problem with doing so; for efficacy’s sake.
I would have a major problem with altering the beliefs in order to appeal to and/or attract anyone; which should be fairly obvious.
It makes no difference whether they are called Fundamental Beliefs, or Creed. It is how they have been used in the past, and the potential for being used or misused in the future.
The very specificity and details preclude Adventism being Protestant when EGW is cited as "authoritative" in the same statement as the Bible is "authoritative." This forever separates true Protestantism which recognizes no authority but the Bible, and Adventism which has an extrabiblical authority.
All claims that "EGW is not really an authority" does not withstand the actual practice in the church and with its leaders.
Cindy,
Thank you for your thoughtful blog for you have the knowledge and research available on it that most won't have. Again some here have been thrown off the subject because of terms. It seems as if when we try to use contemporary terms, others will dig up the most negative uses (as in feminism) from the past.
Cindy you said: " If that term means acceptance of the ordination of the LGBT community, than I need to find another term. Thank you for pointing that out to me."
I do think this will be coming up in the future, and we need to be thinking about it now. I don't see that we can take an ethical stand against a non-practicing (celibate) homosexual of either sex being ordained or in church work in any position. Since these people are born (this is not just a tendancy in the real ones) with the orientation, they could not be denied a position any more than a single person could. Wouldn't you agree? I don't know of any mandate saying that a person must be married before being ordained. Perhaps this would be a don't tell situation?
What we do need to do is make a clear distinction between WO which is supported by large numbers in many unions in NAD, Western Europe and the South Pacific and the ordination of practicing homosexuals which has been promoted by no one and has never even been suggested as a possibility. To worry about ordaining someone as a pastor when we won't even accept them into membership is bordering on the neurotic.
The LGBT 'Red Terror' or 'Domino Theory', to use Cold War analogies, is slightly driving me crazy! As you say, we are hardly going to ordain a gay minister when most homosexuals are even accepted as members sitting in the pews of most Churches!
Yeah, Ella, even thinking about where we stand on the ordination of the LGBT community is just crazy! I mean, they aren't even allowed in most churches, nevermind the fact that they can't possibly be saved by grace through faith like other sinners (for the Lord hates homosexuality so much that, as it is written, "He vomiteth and wretcheth with His eyes shut tight at the mere pattering of a homosexual's feet" –James 4:11-12. Amen!). In fact, it's actually the ONE SIN IN THE UNIVERSE that prevents somebody from being ordained by the church. Isn't that fascinating and weird?
So let's not waste our time talking about something so silly, shall we? Let the blind lead the blind and both shall fall into the pit.
Yours in the blinding, brilliant light of the Lord Jesus H. Christ,
Tim
Whatever our views on homosexuality, the reality in most churches is that homosexuals are tolerated at best. In such a climate, claiming that voting to ordain women is just a sneaky way to get to ordain homosexuals, or that that will be the next step very quickly, is crazy. A church where the majority of members can't imagine that God would call a women to be a pastor is hardly in a postion to even begin a serious discussion on homosexuality. The discussion on ordaining gay pastors lies beyond that point. We have to live in the world as it is, we don't have to like it or accept it as 'the way things should be'.
Kevin was it "crazy" for the Pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodist, Unitarian, and others after they first ordained women also…. I think not.
Most of those churches accepted (at least informally or in certain sections of the church organisation) homosexuality as a legitimate expression of sexuality before they started discussing ordaining homosexual priests. When even one conference passes a resolution – or even seriously discusses – that homosexuality is a legitmate expression of human sexuality get back to me and we'll discuss this.
Yes and they ordained women prior to moving into that realm…
"or even seriously discusses – that homosexuality is a legitmate expression of human sexuality" ….been on spectrum lately?
I said when a conference seriously discusses it. Spectrum can discuss anything it likes, but until a church body does so, it's not going anywhere.
As I have said before, I believe these sorts of arguments where you deny justice in one case because we fear it might cause injustice in another case is against the clear instruction of scripture:
‘do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.’ (Ex. 23:3)
The ends don’t justify the means. Each matter must be determined on a case-by-case basis according to its own merits.
We must look at the issue of WO on its own facts, and not make a judgment because it might adversely or favorably affect another case. If we want to discuss homosexuality, that is fine, but it should likewise be discusses on its own facts according to its own merits.
Last time I checked ordain "without regard to gender" could mean just what it says….
'Gender' refers to male and female, not who anyone prefers sexually. When it says 'without regard to sexual orientation' then I will agree. While it says 'gender' it is not referring to sexuality. It may raise an issue shold we have a transgender person want to be ordained, but I suspect that such a person would not be hired in the first place, and would be dismissed once found out.
Cindy, thank you for your insight. I know that when I've had a question on EGW, your email back to me includes the correct answer. There have been times that I knew about the quote, but just could not locate it because I did not know the keywords needed to get the right answers. Thanks again…
Not sure if others are interesting, but Doug Bacholor and Steven Bohr's main theological arguments from 'Christ or Culture' (All4Him will be happy I mention them) against WO are as follows. In my opinion, they are pretty flimsy arguments and very RC like:
1). Following sin in the garden of Eden, God established male spiritual leadership within the family and church. See Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:13.
2). Only men were ever authorized to officiate in the offering of sacrifice. See Genesis 8:20; Job 1:5; Hebrews 11:4.
3). While the Lord called on the entire nation of Israel to be a kingdom of priests, only men were appointed to serve as priests for the sanctuary. See Exodus 12:3; 29:10.
4). Only men were anointed by God to serve as kings of Israel and Judah. One woman tried to forcibly install herself as a queen by killing her grandsons; she was later executed. See 2 Kings 11:1-13.
5). The New Testament begins by tracing the genealogy of Jesus through the male lineage. (Four famous women are mentioned in connection with their husbands.) See Matthew 1:1.
6). While Jesus desired that women share the gospel, He called only men to serve in the capacity of apostle. When Judas died, his replacement was chosen from among two men. See Mark 3:14; Acts 1:21.
7). While both men and women were baptized, only men are recorded as performing baptisms. See Acts 8:12; Acts 8:38.
8). The first seven deacons ordained to administrate and preach were all men. See Acts 6:3.
9). As Paul went from town to town appointing/ordaining elders, he chose only men. See 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:5.
10). While two books in the Bible are named after women, most commentators agree all the books in the Bible were written by men. See 2 Peter 1:21.
11). There are seven examples in Scripture of women giving birth in connection with a miracle; all these miracle babies were male children who typified Christ. The mothers are Hannah, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachael, Manoah’s wife, the Shunammite women, and Elizabeth.
12). All patriarchal blessings were passed down from the fathers to the sons. See Genesis 27:4; Genesis 48:9.
You believe those genealogies? They don't even begin to harmonize. They have no evidence other than their own imagination.
Does anyone really believe that if genealogical records were kept since Adam, that they would agree. But of course, they do not.
I personally think – is this all you have against WO? It seems pretty flimsy to me. I posted this to show just how flimsy the argument is against WO.
In particular:
#1 is a curse of sin. It shows that God's original plan was equality between the sexes. God no more wants female subordination than he wants men to produce fail crops as a result of a damaged environment. Christ made clear in his example on divorce that we are to live according to God's pre-Eden Perfect Will.
#2-#4 all relate to the Levitical priesthood or kingship. They all pointed to Jesus Christ, our true high priest and king. They have no relevance for Christians, and certainly Protestants who don't see our clergy as priests but rather embrace Martin Luther's priesthood of all believers. Same goes for the typical Korban arguments.
#5-#12 all in effect look to the Roman Catholic notion of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Tradition, and again are not worthy of professed Protestants. Yes, Jesus chose men, but he also chose Jewish men. If what you says is true, then by logical extension one could argue that race like gender is a basis for discrimination. In fact, much of the NT was about racial equality between Jews and Gentiles, and has certain parallels to this discussion today about gender equality.
In Samuels day the Israelites wanted a hierarchial order that was like the nations around them. And Samuel told them they would also suffer the reprucssions. This humanistic counterfeit equality is antithetical to biblical equality and will lead to more problems than solution. In countries where this false equality is employed you have more brocken homes,divorce, child abuse etc. I am a firm believer in ontological equality. the difference I guess is that Many on this forum believe this translates it identical. Equality does not mean duplication of responsiblities. Just like the sabbath it is one issue which is misinterpreted. You want to call me misogynistic, fine, whatever makes you sleep at night but I believe this is a feministic intrusion into adventism. I am not talking about the conspirational feminism but the one where feminised societies have a false concept of equality and try to bulldoze where they percieve inequality.
Many proponents of WO allege that Men are hoarding all the power. that is feminism 101 and it is the ugly version. I still maintain my biblical position is stronger than the speculative ones you have given me I mean biblically predicted feminism!!! really. Just remeber that the angels are recording with terrible exactness these actions and their far reaching consequenses.
Again, who says your view is biblical? You saws who are not just reading your own cultural baggage into the scriptures? Pointing to the Levitical priesthood and kingship is irrelevant, because they were for the Jews and fulfilled in Christ. In Jesus, we adhere to the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood and kingship of all believers – both men and women.
Remember the angels are recording you as well. Yahweh is, in His very nature, a good of the underdog. Of the slave, of the poor, of the sinner, of the humble and yes of women – who have been mistreated since the Fall. This is why Gal. 3:28 is the 'ground zero' of the raddical egalitarianism of the Gospel.
It is no wonder than women flocked to Jesus and the Jesus Movement. Jesus was a man who said for Mary to remain and listen to His teachings rather than join her sister Martha in the kitchen. If you want to know a feminist, His name was Jesus of Nazareth!
Have you read any of the many books defending the ordination of women from a biblical perspective?
Jesus was a feminist???!!!! I think thats a little over the top hey while you are at it you can as well say he was an LGBT lobbyist. But wait I think you point might actualy support mine. You say Jesus was a feminist right? And yet all his twelve disciples were men!! This proves my point that ontological equality does not translate to duplication od responsibilities. Thanks Steve for that point
It depends on how you define feminist. No doubt you see it all in one stereotypical fashion. Jesus was a feminist insofar as he treated women with far higher regard than patriarchal society of his day. And it wasn't just Jesus – it was Christianity in general. Why do you think Christianity was so popular with women in the NT?
Jesus chose 12 Jewish men (don't just single out gender and not race) because He did operate within a patriarchal Israelite society. Paul also said for slaves to obey their masters – but he was not positively promoting slavery either.
Is there even a true definition of feminism? All I know is Ellen White told us to stay away from it. Again another self conflicting statement from you Stephen first you said Jesus was about radical eglitarianism now you are saying he operated within a patriarchal system. Do you believe it is a sin not to ordain women as elders or pastors? And yes it is a trick question
"All I know is Ellen White told us to stay away from it (feminism).
Please cite the source of that statement as "feminism" was not a word in the vernacular when she wrote.
Jesus lived in a patriarchal system. He also lived under Roman rule. This is not approval of either system, only pragmatic. If you live under a dictatorship or under a democracy, it can only be accepted and if and when there is a legal opportunity to change the system, the voting booth is where such changes should be made.
What is the proportion of females to males in NAD adventism today? And world wide?
Usually about 3 to 2, sometimes as high as 4 to 1. Not that much different to Christianity in general.
A few days ago I read that 65% were females in the church. The representation in the pastors is probably less than 1%.
That is about the usual mark in US, Australia, but the rest of the world varies somewhat. I have read it can be over 80% in parts of Africa. There are churches in Australia where the figures are as high – often small churches where the 2 or 3 men have to take turns being elders and deacons. One church I went to preach at the elder (male) was on the platform with me – announced the offering – then played the organ while it was taken up by deaconesses. They have since ordained a woman as elder, I believe. Necessity is often better at getting people to consider new ideas than any amount of persuasion 🙂 It remais a solidly conservative church, and I am sometimes surprised it doesn't have a "Doug for President" sign somewhere in the building. The way people keep saying "Pr Doug says… " you would think they were talking about their own pastor rather than an evangelist they watch on TV.
Because women make up the majority in all Christian churches, it only makes good sense to have them in positions of pastoring. Women understand how other women feel, suffer, and the problems they must face; something that men have not experienced.
This was keenly demonstrated two days ago when a senator from Missouri made such outrageous and ignorant remarks about wome and the female biology that he showed to the audience how atrocious are some men's regard for women. When a man can say "legitimate rape" in the same sentence he is not only very poorly educated but show his very deep disregard for all women. That he is not alone was also reported in the Republican Platform just adopted and in similar remarks from other male legislators.
There is little difference between those vocal remarks and the more subtle subordination of women that is happening right now in the Adventist church as it all stems from the same mindset, only slightly less excoriating.
Elaine,
You don't have to be a woman to be offended by such comments. And I would suggest it is, for most people, quite a way from where most people who oppose WO are.
It was indeed an unfortunate statement but it does not make WO biblical
One could make a very large list of things that are in the Bible that are no longer practiced. Maybe we could start a list?
1. No clothes of mixed fabrics
2. Men unclean 24 hours following seminal emission.
3. No expensive clothes
4. Women cannot teach a man (in Judaism, it was 12 years old).
5. Women must cover their heads.
The last three were from Paul's letter to Timothy which is so frequently quoted,
but very selectively. Does your church demand that no women teach a male over 12 years old? Or that either sex should not wear "expensive" clothes; or that women should not speak? Or that women must cover their heads?
When you can honestly claim that these should be followed today, write and explain how.