Understanding the Claims and Counter Claims about Unity and Authority in the Adventist Church
by AT News Team
In the debate over ordination practices leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church have made impassioned pleas for “unity” and “submission.” Many Adventists are not aware of the long discussion of these topics that go back to the very beginning of the movement.
J. David Newman, editor of Adventist Today, recommends the following two articles from Ministry, the denomination’s official journal for the clergy published by the General Conference. These provide significant information from both Scripture and church history.
“The Use and Abuse of Authority” by Andrew Bates was published in the June 2002 issue of Ministry and can be found at this web address:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2002/June/the-use-and-abuse-of-authority.html
“The Jerusalem Council: a model for Utrecht?” also by Andrews Bates was published in the April 1995 issue of Ministry, prior to the General Conference Session held that summer in Utrecht, Holland. It can be read at this web address:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1995/April/the-jerusalem-council-a-model-for-utrecht
"When there is a lot of hot rhetoric and emotion, it is vital to keep a strong grip on truth," one Adventist Today reader has commented. "The truth has always been more important to Seventh-day Adventists than emotional opinions."
If unity was all important for Christians, even when it was against our own clear understandings of the scriptures, we would all still belong to the Roman Catholic Church – wouldn't we?
Historically, the Christian church has never been unified. From the beginning there was a separation between the Jews and Christians and never since then has there been complete unity. Why should we expect a much larger world church where there is instant communication, to be in unity? It's like climbing the Escher stairs or belling Schroder's cat: ain't gonna happen.
The best solution we should hope for is that each union decides certain cultural issues (as the church has never settled a biblical or theological doctrine on WO)
that will work best for their particular territories. It is asinine to believe that all
peoples around the world will dress the same, speak the same, like the same music, etc. For those who are focused on certain issues; be it strict vegetarianism, dress, or the role of women, why are we fighting over it? How does it advance the Gospel? Some things can deter the Gospel and we should be certain that our wants do not harm the church's mission.
Good thoughts, Elaine!
It has always been my understanding that each person must work out their own salvation with Jesus and have a relationship with Him. Should I wait for my church to do this for me not wanting to question their authority?Maybe I'm missing the point here but I have seen some very disgusting things go on in the leadership. I'm not sure they are about Jesus or about running a large business. I think EGW was very right when she said many a pastor should still have his hand on the plow. ( that's from memory and not sure where it's found ) After some of the things I have witnessed I am unable to trust the authority of this church or any other.
If all were focused on Jesus we would not be facing these complicated issues today.
The "problem" with large numbers is that it becomes commensurately more difficult to expect uniformity, the more the numbers and cultures increase inside the fold. I'm not sure Brother Ted understands this dynamic. I'm sure he recognizes it, but does he understand it? As the numbers increase, the "areas of full agreement" will tend to become fewer and fewer, until as in the Roman Catholic Church of today, the only thing EVERYONE agrees on is that the Pope is their leader. Whether they follow his leading or not is another matter altogether, but they DO agree that he is in charge. To be "united" to the Roman Catholic Church, that's essentially the one fundamental belief. To expect a church our sice to practice 28 separate unifying fundamentals—well, the Adventist people are far better educated, independent, and self-determined. And this makes us cats much harder to herd. Ours is a church that in every way requires a wide range of diversity, with a simple statement of belief such as the one devised by James White back in the early years of the church to keep us marching the same overall direction.
As the RC church has discovered, it takes more than acceptance of a leader to keep unity. They also have the idea of 'the church', from which authority and identity is derived. Even people who dislike the Pope, and don't believe in papal infallibility, continue to believe in 'the church' and remain RC. The more people you have, the more you need unity based on an idea, or a set of beliefs. Then you have to be prepared to allow a lot of dissension and varity of practice on just about everything except those beliefs. Our church is set up to allow that to a much greater extent than the RCC. But it requires us to trust each other, and God. I suspect we need a little more than James White provided, but it isn't a bad place to start. Work the 28 down to a good biblical number like 12, 10 or 7, emphasise unity and servant leadership, and I think we might be surprised at how well it would work. As long as we could get on with our work without constantly watching to see our neighbours are doing what we would do. And that may be where it would all come apart.
"United" is fundamental for Catholics in the sense of it being the "universal" (=catholic) Christian church. My sister is Catholic, but says to her that only means catholic (with a small c). In other words, she is a Christian, regards of what church she attends (or doesn't), and she does not accept the infalibility of the Pope. She desagrees with much of the organization and practice, yet serves as a counselor to the bishop in her diocese. As I have mentioned before, she grew up as an adventist and studied history, religion, and theology in the 1950s. Despite being fully qualified otherwise, she was denied advancement into the seminary because she was a woman. Had any women gone to the adventist seminary before 1960? When were the first? Or have adventist women been trained in non-adventist seminaries? Or what. I'm behind times on this….
The church began to encourage women to study for ministry after the decision in 1974 (1975?) to allow women to be ordained as elders. It would seem they expected that ordination as pastors would follow soon after. It does seem to me to be unfair – perhaps even cruel – to encourage women to consider ministry as a career and then still be arguing 40 years later (assuming it comes up in 2015) as to whether to go ahead with that or not. Should the conservative view that women cannot be ordained become policy, it will cause a lot of unrest in many circles, as it will make women pastors and elders impossible. It may not be possible, in a wide-ranging review of ordination, to restrict the question simply to 'can women woking as pastors be ordained?' as the GC has managed to do for decades.
I would like to see the GC come out and say that, if the result is the same as in the past – that the Bible neither commands nor prohibits the ordination of women – that they will allow those areas [divisions or unions] who want to ordain women to go ahead. It would be extremely unfair to ask for unions to wait until the review is finished, and then again say 'wait, some people will be upset if you go ahead'.
Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots and Christians – all hating each other. And then Jewish and Gentiles Christians hating each other. 2,000 years and nothing has changed. God should go back to bed.
"To expect a church our sice(sic) to practice 28 separate unifying fundamentals—well, the Adventist people are far better educated, independent, and self-determined."
Ed, exactly what does education have to do with what is truth? Isn't that a bit patronizing to those who have not had the opportunity to secure advanced education?
Rebellion is rebellion and we have seen it in the CUC action; that is very clear to any objective onlooker who understands a bit about church governance. In the political realm it appears to me that supporters of their "man" are much more loyal than some who profess to be SDAS are to church beliefs and decisions. I exclude former SDAS since I do not read their posts. If I left the church I would not be posting either here nor on Spectrum.
The level of education has nothing to do with salvation; but those who are poorly educated can much easier be told what to believe without question. This worked for most of Christian history: the clergy read parts of the Bible, usually in Latin, and gave their interpretations. The illiterate parishoners could not question as they could not read the Bible for themselves.
This has not changed much, and even occurs in the U.S. The SDA evangelist holds a few weeks' seminar warning from D&R and probably 99% of the non-SDA in attendance have never read these books and so they are amazed at the acumen of this itinerant preacher and within a few weeks are dunked in the tank. Don't tell me I'm wrong, I've seen this for more than 80 years and nothing has changed.
Why do so many SDAs accuse the Catholics? The Bible makes no mention of them; it is the SDA interpretation that fostered anti-Catholicism just as anti-Semitism began with early Christianity.
I just finished reading both of the excellent articles linked above and my overwhelming sense is one of sadness and loss at the current and ongoing state of the church regarding WO. It is nothing less than tragedy that we are forced repeatedly through these convulsions of anger, bitterness and dogmatism because of the stiff-necked refusal of tiny men to recognize the equality of all believers. This 130-year argument could be but a distant memory if we had only followed the example set by the Council of Jerusalem. No one is forced to ordain women, no one is forbidden to ordain women. What a wicked diversion of energy from the good news of Salvation. And more damage to the Body of Christ will reverberate throughout the church because of the threats of "dire consequences" to those who dare to follow their consciences instead of the party line. I am appalled.
Patti: "It is nothing less than tragedy that we are forced repeatedly through these convulsions of anger, bitterness and dogmatism because of the stiff-necked refusal of tiny men to recognize the equality of all believers."
Not even remotely related to equality; that is a worldly feminist concept with regard to WO. Male spiritual headship is the issue as portrayed throughout Scriptures as well as enjoined by the Bble. Damage to the Body of Christ is exemplified in the rebellion to properly constituted authority.
Actually, quite a number of SDA theologians, including those who are otherwise conservative, do not see 'male headship' as applying in the church in the NT or today. That may be why the decision has been taken out of the hands of theologians at Andrews and placed into the hands of the BRI and its branches at the divisions. I think the administrtators learnt long ago that they cannot rely on the theologians to come up with the 'right' answers. I am not sure what happens if the consensus turns out to be the same as all previous studies.
Why not have an all-male church then there would be no conflict about who should be ordained?
Calling it a "worldly feminist concept" has no relevance. It is a Roman concept that only men should be church leaders. The Roman Catholic church adopted the Roman government structure which had been kept alive since pagan times.
Of course, women have always played important parts in all religions and had enormous influence: the Oracle of Delphi; the Greek and Roman goddesses. The virgin birth first appeared in both Greek and Roman religions; it is not an original concept in Christianity and took many decades before it eventually became a Christian idea.
Perhaps like Muslims in Saudi Arabia, who aren't even allowed to attend the Mosque but must pray or home. Or I beleive Hasidic Jews are wholly seperated, and just watch in the upstairs gallery the men in worship. It would simply make life easier for many of those posting here. Who knows, perhaps we should run it past Pres Ted.
Just a thought and looking for feedback. I have seen women speakers in America and also in another country. Some were very good but then there were others who dressed in a very attractive sexy way with out question.
Yes I am a guy and they did look very good. Just thinking all this will go on if the door is opened wide for womens ordination. How would the guide lines for dress be set?
I post this question here because of letters I have recieved on this issue.
Do you object to the men who dress well and attract the attention of women? How are the guidelines for dress set for men? And, the quesion at issue is not women preaching, or working as pastors, but the credentials they receive. Should the unions back down and things stay as they are, the same women will be up the front preaching. As will the women elders, deacons, song leaders, musicians, singers, etc doing what they do. Not to mention the good looking women in the pews or in the foyer between SS and church. Choosing not to ordain women will not solve this problem.
Steve, I can appreciate your concern that "all this will go on if the door is opened wide for womens ordination." It is my experience that the problem of how any man looks at any woman is already an issue, on the podium or off. We live in a world that is saturated with images of sexy-looking women wearing clothing specifically designed to elicit a sexual response from men. It cannot be easy for men. But if a woman dresses modestly in line with Biblical principles she is acceptable to God. I would respectfully respond that it is each individual man's responsibility to control his own thoughts as he looks at a woman. Each woman has the responsibility to dress modestly so as to not provoke. A "dress policy" will not answer this question. Only you can thoughtfully harness your own thoughts in response. The Holy Spirit will strengthen you. Thank you for raising a valid question with which many men struggle.
In Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, women are beaten for exposing their ankles. Lust is in the heart and men have always blamed women for their own lustful thoughts. I have yet to see a woman in the pulpit not decently dressed. If she wears a dress it could be too tight or short; if she wears pants it would be "unladylike"–it's a no-win situation.
This is also cultural. In many cultures, neither legs nor breasts are considered to be sexually arousing. So having dresses with slits in them almost to the thigh, or women exposing their breasts, in no way distracts a man. Even in cultures where no clothes were habitually worn had standards of decency for men and women. In Australian Aboriginal culture clothes were optional, and only usually worn of it was cold, but boys and girls were taught to be modest. Our missionaries have tended to impose western ideals of modesty – perhaps for their own protection. It does take time to not notice women breastfeeding their babies in the front row of church, even if it doesn't affect you sexually, so I can imagine a naked (but very modest) congregation could be distracting to a preacher.
These are all good thoughts. I appreciate them and feel these issues need to be addressed. Another thought I have is what is wrong with husband wife teams working together in ministry? I have seen this and like it. After all didn't Jesus recommend sending two by two?
What if the wife (or husband) is not called to ministry?
It seems that Patti is the only who, besides myself, who has read the articles posted. At least no one else is comenting on them. l had hoped that there could be a real discussion about what those articles said. We know our own opinions but those articles would help the church forward if everyone would read them and see how much they are in agreement.
Thank you, David. I too feel that these wonderful articles shine bright light into many dark chasms and can soothe anxieties on both sides of the instant issue. Andrew Bates shows us how to do that without violating one's conscience. In The Use and Abuse of Authority he begins by noting that "When people end up in charge, they are easily tempted to demand obedience from others." I shake my head in disbelief remembering how Ted Wilson asks church members to subvert personal conscience in the service of a mythical unity that he himself cannot even define. Conscience is the voice of the Holy Spirit, and surrendering my conscience to any human being is not safe. I simply cannot fathom being asked to do that by any godly leader.
Bates goes on to cite EGW's statements about leadership: "For clarity's sake we may contrast two extremes: 'Demonic' authority is anchored in the coercive use of power. Its goal is self-preservation. It appeals to fear and ultimately resorts to violence to gain its ends. In contrast, 'Divine' authority is anchored first in the prosperity of true goodness, that is, using power only insupport of goodness. Its goal is reciprocal love. It appeals to joy and seeks to win through a demonstration of goodness rather than through corecion by a show of force." What a stunning contrast. I strongly encourage everyone to read and refresh your spirits. There is a way out of this mess. What a shame these articles were not accepted 10 years ago and 17 years ago, respectively.
I read the two articles thoroughly. One point that Andrew Bates made in number 6 of the second article stood out. He wrote: "Peter, taking the floor after "much discussion" (verse 7, NIV), did no exegesis of Scripture. He simply told the story of how God had demonstrated the equality of Jew and Gentile, . . ."
It was demonstration and not exegesis that brought a decision.
I read the articles. They are saying nothing new. Church politics often gets in the way of common sense.
An ideal solution was reached nearly 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. For all those who continue quoting the Bible, why is this not the best model: allow each group to do what is best for winning new converts, whether Jews or Greeks. This destroys the idea of world wide uniformity that forces everyone, no matter the culture, to march to the same drummer.
Lysistrata used the mother of all strategies. Why not try that one ladies?
Could it be done while being 'submissive'?