The ASI Convention and ADvindicate

The 2012 International ASI convention arrived in Cincinnati last Wednesday with a reminder that each of us are called to action. The theme was “It’s Time.” And it was. It was time for thousands of believers to gather together for encouragement. It was time for preaching, seminars and re-connecting with those who take the Advent Message seriously. Perhaps we take it a bit more seriously now, after Shawn Boonstra’s Sabbath sermon and Elder Wilson’s evening message the same day. Both were good. This convention was also a first for ADvindicate. We had a booth there for the first time. Judging by the comments from people who visited our booth in the exhibit hall, now is a good time for a website like ADvindicate – a website that appreciates the Advent Message. ADvindicate’s goal is to find ways to strengthen that which God has given us, not tear down the message with unbelief and theological pessimism. The people that I talked to were encouraged by our vision. There were even several rather notable fellow Adventists who stopped by and thanked us for what we are doing. We appreciate them too.

During the convention we gave away a Kindle Fire to a fortunate individual who signed the register. Congratulations to Nehemiah Fowler! Let us know what great things you read with it someday.

Those of you who couldn’t make it, we appreciate your prayers and contributions to the ADvindicate forum. Walk with the King and be a blessing.

For more information on the ASI Convention, please visit the ASI website.

Two of the Best!

Exciting experiences that happened this month in the California Youth Rush Student Literature Evangelism Programs.

Numerous students have been used to change lives and have themselves been changed by student magabook programs. Each day they come back with all kinds of experiences to tell. Here are two that ranked at the top of the list this summer.

It was a hot day in Porterville, California. As she knocked on yet another door, little did Sheela know that she was about to have an extraordinary experience. As Sheela showed her books to a lady we’ll call Jane, she popped a routine question at her, attempting to make friends: “What church do you go to?” Jane answered, surprisingly, “I don’t go to a church really, but actually I’ve been thinking about attending the Seventh-day Adventist church.” Sheela was in shock. “Really? I’m a Seventh-day Adventist!” she exclaimed. Now it was Jane’s turn to be surprised. “Wow, that’s great! I thought only Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses go door-to-door!” she said.

At that point Sheela showed her all the books and Jane said, “You know, Sheela, I have to tell you something. Just before I opened the door I looked through my window and saw that your face was lighted up and shining; you seemed so happy, and it made me want what you have. I knew there was something different about you.”

Sheela showed her Man of Peace (modern English Desire of Ages), Lessons of Love (Christ’s Object Lessons), The Great Controversy, and Final Events DVD by Doug Batchelor. She gave Sheela a $50 donation for the five books/DVDs.

Jane was still in disbelief as she said: “I just can’t believe that a Seventh-day Adventist came to my door. You are an answer to my prayer. I had been praying that someone would come and talk to me about religious things. And the shine on your face is great!” Sheela then had the presence of mind to ask her how she knew about Seventh-day Adventists. Jane replied that she had known about Adventists for a long time, and had been curious about them, adding, “I’ve been reading my Bible, and it seems that what they believe is right.”

Sheela offered Bible studies, which Jane accepted, and then proceeded to tell Jane that she knew of a Seventh-day Adventist family who lived close to her. After they prayed together, Sheela left. Upon hearing this story a few minutes later, her leader thought, “It would be fun to return and sing for her at the end of the night.” So, she took the whole group—seven of them—back to Jane’s house to sing for her. The very next Sabbath, three days later, the lady showed up at church, saying how amazed she was that young people could be so vibrant and on fire for the Lord, singing and working for Him.

Over in Salinas, California, Raeann was surprised by a very welcoming smile, and the words, “You’re here”, as she knocked on a door, like she had hundreds of times before. The lady continued, “You’re the students, right?”

At that moment the husband arrived in a car, and Josie started waving her hands wildly and saying, “The students are here! The students are here!” As he was exiting his car, he exclaimed, “We’ve been waiting for you for so long!” Raeann was somewhat in disbelief. “We’ve been waiting for you students with the books for over a year now,” said Josie. “What other books do you have that we don’t have?”

Then, the story unfolded. Four years ago, a student knocked on Josie’s door, and she rejected him. The next year, she rejected another student. The third year, she got a Final Events DVD by Doug Batchelor; she watched it and loved it. The next year (the previous year), a student, Anna, knocked on her door, and Josie chose The Great Controversy for her husband. In January of this year, her husband read The Great Controversy, reading it through twice; he was now reading it for his third time. Raeann’s leader arrived at this point and began talking to the husband. The husband was so excited. “I have never seen anyone more excited,” she said. “He was waving his hands.” He then asked, “Why don’t you guys come every six months instead of only once a year? . . . How much money do you want for these books? I will pay you good money for them. Is $20 for each one good enough?” He showed her his extensive library of Christian books, and proceeded to choose six of Raeann’s books and give a $100 donation. Raeann told them about the location of the local SDA church and invited them.

The very next Sabbath—only three days later—Josie came to church, and sat with Raeann and her leader. After church, the rest of the students (about 15 of them) met her, and she said to them: “You all never stop doing what you are doing. I rejected the student two years in a row!” She added, “I recently talked to my [Baptist] pastor about the Sabbath, and my pastor told me to leave. . . . The Bible has become alive to me this year more than any year in the last twenty years.” With students gathered around, our pastor prayed for her, and when he finished, she was crying. “This is how heaven is going to be like,” Josie said, “with all these kind of people around you.”

For more information on the California Youth Rush Student Literature Evangelism Programs, please visit their website YouthRushCentral.com.

Elder Ted Wilson's Appeal for Unity

The following video is of Elder Ted Wilson on Sunday, July 29th, at the Columbia Union Conference's 2012 Special Constituency Meeting. The special meeting was called in regards to the motion of authorizing ordinations without regard to gender. Elder Wilson addressed the meeting before the vote. He appealed for unity and encouraged the delegates to wait for the new church study on this issue, which is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Using secret ballots, delegates passed the motion with 209 in favor, 51 opposed, and 9 abstentions.

For the Columbia Union's statements, video recording of the full session, and more, visit the official 2012 Special Constituency Meeting page.

Vending Machine Prayer

I have noticed, and perhaps many of you have as well, that we, God's people, often treat God like a vending machine. We insert $1 worth of requests and maybe, if it has been a good day and we are in a cheery mood, 25¢ worth of praises and thanks, and we expect an immediate response from the Lord: the exact answer/blessing we had in mind pushed out of the slot we selected—D4: finances, E5: health, A1: wayward children, B3: better job, etc. It falls into the chute below where we can reach in, take it, and be on our merry way without another thought. Is that all prayer is? A mechanical transaction between the one praying and the Lord? We ask, He gives? Or is there something that we are missing as individuals and local churches?

One of the most frequently used Scriptures in regards to prayer is Matthew 7:7-8, which reads, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” We mistakenly believe that by merely asking for something (inserting our $1 into the vending machine), we will receive what we desired.

However, there is far more that goes into earnest, godly prayer than merely stating our needs and demanding a specific outcome from the Lord. The Scriptures give us a solemn warning: “The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous” (Proverbs 15:29). The prayer of the righteous… There appears to be a requirement on our part before the Lord will hear and answer our prayers. The Lord gives us more insight into this prerequisite, if you would like to call it such, in 2 Chronicles 7:14.

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (Emphasis added)

The Lord’s promise to hear our prayers, forgive our sins, and heal our land is conditional; it is dependent upon us first humbling ourselves, earnestly seeking the Lord, and turning from our wrongdoing. This is not vending machine praying where we insert our petitions, often selfish requests, and then go about living our lives unchanged. The Lord expects more from us before He answers our prayers. Let’s take a deeper look into meaningful, Biblical prayer.

First and foremost, we must approach prayer with the correct mindset: we are entering into the very presence of the Almighty Lord, Creator of heaven and earth and Redeemer of fallen humanity. We need to humble ourselves before Him; all selfishness and pride needs to be checked at the door and we are to lay bare our true, pitiful, sin-marred selves knowing that we are unworthy of approaching the Lord. Yet in His mercy and love, He has granted us—in spite of our sinful condition—the privilege of entering into communication with Him through prayer. “Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms” (Psalm 95:2).

Though it is no longer popular in many Christian circles, we cannot neglect the confessing of our sins. As the prayer ministries coordinator at my local church gently reminds us every week before we kneel before the throne of the Lord in prayer: some sins are to be confessed just between you and the Lord (Psalm 32:5), others should be confessed privately to the one wronged (Luke 17:3-4; Ephesians 4:32), and there are times when we are to confess our faults to one another (James 5:16). Though uncomfortable, confession of our sins and faults is necessary; it is only by truly acknowledging our sinful state and realizing our desperate need of a Savior that we become free from pride and arrogance and become vessels that the Lord bought with His shed blood, can cleanse through forgiveness, and will fill with His Holy Spirit. In 1 John 1:9, we are promised: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” And on the subjection of confession, King David penned the hope-filled words, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered” (Psalm 32:1).

Have you ever experienced a prayer meeting in which a group of believers, humbly on their knees, confessed their faults and, with heart-felt pleas, claimed the promise of forgiveness and cleansing for one another? It is powerful, life-changing, and there is a peace beyond earthly understanding that falls upon the group. We can no longer hide our guilt behind layers of justification nor can any self-righteousness remain in our hearts. In this way, we draw closer to the Lord. Ellen White wrote, “We need not try to work ourselves up into an intense feeling; but calmly, persistently, we are to press our petitions at the throne of grace. Our work is to humble our souls before God, confessing our sins, and in faith drawing nigh unto God.” (Ye Shall Receive Power, pg. 27, paragraph 3)

After we have removed the barrier of sin through confession, we are able to give our supplications. Supplication is more than simply making a request. The dictionary defines the word to mean “the action of asking or begging for something earnestly or humbly”. We should always begin our supplications with fervent prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Romans 8:26). We should pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on God’s people to hasten the harvest (Matthew 9:38; Luke 10:2), for God’s people that we may have more love and wisdom (Ephesians 6:8; Philippians 1:9; James 1:5-6), for our families (Matthew 9:13), for the sick and suffering (James 5:13-14), for ourselves that we will not fall into temptation (Matthew 26:41), for those who have not yet accepted the Lord (Romans 10:1), for the governments and leaders of our respective nations (1 Timothy 2:1-2), and for our enemies (Matthew 5:44). Most importantly, we should pray as Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:10) and how He Himself prayed in the darkness of Gethsemane: “…nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Mathew 26:39).

After presenting our supplications to the Lord, we should be filled with a spirit of thanksgiving, acknowledging all of the blessings that He has already bestowed upon us and looking in faith towards His Will being done in our lives and in this world. Philippians 4:6-7 encourages us to “[b]e careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” And Colossians 4:2 says to “[c]ontinue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving.”

One last crucial aspect of Biblical prayer is having assurance. Over the years, I have met too many Christians who live with the constant worry that the Lord will not hear their prayers. What if they had missed confessing a sin? What if they had worded their supplication wrong? What if… what if… what if… These worries and anxieties arise when we harbor doubt in the Lord. It reminds me of Jesus’ sad words to His disciples, “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26) When it comes to prayer, we have the tendency to cast our cares to the Lord’s feet, reel them back to us, cast them to the Lord, then reel them back. If we would let go of our worries and trust in Him completely, we would experience that blessed assurance of forgiveness and faith that He will keep us.

After all, the Lord Himself has promised that He will answer when we call upon Him earnestly and with humility and that while we are yet speaking, He has already heard our pleas (Isaiah 65:24). The Lord is not a vending machine, and we need to be cautious that we never grow so complacent that we begin to treat Him as such. When we seek Him with all of our hearts and humble ourselves, He will not forsake us. At the end of the great commission, Christ said, “…I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). He has promised that, while we may not always get the answer we desired, we can have confidence that—no matter how dark our situation may seem at the moment—everything will work out for the good of those who love the Lord (Romans 8:28).

Equal but Unique

Do different roles equate to gender inequality? Life is full of paradoxes. From “Jumbo shrimp” and the “Beginning of the end” to “If you didn’t get this message call me”, paradoxes don’t seem to make much sense on the surface. However, the point of a paradox is to illustrate a truth, even if the statements seem to contradict each other.

Men and women have been created equal but unique. At first glance this looks like just another paradox. However, my purpose in this article is to demonstrate from Genesis that both male-female equality and male headship were instituted by God at creation.

Genesis 1-3 lays the very foundation of Biblical manhood and womanhood. All other verses must be interpreted consistently with these chapters. Here, the twin principles of male-female equality and male headship are properly defined, instituted, and remain permanent beneficent aspects of human existence.

Equality. Man and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally.

Male headship. In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction. The model of headship is our Lord, the Head of the church who gave Himself for us. Right here is a distinction that many fail to make in our world. The antithesis to male headship is male domination. By male domination I mean the assertion of the man’s will over the woman’s will, heedless of her spiritual equality, rights and value. This article will be completely misunderstood if the distinction between male headship and male domination is not kept in mind throughout. Feminism acknowledges no such distinction.

Christian feminism argues that God created man and woman as equals in a way that excludes male headship. According to them, male headship was imposed upon Eve as a penalty for her part in the fall. It follows, in this view, that a woman’s redemption in Christ releases her from the “punishment” of male headship. What then did God intend for our manhood and womanhood at the creation?

Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He them; male and female he created them.”

Each of these three lines makes a point. Line one tells us how we got here. We came from God. Line two highlights the divine image in man. We bear a resemblance to God. Line three boldly affirms the dual sexuality of man. We are male and female.

Finally in verse 28, God pronounces His benediction on man. “God blessed them and said to them…” In His benediction, the Creator also authorizes male and female together to carry out their mission to rule the lower creation. To sum up, man was created as royalty in God’s world, male and female alike bearing the divine glory equally. Most Christian feminists would heartily agree with this paragraph. But Genesis 2 and 3 are more controversial. I must challenge a point of feminism before we move on.

As in verse 26 and 27 God refers to both male and female as man in Genesis 5:2. “He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man.”

This is a striking fact indeed. It demands explanation. After all, if any of us were Creator, would we after creating humans use the name of only one sex as a generic term for both? I expect not. Our modern prejudices could detect a whiff of “discrimination” a mile away. But God cuts across the grain of our peculiar sensitivities when He names the human race, both man and woman, “man.”

Why would God do such a thing? Why would Moses carefully record such a thing? Surely God was wise and purposeful in this decision, as He is in every other! His referring to the human race as man tells us something about ourselves. Let me suggest that it only makes sense against the backdrop of male headship. God did not name the human race “woman.” If “woman” had been the more appropriate and illuminating designation, no doubt God would have used it. He does not even use a neutral term like “persons”, no doubt to the dismay of the more politically-correct among us.

Genesis 2 So was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals “suitable for him.” But she was not equal in that she was his “helper.’ God did not create man and woman in an undifferentiated way, and their mere maleness and femaleness identify their respective roles. A man just by virtue of his manhood is called to lead for God. A woman just by virtue of her womanhood is called to help for God. The very fact that God created human beings in the dual modality of male and female cautions us in an unqualified equation of the two sexes. This profound and beautiful distinction is not a biological triviality or accident. God wants men to be men and women to be women. A man trying to be a woman repulses us, and rightly so. It is perverse. The same is true when a woman attempts be a masculine.

Must the male headship side of the paradox be taken as an insult or threat to women? Not at all. Eve was Adam’s equal in the only sense in which equality creates personal worth. Adoption into God’s family. In a parallel sense, a church member has just as much freedom and significance as a church elder. But the elder is to lead and the member is to support – no cause for offense there. I see this fallacy again and again in feminist argumentation. “Subordination = denigration” and “equality equals indistinguishability.” Where does this convoluted thinking come from? Was the Son of God slighted because He came to do the will of the Father? Is the church denigrated by its subordination to the Lord? Never. Subordination is entailed in the very nature of a helping role (Genesis 2:18).

Why then, do some fellow church members resist this teaching so energetically? One reason is incidences of male domination asserted in the name of male headship. I have seen examples of this, along with examples of hostile, dominating women. Both are wrong. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychologically compelling power. In short, feminism is an emotive reaction to male domination, driven by pain or pride. But male domination is a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine.

If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences we will be forever translating our past pain into the present where it damages ourselves and others. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, or popular hysteria, but by the pattern of gender and sexual truth taught here in the Holy Scriptures. As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This is a Biblical principle that stands forever apart from changing cultures. And when we exchange Biblical principles with culture, we can go down all kinds of wrong roads—such as the July 29th vote by the Columbia Union Committee to “ordain” women in opposition to the expressed will of the world church.

Illustration: Christian feminism claims that Jesus’ selection of twelve men as His disciples was merely a cultural accommodation designed to avoid conflict in His missionary enterprise on earth. In others words, Jesus was acting culturally and not on divine principle. Such thinking has a difficult task before it. One, it fails to explain how the foundation of the Holy City itself is based on cultural accommodation (Revelation 21:14). And two, it makes the Godhead guilty of departing from principle in the selection of initial church leadership. It is astonishing that any professed believer could bring such a charge against Him. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, and allow that they simply haven’t thought it through.

The twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem are named after the twelve Apostles, and the gates are named after the twelve Tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:10-14). By permanently building cultural accommodation into the eternal foundation of the home of the redeemed, “christian feminism” makes the Lord guilty of immortalizing temporal cultural “exclusiveness.” This powerfully illustrates the bankruptcy of feminist theology. The Holy City rests solidly upon the principles of God, not upon the shifting sands of culture. Jesus’ selection of twelve men as His apostles was an intentional and principled choice by God (John 17:6).

Summary Male-female equality and male headship are woven into the very fabric of the Bible. Feminists themselves recognize this, to quote one writer “Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible” (Rosemary Radford Ruether). This is the reason for the influx of current reinterpretations of Scripture to support their purposes. Yet it is wrong to wrest the Scriptures for any purpose. All of us have had the experience of discovering to our dismay that we have been making the Bible say what it doesn’t say. This can be turned around. To make such a discovery and then to repent is to grow in grace.

What might be the principle source of feminist angst to the Biblical text? Consider the following: there is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth. Feminism denies this principle. To them, any limitation in role threatens or reduces personal worth. But why? Why must my position dictate my significance? Simple answer. Because the world reasons this way. But the gospel tells us that our glory, and our worth is measured by our personal conformity to Jesus the Christ. The absurdity of feminism lies in its irrational demand that a woman is not complete unless she occupies a position of headship. And what do we call something with two heads? A monster.

Thoughts on the Columbia Union vote

This past Sunday, a special constituency meeting of the Columbia Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists voted to authorize the ordination of women. Despite the pleas of General Conference President Ted Wilson, who was present at the meeting and spoke twice, the vote was not even close: 209 to 51. More than eighty percent (80%) of those present and casting votes voted for the motion to authorize ordination without regard to gender. A number of thoughts occur to me in light of this extremely lopsided vote. 1) The fight over female ordination was lost, in principle, when the church allowed females to be ordained as elders. The scriptural principle of male headship in the church (which is the main reason not to ordain women) was totally eviscerated by this compromise. The fight over female ordination was lost, as a political matter, when women were hired as pastors to do jobs indistinguishable from those done by men, and given a ceremonial confirmation (commissioning) indistinguishable from that given to men. These compromises rendered the refusal to ordain women politically indefensible.

2) The calls for unity, issued by the division heads at the GC some weeks ago and by Elder Wilson personally at this meeting, were unavailing. The world church must articulate a scriptural reason, a doctrinal principle, for opposing female ordination. The mere fact that divisions representing 85% of world membership do not want to ordain women will not suffice to prevent the divisions representing the 15% from doing so. For Adventists in North America, Europe and Australia/NZ, the fact that Adventists in Chad or Zambia are not ready to ordain women is not a good reason why we shouldn't do it. This argument has been made and has failed. Principle must be met with principle, and “unity” is not a principle. If unity were an overriding principle, then we would all still be Roman Catholics; basing faith and practice upon the Bible is more important than unity for unity's sake. If there is a principled basis for opposing female ordination, the church must articulate it.

3) The church has been studying this issue for 40 years; the idea that the church needs yet another study to understand Bible truth is risible, and was, in fact, ridiculed at the CUC constituency meeting. (Potomac Conference President William Miller stated, “One of our favorite pastimes as denomination is to commission another study.”) Ted Wilson knows how the SDA Church works at the highest levels, and he has concluded that another study will be helpful, perhaps as a parliamentary maneuver to prepare the issue for a church-wide vote at San Antonio. But there is no need for another study to see that there obviously is a doctrine of male headship in Scripture. Biblically, this is not a close question, but a closed question. We instinctively defend Sabbath-keeping, but the New Testament authority for keeping the Sabbath is insignificant in comparison to New Testament authority for patriarchy, for male headship in the home and in the church.

4) Although the doctrine of male headship is clear in Scripture, it is an issue that divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals wish to ignore the doctrine, whereas conservatives would uphold it. Studies by panels of “experts” and “theologians” merely reveal who is liberal and who is conservative. Liberals will always conclude that the verses pointing to patriarchy and male headship in the church are culturally conditioned and hence may safely be ignored. Conservatives will always conclude that it is not safe to brush these passages aside, if only because we will soon be brushing aside every verse in conflict with today's culture (most immediately with respect to homosexuality). Ultimately, the question is whether this is a liberal or a conservative church. I had assumed that the SDA Church was a conservative church, but, in light of this lopsided vote, the best that can be said is that the Adventist Church in North America is conservative on many issues, but has blind spots on important biblical issues, such as human sexuality and sex roles.

5) If the church is going to reverse the vote of the Columbia Union constituency (and the upcoming vote of the Pacific Union constituency) the only way forward is to draft a fundamental belief regarding male headship in the church and bring it up for a vote at the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio. Only if there is an actual, bona fide, doctrine of male headship, which is violated by female ordination, can the church in North America and the developed world be brought to heel. It isn't too late to win this struggle, but it is too late if Ted Wilson and other conservative church leaders believe that appeals to unity, or appeals to wait for yet another study, can stop the momentum behind female ordination. I know that Ted Wilson wants to uphold Bible truth, and liberal machinations during the Paulsen tenure have left him in a weak position. But we cannot wait two more years to start making the biblical case for male headship in the church. We have to start promoting this doctrine now, while many Adventists are still open-minded on the issue. Most of those who are still willing to accept a doctrine of male headship in the church are now in other parts of the world, not in North America, but we had better start supporting them with Scriptural arguments now, not in two years.

6) It is important to emphasize that the vote in the Pacific Union on August 19 is not limited to the question of female ordination. The vote in the Pacific Union would alter the bylaws of that union, so that the union's working policies need not always be in compliance with the working policies of the GC and the North American Division. In effect, the Pacific Union is giving itself the right to ignore the world church, not just on female ordination but on any issue it chooses. Because this involves a change to the bylaws, the motion must carry by a two-thirds majority. (As we have seen, the motion in the Columbia Union carried by much more than two thirds, but that motion was limited to the issue of ordination.) My sense is that most of the delegates to the August 19 meeting are unaware of the sweeping nature of this change. If you know a delegate to this meeting, please make them aware that they are deciding whether to give the PUC effective carte blanche to ignore the world church whenever it wants to.

Columbia Union votes ordination without regard to gender

A special July 29 constituency meeting called by the Columbia Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists voted a resolution: “That the Columbia Union Conference authorize ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender.” Using secret ballots, delegates from the eight conferences of the union’s mid-Atlantic United States territory voted 209 in favor and 51 opposed, with nine abstentions. The Columbia Union says it has 135,000 members in more than 700 congregations.

According to a statement issued by the Columbia Union Conference late Sunday, the union executive committee will no longer deny requests from conferences to ordain proven female ministers to the gospel ministry, but their calling will be fully recognized on par with their male counterparts.

“This is not an easy time for the church, but it is the time for the church,” said Dave Weigley, Columbia Union president, following the vote. “We are part of the worldwide church, and we are united in the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

Dan Jackson, North American Division president, cautioned, “What we are doing here today not only will impact us personally and as a union but will also impact our world church. I want to say that our primary accountability is to God.”

In extended remarks, Adventist world church President Ted N. C. Wilson appealed to delegates not to move forward with the motion but to wait for the results of a worldwide study of ordination approved last October by the church’s Executive Committee, and expected in 2014.

“I come to you today because I care about matters of conscience,” he said. “I come to you because I care about the unity of the church at large.”

Lowell Cooper, a general vice president of the world church, challenged the premise that union conferences are authorized to make the kind of change envisioned under current denominational polity.  “The idea that the authority and responsibility of one type of organization in the world family can be exercised autonomously and unilaterally is a concept alien to the ethos and practices of the [Seventh-day Adventist] Church,” he told the delegates.

Bill Miller, president of the Potomac Conference and chair of the ad hoc committee tasked with studying this issue, started his presentation of the committee’s report by reiterating that he was a “loyal member of God’s remnant church.” He then recounted the church’s history of discussions and decisions on the issue of ordaining women to gospel ministry.

Shortly after noon, Weigley, who chaired the special session, opened the floor for constituent input. Delegates quickly formed three long lines at the microphones. Many voiced their belief  that all whom the Holy Spirit has clearly called to ministry should be ordained without regard to gender, though several admitted to being conflicted.

Larry Boggess, president of the Mountain View Conference, whose executive committee released a statement opposing the motion, said, “Lest it be misunderstood, I love you, too, even though I disagree with you. If we say we are the body of Christ, then we would act in unity. What we do today will not generate thousands of new members.”

Following the vote, Rick Remmers, president of the Chesapeake Conference, commented, “I appreciated greatly the spiritual tone set today and sensed the love and loyalty for our church.”

“I am so proud to be part of a historic day in the Columbia Union,” said Deborah Hill, a member of the Allegheny West Conference. “We voted on the right side of history and will work very hard to unify not only our union but to work more closely with the General Conference.”

Source: Adventist News Network

Grace Revealed

General Conference president Pastor Ted N. C. Wilson made the following statement during a sermon at the Third International Bible Conference held in Jerusalem.

“At times, there seems to be confusion about justification and sanctification and how they relate to each other and our salvation.  Some promote justification to the exclusion of sanctification and arrive at what has been termed “cheap grace.” Others focus almost exclusively on sanctification and arrive at what has been termed as “perfectionism” or legalistic salvation by works.”

As Seventh-day Adventists we know that God requires obedience to all of His commandments. We also know that justification and sanctification are both the work of Christ alone. In an effort to avoid the extremes of law without grace and grace without law, we sometimes find ourselves on a spiritual tight rope, carefully trying to equally balance grace and obedience without drifting toward either of these extremes. If we saw grace fully revealed in its true light, we would realize that there is no need for a balancing act.

One of the reasons for such a debate as to where the line is drawn between grace and works involves some people who do not understand that grace and obedience are interconnected. They are not two separate components of our spiritual lives that must be reconciled. Grace and obedience are one. In the same sermon, President Wilson also made this statement. “The two great provisions of salvation—justification and sanctification—cannot be separated for they constitute the fullness of Christ, Our Righteousness.” Jeremiah chapter 31, verses 33 and 34 paint a beautiful picture illustrating the unification of justification and sanctification.

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”*

As clearly seen in this passage of Scripture, God not only promises to forgive our sins, but also to put His law in our minds and write it on our hearts. When our thoughts are in harmony with God’s law, His law will be acted out in our lives through our words and actions. God’s grace does so much more than forgive our sins and grant us eternal life. God’s grace also heals our wounded hearts, sets us free from the captivity of sin, and causes us to keep all of His commandments. Conviction of sin, repentance, forgiveness of sin, surrender, faith, obedience—they are all gifts from God, bestowed upon us through the power of His grace. As long as we fail to see the oneness of grace and obedience, we will be spiritually off balance. We will either be in danger of becoming legalistic or casting aside God’s law, and our attempt to walk the spiritual tight rope will not prevent us from shifting toward either of these two extremes.

Many claim that being under grace means that keeping the law is no longer necessary, but according to the Bible, being under grace actually means the opposite.

“Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!” (Romans 6:12-15).

If God’s grace only forgave our sins and nothing more, what a hopeless state we would be in! God’s Heavenly kingdom will be a perfect world, and if we are not transformed into the likeness of God’s character through the power of His grace, we will not be fit for His kingdom. Heaven would be marred by sin, just as it was in the beginning when Satan fell. Without laws, chaos would result, and “God is not the author of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33.) The idea that God would annul His law after Christ’s death and resurrection makes as much sense as the idea that Congress would legalize murder if the president chose to die in the place of a murderer on death row. The fact that someone had to pay the death penalty for sin demonstrates that God’s law is unchangeable. When we are under grace, obedience will actually be more important to us, not less.

The mark of the beast is a perfect example of how grace and obedience are interconnected. When Adventists think of the mark of the beast, they immediately associate it with Sunday worship. It is true that the choice to either observe the seventh day Sabbath or to observe Sunday will be the factor that determines who receives the mark of the beast, but the observance of Sunday rather than the seventh day is actually a symptom of a much deeper problem. There is a passage of Scripture in Revelation chapter 13 that tells us what the mark of the beast represents.

“He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” (Revelation 13:15-17).

Contrast these verses with Isaiah 41:10. “Fear not, for I am with you; Be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, Yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.” God promises to hold us up by His righteous right hand, but those who receive the mark of the beast receive it on their own right hands and on their foreheads. God offers us His righteousness, but those who receive the mark of the beast choose to rely on their own righteousness. By choosing to keep Sunday holy they are paying homage to a church system that teaches salvation by works. Because those who receive the mark of the beast rely on their own righteousness, their hearts will not be made perfect in love through the power of God’s grace. Instead, they will be controlled by the wicked one and will have no qualms about killing God’s people. Notice Deuteronomy 6 verses 5 through 8.

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Those who choose to worship the beast have His mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, but the people of God have God’s love in their hearts. God’s law is bound to them as a sign on their hands, and His commandments are as frontlets between their eyes. Their thoughts, words, and actions are in harmony with God’s law of love, because they are depending on Christ’s righteousness alone.

There is no such thing as cheap grace. The so-called grace that claims to make void the law of God is not grace at all. There is only one kind of grace. It is the free grace that overflows from the loving heart of God, the grace that not only justifies us, but sanctifies us, completely restoring us into the likeness of God’s character. When this grace is in control of our lives, there will be no spiritual tight rope to walk, no balancing act. There will be no confusion or debate, because there is no dividing line between grace and obedience. Obedience to God’s commandments will come naturally to us, and there will be no fear of extremes, because our motives will be pure. We will not be taking care of our own interests, focusing only on how we may enter Heaven. Instead, our motives will be actuated by love for God and love for others. Glorifying God’s name and leading others to the foot of the cross will be our mission. We will gladly keep all of God’s commandments, not in order to be saved, but because we already are saved. This is what it means to be under grace, and as the simple yet profound gift of God’s grace is more clearly revealed to us, we will understand why we will be studying the subject of grace throughout all eternity.

*All Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version.

The Message from Hollywood

I’ve watched a fair number of movies in my life. Many were devoid of even the most basic artistic value, many were only marginally entertaining, and I could feel my brain turning to a cottage-cheese like mush while watching most of them. In general, I treated them like a necessary distraction from the great piles of homework that never seemed to go away. A while back, however, I got so busy that I didn’t have any time for movies at all, and I gradually stopped watching them altogether. Recently, I made my abstinence more intentional, for reasons I hope will become clear as you read. To backtrack a bit, the first movie I ever watched (and one of the few movies I watched before I got to college) was “The Last Starfighter,” a sci-fi about a boy who masters a video game and is subsequently recruited to join in a great space battle. (It turned out that the video game was a training tool to find gifted fighters.) I was six or seven years old at the time, and afterword, I asked my dad what the movie meant. The part of his explanation that I remember was “They are telling the story of the Great Controversy from Satan’s perspective.”

Over the last few years, I’ve come to the conclusion that this insight explains the plots of many movies, particularly epic movies about a grand conflict between good and evil. “Transformers” is an excellent example: Optimus Prime and his followers are cast down to earth for rebellion after loosing a great battle, and they become heroes and save the earth from the tyrannical Decepticons who want to enslave humanity. They are the “Autobots”—those who govern themselves. The “Avengers” movies that have recently come out contain another good example: Thor is cast down to earth from Asgard (the dwelling place of the Gods) for insubordination, but becomes a great hero on earth when he helps defeat his evil adopted brother who is intent on enslaving humanity.

Satan sees himself as the good guy, and it doesn’t take much spiritual discernment to understand that Hollywood is under his control. When Optimus Prime and Thor are seen as the Lucifer character in the Great Controversy, the other pieces of each allegory fall into place. The most telling aspect of each becomes the depiction of the Christ character. Satan’s hatred is mostly directed at Christ, so the villain in these movies typically depicts Christ. In “Transformers,” Megatron is the most likely candidate—he is killed and resurrected, and ends up walking around in a ragged cape looking like a large metal prophet. In the “Avengers,” Christ is depicted as the evil adopted brother, a would-be usurper of Thor’s right to the throne, and a power-hungry dictator intent on exacting worship from all humanity. Both series climax with the coming of the evil ones to earth (a “second coming” in the case of the Transformers).

“The Matrix” is a much more sophisticated allegory. The most obvious players are the Architect and the Oracle, the creators of the Matrix; Agent Smith, the law-enforcer; and Neo, the savior character. One might be tempted to think of Neo as a Christ character—after all, he is referred to as “Jesus Christ” at the beginning of the movie. At the end, his dead body is tenderly carried off by little machines with his arms outstretched as if he were on a cross. Take a look at his most important qualification, though: he is the ultimate rebel. According to the movie, Neo didn’t rebel because he was bad—his rebellion was inevitable. It was something inherent in him, something that responded to a deep flaw in the reality created by the Architect and the Oracle. In fact, he was the sum of the freewill (referred to as the “anomaly”) of the mass of humanity, a humanity hopelessly resisting an arbitrary law they did not understand.

After a new birth, complete with amniotic fluid (“neo” means “new” or “young,” after all), Neo starts fighting the Matrix in earnest over a checkered floor—a representation of the knowledge of good and evil. He learns to be free by learning to break the laws of the Matrix, and finally assumes a sort of godhood when he basically dies and is resurrected. At this point, he understands the laws of the Matrix perfectly and as such, can bend them as he wills, giving him perfect freedom. Neo is the sixth incarnation of the rebel, and the architect refers to him as “the first and the last.”

When Neo kills Agent Smith (who is also subsequently resurrected), he unintentionally gives him the power to impart his nature to humans and gives Smith power over the law as well (The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord—from Satan’s perspective, Christ breaks the law by granting sinners eternal life). Smith’s character actually portrays Christ in the movie, but Satan hates to admit that Jesus Christ is God, so Smith starts out as a mere program like all other programs. Only after Neo kills him does he become an immensely powerful force in the Matrix. Toward the end, Smith achieves a sort of omnipotence (though the only advantage he has over Neo is his ability to impart his image to others, which he does by force). With his usurpation of the Oracle’s powers, he achieves a sort of omniscience. A “smith” is one who makes things—I suspect that ”Agent Smith” is a reference to the “Word,” the Agent by whom “all things were made.”

The key, then, to understanding movies is knowing that they “call evil good and good evil,” and “turn darkness into light and light into darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). In these movies and in many others, Lucifer is the protagonist and Christ is the antagonist. Through this type of movie, Satan’s message to the world is that Christ is not divine and that He operates through coercion and hunger for power, while Satan—always the good guy—wants only what’s best for the human race. Movies depict God as a tyrant, and teach that by breaking His arbitrary law, we can obtain true freedom.

ADvindicate booth at upcoming ASI Convention

In less than two weeks, Cincinnati, Ohio, will be filled with committed Adventists from around the world. Only a couple blocks from the Ohio River, the Adventist-laymen's Services & Industries (ASI) convention begins August 8th and ends on the 11th. The atmosphere at ASI is a combination of energy, encouragement, and excitement. And this is exciting: ADvindicate will have a booth there for the first time. The Lord placed it on the hearts of two couples in Ohio to help make this booth happen, and I am grateful to my friend Steve and his wife for their gracious participation in helping to organize this event. I am also grateful to Nancy Wagoner and her untiring support. The booth number is 1022 in the exhibit hall.

David Read and Gerry Wagoner will take turns working the booth during exhibit hours. There will be a drawing for a Kindle Fire, and other materials made available to exhibit hall attendees. Please pray for us, and all who attend the ASI convention.

As they say in Kentucky (just over the river) “Ya’ll come.” It ought to be fun!

For more information on the ASI Convention, please visit the ASI website.

'One wife husband'

Observations of 1 Timothy 3:1,2 & Titus 1:5,6

Both proponents and opponents of women’s ordination have staked their claim to divergent interpretations of 1 Timothy 3:1,2 and Titus 1:5,6. While some see a plain reading of the verses as clear enough, others are challenging these passages with legitimate, yet more complex textual arguments. What did Paul mean when he wrote that a “bishop . . . [should be] the husband of one wife”? Or literally translated- “a bishop . . . [should be] a one wife husband“? Some view this passage through the lens of “culture”- claiming it should be applied to different times and places in “relevant“ ways. In a future article I will review why the “culturally-conditioned” argument is nothing more than subjectivism since it relies on conjectures, guesses and the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, etc.) rather than the biblical text. Furthermore, it constantly changes with time and location. Recently, some have jettisoned the “culturally-conditioned” argument for a “leading of the Spirit” one. Going so far as to claim that the Spirit cannot fall on the church until it ordains women as pastors and elders. Unfortunately, this is biblically untenable. The conditions for the “Latter Rain” are clearly outlined in Acts 2,3 and Revelation 3:18-20- and women‘s ordination is nowhere mentioned. One often hears the assertion “no conference, union or church should stand in the way of God‘s calling to me . . .” In my last article, we saw that the position of “pastor” (poimen) can indeed be filled by a women- since it is a “Spiritual Gift.” However, the functions of the “pastor” are NOT the same as those of the “bishop” (episkopos) and the “elder” (presbuteros) which are NOT spiritual gifts! Certain objective qualifications must be met before one can “apply“ for those positions (including 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Furthermore, the Spirit does NOT lead the church independently from the written Word He inspired. If some feel God is leading them to become “Bishops“ or “Elders,” the only way to confirm this would be with the “Measuring stick” of Scripture.

Still others feel that to continue “debating theology” is not “biblically practical”, that we don’t need theoretical perspectives, but to focus on being “mission-driven.” They see this “theological” argument as getting in the way of the mission of the church, an ecclesiological issue. But instead of carefully examining the text of Scripture and following a “thus saith the Lord”, they are using pragmatic and emotional reasons (women “pastors” in China, etc.) to buttress their position. “Legal” but questionable policy changes are being hastily pursued in order to vote in changes before the world church can study the issue and respond. These efforts, based on faulty hermeneutics, threaten to further disrupt the global unity of the church.

While this “mission-driven-movement” sounds nice and very “Adventist,” if it is not on rooted in Scripture, but on policy or ecclesiology- the efforts will be unsuccessful. For all these reasons (and others), it is helpful to re-visit the texts upon which those who oppose and affirm women “elders” are based: 1 Timothy 3:1,2 and Titus 1:5-7. My purpose is not to present a scholarly exegesis- but an overview of the clear textual evidence.

Grammatical Considerations

“The fact of gender, when considering a word in isolation, is of little importance . . . But in analyzing a sentence as a whole, gender may play a key role, especially when considered along with the adjectives, pronouns, and relative clauses that may be present. Taking note of the gender may alter altogether what a sentence may seem to be saying in English.” Interestingly, in Titus 1:5, the word “elder” (presbuteros) is in the accusative masculine. In the context of verses 5-7, nine of the descriptive nouns and adjectives of presbuteros are in the masculine. In 1 Timothy 3:2, the word for “bishop” (episkopos) is also in the accusative masculine. In the context of 1 Timothy 3:2, there are eight descriptive nouns and adjectives which are also in the masculine. These grammatical parallels seem more than just coincidental. While it doesn’t definitively show that an “elder” or “bishop” should be a “male,” it is grammatically consistent with that conclusion and strongly points that way.

Lexical Considerations

1. “Elder,” “bishop,” “pastor” are different, distinct offices

In the last article we saw that the offices of “elder,” “bishop,” and “pastor” (presbuteros, episkopos, poimen) are distinct, although (as we noted) there is some overlap between them. To summarize the findings: the “elder” (presbuteros) deals primarily with executive, administrative and judicial areas of church policy. The “bishop” (episkopos) has supervisory, investigative and guardianship functions, while the “pastor” (poimen) is nurturing, guarding and teaching. We also saw that the “elder” and “bishop” are recognized and selected based upon external, objective criteria (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-8). After evaluation of the candidates based on these biblical standards, they are ordained. On the other hand, as we mentioned, the “pastor” is a spiritual gift that is recognized and affirmed without ordination and an explicit list of “external” qualifications. I described what seemed to be modern equivalent of these positions in the church today. (Please see previous article.)

The significance of these findings can’t be overstated, especially where Christians assert the Holy Spirit’s calling to be a “pastor”. Obviously, the word “pastor” doesn’t have the same meaning that it did in the Bible. So the etymology of this English word has undergone some changes since the New Testament. If one takes the position that the Holy Spirit has given them this gift then the position that they should fill is the poimen. However, if they desire to fulfill the role of the episkopos or presbuteros, even if they are called by the Spirit, they must be evaluated by criteria found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-7. The claim of the Spirit’s leading does not supersede the Spirit’s inspired word, which is used to “test” all “callings”.

2. Lexical (dictionary) meanings for episkopos and presbuteros are delineated for “men”

A word never means what it never meant. The purpose of a lexical (“dictionary”) definition, is to find out what a word meant at the time it was written. An important clue to what episkopos and presbuteros mean today is to understand their meaning when Paul penned Titus and 1 Timothy in the first century A.D. In order to do this, analytical, critical and theological Greek New Testament lexicons, expository Greek dictionaries, Greek-English concordances and New Testament Greek theological wordbooks should be consulted in order to understand. Strong’s Concordance has several weaknesses that I addressed in my previous article and should be probably be avoided when doing serious Bible study (at least it should not be used by itself).

A summary of the definitions are as follows:

Episkopos

1. “The name given in Athens to the MEN sent into subdued states to conduct their affairs”
2. “A MAN charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others rightly”

Presbuteros

1. “A body of old MEN” (presbuterion) ; “An old MAN” (presbus, presbutis)
2. “Rulers of people, judges, etc., selected from elderly MEN”
3. “Aged MEN” ; “In the Christian church they were MEN appointed”
4. “Old MEN of the Jewish Sanhedrin” “Officers in the congregation of the Jewish Synagogue”

Interestingly, one area that was intentionally left out of my last study, was the significant use of masculine names (“men,” “man,”) when defining presbuteros and episkopos. Since the purpose of that study was only to show that there is a difference between the three offices, these were omitted. However, from a lexical standpoint, it seems likely that both the “elder” and “bishop” were to be served by men. There is no dictionary definition from the era the New Testament was written that define these Greek words as being filled by “women.” This isn’t a “cultural” issue since the “men” were from both the believing “Jewish community“ (Jewish Sanhedrin, etc.) and the non-believing “Greek community” (Athenian statesmen, politicians). This further strengthens the case against gender neutral inclusion for an episkopos or presbuteros.

3. The lexical (dictionary) definition for “Aner” is limited to three possibilities

As with the preceding section, we must also understand what the meaning of the word translated “husband” (aner) was in the First Century. These meanings are:

1. An adult human male (of full age and stature- as opposed to a child or female)
2. A husband
3. A human being, an individual; someone; a person, generally (in terms of address)

Interestingly, in all the lexicons consulted (around 12), the word aner never means a “female,” “woman,” etc., but can refer to “people in general.” On the other hand, it definitely refers to a “male” or a “husband.” The third definition shouldn’t be considered in Timothy or Titus, since the phrase “human being of one wife” makes no sense. “One wife husband,” or “one woman man” seem to be the clear interpretation of “aner.” Since the context refers to “children” (1 Tim. 3:4) a “wife” (v. 2) and a “house” (v. 4), the most logical and contextually consistent interpretation would be to translate “aner“ as “husband”. Therefore, the Greek phrase “mias gunaikos andra (aner)” should probably be translated “one wife husband.”

Why did Paul use a word that may not always be referring to a “male” (aner) rather than a word that always refers to a “man” (arsen - pronounced “Are-sane”)? Because arsen does not lexically mean “husband.” It seems that Paul was trying to convey both “maleness” and “marriedness” within the same word. Therefore, the best word he could have used is aner. Another word anthropos also means a “male”, but like arsen, doesn’t define the marital status as aner does. Understanding aner as being a “(male) husband” is a significant point buttressing the argument that a “bishop” must be a “ married man.”

Comparative Considerations

There are 215 references for the word aner in the New Testament. Of these, about 40% do not have “contextual markers.” A “marker” is a word(s) the author uses in context to identify which lexical (dictionary) meaning he intends for the word in question. These 40% are translated in the general sense of “humanity,” “people,” etc. Interestingly, however, when aner is to be interpreted as a “man” or “husband”, there are contextual markers that support that understanding. The remaining 60% have at least one of the following contextual markers:

• NAME OF THE MAN: Mentioned in the immediate context (“Joseph”- Matt. 1:16; “Peter”- Luke 5:8; “Jairus”- Luke 8:41; “Zaccheus”- Luke 19:2; “Adam”- 1 Tim. 2:12; etc.).
• FEMALE GENDER WORDS: In contradistinction from “males” in the same context (“Aged Women”- Titus 2:5; “Woman”- 1 Cor. 11:7; etc.).
• MARRIAGE WORDS: Speak of a “male’s spouse” in contrast to himself (“Wife”- Mark 10:2, 12; “Wives”- Eph. 5:24,25; “Widows”- 1 Tim. 5:9; etc.).
• FAMILY WORDS: Referring to male/female relations and progeny (“Women and children”- Matt. 14:21/Mk 6:44; “Father”- Lk 9:38; etc.).
• REPRODUCTION WORDS: Contrasting a “male” with “female characteristics” (“Virginity”- Luke 2:36; “Adulteress”- Rom. 7:2; “adulterer”- Rom. 7:2,3; “Childbearing,“ etc.).
• CONTEXT: There are times when the context makes it explicitly clear that “males“ are being spoken of (“twelve disciples”- Acts 1:21; The “Apostles”- Acts 5:25; “seven deacons”- Acts 6:3; etc.).

In 1 Timothy 3:2 there are several contextual markers that identify that a “male” is being spoken of: “Wife” (3:2; “Childbearing” (2:15), and “Woman” (2:11,12,14). In Titus 1:5,6, there is the marker “Wife” present. This contextual evidence strongly implies that a “bishop” and “elder” should only be a “male.”

Syntactical Considerations

The words “one woman man” or “one wife husband” (mias gunaikos andra) is an interesting and unusual way to communicate this phrase. If Paul wanted to convey a married man, why didn’t he say “a bishop must be a man who is married”? When we look at the syntax (sentence structure) we see that he was describing the quality or character of the man as well as his marital status.

The Greek word for “woman” is gune, and refers to any adult female (including wives). The King James Version translates gune as "woman" 129 times and "wife" 92 times. In 1 Timothy 3:2, gune (gunaikos) is “in the genitive and therefore deals with attribution. It may refer to relationship or quality, for the genitive defines by attributing a quality or relationship to the noun which it modifies."

Tony Capoccia has made the following insightful comment regarding the genitive:

“This should not be considered a possessive genitive, for that would mean that the word in the genitive indicates one who owns or possesses the noun it modifies. In that case the translation would be "a man owned by one woman." Nor can this be considered as a genitive of relationship ("a man who has [possesses] one wife") for there is no indication within the phrase or context that that relationship is implied. It is best to understand this "gunaikos" as being a genitive of quality, that is, giving a characteristic to the noun it modifies.”

The noun andra is the accusative singular of aner. “This accusative functions here as an object of the main verb ‘be’ along with a long list of other accusative nouns and participles. Stated simply, the clause is ‘Therefore . . . an elder must be . . . a man . . .’ The words ‘one woman’ modify "man" to explain what kind, or to qualify the noun by attributing to him this character.” N.T. Greek scholar Robertson adds that genitive of quality (also called attributive genitive). ‘expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness.’ “Since the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man” or “a one-wife type of husband”.

In conclusion, the unique way of expressing the phrase “one wife husband” was Paul’s method of representing the “character” of "the bishop" ("ton episkopon") as well as his marital status. Syntax doesn’t negate the lexical, contextual and comparative evidence that has already shown that aner also refers to a “male husband.” Rather, the syntax shows what KIND of a “husband” Paul is referring to. Scholar Getz makes the following observation: "Paul needed it very clear that an elder in the church was to be a 'one-wife man' — loyal to her and her alone." The emphasis of sentence structure shows that the “bishop” must be completely faithful to his wife, and emphasizes moral purity. The syntax does not change the marital or gender status that we have already affirmed; it only clarifies its quality.

Theological/Contextual Considerations

The context of 1 Timothy 3:1,2 extends back into chapter two. The foundation of what Paul lays for the office of the episkopos, is rooted in the creation and fall account of Genesis two and three. The issue of “teaching” and “women keeping silence” is the subject of my next article, so I won’t address this interesting topic now. We see Paul addressing the “authority” of man over a “woman” for two reasons. First, “Adam was formed first” (v. 13). Second, “Adam was not deceived” (v. 14). Genesis two and three give us some clues of Adam’s role as the leader/head of his “home”:

1. God gave Adam instructions on how to care for the Garden (2:15)
2. God instructed Adam in regards to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
3. Adam named all the living creatures (2:19,20)
4. Adam named “the Woman” (2:23)
5. Only after Adam ate the fruit, were their “eyes opened” (3:7)
6. God called unto “Adam” first (3:9)
7. Man shall leave parents, “cleave” unto his wife- a sign of protection, guardian

Interestingly, the roles of the episkopos and presbuteros are similar to those seen in Adam’s functions. The executive and administrative roles of the presbuteros are seen in Adam’s naming the animals, directing the custody of the garden, and naming of “the Woman”. The supervisory and investigative functions are seen in Adam’s role as the informant of God’s will concerning the Tree of Knowledge and man’s “leaving father and mother.” The second reason for man’s “authority” over “woman” was rooted in the statement “Adam was not deceived.” Adam momentarily “investigated” the matter in his mind and knew what was right. He chose to follow his wife, however, and sinned blatantly. His ability to discern the deception (while Eve did not) play a role in why Paul mentions that “Adam was not deceived.” However, most importantly, Paul’s foundation for 1 Timothy 3 is rooted in the Genesis creation and fall account, not culture.

Conclusions

Our overview of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 shows that a convincing biblical argument can be made for a “male” “elder” or “bishop”. Grammatical considerations showed that contextual nouns and adjectives are in the masculine, thus matching the genders for episkopos and presbuteros. The lexical considerations gave additional evidence that the offices of the episkopos and presbuteros, whether as “rulers of people, judges, statesmen, Sanhedrin, etc.”, were filled by “men.” Furthermore, the definition for aner (“husband”) supports a “male”/“husband” understanding over “humans in general.” A comparative study (using contextual markers) demonstrated that aner, when referring to a “male,” contains at least one each in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. Further supporting the contention that Paul intended “males” to be the episkopos and presbuteros in the church. The syntactical considerations emphasizes the character of the “husband” while not negating the gender. Finally, the theological/contextual considerations shows that the office of episkopos (and by extension the presbuteros) are rooted in the creation and fall account, not in culture.

References

All references for this article are available in a PDF file. Download PDF here.

PASTOR = BISHOP = ELDER? (Part I)

There is a growing consensus within the Christian community regarding the role and authority of the “Elder,” “Pastor,” and “Bishop”. Many people see these New Testament positions as simply different names for the same office. Comments such as the following are common:

“There is no distinction between a pastor, a bishop or an elder in the scripture. They all refer to the exact same office. . . To put it simply: A pastor is a bishop is an elder.”

“All three Greek words [presbuteros, poimen, episkopos] refer to the same men, the same work. Pastors, elders, bishops and overseers are the same. The Bible uses all six English words (bishop, overseer, elder, presbyter, shepherd and pastor) interchangeably to refer to the same men, and so should we.”

This study will attempt to show there is a difference between these offices, and that we should not conflate the terms. The proposition is that the Holy Spirit has used different words to describe distinct and separate roles within the church. Certainly there is some overlap between these offices, and we should expect to see some redundancy. However, an examination of the linguistic, lexical and relational usages seems to demonstrate unique differences.

Presbuteros (“Elder”)

Linguistic

The Greek word most often translated “elder” in the New Testament is “presbuteros” (pronounced pres-boo'-ter-os). Presbuteros is formed from the root word presbus. This word has the general meaning of:

1. Old man, an older person, natural dignity of age, more advance in age, implying dignity and wisdom.
2. Ambassador
3. Elder of Jewish/Christian Sanhedrin or Church, assembly of elders.
4. Senators (Spartan Constitution)
5. Local Dignitary

The overall meaning for the root word presbus can be summarized as: 1) an older person; 2) an ambassador; 3) administrative member of an assembly of elders; 4) involved with legislative and possibly judicial functions (senatorial position); and 5) a local dignitary.

Grammatical

When used to signify the comparative degree of a presbus (i.e.- “old man,” “an elder”), it is an adjective. When referring to a specific person, role or function (i.e.- a “leader” in the church), it is a noun. We will be looking at the noun for our study.

Definition(s)

(The meaning of the Greek words in this study, is based upon their usage and common understanding from the time period when the New Testament was written. From now on, I will refer to this category by the technical term, “Lexical”).

The Lexical meaning of this word can be summarized as follows:

1. Administered justice.
2. Rulers of the people.
3. Officials in councils - - presiding over assemblies. Management of affairs (members of the Sanhedrin.)
4. Ranked superior in age- in terms of official responsibility. (“Representatives of the older generation as compared to the younger”)
5. Representatives of the people
6. Spiritual care, exercise oversight over, overseers.
7. Leaders in Congregational settings, “committed the direction and government of individual churches”
8. Teachers in church.

Several distinct definitions emerge from this list. The presbuteros function in an administrative (officials in assemblies), judicial (administers justice) and executive (congregational assemblies) roles within the church. They also serve as “teachers” and “spiritual care givers”; however, these duties do not uniquely define their position. New Testament scholar Gerhard Kittel makes the following insightful comment: “in the constitution of Sparta presbus occurs as a political title to denote a president of a college . . . Presbuteroi have administrative and judicial functions . . . . And are charged with supervision of the finances and negotiations with the authorities . . . [and] men belonging to the senate.”

Comparative

Presbuteros is used 66 times in the New Testament. Regarding the administrative role, the presbuteros made managerial decisions—“assembled in council,” and “held consultation.” As executive leaders of the “church” they “persuaded the multitude”. Throughout Jesus’ ministry (and the Apostles’), they came with the challenge—“by what authority [power] do you teach in the temple?” Furthermore, they were involved in judicial activities—“they delivered Jesus to Pilate,” Jesus was “rejected of the presbuteros,” and was “accused of the presbuteros”.

In the Post-Resurrection era (i.e. the Christian Church), the functions of the presbuteros remained intact. The administrative capacity was seen when Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem and the presbuteros assembled “to consider the matter” of circumcision. Their executive decision was authoritative (in consultation with the Apostles), and their “decrees” were delivered to the churches. Their executive authority is seen at Ephesus, where Paul called the presbuteros together, giving them a mandate to “feed the church.” When relief was sent to the brethren at Antioch, it was sent to the presbuteros.

Their teaching responsibilities were affirmed as they labored in “word and in doctrine.” Their spiritual care can be seen in James’ call for the presbuteros to “pray over the sick. . . anointing them.” Both Paul and Peter addressed the presbuteros as “overseers”, showing that they fulfilled some of the same duties of the episkopos and the poimen (“bishops”, “pastors”).

In Titus 1:5-7 we see that the presbuteros and episkopos have overlapping roles. Paul exhorts the church to “ordain elders (presbuteros) in every city . . . For a bishop (episkopos) must be blameless . . .” Also, when Paul is addressing the “elders” (presbuteros) in Ephesus, he reminds them that “the Holy Ghost has made you overseers (episkopos)”. These passages affirm that a presbuteros CAN (and should) perform the duties of the episkopos but not the other way around. In a sense, the presbuteros must be a “master of all trades”—and the functions of the episkopos are included and incorporated into this office. Titus 1:5-7 confirms that the presbuteros is recognized as such through the ordination process. Furthermore, Paul calls for presbuteros to be ordained in “every city” and in “every church.”

The presbuteros were to be accorded double honor, and be “rewarded monetarily as is appropriate for the laborer is worthy of his wages.” Also, they “should not be accused unfairly or frivolously. An accusation should not even be received unless two or three gather to accuse and the ones who accuse are witnesses of the offense.” Interestingly, both Peter and John refer to themselves as presbuteros while Paul never does.

In conclusion, a linguistic, lexical, comparative overview shows that the primary functions of a presbuteros include administrative, legislative and judicial roles. Within the scope of their duties, are the functions of the episkopos (“overseeing,” etc.) and the “shepherding” roles of the poimen (“feeding,” “caring,” etc.). Dr. Mare summarizes these findings nicely: “Presbuteros is used in Christian contexts for leading officials in local (Acts 11:30; 14:23) and regional (Acts 15:2,4,6) ecclesiae (churches) to lead the church in doctrinal decisions (Acts 15:22f; 16:4), to be responsible for missionary endeavors (Acts 21:18,19), to supervise distribution to the physical needs of the congregations (Acts 11:30), and to guard churches from error (Acts 20:17-31). The position of presbuteros is confirmed through ordination, after a careful review of the qualifications by the church.”

Episcopes (“Bishop”)

Linguistic

The word translated “bishop” in the N.T. is episkopos (pronounced ep-is'-kop-os). Episkopos is made up of the words epi and skopos. The preposition epi has several definitions, but generally means: “towards,” “to,” “against,” “on,” “at,” “upon,” “near,” “for,“ etc. The root word skopos has the following meanings:

1. Look, Peer into the distance at a goal, end, a mark.
2. Examine, View attentively; look into one’s affairs- with reference to laws.
3. Observer, Look out for, watch(er)- a hilltop or lookout-place, watch tower.
4. Guardian, protector
5. Spy, Scout, messenger sent to learn tidings.

The root word skopos has the general meaning of: 1) examining, looking attentively at; 2) watching; 3) guarding; and 4) scouting. Therefore, we could say that it refers to “looking towards,” “watching for,” “guarding at/near,” etc.

Grammatical

Episkopos is a masculine noun.

Lexical

The meaning of episkopos is summarized as follows:

1. Inspecting (an inspector sent to Athens by the states) (In Cynic philosophy- a “Cynic preacher tests men, whether their lives conform to the truth. . . [and] strives for perception of the truth as the basis of moral and rational conduct.”)
2. Overseeing, a watch- one who watches over- a man charged with seeing that things be done properly. (In the Odyssey, an episkopos is an overseer over goods as the work of a ship’s captain or merchant”)
3. Scout (In Homer’s writings, an episkopos means a “scout or a spy.”)
4. Guardian (Office of guardianship within a group), Guarding the apostolic tradition, Protector (Plato asserts that the episkopoi is one who “sees to it that there are no transgressions.“)
5. Superintendent- supervisor (In Athens, episkopoi were “supervisors sent to the cities. . . . And were in some sense governors.”)
6. Judicial- There seems to be some judicial element to the function of the Episcopes (it seems a minor role as compared to the presbuteros). State officials seemed “to have discharged, or supervised judicial functions.”

In combination with the root word skopos, we see several unique definitions for the episkopos compared to those for presbuteros. While there are some overlapping qualities (overseeing, teaching), the core responsibilities are primarily supervisory, investigative and guardian. The definitions of episkopos imply the office has a more intimate contact with the laity than with the presbuteros, being less administrative and more personal (“inspecting,” “guarding,” “watching”).

Comparative

Episkopos occurs five times in the New Testament, and confirms the basic Lexical meanings. Regarding the Guarding and Investigative functions—Paul reminds the bishop to be “vigilant.” He exhorts the bishop to “convince gainsayers, vain talkers, deceivers . . . .” He concludes by saying to “rebuke them sharply.” In 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is referred to as the “guardian” (episkopos) of the soul. When speaking of supervisory function, Paul tells Timothy that the bishop must “rule his own house well. . . having his children in subjection.” He urges Titus that they “hold fast the faithful word . . . exhorting by sound doctrine,” while Peter commands them to “take the oversight . . . [and] feed the flock of God.” By extension, if the presbuteros is to be ordained as an episkopos, then an episkopos is also recognized through the process of ordination.

Other reasons why episkopos should be seen as a distinct role, 1) it is an “office”, “a man desires the office of a bishop”; 2) it is listed as distinct and separate with other offices, “with the bishops (Episkopos) and deacons”; and 3) the Apostles offices are included in being an episkopos, “his (Judas’) bishoprick (episkopee) let another take.”

In conclusion, the episkopos is a church officer whose roles include: “inspecting,” “overseeing,” and “superintending.” This Greek word was used specifically for those sent to conduct affairs of the state as a scout or watch of their jurisdiction. The position of episkopos is established through ordination. It is not a spiritual gift, and therefore there are objective criteria the church must evaluate before instating into position.

Poimen (“Pastor”)

Linguistic/Grammatical

The word translated “pastor” in the New Testament is the root word poimen (pronounced poy-mane'). This masculine noun is akin to poia, which means “to protect.” It is related to the verb poimano, which has the general meaning of to feed or tend a flock, to keep sheep. It is also has a relationship with the noun poimne, which means a flock of sheep.

Lexical

This word also has exclusive and inherent meanings that distinguish it from prebuteros and episkopos:

1. Shepherd (Shepherd of sheep, oxen, people)
2. Guardian, protector
3. Tender care- nourishes, cherishes- not one who merely feeds
4. Teachers of pupils
5. Guide, leader of Christian communities

From a lexical standpoint, we can see that the word poimen contains several different meanings from the other two Greek words. This word specifies a position that is more nurturing and guiding. It does not have the administrative, judicial and executive meaning that presbuteros has, or the supervisory, investigative and oversight functions of episkopos. It does, however, include the teaching and protecting roles that are seen in the other two offices.

Comparative

Poimen occurs 18 times in the New Testament, and the comparative survey confirms the preceding definitions. The nurturing function is seen in Matt. 9:36 and Mark 6:34, where Jesus has “compassion on the people.” The guiding role can be seen in passages such as “smite the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” Peter elaborates on sheep that have gone astray, whom Jesus, “Shepherd (poimen) of the soul,” rescues. At the birth of Jesus, there were “shepherds in the fields, keeping watch over the flock by night.” John 10 refers to Jesus as the “Chief” poimen, and tells us that the sheep “follow” Him, and “hear His voice.” In Ephesians 4:13, we see that the poimen works with the church to promote the “unity of the faith,” “the work of the ministry,” and prevents “winds of doctrine from tossing” the church “to and fro”.

Interestingly, the role of poimen in the church is a spiritual gift. Unlike the prebuteros and episkopos, it is a position that is not established by a set list of “criteria” or confirmed by ordination. Rather, like other spiritual gifts, it is recognized or discerned by the church as a supernatural gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit. The qualifications for all spiritual gifts are those that involve the heart, and are given to those who are truly consecrated wholly to God.

A common mistake is to conflate the actions (verbs) of the poimen with the positions (nouns) of the presbuteros and episkopos. It is true that the latter two have responsibilities to “feed” the church of God and to “nurture”, but these actions cannot be construed to be the actual position itself.

In conclusion, we have seen lexically and comparatively that the poimen (translated as “shepherd” or “pastor”) fulfills the role of “guarding,” “teacher,” and “nurturer”. This position could include any role that does not involve judicial, administrative, authoritative, investigative, supervisory or managerial roles. The poimen is not a position which is established through ordination, but is a spiritual gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit. It is beyond the scope of this paper to enumerate all the positions or roles this could include.

Summary

The findings of this brief study reveal some interesting conclusions. We have seen that the functions and roles of the presbuteros (“elder”), episkopos (“bishop”), and poimen (“pastor”) are unique to each one. The presbuteros deals with executive, administrative and judicial areas, as well as teaching and supervising. The episkopos deals with supervisory, investigative and protecting areas, as well as teaching. The poimen functions primarily as nurturing, guarding and teaching. The presbuteros and episkopos are both recognized by external, objective criteria that the church evaluates, and then confirms them with ordination. The poimen, on the other hand, is a gift received from the Holy Spirit as a result of internal qualifications that the Spirit recognizes. The following table highlight the major findings:

Functions	Presbuteros	Episkopos	Poimen
Administrative	X
Legislative	X
Judicial	X	X
Mature (superior in age)	X	X
Leaders of Congregations	X	X
Investigative	X
Supervisory	X	X
Guardian (Overseeing)	X	X
Teaching	X	X	X
Nurturing	X	X	X
Guiding	X		X
Ordination	X	X

So what? Why is this study important—or is it? There are two reasons why these findings are significant:

1) Many people today feel that they are “called to the office of pastor.” A common mantra is “the Holy Spirit has given me the gift of being a pastor—no one has the right to prevent the Spirit‘s calling in my life!” While it IS TRUE that the gift of the Spirit includes the poimen, it DOES NOT include the office of presbuteros and episkopos. As already mentioned, the latter two have specific objective, external check points that the church must evaluate before allowing anyone who feels “called” to fulfill their roles in the church. Scripture simply will not allow for a subjective, internal and gift-oriented rationale for becoming a modern-day presbuteros (“elder”) or episcopes (“bishop“).

2) On the other side of the coin, we shouldn’t be too quick to negate someone’s “calling” for the office of poimen. This spiritual gift is given by God, and it is to be used for His glory.

Read ELDER = PASTOR = BISHOP? (Part II)

After Lawsuit, Alabama City Agrees To Adventist Literature Evangelists' Return

Literature evangelists are expected return to the streets of Alabaster, Alabama on July 18, one day after a U.S. District Court Judge in Alabama set March 2013 for a hearing on a Seventh-day Adventist Church challenge to local laws requiring colporteurs to get a permit from the city. Alabaster police issued tickets June 27 to two Oakwood University students who were canvassing there. U.S. District Judge Karon O. Bowdre, during a July 18 hearing at the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, said she was “convinced” the Adventist activity – a longtime staple of church outreach in the United States and other countries – was spiritual and not commercial in nature, according to attorney Todd McFarland, an associate general counsel for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

In a lawsuit filed with the court, the Adventist Church alleged Alabaster’s “ordinances directly target, and impose a prior restraint upon, speech afforded the highest levels of protection by the First Amendment,” noting, “Courts have routinely rejected governmental efforts to impose this sort of sweeping prior restraint on speech, and particularly so when the speech involved lies at the very core of our constitutional system.”

The Alabaster regulations, which media reports said were enacted in 1994, require filing of an extensive application, without the promise of approval, or even the opportunity to appeal, before activity is slated to begin. The city “may,” according to its regulations, grant such approval, but is not required to do so even if all the conditions are met, the Adventist Church complaint alleges.

McFarland said the student missionaries – often referred to as “Literature Evangelists” – attend church-owned Oakwood University in Huntsville, 122.5 miles north of Alabaster. The school’s summer evangelism teams had planned a door-to-door effort in the Birmingham suburb, and had notified city officials of their plans.

In common with many religious groups, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Salvation Army and other Christian and non-Christian movements, Seventh-day Adventists believe it is a basic right to go door-to-door to spread their message. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this right in two celebrated cases, 1943’s Murdock vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 2002’s Watchtower Society vs. Village of Stratton, and Judge Bowdrie cited Murdock in her comments from the bench.

For Adventists, such activity is said to be in fulfillment of what is often called Jesus’ “Great Commission” to His disciples: “go and make disciples of all nations,” as recorded in Matthew 28:19.

According to the legal complaint, “One of the methods by which the Plaintiffs and other members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church communicate their religious views is through door to door solicitation, evangelism and the distribution of free literature about the Seventh-day Adventist faith to interested persons.”

Receiving voluntary donations, the lawsuit says, is often the “first step” in someone’s interactions with, and eventual affiliation with, the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the South Central Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and literature evangelists Nathanael De Canal and Joshua Desire. The tickets against De Canal and Desire, which carried potential fines of up to $500 or a penalty of six month’s imprisonment “at hard labor,” are on hold pending a final resolution of the matter, McFarland said.

By Mark KelLner Adventist Review

Empowered witnessing: reaching all people (Part 2)

In Part I, we discussed some of the challenges to witnessing to our non-Christian family, friends, and those within our circle of influence. Sometimes we may have only one opportunity—perhaps a casual meeting during our commute to work or a seemingly random question from the clerk at the store—but the Lord also brings people into our lives for longer than a few minutes. In this section, we will look at some practical advice and Biblical examples to give all of us, even the inexperienced layperson, the foundation we will need to witness to all people. Recently during the Third International Bible Conference in Jerusalem, Francisco Gayoba, president of the Adventist University of the Philippines, mentioned the difficulties of witnessing to and evangelizing those of other faiths. Gayoba stressed that “[w]e need to adapt our missionary methods.” (1) As the discussion at the conference demonstrates, there is not a specific one-size-fits-all witnessing strategy. A method that may be effective in reaching one person may not be successful in reaching another. As ambassadors for Christ, we must learn to be flexible in our approach.

In Gospel Workers, Ellen White wrote: “Thus the apostle [Paul] varied his manner of labor, shaping his message to the circumstances under which he was placed.”(2) And she goes on to warn that “[s]ome there are today who will not be convinced by any method of presenting the truth; and the laborer for God is to study carefully the best methods.”(3) Yet sometimes we fail to adapt our methods to meet the individual’s needs, and this results in failure. “By following their natural inclinations, they have closed doors through which they might, by a different method of labor, have found access to hearts, and through them to other hearts.”(4)

Importance of Studying God’s Word and Prayer

The first and most important part of any type of witnessing is strengthening our own relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We have been given a mission—to share the gospel—and this is not something we can accomplish with our own strength, power, or intellect. Just as soldiers would not enter into battle untrained and unarmed, we must not enter into spiritual warfare without adequate training from the Word of God and rightly armed with His truth. Just as the Bereans were commended for studying the Scriptures daily, we also must open the Bible and study (Acts 17:11). When we are in God’s Word regularly, we guard ourselves from pride and arrogance (1 Samuel 2:3); ensure that what we share with others is Biblically sound (2 Timothy 2:15); and ready ourselves so that the Holy Spirit can bring back to our remembrance what we have studied (John 14:26). When we are immersed in the Word of God, we will “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15).

As equally vital to our relationship with the Lord is prayer. Some view prayer as a chore to be avoided as much as possible rather than a privilege to eagerly look forward to. If we desire to be an effective witness for our Lord, prayer needs to become an irreplaceable part of our daily routine. During His earthly ministry, Jesus would make time to pray, because through prayer, He communed with His Father in Heaven and was given the strength to face the ordeals before Him (Matthew 26:36; Mark 6:46; Luke 5:16; John 17). After Christ’s ascension into heaven, His followers continued in the example He had given them. Stephen prayed for the men who were stoning him (Acts 7:55-60); Paul prayed for the believers (Romans 1:9; Ephesians 1:16); and we are admonished to “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

As witnesses for Christ, we enter into a battle, not against flesh and bone, but against Satan and his fallen angels (Ephesians 6:12). We need to consecrate our own hearts and minds before entering into this battle, and this is done through earnest, humbling prayer in which we confess our shortcomings and give control to the Lord. We should never omit praying for the ones we are called to witness to, that they may be protected from the enemy. 1 Peter 5:6-8 illustrates this well: “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

Building Genuine Friendships

As we strengthen and deepen our own relationship with Christ, He will provide opportunities to witness for Him. One of the most effective forms of witnessing, especially to those who are not of a Christian faith, is to build a genuine, personal relationship with the person as an individual. Be a friend! How simple a concept, yet we sometimes gloss over this very important step. Many non-Christians will not take what we say seriously if they feel we are preaching at them or merely adding another notch in our evangelism belts.

To be honest, if there is no real relationship between the witness and the one he or she is witnessing to, many times the recipient of the message feels insulted or even attacked. We need to take the time to create a real, authentic friendship with the person—whether a loved one or an acquaintance—and, even if their worldview and belief system is very different from a Biblical one, show them respect. Remember the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Luke 6:31).

Building an authentic friendship requires a large investment of our time. As a 1993 Ministry article on friendship evangelism points out, “It is highly individualized and defies the typical organizational processes of church programs and statistical reporting.”(5) Friendship evangelism is all about becoming a compassionate and caring friend without expecting anything in return. As the friendship grows, the Lord will guide us in discovering openings to share our faith, but these openings are often brief and need to be handled delicately.

Listening to Understand The Needs of Others

That leads us right in to a crucial point that can be missing from some witnessing strategies: listening to the other person. We often think that witnessing is all about talking … preaching the word of God, talking about Jesus, and sharing our testimony. While these are integral to witnessing, sometimes we jump straight to the talking without having first listened to the other person. Yet it is through listening that we discern where that person is spiritually, what their specific needs are, and how the Holy Spirit will guide us in providing for what that person needs at that specific moment in time. Perhaps the Lord brought this person into our lives because we share a similar experience—health, finances, family, sorrow, whatever the experience may be—and the Lord is allowing us the opportunity to help the person (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

Paul expresses the importance of listening to understand in 1 Corinthians 9:19-24. He says, “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew,” “ to them that are without the law, as without law,” “to the weak I became weak,” and so on. He is not talking about compromise but flexibility in his method of sharing his faith. He witnessed for Christ among Jews and gentiles, believers and non-believers, but he approached people differently depending upon their spiritual needs. We, too, need to listen and be able to adjust our approach to meet the needs of the individual directly before us. An individual who already has some understanding of the Scriptures may be ready to have Bible studies, another person may only be ready to hear that Jesus loves them, and others may need comfort for specific problems or challenges, such as the death of a loved one or the loss of employment.

When we do not take the time to listen first and jump directly into preaching as led by our natural inclinations, we are actually running ahead of the Holy Spirit and may even end up sabotaging the work. We need to have patience and follow His leading. The Holy Spirit guided Philip to the Ethiopian just when the man was reading the Scriptures (the prophet Isaiah) and seeking a deeper understanding. I encourage you to read the entire account in Acts 8:26-40 to see how Philip allowed the Holy Spirit to lead, how he listened to the Ethiopian to understand where he was spiritually and what his needs were, and then how he met those needs while sharing about Jesus. It is a beautiful example of witnessing!

Dealing With Discouragement

In the account of the Ethiopian, he was so moved by the revelation of Christ that Philip baptized him right there in the river. Yet not all witnessing will result in immediate conversions nor baptisms. Sometimes it will take months and even years of friendship, conversations, and one-on-one Bible studies before the other person’s heart opens completely to the Lord. Sometimes we will find no amount of effort on our part seems to make a difference. We might even lose a few friends along the way. We must not be discouraged!

In 1 Corinthians 3:6-7, Paul writes about an important principle of witnessing: “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” We may plant the seed or water a seed planted by someone else, but we must remember that it is always the Lord who is in control of spiritual growth. And we may never know, this side of Christ’s second advent, whether something we said or did within a friendship led someone to ultimately choose Christ.

My younger sister recently experienced such a surprise when, after reuniting with a friend she had not seen nor spoken with for five years, she discovered that the seed she planted in her friend’s mind during their time together in high school was the catalyst that brought her friend into a relationship with Christ and, eventually, to accept the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. My sister planted the seed, and though she saw no result at the time and thought her witnessing efforts had failed, the Lord used others—including professional evangelists via online video archives—during those five years to water and nurture that seed. Then the Lord brought my sister and her friend together and graciously allowed my sister to give her friend in-depth Bible studies preparing her for baptism.

At the beginning of this witnessing effort, seven years ago, a positive outcome seemed highly improbable: a brief friendship during the tumultuous years of high school resulting in, years later, someone choosing to give their life completely to Christ. Yet this type of story, an example of the long-term effects of friendship evangelism, is playing out all around us. Sometimes the Lord allows us to see the fruit of our labors—such as the reunion of my sister and her friend—and other times we will not know the far-reaching influence of our endeavors until Christ’s second coming. So do not let a perceived failure discourage you and prevent you from continuing to witness for Christ.

In Conclusion

In Testimonies for the Church, Ellen White wrote: “If we would humble ourselves before God, and be kind and courteous and tenderhearted and pitiful, there would be one hundred conversions to the truth where now there is only one.”(6) Each one of us has been given a unique mission field by the Lord and, more often than not, it is right here at home among our families, friends, classmates, co-workers, neighbors, and others within our immediate circle of influence. Some of us may not feel that we are suited to being witnesses for Christ—perhaps we have never had the opportunity to attend a formal training program for personal evangelism—but the Lord has given us the spiritual gifts we need to share Him with those around us. The Lord may be calling us to plant the seed in someone’s mind or to water and nurture a seed planted by another.

Witnessing is not a one-time encounter but living every day of our lives to the glory to the Lord. Below is a quick reference for the basic foundation needed for reaching all people, whether Christian or not, within our individual circles. Remember, there is no "one-size-fits-all" witnessing strategy, but if you put into practice the tips below, you will find that witnessing becomes a part of who you are. If you are struggling, whether witnessing to a specific individual or witnessing as a whole, go to the Lord and ask Him to help you become a more effective witness.

• Strengthen your own relationship with the Lord through daily Bible study and prayer (2 Timothy 2:15; Philippians 4:6).
• Build genuine relationships based on authentic and unconditional friendship, respect, and compassion (Luke 6:31; 1 Peter 3:8-12).
• Wait on the Lord and be ready to answer questions or share your testimony, and He will provide the opportunities when the one you are witnessing to is ready (1 Peter 3:15-16).
• Listen to the other person, and the Holy Spirit will help you discern what that person’s spiritual needs are. Be flexible and allow the Lord to help you adapt your methods to best meet the needs of the specific individual before you (1 Corinthians 9:19-24).
• Remember that sometimes the Lord will allow you to go through difficult situations so you will be better equipped to help others experiencing similar challenges (2 Corinthians 1:4).
• Do not overwhelm or pressure the person you are witnessing to. It is your place to share; it is the Holy Spirit who convicts (Philippians 2:14; John 16:7-10).
• Not all efforts will see immediate results, but that does not mean the witnessing was in vain. You may be the planter or the one watering, but remember God is the One who causes spiritual growth (1 Corinthians 3:6-7; Hebrews 12:2).

1. Mark A. Kellner, “Battle Against Spiritualism Far From Over, Adventist Theologian Says”, Adventist Review, June 19, 2012. Accessed June 20, 2012. [link]
2. Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, 118.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Monte Sahlin, “Friendship Evangelism”, Ministry, 1993. Accessed June 20, 2012. [link]
6. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, 189.

Three little words (verbose venerations)

Several studies have concluded that there is a difference in the average number of words that men and women speak daily. Nancy and I have found this to be true in our own lives and in the lives of almost everyone we minister to. Last evening we went to our favorite Chinese restaurant for another round of fried bean curd and vegetables. As I was making the food disappear, my wife wanted to talk. Between my eating and checking the weather updates on my iPhone, I overheard my wife comment quietly, "You're fun tonight.." Uh-oh™. On the surface we were at a typical male-female roadblock. Nancy wanted to connect, and I wanted a bit of space to eat and plan our work for the rest of the week. Part of the fun of marriage (29-years) is that moments like this happen all the time, but we have learned how to navigate around them. She has learned how to listen better, and I have learned how to communicate beyond monosyllabic, caveman grunts.

The consensus between such relationship stalwarts as Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Gary Smalley, and more recently, Mark Gungor is that men speak about half of the words daily that their female counterparts do. “Not wrong, just different" as Emerson Eggrich says.

There are various reasons for this difference. When a woman is upset she generally needs to talk about it. Wise husbands recognizing this will lend a listening ear to their wives during such moments instead of thinking about how cool it would be to parachute off a skyscraper (umm…guilty).

On the flip side, when a man is troubled, we tend to go quiet or go ape, depending on the circumstances.

In 2007 researchers at the University of Pennsylvania conducted functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans to try to understand how men and women handle stress. Among the findings? Anxiety activates the "tend and befriend" reaction in women's limbic systems and the "fight or flight" response in men's prefrontal cortexes. Translation: Under pressure, women reach out, while guys go Rambo or clam up (1). I’m not a big fan of the “men are from Mars and women are from Kansas” or whatever that book was called, but I am a fan of the Bible, and the Scriptures tell us that men and women are fundamentally different in our created roles. And it’s a good thing.

"The brains of men and women, while similar in many ways, are more different than most scientists ever realized," says Larry Cahill, Ph.D., an associate at the University of California, where he researches emotion, memory, and the brain (2).

In spite of the evidence, there will always be modern-minded multitudes who don't want to believe that men & women are fundamentally different in our God-created cores (Pennebaker, Mehl, and CBS News itself). But hard truth is truth nonetheless and the hard truth is that we are different in a complimentary way. Guy’s brains have boxes, women have wires.

In 1996, I purchased the book Brain Sex for my library. Despite its provocative title, this informative book by David Jessel and Ann Moir helped me to understand what people like James Dobson and Gary Smalley already knew. Men and women tend to think differently. Not wrong, just different.

One benefit that some women derive from their wiring is the ability to utter those three little words—“I was wrong.” They may not admit it to men but they’ll admit it to others of their persuasion. Men have that ability too. Just not very often. The last man to use the “Sorry, I was wrong” box was Custer at Little Big Horn after he told his men, “Here they come boys. Don’t take any prisoners!” Oops. With God we can do better than that!

If I am focusing on my laptop at breakfast when Nancy wants to talk, she will feel frustrated/ignored. If she wants to tell me about a sister's emotional mood swings when I am reading Russell Sullivan's book on Rocky Marciano, I will feel like turning on the ceiling fan to blow some of the words out the windows. If I am waxing eloquent to my wife about the specific merits of polymeric isocyanates, it may cause her to have an out-of-body experience. What's the solution?

Quality over quantity. The solution is to learn how to communicate heart-to-heart. This takes less words (all the guys say YES!!) and the words have a heavier specific gravity, meaning they are worth more. This builds emotional intimacy (right here all the girls say "Yes!!"). So whether it is 20,000 words a day for women and 10,000 for the guys, or 16,000 words for the women and 8,000 for the guys—there are really only three words necessary for heart-to-heart communication. Are you ready?

“Are you happy?” “I need you” “I am lonely” “Can we pray?” “I love you” “We need Jesus” “There is hope” You are special “Let’s resolve this” “I was wrong” “Can I care?”

As you communicate on this deeper level beware of three bad words:

“Ready, aim, fire!” “I don’t care.” “Just shut up” “I won’t listen” “You are wrong” “I’m usually right” “What an idiot” “All about me…” “Get a life!” “I’m in charge” “Got my rights!”

So instead of counting words, smart couples will count the cost, count their blessings and count on God. That will give our words life, and most importantly quality over quantity.

1. Corporate Wellness Magazine, “It’s all in your Head” Jason Krausert and Donna Tosky, May 2011
2. Scientific American, May 2005

Can liberal Christianity be saved?

In 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure — during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition — but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States. As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase. (Read more)

By Josh Haner The New York Times

Two unions lobby for female pastoral ordination

The Columbia Union and the Pacific Union both plan special constituency meetings at which there will be a vote on whether to authorize the ordination of female pastors. The Columbia Union constituency meeting is set for July 29, and the Pacific Union constituency meeting is set for August 19. The presidents of these unions have abandoned any pretense of neutrality, and are strongly urging their constituents to endorse women's ordination. Dave Weigley, President of the Columbia Union Conference, and Ricardo Graham, President of the Pacific Union Conference, have written editorials in favor of female ordination, and beyond that, both have dedicated the July issue of their respective union news outlets to arguing for female ordination.

Part I: The Columbia Union Visitor

In the July issue of the Columbia Union's monthly paper, The Visitor, Elder Dave Weigley sets out his reasons for supporting female ordination:

“Since we announced plans to hold a special constituency meeting July 29, I’ve discovered that many members, pastors and leaders support our request to authorize ordination of women clergy. They realize that although we continue to debate the issue theologically, it’s largely cultural.”

But is it a merely cultural issue? Paul based his teaching of male headship in the church on the history of creation and the Fall. (2 Timothy 2:11-14) Because the doctrine of male headship is rooted in facts of history that do not change and are the same for every culture, this apostolic mandate is eternal and trans-cultural.

Elder Weigley continues:

In his new book titled Where Are We Going? Jan Paulsen, immediate past president of our world church, writes, “The church has never taken the view that biblical teachings exclude the possibility of women being ordained to ministry on an equal footing with men. But global leadership has felt that local readiness and perceptions—heavily influenced by culture—have thus far kept us from moving forward on this as a global community.” (p. 12)

The first sentence quoted from Elder Paulsen is true: the SDA Church has not put this issue on a doctrinal basis. Given the clarity of Scripture, it should have done so long ago, but it has not. It seems very unlikely, however, that all opposition to female ordination is merely cultural and not scripturally based.

Elder Weigley, in what has become typical of liberal argumentation, appeals to the Holy Spirit in justification of what is not in accordance with the Scriptures the Spirit inspired:

1. I can no longer dismiss the evidence of the Spirit’s moving in China and other parts of the world where women are advancing the mission of the church as promised in Joel 2.

China is transitioning from the extreme persecution of Christianity to a more tolerant attitude toward faith. After communists took power in 1949, foreign missionaries were expelled and all ties were cut between Chinese Christianity and Christianity in other countries. Even today, no foreign ties are tolerated, hence the church in China has no connection to the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church. The practice of having women in leadership roles developed by necessity during times of persecution, when male pastors were often imprisoned. Frequently, “old uncles” guided the churches from the background. It is wonderful that God has used women to skirt persecution in China. It does not follow from the Chinese situation, however, that Christians who are free to practice their religion according to the dictates of conscience should set aside clear scriptural guidelines.

And of course the reference to Joel 2:28-29 is not persuasive:

“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”

No one disputes that the gift of prophecy can be given to both men and women. The Bible affords several examples of female prophets (Judges 14:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9), and, obviously, a female prophet was crucial to the founding of this denomination. But the fact that women can be and have been given the gift of prophecy---a fact of which Paul was fully aware (1 Cor. 11:5)---does not set aside the apostolic mandate of male headship. To the contrary, in the very same passage in which Paul writes of women prophesying, he also notes that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man . . .” (1 Cor. 11:3)

Elder Weigley continues:

2. In the early days, our church saw the value of encouraging both genders to serve according to their calling, and history tells of female pastors, missionaries, evangelists, conference presidents and General Conference treasurers (see pp. 16-17). In New York at the turn of the 19th century, for example, women won 60 percent of our converts.

Several of the examples are husband-wife evangelistic teams, not female senior pastors. Opponents of female ordination or female headship do not dispute that women have a vital and indispensable role to play in evangelism, soul-winning, bible work, social-welfare-charity outreach, etc. The issue is female headship in the church, which is not scripturally a woman's prerogative.

The rest of Elder Weigley's arguments are premised upon the assumption that opposition to female headship in the church is merely cultural, and that the issue is mere “policy,” rather than a scriptural or doctrinal principle:

3. We already accommodate policy variances in some places for practical purposes, cultural sensitivities or to advance our mission, e.g., polygamy, labor unions, women’s ordination. In our cultural context, this issue has moral and ethical implications.
4. Only recently has there been an attempt to have us walk lockstep in policy. Our pioneers would have been hampered by such uniformity.
5. Mission should drive policy, not vice versa. As policies become outdated or problematic for the advancement of the gospel, we revise or abolish them, and/or create new ones.

In addition to Dave Weigley's editorial, several other articles in The Visitor advocate for female headship in the church, including: “Why We're Advocating for Women's Ordination,” “Understanding Ordination,” “11 Pioneering Women Ministers,” and “Time Line: The Road to Ordination.”

In “Why We're Advocating for Women's Ordination,” the authors address the concern that women's ordination will lead to acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as follows: “That's an unfounded leap because these topics are in no way related. The church's stance on marriage is doctrinal (See, Fundamental Belief # 23) and we, therefore, affirm it.” Later, in responding to the charge that the Columbia Union is rebelling against the world-wide SDA Church, they say, “If this were theological or even doctrinal, we would continue to deny the requests we receive for female ordination from our conferences. But this is an ecclesiastical practice that . . . holds no Biblical mandate.” And again, later in the article, “But this is a matter of practice, not doctrinal belief. We are united with the world church in doctrine, mission and Spirit.”

Clearly, the failure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to have articulated, long before now, a scriptural doctrine of male headship has made it difficult to maintain discipline among the church's various administrative units on this issue. Had such a doctrine been articulated, the Columbia Union would, by its own admission, be compelled to abide by that doctrine. But because the issue has not been framed as doctrinal, the liberal unions call it a question of mere “policy,” and feel at liberty to ignore the repeated verdict of the world church in General Conference Session. It is crucial that the Church at the General Conference level articulate that male headship in the Christian Church is not mere “policy,” but Bible doctrine.

The Visitor also relies on the fact that the General Conference has already fatally compromised the principle of male headship by allowing the ordination of female elders in those divisions that want to do so:

“We are already united in our practice of ordaining both men and women to ministry at every level except one – pastoral. . . . To be commissioned as a pastor, she must be ordained as an elder first.”

Since the ordination of female elders violates the principle of male headship in the church, the Church, if it ever recognizes such a principle as Bible doctrine, will need to “walk back” the policy of ordaining female elders. Needless to say, such a reversal will be very difficult to accomplish. The advocates of female headship (but sadly not their opponents) were looking to the future when they achieved this compromise.

Part II: The Pacific Union Recorder

The Pacific Union Recorder also has devoted most of its July issue to lobbying for female ordination. The articles are “Our Praise Shall Ascend” (an editorial by Ricardo Graham), “The Campbellite and Mrs. White,” “What Haskell Said,” “A Pastor's Perspective,” and “Following the Heart of Jesus” (a condensed sermon by Ricardo Graham). In addition, a notice of the Special Constituency Session is posted, and the name of every delegate is listed (subjecting them to lobbying and importuning for a period of about six weeks, until August 19). The articles are all translated into Spanish, Elder Graham probably correctly anticipating that opposition to female headship will be stronger in the Spanish-language community than among English-speakers.

In the article “Following the Heart of Jesus,” Elder Graham argues that the trajectory of Jesus' teaching leads to radical equality between men and women:

“What is the bull’s eye? Equality and unity in the church. There can be no unity without equality and inclusion. The church must seek to follow the natural progression of Jesus’ trajectory, all the way to the mark.”

But the trajectory of Christ's teachings is best seen in His own actions, and Christ ordained twelve male disciples (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; DA 290-297) but not a single woman among His sizable cohort of female followers (Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:27-30). Ellen White makes clear that the calling of the 12 male disciples included ordination:

“When Jesus had ended His instructions to the disciples, He gathered the little band close about Him, and kneeling in the midst of them, and laying His hands upon their heads, He offered a prayer dedicating them to His sacred work. Thus the Lord's disciples were ordained to the gospel ministry.” Desire of Ages, p. 296.

Elder Graham is essentially arguing that Christ would do things differently if He came to earth today, instead of two millennia ago, but we can use this uncabined rationale any time we find it inconvenient to follow Christ's example, and need a handy excuse not to do so.

Elder Graham acknowledges that Paul wrote, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12), but counters this text as follows:

“We must remember that God spoke to and through a patriarchal, male-dominated society. The men in biblical times were, to put it bluntly, sexists. We should not, however, assume that because the society was sexist that God is sexist or that the modern church needs to be.”

Putting to one side the repeated use of the loaded term “sexist,” God did, in fact, create a patriarchal world. Adam was created first, and Eve was created out of Adam's rib, a suitable helper or “helpmate” for Adam. (Gen. 2:18-25) Adam was not created after Eve, to be a helpmate for Eve. Matrilineal societies are very rare, and true matriarchies probably non-existent (which gives some indication of the radical nature of the Western cultural elite's push toward a post-patriarchal society).

God also created a patriarchal religion. The pagan religions of the ancient world had multiple gods and goddesses. (See, e.g., Acts 19:27-28) Frequently, the same god had both a male and a female form, across several different cultures, and it was not rare for pagan religions to have female priestesses. But the God of Judaism and Christianity is always referred to by the male pronoun, and was never served by female priestesses. It is often remarked that Judaism was the first great monotheistic religion, but it is just as remarkable, though not as often remarked, that it was the first mono-gendered religion. When God was incarnated in human form, He came in the form of a man. And although Christ had followers of both sexes, as noted above He ordained only men. God is not “sexist,” but God did create sex differences and a sexual order, and He did specify differing gender roles in the home and in religious worship.

Part III: The Change to the Pacific Union's Bylaws is Not Limited to Ordination

It is important to examine the changes to its bylaws that the Pacific Union wishes its constituents to approve. The terms that are struck through are to be deleted, and the terms in brackets and in [bold] are to be added:

"All [In general], the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall [will] be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."

As presently worded, the bylaws state that ALL Pacific Union policies, purposes and procedures SHALL be in harmony with NAD and GC working polices and procedures. There are NO exceptions. With this change, the Pacific Union would give itself permission to be out of compliance with General Conference and NAD working policies and procedures not just on female ordination, but on any issue it suits them to be out of compliance, as long as they “generally” or usually comply.

Obviously, the implications of this change go far beyond the issue of female ordination. Elder Graham acknowledges this in his article, “Our Praise Shall Ascend,” when he states, “It is important that we make the small changes in the bylaws, not just for the immediate discussion surrounding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, but to provide room for the Spirit's leading in all that we do.” (emphasis added) The constituents may believe that they are voting on female ordination, but they are actually voting on whether to give the Pacific Union permission to ignore GC and NAD working policy whenever it wants to. By this change to its bylaws, the Pacific Union is making an astonishing move toward secession from the world church.

It is possible that this change could have a bearing on the origins pedagogy controversy at La Sierra. The Adventist Accrediting Association (AAA) exists to ensure that the Adventist philosophy of education is implemented at Adventist schools like La Sierra. And where is the Adventist philosophy of education articulated? In General Conference Working Policy:

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes that God, the Creator and Sustainer of the earth, and the entire universe, is the source of knowledge and wisdom. In His image, God created man perfect. Because of sin, man lost his original estate. Christian education, by perfecting faith in Christ, restores in man the image of his Maker, nurtures in man an intelligent dedication to the work of God on earth and develops in man a practical preparation for conscientious service to his fellow men.”

This creation-centric philosophy of education, articulated in GC working policies that the Pacific Union would like to give itself permission to ignore, is not being implemented at La Sierra, which teaches that the human race descended from an apelike hominoid. If the constituents pass the requested change to the bylaws, La Sierra can respond to AAA by noting that, as a Pacific Union institution, La Sierra does not have to abide by General Conference working policy in every particular, only “in general.” This might seem a stretch, but it should be noted that, pursuant to the incestuous system of interlocking boards by which the SDA Church is governed, Randal Wisbey is on the Pacific Union Executive Committee that wants these changes to its bylaws, and Wisbey is always two or three tactical steps ahead of the creationists who would like to return La Sierra to the Seventh-day Adventist philosophy of education. The requested bylaw change plays into Wisbey's hands.

The Adventist Arab Spring

Last year, the world's media were abuzz with stories of the “Arab Spring,” a revolt against autocratic rulers that swept across the Arab world from west to east. The revolt started in Tunisia, with the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, then spread to Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi was ousted in an armed revolt, and swept on through Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak was removed from power. The Arab Spring sparked protests in many other Arab countries, led to an ongoing and very bloody civil war in Syria, as many sought to oust second-generation dictator Bashar al-Assad, and led to a relatively peaceful change of government in Yemen. This year, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is witnessing its own “Arab Spring” over the role of women in the church. Because of clear apostolic guidance, most churches with a high view of Scripture, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, historically have not ordained women. The world church in General Conference session has twice voted against the ordination of women, first at Indianapolis, in 1990, and again at Utrecht, in 1995. But church officials in North America and elsewhere have nevertheless pushed to hire female pastors, and have promoted a form of ordination for female pastors, “commissioning,” that is ceremonially indistinguishable from the ordination of male pastors. Finally, they have sought to erase any meaningful distinction between commissioning and ordination, which brings us to the genesis of the current revolt.

This past October, the North American Division Executive Committee, for the third year in a row, voted for a policy change that would allow commissioned pastors to be elected to the office of conference president. This policy change is out of harmony with General Conference Working Policy. NAD president Dan Jackson was informed that the NAD does not have the authority to vote for or establish policies that conflict with GC Working Policy or the GC Model Constitution. This was confirmed by the NAD's legal counsel in an an opinion letter issued on January 3, 2012, which noted that the NAD does not have a constituency. The Church later made clear that the divisions, including the North American Division, do not form a separate layer of church governance, but are essentially administrative territories or sub-divisions of the General Conference.

In a January 31 letter to the NAD Executive Committee, Elder Jackson reiterated his commitment to placing women in the headship role of conference president, and called for more work to bring that about:

“While we, as a Division family, have philosophically supported women in leadership in three successive Year-End Meetings, the time has now come for us to become more practical in our application of philosophy and belief. . . . We must also develop intentional methods of mentoring women who can take on executive leadership positions within our conferences.”

Elder Jackson went on to lament that there are so few female pastors in North America (only 107 out of approximately 4,000 pastors), his implicit assumption being that the church should be moving toward a pastorate more evenly divided between the sexes.

Mid-American Union Conference President Thomas Lemon is on the NAD Executive Committee, and on March 8, while he was explaining to his own executive committee why the NAD's vote to allow women to become conference presidents was reversed, the Mid-America Union Executive Committee decided to vote, then and there, “to support the ordination of women in the Mid-America Union.” This was followed, on March 15, by the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee voting to “reaffirm its commitment to the ordination of women,” and, on March 20, by the Columbia Union Conference Executive Committee voting to reaffirm its previous request to ordain women. On March 22, the Southeastern California Conference Executive Committee voted to issue only one credential, “ordained,” to all of its pastors regardless of gender, effectively retroactively ordaining all commissioned female pastors. On March 29, the Southern Union Executive Committee stated that, while they would not take an action contrary to the policy of the world church, they were “actively supporting, encouraging, and empowering women in all areas of ministry including . . . conference and union leadership . . .” On April 23, the North German Union voted to amend its constitution to end gender discrimination in ordination.

On May 9, the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee voted to hold, on August 19, a special constituency session to authorize ordination without regard to gender distinction. On May 15, the Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee voted a statement almost identical to that voted by the Southern Union, supporting the ordination of women, but declining to take any action contrary to world church policy. On May 17, the Columbia Union Conference Executive Committee took an action essentially identical to that taken by the Pacific Union, voting to hold, on July 29, a special constituency meeting “for the purpose of authorizing ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender.” Also on May 17, the North Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee voted “to appoint an ad hoc committee to create specific recommendations on how to fully integrate committed and called Adventist women into all levels of church leadership within the NPUC territory.”

It is important to emphasize just how this Adventist “Arab Spring” began: It began not over the ordination of women, per se, but over the North American Division's attempt to amend the “E-60” policy to allow women to serve as conference presidents. The issue is female headship in the SDA Church at the level of conference president and higher. Elder Jackson's letter made this clear, as have several of the statements issued by the various executive committees. So we can now put to one side such issues as the meaning of ordination, whether ordination is biblical, whether there is a role for women in ministry, whether women can serve as tithe-paid pastors, etc. None of these is the issue that now confronts us. The issue that has crystallized is female headship in the Adventist Church at the level of conference president and higher.

Even those unions--like the Southern and the Atlantic--that acknowledged and deferred to the authority of the world church nevertheless voiced support for women in headship roles. With a couple of exceptions, the executive committees have not offered any theological or biblical justification for their actions. Female headship has been treated as an organizational or administrative issue, not a doctrinal issue. This is perhaps not surprising, because although the Bible has much to say about the roles of the sexes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had little to say; we have not formulated a doctrine of sex roles. But the present crisis demonstrates that it is now necessary to do so; neglect is no longer an option. As a church, we need to familiarize ourselves with what Scripture teaches about sex roles.

Scripture specifies male headship in the Christian church. God the Son, Jesus Christ, was incarnated in the form of a male, and Christ is the head of the church. The Twelve Disciples chosen by Jesus were all men. Mat. 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-19. When lots were cast to replace Judas Iscariot, both of the candidates were men. Acts 1:12-23. When deacons were chosen to perform some of the practical tasks of the church, the seven appointed to the office of deacon were men. Acts. 6:1-7. Both the office of episkopēs (“bishop” or “overseer”) and deacon are described as male offices, to be filled by sober men who are the husband of only one wife, and capable husbands, fathers, and heads of their families. 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul makes clear that capable leadership of the family is a prerequisite to leadership in the church: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” And Paul elsewhere makes clear that the husband is the head of the home. Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1. Since the husband is the head of the home, and successful headship in the home is a prerequisite to headship in the church, it follows that headship in the church is also reserved for men.

Not only are leadership offices reserved for males, a submissive, non-headship role is specified for women. “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Cor. 14:33-35. “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 1 Tim. 2:11-14. Even a very relaxed application of these passages upholds the principle of male headship in the church.

These scriptural principles are too clear to need elaboration, which perhaps is why the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never bothered to articulate a “fundamental belief” regarding male headship in the church. Another reason may be sheepishness over the prominent role played by Ellen White in the founding of the denomination. Proponents of women in headship roles argue that the prophetic authority exercised by Ellen White sets aside, by implication, the patriarchal church governance specified in the New Testament. But female prophets were common in biblical times---Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14)---and in fact there were New Testament-era female prophets, such as Anna (Luke 2:36) and the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8-9), who would have been well known to the Apostle Paul. Yet Paul nevertheless gave clear instruction that leadership roles in the church were reserved for men. Neither Paul nor any of the other Bible-writers hint that the existence of female prophets suggested a non-patriarchal organization for the Christian Church.

The most common argument in favor of women in headship roles is that, in the Bible era, society was organized along patriarchal lines (patriarchy = “rule of fathers”), and in order to conform to the culture of that time, Scripture specified that the Christian Church would also be patriarchal in organization. Today, however, society is less and less patriarchal, and the church may properly reflect today's cultural realities. After all, Paul frequently told slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; Titus 2:9-10), but this is not interpreted as an apostolic mandate that all societies should embrace the institution of slavery. Likewise, just because Paul specified male headship in the church of his time and culture does not mean that all societies must embrace the restrictive prerogatives of patriarchy. Scripture's mandate was culturally conditional, and our culture is different.

This reasonable-sounding argument runs afoul of the fact that male headship in the church is based upon the order of creation and the history of the Fall: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” 1 Tim. 2:13-14. These facts of history are never going to change, hence the biblical rationale for male headship in the church does not rest on the shifting sands of culture. Obviously, there is no comparable biblical statement basing slavery on the order of creation or the history of the fall, so there is no legitimate comparison between slavery and patriarchy.

It is certainly true, however, that the move toward female headship in the SDA Church is being driven by cultural changes in what is referred to as the developed world or the “first world.” The “executive committees” involved in the Adventist Arab Spring have felt little need of a biblical rationale for their actions, but no need whatsoever to critically re-examine the cultural trends that are driving their actions. The members of these executive committees tend to be practical people who know how to operate within the prevailing cultural/legal complex of mores, laws, rules and regulations. Such people excel at running enterprises and organizations, but are unsuited to the task of critically examining the culture in which they operate. And the question of whether the SDA Church should bend to the dominant culture or resist it turns on a broad overview of cultural trends.

In the biblical-patriarchal form of sexual-social organization, the family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society, and legitimate sexual expression is restricted to opposite-sex married couples. Since the “sexual revolution” of the late 1960s/early 1970s, however, Western elites have promoted a post-patriarchal form of sexual-social organization in which the basic unit of society is the individual, not the family, and legitimate sexual expression encompasses anything consenting adults can think of to do with each other. These two different forms of sexual-social organization have very different ideas about the sexes, about proper sexual conduct, and about what is just and unjust. A contrasting summary of the assumptions and attributes of the two systems follows.

A side-by-side Comparison of Biblical-patriarchal with post-patriarchal culture

	Attributes and assumptions of Biblical-patriarchal culture:	Attributes and assumptions of Post-patriarchal culture:
1. The Sexes, and the differences between the sexes	God created us male and female. (Gen. 1:27; Mat. 19:4-5; Mark 10:5-9) The very significant differences between the sexes are part of the created order, and not something we should strive to efface. These differences mean that men are better suited than women to certain roles and tasks, and women are better suited than men to certain roles and tasks.	Except for their obvious physiological differences, men and women are the same. Persistent non-physical differences between men and women are the product of culture; they are not innate.
2. Sexuality, and the difference between male and female sexuality	Men and women have very different sex drives. Male sexuality can be problematic, even destructive. (2 Sam. 11, 12; 1 Kings 11:1-13) An important goal of Christian patriarchy is to curb the negative potential of ungoverned male sexuality, and to channel male sexual energy into monogamous (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), heterosexual marriages, that build families, societies, and civilizations (see 7 & 8, below).	Men and women are the same in their sexual drives. Women are just as likely as men to want casual sex with multiple partners, and men are just as likely as women to want to marry and raise children.
3. Marriage	Men and women need each other in long-term relationship in order to live the fullest, happiest, and most productive lives. It is not good that man should be alone. (Gen. 2:18; Heb. 13:4) A happy marriage is an important goal for all, and young people, 19 or 20 years old, are old enough to get married. Marriage is intended to last until death. (Mat. 19:6-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)	Traditional heterosexual marriage is one option for sexual expression, but not the only legitimate option, nor the socially preferred condition. People should probably postpone marriage until they are fully educated and in their late 20s (and it is obviously unreasonable to expect chastity for the first 15 years after puberty). Marriage should last as long as both parties are happy, and no longer; during the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce was adopted in all states, meaning that either party could end the marriage at any time, for any reason or no reason. More recently, same-sex “marriage” has been enacted in several jurisdictions.
4. Raising Children	Men and women each bring something unique and irreplaceable to the rearing of children. The man's biological role in producing children is trivial, but he makes up for that by providing protection and support for the woman. The woman is a nurturer and has a greater role in the raising of infants and young children. (Isaiah 49:15; 1 Kings 3:16-28) When a wife gets pregnant, she reduces her participation in the money economy in order to concentrate on her physically and emotionally demanding role in bearing and raising the child, whereas the husband increases his participation in the money economy so as to be able to fulfill his complementary role of protector and provider.	Because men and women are not different in any meaningful respect, it doesn't matter who raises children. Two daddies or two mommies are as good as a mother and a father. Even a single mother is just as good as two parents. Discrimination in adoption in favor of married heterosexual couples has been outlawed in many jurisdictions; Catholic adoption agencies in several jurisdictions have closed because they can no longer discriminate in favor married heterosexual couples.
5. Out-of-wedlock Births	Stigmatized and frowned upon in patriarchal societies, because they are the product of illegitimate sexual activity, and also because complementary, opposite-sex parents are viewed as crucial to successful child-rearing. (Deut. 23:2)	Because there is nothing wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage, and because a single parent can raise a child as effectively as an opposite sex couple, there is no stigma whatsoever attached to childbirth outside of marriage. In the U.S., 40% of births, and the majority of births to women under the age of 30, are out of wedlock). If anything, there is now a stigma attached to disapproval of what used to be called illegitimate births and bastard children.
6. Sexual behavior	Legitimate sexual expression is limited to opposite-sex married couples. Adultery is proscribed. (Ex. 20:14; Mat. 5:27-28) Unmarried heterosexual sex is proscribed. (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; 1 Cor. 7:2; Gal. 5:19) Homosexuality is proscribed (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and widespread open homosexual conduct is a sign of the removal of God's Spirit (Rom. 1:18-27) and even cause for immediate, supernatural judgment. (Gen. 18:16-19:29)	Between consenting adults, anything goes. Homosexuality is fine; pre-marital and extra-marital sex are fine. Since age and consent are the only guidelines, sexual expression is discouraged in situations that raise the possibility that consent is not genuine, such as when one party has power over another by reason of economic or social circumstances. Laws against workplace sexual harassment, and against sex within various relationships of trust, have multiplied pari passu with the acceptance of extra-marital sexual activity.
7. Female virtue-chastity	This is highly prized and protected in truly patriarchal cultures. The father is the protector of his daughter's virtue until she is married, after which her husband is her protector. The desire of husbands, fathers, and brothers to protect the virtue of their female relatives puts an important check on voracious and variety-driven male sexual appetite; it protects women from the worst male impulses. (Gen. 34)	This is viewed as quaint, if not actually oppressive. It is a woman's prerogative to be as sexually active and adventurous as a man, if not more so.
8. Female economic independence	This is not a value in patriarchal systems, because fathers are expected to support their daughters, and husbands are expected to support their wives. Fathers typically demand that their daughters' suitors be able to support their daughters; as a result, young men are forced, in order to gain sexual access to a woman, to channel their energy into hard work and economic success. (Gen. 29:16-30)	Very highly prized in the post-patriarchal sexual-social order. Economic independence, they are told, means freedom from male domination; it means that women don't need to get married for the wrong reasons, but can wait for “Mr. Right.” (A darker reason, seldom mentioned in polite society, is that a large cohort of single, self-supporting women creates a large pool of potential partners whom men can sexually exploit without being expected to financially support; Hugh Hefner was an early and constant supporter of “women's lib,” or equal economic opportunities for women. Moreover, when a woman is economically as powerful as a man with whom she has sex, the genuineness of consent is not usually in question, and, again, consent is the sole criterion of legitimate sexual expression between adults.)
9. Gender fairness and economic justice	Men and women have different roles and functions and perform different jobs. Not all jobs open to men are also open to women, and vice versa. Since the basic unit of organization is the family, not the individual, as long as jobs and other economic opportunities are open to all families on an equal basis, the fairness/justice element is met.	Because the basic unit of society is the individual, not the family, and it is not assumed that most adults will be, or will have been, married to a person of the opposite sex, family opportunity is irrelevant. Every individual, whether male or female, should be eligible for every job. Gender-based discrimination in employment has been almost universally outlawed (clergy being a rare exception). Any job that men do, women should also be encouraged to do, even to the extreme of putting women in military combat. (Again, in the post-patriarchal system, this isn't just an issue of fairness and justice; it is critical to the logic of the system to have a large cohort of women who are self-supporting and can freely consent to sexual activity.)
10. Headship	Headship, in the home (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1) and in the church (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9), is a male prerogative, but it is servant-leadership, to be exercised in a Christlike, self-sacrificing manner. (Eph. 5:25-33).	For the dwindling few who choose to get married, the marriage should be a 50/50 partnership; there is no “headship” in marriage. In society, women should be in leadership roles as frequently as men. Since there are actually more women than men in the church, there should be at least as many women as men in church leadership, preferably more.

If one reads down the column, it becomes apparent that each culture has an internal logic and consistency; there is a coherent rationale behind each. And if one reads across the columns, it becomes apparent how sharply each culture conflicts with the other. (Obviously, neither the United States nor any other developed country is purely patriarchal or purely post-patriarchal; rather, they are at points along a continuum. In the mid-20th Century, most were still largely patriarchal societies, but for the last 40 years, they have been rapidly transitioning into post-patriarchal societies, although that transition is not complete.)

The Bible's values with regard to sexuality are part and parcel of the patriarchal system, but are rejected by the post-patriarchal system. Obviously, then, the Seventh-day Adventist Church should not view the fact that female headship is demanded by post-patriarchal culture as a point in its favor, but rather as a compelling argument against it. If we reject biblically prescribed male headship in the church on the basis that biblical culture was patriarchal but modern culture is post-patriarchal, we are consenting to be ruled by a neo-pagan culture, the sexual norms of which are anathema to biblical values. If we accept the foundational assumptions of post-patriarchal culture, we render irrational and unsustainable the entire complex of biblical prescriptions and proscriptions relating to human sexuality.

Christian patriarchy need not apologize to women. Wherever the gospel has taken root, the social, legal, and spiritual status of women has been elevated. Consider the position of women in Christian cultures versus their position in Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, or other Eastern cultures. But whereas Christianity elevates women, post-patriarchal culture devalues femininity and female attributes. Created sex differences are downplayed, dismissed, despised, and denied. Post-patriarchy has contempt for women who embrace family and motherhood as their first and highest priorities; it denies that there is anything unique or extraordinary about women, insisting that women are just like men, except for the plumbing.

Moreover, an unspoken but obvious aspect of post-patriarchal culture is the enabling of immature male sexual instinct by creating a huge pool of self-supporting women whom men can sexually exploit without commitment or financial responsibility. Instead of ennobling men by demanding that they become responsible husbands and fathers, it degrades women by demanding that they shorten their own sexual horizons, and knuckle under to male patterns of sexuality.

Denominations that have embraced female headship are coasting toward oblivion. Liberal Presbyterians began ordaining women to the ministry in 1956, and by 2001 there were almost as many women as men in the PCUSA clergy. But the Presbyterians have witnessed a 40 year decline in membership. In 1968, there were over 4 million members, or almost 2 % of the U.S. Population; today membership hovers around 2 million, or about 0.6 % of the U.S. Population. Their membership was halved and their percentage of the population was reduced by more than two thirds. The United Methodists also began ordaining women to ministry in 1956, and first ordained a female bishop in 1980. Their U.S. membership has declined every year since 1968, from around 11 million (5% of the population) to 7.8 million (2.5% of the current population). The Episcopal Church began ordaining female priests in 1974. Their American membership has declined from about 3.2 million to about 1.95 million. Promoting female headship in the church is not the path to church growth and cultural relevance; it is the path to irrelevance and extinction.

The liberal churches that have embraced female headship have also embraced (or are in the process of embracing) homosexuality, as witness the confirmation of openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church in 2003. Why? Because the culture of post-patriarchy is opposed to the entire corpus of biblical directives relating to sex, sexuality, and gender, and once a denomination has placed post-patriarchal culture above Scripture, the biblical rules will all eventually be jettisoned. It is also important to note that no church adopted female headship until after it had made peace with Darwinism and rejected a literal reading of the Genesis narrative. We have seen that Paul grounded male headship in the church upon a literal understanding of the story of the creation and the Fall. 1 Tim. 2:11-14. Patriarchy is part of the created order, if we understand the creation narrative literally. Liberal activists, unlike many serving on the “executive committees,” well know that these issues are all connected, which is why Spectrum divides its time about equally among: 1) agitating for female headship, 2) arguing for normalization of homosexuality, and 3) promoting Darwinism. They understand that these three issues are inextricably bound together.

Last year's “Arab Spring” was a disaster for American and Western interests; in every case, a more secular autocrat was replaced, or is in the process of being replaced, by a more Islamic government that embraces the sharia ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological offspring, Al Qaeda. This year's Adventist Arab Spring will prove just as disastrous for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, because it signals a willingness to thoughtlessly embrace the cultural imperatives of post-patriarchy, in derogation of clear Bible truth.

The angry father

Misconceptions

If you were to ask what one of the most important moments in life might be, getting to meet God would probably be in the top tier. Yet, if you were to talk about what that meeting might look like, it is disheartening the impression people seem to have of His nature. While they will typically see Jesus as a loving and kind Savior, they tend to see the Father in darker hues.

In an informal study regarding our conceptions of God, Dr. Graham Maxwell asked: “‘Would you be afraid to meet God?’” One particular gentlemen responded, “‘Yes, terribly terrified!’ ‘Why so?’ ‘Because of all those terrifying stories in the Bible’”. Maxwell goes on to say, “I heard frequent references to the horrors of hell and the impossibility of trusting a God who would demand obedience under the threat of eternal torment”. All this led Dr. Maxwell to ponder the question, “How can we be friendly with someone who threatens to burn us to death if we disobey?” (1)

Common sense tells us that we should not be obligated to serve someone who threatens us with eternal torture if we don’t “love them”. By comparison, Hitler would seem compassionate. At least Hitler’s victims could finally die. This confused picture of God does not even harmonize with an atheists basic sense of justice.

In consequence, many people picture the Father as a demanding taskmaster, waiting to pounce on them at any given moment. As though God is anxiously waiting for us to make a mistake so He can, “make sure we don’t get into Heaven.” But is this really what God is like? Is this really what the Scriptures teach?

Hell & Fire

In Hebrew, the word “Hell” has its root in the word, Sheol שְׁאוֹל, meaning, the grave, or, a pit. (2) Sheol is described as a place “without thought” or “feeling”, where “dust returns to dust”, and from whence the “Breathe of God returns to Himself”. (3) Sheol was the place where King David was laid to rest, as well as Abraham, Jacob, and all the other fathers and prophets of antiquity, “having died without receiving the promise”, of eternal life. (4)

Hell (Sheol), then, is where both “the righteous and the unrighteous go” when they die, awaiting the “resurrection of the dead”. (3) Thus, the Biblical use of the word ,”Hell”, is simply a metaphor for burying someone. The disturbed idea that, God sadistically tortures people in “Hell”, is really no more Biblical than Easter or Christmas.

“Fire”, on the other hand, in many cultures throughout history, has traditionally been seen as a positive force of renewal. The scriptures use both water and fire as a catharsis for the entire planet. The first cleansing of the earth via water, was at the time of the flood, bringing a literal new birth of sorts to mankind. The second cleansing is described in the book of Revelation as a time when a despoiled Earth, filled with destructive inhabitants, will be smelted by fire.

But unlike those cultural traditions, which teach the equality of good and evil, or that, “evil cannot be defeated”, the God of the Bible, will put a literal and permanent end to evil, through the cleansing power of fire. It is during this very moment in time when death and Hell will be “metaphorically” cast into the purifying flames of the “lake of fire”. (5) Through the obliteration of corruption and evil, the power of the grave will be broken, granting eternal life to those who chose Love over selfishness.

In addition, Lucifer himself, his postulations, and his adherents, will be literally thrown into what is likely to be a sea of molten lava, utterly consumed, leaving nothing behind. (6) In this sense, the eternal and irrevocable sentence of death is an act of mercy. Giving rest to the tortured existence of all those who learned to survive through greed, abuse, facade and manipulation.

The Scriptures call this act of extirpation, “the second death”. It is an everlasting rest in the arms of Sheol, where the unjust dead, “sleep in the ground”, forever and ever. And when the corollary flame has cooled, with a shuttered sigh, the Father will recreate the world in all of its vulnerable Edenic verdure.

Emotional Projection

I coined a term a few years back called, “projected self-contempt”. It means that we treat others poorly and judge them negatively because, we are dumping what we dislike about ourselves, upon them. Projection is a coping mechanism, a form of self-protection. It is a prison from which we lob projectiles when our wounded and frail identities seduce us into self-loathing.

Like a Turner Classic film, we re-screen unresolved wounds from the cluttered shelves of memory; our percieved-sense-of-powerlessness making us both victim and abuser, both judge and jury. As in the acclaimed album, “The Wall”, our sense of vulnerability is tantamount to terror, “Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear, I sentence you to be exposed before your peers. Tear down the wall.”(7) In those searing moments of shame, we castigate those around us in an effort to say, “back off, I am unloveable and flawed, and I will fail if you put me on a stage”.

As such, mankind’s picture of God can often become a projection of our personal demons, a preconception, rather than anything the Bible actually teaches. God taking the blame for our personal resentments. But is God actually like the people that abandoned or abused us? Is God really like the people that fail us when we need them the most? For that matter, is God even like a large majority of His own followers?

Just like a painting, where every picture has its own specific artist, with their own palette of color and subject, discretion demands that there be a difference between a single opinion and actual reality. A persons life cannot be captured in a snapshot, there is a multiplicity of pieces that fit into what makes up an individuals personality. And it is the same for God.

To assume that God is like what we are shallowly presented, historically, in pop-culture, or by failed authority figures, is to project upon God an assumption of Character. It is to judge a book by its cover. And when we are emotionally invested into the suffering of this world, we are more than happy to erase a seemingly impotent God, with one broad sweeping stroke.

Intention and Reality

But, consider the length of time that has passed in Judeo-Christian history. Do not forget, that what begins as well intentioned and sincere, can rapidly become encumbered with opinion and self-interest. Like gathering a line of people, what you tell the first person is far from what the last person hears. And this is exactly what has happened with God. What was obvious and plainly stated, became shrouded in mystery. That which was compassionate and just, became encumbered with greed and control. What was once the hoped for end of evil, became sadistic, controlling, and a means to a political end.

But if you were to talk with God, to ask He, Himself, what He’s like, what would He tell you? If you had everyone in the history of the planet judging you, you would certainly would want to speak for yourself, lest your life become a tabloid. And that is exactly what God did, in both inspiring the Scriptures, and by coming Himself, to explain it with His own mouth, in Christ.

Who God Really Is

It can be difficult to hear what is being said when it doesn’t fit our own agenda. Thus, even God speaking for Himself, is not enough for human beings. His own adherents, those who followed Him night and day for three years, hardly believed Him. Just as those of us today, the families, employees, and officials of the first century were desperate for deliverance from their problems. So when the “deliverer” arrived, the whole nation of Israel was ecstatic; they would finally have wealth aplenty. As proud nationalists, they would finally be delivered from oppressive political control. The poor would have wealth, and the rich would have power.

Yet, on the self-same day that they would crown Jesus King, He sent them all away. To their dismay, His response was, “You’ve come looking for me not because you saw God in my actions but because I fed you, filled your stomachs—and for free.”(8) Let’s be honest, a large part of the reason we don’t like God, the reason we paint Him as fiction, is because the truth that God offers is not freedom from responsibilities and trial, but rather to love one another through the healing of forgiveness.

God does eventually promise us a resurrection for our dead, and a future world without the failings of our current planet. But that isn’t good enough, we see the suffering around us and want to alleviate it, now. We see the injustices and want them to pay, now. But what we do not see, in our impatient anger, is that God wants the same thing.

It is the Father, not just Jesus, that loves His enemies. It was the Father that allowed the punishment of our guilt to fall upon His son. It is the Father that calls His own followers to alleviate the suffering and injustice of the poor and needy, now. It is selfish humans that turn the Father’s simple command to love into theological quarrels about nonsense, completely avoiding His call for us to care for one another.

Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” (9) So if you really want to blame God the Father, then you’ll have to blame Jesus too, because they are the same. They would both hang out with prostitutes as much as rebuke the sickening blindness of religiosity. “I and My Father are One.” (10) Understandably, we don’t want suffering to be a part of normal. It’s hard living in a world of injustice and selfish exploitation. Trial and care makes it difficult to not want to use God as though He were some kind of vending machine. But, truth be told, happiness is far bigger than indolence, and abundantly larger than pain.

Conclusion

Regrettably, the lions share of those rejecting God, will be ill informed, basing their choices upon anger at parents, peers, abusers, false or politicized religions, and the media… but, not upon the Scriptures themselves. We are not unlike those that stood at the foot of the cross, mocking Love, pledging themselves to their “safe” walls of control, and God’s response to our brokenness remains the same, “forgive them, for they don’t realize what they are doing”. (11) The louder our posturing, the more maltreated and terrified the child within. But, there is no need to be afraid, “A bruised reed He will not break, a smoldering wick He will not quench” (12)

The conception, that God the Father is stern and brutal, is just simply a lie. The scriptures describe the Father’s work of judgment, as a strange work, as the necessity of setting boundaries. Hear the Father in His own words, when He states, “‘Why will you die? I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,’ declares the Lord God. ‘Therefore, repent and live’; ‘People are bent on turning from Me. But how can I give you up? How can I surrender you? My heart is turned over within Me, All My compassions are kindled.’ ‘For I know the plans I have for you; plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”(13)

God the Father deeply cares about people. He longs to be, “‘the God of all families’”, who has, “‘loved you with an everlasting love;’”, and who, “‘draws you with unfailing kindness.’”, because, “‘before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.’” (14) Not only does the Father care about us, but He is loves source, He is love itself, not as a verb, but as a noun: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Those who do not love do not know God, for God is love.” (15)

In our search to make sense out of the seemingly antithetical attributes of God, we must open ourselves to more than our wounds demand, more than histories failings, and more than mankind’s paltry efforts at emulation. In his personal struggle to understand God’s personality, through decades of personal study, with tenured years of instructing university courses on the subject, Dr. Maxwell concluded: “If we are lost in the end, it will not be because God has become tired of us, or angry with us. But that we have stayed away from Him so long, with such unwillingness to listen to our gracious God, that there is no remedy, and there is no healing for our condition. Thus, ‘the wrath of God’, is simply His turning away, in loving disappointment, from those that do not want Him anyway, thereby leaving them to the inevitable consequences of their own choices.” (16) Essentially, even if you are an all powerful God, you cannot force a utopian society, for love is only real when it is chosen.

1. Servants or Friends, pg. 2-4 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol 3. Ecclesiastes 12:7.; Psalms 115:17.; Hosea 13:14; Psalm 49:15; For a detailed study on these concepts see: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_18.pdf 4. Heb 11:13 5. Rev 20:14 6. Rev. 20:10; Mal. 4:1-3 7. The Trial, Pink Floyd, The Wall, 1979 8. John 6:26 TMB 9. John 14:9 10: John 10:30 11. Luke 23:34 12. Matthew 12:20 13. Ezekiel 18:31-32; Hosea 11:7-8; Jeremiah 29:11 14. Jeremiah 31:1,3; Jeremiah 1:5 15. 1 John 4:7-8 16. University Lecture Series, Dr. Graham Maxwell.