A response to Richard Davidson

As the debate over ordination and female headship has progressed, several otherwise conservative Adventists have stated that they see no problem with female headship in the church. In several instances, they have said this not because they have studied this biblical issue for themselves but because they trust a conservative theologian who has studied it and sees no problem with female headship in the church. Preliminarily, the idea that we can outsource our Bible study to some theologian or panel of theologians is not an Adventist, nor an historic Protestant position, as Ellen White makes very clear:

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, . . . the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, . . . the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. . . . Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will. Great Controversy 595

Although this debate was not sought by traditional Adventist believers but, rather, was thrust upon us by our more liberal brethren, the current posture of church politics demands that every Seventh-day Adventist personally study this issue. We must not look to “the opinions of learned men” nor to “bishops, pastors or professors of theology” to decide for us what is Bible truth.

The theologian most frequently cited as a conservative who favors female headship is Richard Davidson, a professor of Old Testament at the Adventist Seminary. He wrote a chapter (Ch. 13) in the book, Women in Ministry, entitled, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture.” Turning first to the issue of whether there were created, pre-Fall sex role distinctions that might have a bearing on sex roles in the Christian Church, Davidson notes that most commentators have seen in Genesis 2 clear indications of role distinctions. The most frequently cited indicators are:

1. man was created first and woman later (2:7, 22);
2. woman was created for man to be his “helpmate,” to solve Adam's loneliness after naming the animals and seeing that they had mates but he did not (18-20);
3. woman comes out of man, created from Adam's rib (21-22); and
4. the man names the woman (v. 23 [also 3:20]).

Davidson argues that these Bible facts do not indicate created role distinctions, or male headship, in the pre-Fall world.

But in arguing that these facts have no bearing on sex roles in the church, Davidson contradicts other passages of Scripture. Paul uses three of these facts to argue for male authority and female submission in the church, including 1) man was created first, 2) woman was created from man, and 3) woman was created for man. See 1 Tim. 2:11-14, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. [1] For Adam was formed first, then Eve”); 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-10 (“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. . . . For [2] man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [3] neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have a sign of authority over her own head”). Instead of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, Davidson argues against Paul's inspired interpretation of the Genesis narrative.

Scripture must be allowed to interpret Scripture. This method of Bible study defines us as Protestants and as Seventh-day Adventists. The Protestant reformers understood that to concede that a panel of scholars—a magisterium—was required to rightly interpret Scripture was to concede that Rome had been right all along, and that the Reformation had been a mistake. Scripture must be interpreted not by a council of learned doctors of the church but by reference to other Scriptures. As the Westminster Confession (1646), a typical Reformed statement of faith, puts it:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one [one Spirit inspired it]), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Ellen White concurs with this historic Protestant principle and methodology:

The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning of the word. By comparing different texts treating on the same subject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scriptures will be made evident. Fundamentals of Christian Education 187

Applying the principle that Scripture is its own expositor, we must submit to the Bible's own interpretation of the Bible facts regarding the created sexual order. Richard Davidson's interpretation must not be allowed to trump Paul's inspired interpretation, and the Pauline Epistles clearly indicate that the history of creation prior to the Fall has implications for the sexual ordering of the Christian Church.

Discussing Gen. 3:16 (“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”), Davidson concludes, correctly I think, that this should be viewed not merely as a description of the way things would henceforth be, but rather “a normative divine sentence” subjecting a wife to her husband. But although Davidson concedes that Genesis 3 is a sentence of female submission in the family, he denies that there is anything in the history of the Fall that points to male headship in the Christian Church. Here again he contradicts Paul, who finds in the history of the Fall a rationale for male headship in the church: “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” (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

Davidson's response to 1 Tim. 2 is to argue that this passage, which is commonly translated, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man,” should really be translated, “I do not permit a wife to teach or have authority over her husband.” He argues that the passage is yet another variation, or reiteration, of the household codes that command a wife to obey her husband. (See, e.g., Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1) The Greek is ambiguous, so one has to look at the context to see whether it should be translated woman/man or wife/husband. The context is public worship, i.e., what goes on in church, and assuming that the husband and wife attend the same church, putting the wife in a headship role in that church would effectively put her in authority over her own husband. Hence, Davidson's interpretation contravenes what he himself believes is the purpose of the passage, unless untenable provisos are added, such as that only single women may exercise authority in church, or only married women whose husbands attend different churches. The overwhelming majority of translations translate this passage as woman/man rather than wife/husband.

Davidson takes this same approach to 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, arguing that the Greek term should be translated “wives” rather than “women,” as in, “wives should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission . . . it is disgraceful for a wife to speak in the church.” Here again, however, if Davidson's advocacy of female headship prevails, wives will not be in submissive roles in church, even vis-a-vis their own husbands. The self-defeating nature of this interpretation is likely why, just as is also true of 1 Timothy 2, the overwhelming majority of translations render the Greek term “women” instead of “wives.”

Davidson argues that this passage addresses a specific problem in the Corinthian Church, perhaps wives disrupting the service by loudly asking questions of their husbands (if the Corinthian Christians were following the Jewish synagogue model, men and women would have been seated in different areas, thus physically separating husbands and wives). But the term “ecclesias” is plural—“the churches”--indicating that the advice applies to more than one church. Moreover, there is a legitimate question as to whether the clause “as in all the churches of the saints” in verse 33 modifies the previous clause, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” or the next clause, “Women should remain silent in the churches.” That God is a God of order and peace seems to be a general attribute of the Divinity, not an attribute that applies alone with regard to the churches. Hence, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the churches of the saints,” does not really make sense. Accordingly, several modern translations put the latter two clauses together, rather than the former two: “As in all the churches of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” If these clauses are joined, then Paul clearly was not addressing a specific problem in Corinth, but was giving general guidance about deportment in Christian Churches.

Davidson's strategy—pursued by sacrificing a rational translation of texts such as 1 Timothy 2:11 and 9 Corinthians 14:33-35—is to limit male headship to the marriage relationship and the family, denying that it applies to the organization of the church. But he does not seem to realize that in placing even more scriptural weight behind the “household codes” he is pari passu strengthening the argument for male headship in the church based upon 1 Timothy 3:

Whoever aspires to be an overseer [episkopes, bishop] desires a noble task. . . . 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?)

Davidson would weaken the case for male headship in the church based upon passages such as 1 Timothy 2, but in so doing he inadvertently underscores the fact that, biblically, only men are heads of households, and hence only men are qualified to be overseers and fill headship roles in God's church.

Ultimately, the problem with the supposedly conservative Davidson is that his approach to this scriptural issue is not the historic Protestant and Seventh-day Adventist approach. He does not allow Scripture to be the rule of interpretation of Scripture. He analyzes passages in isolation from other passages that bear on their meaning. Few Adventist doctrines could survive this hermeneutic, if subjected to it by hostile theologians. One suspects that Davidson is trying to save Scripture from the ignominy of being out of step with the dominant culture. But, as I explored more fully in the article, “The Adventist Arab Spring,” the dominant culture (which is nowhere more dominant than in academia) is increasingly hostile to biblical values with regard to sexuality and sex roles. As we approach the end of time, it will become more and more difficult to remain faithful to Scripture while remaining, in any degree, sympathetic to the prevailing culture.

A prophet or a loss: dealing with issues

She gave up Adventism because of one word, the preposition: “with.” Let me explain. Many years ago she had graduated from an Adventist university as a medical professional. Then one day a close relative asked her a simple question: “Where was Adam when Eve got tempted by the Serpent in Eden?” Her immediate response? Eve had wandered away from Adam’s side when she encountered the devil at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then, that medical professional was asked to read Genesis 3:6. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” If the Bible says that Eve “gave also unto her husband with her,” what does one do with the following statement from Ellen White? “The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. . . . Unmindful of the angels’ caution, she soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree” (Patriarchs and Prophets, 53-54). After Eve had eaten from the tree, Ellen White notes that, “with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his [i.e., Adam’s] presence, and related all that had occurred” (Patriarchs and Prophets, 56).

Ellen White’s clear statement that Eve was not with Adam when tempted seems to directly contradict the Bible’s account that her husband was “with her.” How should Adventists respond when confronted with such challenges? Just the way we have consistently done in the past – by means of “careful research and prayerful reflection” (see Steps to Christ, 91). For example, when challenged with the words of Jesus to the dying thief (“Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise”), we have correctly pointed out that the original Greek language had no punctuation. Hence, based upon the rest of the Bible’s teaching that humankind is mortal, we conclude that Luke 23:43 should read: “Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

So then, how does “careful research and prayerful reflection” resolve the apparent contradiction of the Adam and Eve accounts of Ellen White and the Bible? Interestingly, it all centers on that English preposition “with.” The Hebrew language has two completely different terms for “with:” ’eth and ‘im, each with its own distinct primary meaning. The standard Hebrew dictionary points out that ’eth is a preposition “denoting proximity;” then, it adds “together with.” For example, speaking about the wicked, God says to Noah: “I will destroy them with the earth“ (Genesis 6:13b). The word “with” in this text is a translation of the Hebrew ’eth, which means “together with,” because it denotes “proximity.”

However, consider for a moment Genesis 3:12, where Adam is vainly seeking to excuse his sin: “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Immediately, one will recognize that vital preposition “with.” However, instead of the Hebrew term ’eth, the completely different word ‘im, is used. Why? Because, this latter term is one which refers to “fellowship and companionship.” Hence, the New English Bible, accurately capturing the specific meaning of this different Hebrew term for “with,” renders Genesis 3:12 as follows: “The man said, ‘The woman you gave me for a companion, she gave me fruit from the tree and I ate it.’” Obviously, God did not give Eve to Adam to be physically “together with” him wherever he went. But, He did give Eve to Adam “for a companion,” which is an accurate translation conveying what the Hebrew term ‘im means.

So, guess which Hebrew term for “with” is used in our “problem text” of Genesis 3:6? Right, it’s the word ‘im, the term that means “companionship.” In brief, using “careful research” we can correctly conclude as follows: By inspiration, Moses stated that, after she had taken and eaten of the forbidden tree, Eve gave some fruit “unto her husband, [literally] companion of her.” Actually, nothing in the text (or especially the context) suggests that Adam was “together with” Eve. On the contrary, the use of the specific term denoting “companionship” reveals that there is no contradiction between the Bible and Ellen White!

If only that medical professional had engaged in “careful research and prayerful reflection” – she may not have abandoned Adventism, when her surface reading of Scripture led her to the inaccurate impression that Ellen White is a false prophet. Our faith need not falter when faced with any challenge, if we are willing to do “careful research and prayerful reflection.”

But, what are we to do when Ellen White’s declarations seem to be directly contrary to published historical “facts”? Recently, the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9 have become a topic of intensive investigation. In the Great Controversy (pp. 334-335) Ellen White states: “In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to his calculations, this power was to be overthrown ‘in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August;’ and only a few days previous to its accomplishment he wrote. . . . [that since] ‘the 391 years, fifteen days, commenced at the close of the first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. . . .’

"At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction. (See Appendix.) When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.”

The above two paragraphs have recently come under increasing scrutiny, due to the fact that the generally accepted historical records did not appear to support Ellen White’s account. Over the past two years, as a result of several visits to five research centers in four states, original newspapers from 1840 have been located and documented. Several newspapers in the United Kingdom record the fact that the arrival of ambassador Rifat Bey “from Constantinople, on the 11th instant [i.e., of August, 1840], with the ultimatum of the four Powers, produced a great sensation here [in Alexandria]” (London Morning Chronicle, September 5, 1840).

Those living at that time (and those aware of events in Europe) rightly understood the significance of that “ultimatum.” This significant news was reported here in the USA in the New York Spectator, of September 26, 1840. In fact, according to A Short History of Islam (published by Oxford University Press in 1960), once this ultimatum had been signed by these “Christian nations,” “the death-knell had rung for the Ottoman Empire” (p. 581). By the end of November of 1840, the London Morning Herald stated that: “We fear that the Sultan [i.e., the ruler of the Ottoman Empire] has been reduced to the rank of a puppet” (December 1, 1840, p. 4).

Additional evidence is now surfacing, showing once again that Ellen White was right all along. Indeed, no truth will lose anything by means of the closest investigation. We, as Adventists, have not “followed cunningly devised fables” (see 2 Peter 1:16). With even greater gusto, Adventists can now boldly distribute that classic volume, the Great Controversy, knowing that God inspired this important book, for sharing His love, at such a time as this in world history.

La Sierra University discovers errors in its reporting to US News education survey

La Sierra University issued a response to the US News report, stating its average debt figure should be $42,934. La Sierra cited two major mistakes in its data preparation as the reason its average was reported much higher in the US News report. La Sierra had mistakenly included parent loans when US News had asked them to exclude them. Also, US News asked for only undergraduate debt, and La Sierra had included instances of loans secured by students moving directly into the graduate degree program.

US News and World Report’s website published a report on September 12 indicating that La Sierra University students in 2011 graduated with the highest average debt load of any school in the country, according to 2011 figures. In reviewing student loan data used to develop the university’s US News survey response, La Sierra University uncovered two major mistakes in its data preparation on the debt load question.

The US News survey outlined a very specific set of parameters for universities to use to calculate the average graduating student debt. US News asked universities to exclude parent loans. La Sierra mistakenly included those loans in its calculations.

The university also uncovered a number of instances where loans that 2011 class members had secured to move directly into graduate degree programs were mistakenly included in the undergraduate loan total. US News asked participating institutions to include only undergraduate debt.

La Sierra University should have reported an average debt figure of $42,934 for the 119 La Sierra graduates who fit the US News criteria. This would drop La Sierra out of the US News top ten list of schools with significant debt burdens. La Sierra University’s own figures show that for the 2011 academic year, the average debt for the entire graduating class of 338 students was $29,363.

La Sierra University provides a large amount of institutional grant aid each year to help lower student costs. In 2011, that totaled $12.4 million. This means that, on average, the university covers 30% of tuition costs. In addition, financial aid counselors help students obtain federal and state aid. In 2011, our students received $7.2 million in Pell Grants and Cal Grants. Students received $4.3 million of assistance from sources external to the university, primarily through educational subsidies. Another $378,000 in aid came from scholarships, such as those set up by friends of the university through the Office of Advancement.

“We are deeply committed to helping every student who is admitted to La Sierra University find the resources to reach their educational dreams,” says Randal Wisbey, president. “We know that for many families, this is one of the largest financial investments they will make in their lifetime—and that it pays huge dividends. An important part of La Sierra’s mission is to serve students from economically stressed areas, such as the Inland Empire and across Southern California. We will sustain our efforts to make sure that we keep educational quality high and costs as low as possible for every student.”

La Sierra University is contacting US News and World Report with this additional information, and will work with the publication to correct its report.

[UPDATE] La Sierra graduates have highest average debt in the country

UPDATE 9/13/12: La Sierra University issues statement regarding US News report. According to a US News article, La Sierra University's 2011 graduating class had the highest average debt of any school in the country. Graduates left with an average debt of $54,885. La Sierra also had the highest percentage of students borrowing--68 percent.

Most students do not take on six-figure debt to go to college, a new study by financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz has found. But, according to school-reported data, some students are still leaving college with much higher levels of debt than the national average.

Students who borrowed for college and graduated in 2011 left owing $26,224 on average, based on statistics reported by 1,035 schools in an annual survey to U.S. News. For graduating classes with the highest average debt, student balances were roughly $18,000 to $28,000 more.

In 2011, La Sierra University's graduating class had the highest average debt of any school in the country. That year, students with loans left the Riverside, Calif., institution owing an average of $54,885. (Read more)

Biblical spirituality: rediscovering our biblical roots or embracing the east?

During a question and answer period at a spiri­tual convocation on the West Coast of the United States, a man stood up and asked, “What do you think of contemplative spirituality, spiritual formation, and meditation?” In some circles, these terms have become lightning rods; they engender heated discussions and sometimes more heat than light. There are those who believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has become cold, formal, legalistic, and spiritually lifeless; and its members desperately need to experience a fresh breath of spiritual newness. They are convinced that the way to reach postmoderns is through experience, not doctrine. To them, the answer lies in contemplative spirituality. For others, contemplative spirituality is no more than East­ern mysticism clothed in Christian terms—the devil’s deception. This group believes that contemplative spirituality leads unsuspecting church members into a counterfeit religious experience based on sub­jective feelings and emotions rather than scriptural truth. This entire issue leads us to some vitally important questions. What is Christian meditation? How does the Bible define it and how does it differ from Eastern mysticism? What are contemplative and centering prayers? Are there dangers in these approaches to prayer? Is the con­cept of spiritual formation biblical? Where can we find answers for the Laodicean complacency, spiritual barrenness, and cold formality com­mon in too many of our lives?

Christian meditation Throughout Scripture, meditation stays always active, never passive, and always has an object. The goal of Christian meditation comprises filling the mind with the Word and works of God. Meditating upon His great­ness and matchless love, we are changed into His image (2 Cor. 3:18). In Christian meditation, we look out of ourselves to Him. Jesus is the object of our thoughts, the supreme focus of our attention (Isa. 45:22; Heb. 12:1, 2). We recognize that the heart is deceitful above all things, desperately wicked, and that in us there is no good thing (Jer. 17:9; Isa. 53:6; Rom. 7:18). Our hope is in Him. Our mind is fixed upon Him. Our attention is focused upon Him, and when meditating upon Him, we are transformed into His likeness (Col. 3:1, 2). The psalmist speaks of meditating on God’s Word, His law, His testimonies, and His works (Ps. 119:97, 99, 104). He also meditates upon God’s precepts and contemplates His ways (Ps. 119:15). Christian meditation thus focuses our thoughts on the grandeur and greatness of God, lifting us from what is around us and within us to what is above us.

Ellen White uses the terms meditate and meditation 569 times. Speaking of Enoch, she declares, “The infinite, unfathomable love of God through Christ became the subject of his meditation day and night; and with all the fervor of his soul he sought to reveal that love to the people among whom he dwelt.”1 Describing the importance of filling our minds with the Word of God in active meditation, she states, “We must be constantly meditating upon the word, eating it, digesting it, and by practice, assimilating it, so that it is taken into the life current.”2 The significant factor in both the biblical and Ellen White’s counsel is that meditation is always rooted in God’s word, His works, and His ways, and anchored in His character, majesty, love, and power. Meditation’s goal is not to enter into the “silence of the soul” and somehow mystically “dwell in His presence,” but to actively engage the mind in focusing upon the matchless charms of His love and the amazing wonders of His grace.

In the high technological, frantic pace of our twenty-first century living, genuine Christian meditation may become a lost art. The prophet Isaiah reminds us, “For thus says the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel: ‘In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength’ ” (Isa. 30:15).3 Thoughtfully opening God’s Word, reading a few verses, meditating upon His love, contemplating His character, and reflecting upon His greatness are life changing. The Holy Spirit speaks to us in these quiet moments. “When every other voice is hushed, and in quietness we wait before Him, the silence of the soul makes more distinct the voice of God. He bids us, ‘Be still, and know that I am God.’ Psalm 46:10. This is the effectual preparation for all labor for God. Amidst the hurrying throng, and the strain of life’s intense activi­ties, he who is thus refreshed, will be surrounded with an atmosphere of light and peace. He will receive a new endowment of both physical and mental strength. His life will breathe out a fragrance, and will reveal a divine power that will reach men’s hearts.”4

Contemplating Jesus The word contemplative simply means attentive, pensive, reflective, or thoughtful. A person who is con­templating is musing or pondering, reflecting or thinking. Ellen White uses the word contemplation 580 times. Her usage of the word is very similar to the way she uses the word meditation. She speaks of contemplating God’s Word, God’s works, and God’s providence. Here are just a few examples:

The Bible is God’s voice speak­ing to us, just as surely as if we could hear it with our ears. If we realized this, with what awe we would open God’s Word and with what earnest­ness we would search its precepts. The reading and contemplation of the Scriptures would be regarded as an audience with the Infinite One.5

In the Bible a boundless field is opened for the imagination. The stu­dent will come from a contemplation of its grand themes, from association with its lofty imagery, more pure and elevated in thought and feeling than if he had spent the time reading any work of mere human origin, to say nothing of those of a trifling character.6

Probably the most well-known Ellen White statement on the value of genuine Christian contemplation is this: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ.

We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones. As we thus dwell upon His great sacrifice for us, our confidence in Him will be more constant, our love will be quickened, and we shall be more deeply imbued with His spirit. If we would be saved at last, we must learn the lesson of penitence and humiliation at the foot of the cross.”7

Contemplating the Cross draws us into an intimate relationship with Jesus, providing a solid foundation for our faith. Neither Ellen White nor the Bible writers speak of an aimless or mindless contemplation in which the mind resides in some sort of neutral trancelike state of oneness with God. In Scripture, the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible, speaks through the divinely inspired Word to transform our lives as we prayer­fully meditate upon its passages. Jesus stated this plainly when He declared, “ The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life’ ” (John 6:63, NKJV). The apostle Peter adds, “By which have been given to us exceeding great and precious promises that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). James declares, “Therefore lay aside all filthiness and the overflow of wickedness, and receive with meek­ness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21). Our characters are transformed as we actively meditate on God’s Word. The Bible writers also describe the life-changing power of contemplating God’s creative works (Pss.19:1–6; 32:6–12). The point of these divinely inspired writers is the same: Christian meditation does not seek to empty the mind but seeks to fill the mind. It does not seek oneness with a mystical god within, but seeks to understand more deeply the nature of God who created and redeemed us, and we then more fully reflect His character.

Understanding centering and contemplative prayer In centering prayer, the individual chooses a common word and con­tinually repeats it to center his or her thoughts. This exercise purportedly prepares the worshiper to enter a contemplative state in which all distractions cease. The goal involves a journey to the center of one’s being to enter into a state of oneness with the divine presence within. The Cloud of Unknowing, written by an anonymous fourteenth century author, includes practical principles of contemplative prayer. It instructs those interested in experiencing this form of prayer to “Take just a little word, of one syllable rather than of two. With this word strike down every kind of thought under the cloud of forgetting.”

Centering and contemplative prayer have been taught by Roman Catholic monks in monasteries for centuries. More recently Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating, and Basil Pennington, as well as Quaker Richard Foster have advocated it and conducted retreats for thousands of people on contemplative spirituality. Their books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Most of the advocates of contemplative spiritual­ity see real value in learning from the techniques of Eastern meditation. They often draw from the teaching and writings of medieval mystics, as well as Hindu and Buddhist spiritual teachers. Basil Pennington, one of the well-known proponents of the center­ing prayer technique, has delineated four guidelines for centering prayer.

1. Sit comfortably with your eyes closed, relax, and quiet yourself. Be in love and have faith in God.

2. Choose a sacred word that best supports your sincere intention to be in the Lord’s presence and open to His divine action within you (“Jesus,” “Lord,” “God,” “Savior,” “Abba,” “Divine,” “Shalom,” “Spirit,” “Love,” etc.).

3. Let that word be gently present as your symbol of your sincere inten­tion to be in the Lord’s presence and open to His divine action within you.

4. Whenever you become aware of anything (thoughts, feelings, per­ceptions, images, associations, etc.), simply return to your sacred word, your anchor.

Pennington’s guidelines for entering into centering prayer are deeply influenced by a group of monks called the Desert Fathers in the Middle Ages. These men lived a monastic lives of prayer and medita­tion in the deserts of the Middle East. The whole concept of looking to the Desert Fathers and the monastics for a deeper spirituality is seriously flawed. Jesus declared that His fol­lowers were to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:15). They were to be “ ‘the salt of the earth’ ” and “ ‘the light of the world’ ” (Matt. 5:13, 14). Paul affirms this truth by declaring that followers of Christ should shine as “lights” in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (Phil. 2:15). Jesus and the disciples lived their lives between the moun­tain and the multitude. They spent time with God but did not neglect spending time with people. Their lives were dedicated to devotion, but they were focused on service. True genuine spirituality involves both a relationship with God and loving ser­vice to God’s children and can never be truly lived by choosing to live a life of isolation. The One whom we serve “went about all the cities and vil­lages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matt. 9:35). Daniel Goleman’s comments should give every Christian pause before entering into contemplative spirituality. “The meditation practices and rules for living of these earliest monks bear strong similarity to those of their Hindu and Buddhist renuciate brethren several kingdoms to the East.”8

The concept of centering prayer raises serious questions for followers of Christ. The use of a sacred word to center ones thoughts seems strangely similar to the mantras of the East. Is centering prayer Eastern mysticism in Christian garments? Jesus is very clear when He admon­ishes, “ ‘When you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do’ ” (Matt. 6:7). Does not the constant repetition of a “sacred word” violate Christ’s clear instruction? Why is there such a conspicuous absence of anything like centering prayer in the Bible? The Old Testament prophets, the New Testament believers, and Jesus never give even the slightest hint of continuously using a sacred word to center their thoughts in prayer. This should give us seri­ous pause before we experiment with something that may open the door for satanic delusions. Thomas Keating and Basil Pennington state, “We should not hesitate to take the fruit of the age old wisdom of the East and ‘capture’ it for Christ. Indeed those of us who are in min­istry should make the necessary effort to acquaint ourselves with as many of these Eastern techniques as possible.”9 This counsel would sound very strange to Peter who proclaimed, “ ‘Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ ” (Acts 4:12). The New Testament believers did not “turn the world upside down” with a gospel that blended Eastern philosophy with Christian doctrine. Neither should we. The New Testament believers did not seek to get “in touch” with the divine presence within. They looked to their crucified, resurrected, and returning Lord, and their lives were transformed.

Thomas Merton describes the goal of centering prayer in these terms: “At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusions, a point of pure truth ... This little point ... is the pure glory of God in us. It is in everybody.”10

Thomas Keating adds these thoughts, “Contemplative prayer is not so much the absence of thoughts as detachment from them. It is the opening of mind and heart, body and emotions—our whole being to God, the Ultimate Mystery, beyond words, thoughts and emotions.”11 It is well to note these phrases in the above quotes, “point of nothingness,” “and the glory of God in us which is in everybody.” This sounds strangely like Buddhism. The idea of “the god within” comes directly from Eastern mysticism. Keating’s expression, “beyond words, thoughts and emo­tions” calls into question the nature of genuine spirituality. Can it be defined as a mystical experience or a relationship with God based on truth and fact that is life changing?

The biblical declaration that we are created in the image of God reinforces our ability to think and reason. Should we not be exceed­ingly cautious of any approach to spirituality that bypasses the mind and leads us to depend on a subjec­tive, mystical experience as the measure of genuine spirituality? Mysticism is purely subjective. It does not rely upon biblical truth as the measure of spirituality but shifts the emphasis to our own experience. Yet, the Word of God has been given to us for the very purpose of estab­lishing our faith. Jesus’ own words are too plain to be misunderstood; “ ‘Sanctify them by your truth, Your Word is truth’ ” (John 17:17). What we know about God is based on the truth of His Word. Trusting in expe­riential knowledge over the biblical record takes a person outside of the standard of all truth—the Bible. Encountering God in His Word leads us to a genuine Christian experience. When our subjective experiences, feelings, and emotions do not lead us to the Word, beware!

Spiritual formation Another concept that has gen­erated a great deal of discussion is spiritual formation. Words have meaning in the way they are defined and who defines them. Is the con­cept of spiritual formation biblical? If we define spiritual formation as being formed into the image of Christ as we meditate upon God’s Word, seek Him in prayer, and open our minds to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, certainly it is biblical. The apostle Paul admon­ishes believers at Rome “not [to] be conformed to this world but [to] be transformed by the renew­ing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

He urges the Philippians to “let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). To the Colossians, he says, “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above” (Col. 3:1, 2). Ellen White expresses the idea of our characters being formed in the image of Christ beautifully: “In Jesus is manifested the character of the Father, and the sight of him attracts. It softens and subdues, and ceases not to transform the character, until Christ is formed within, the hope of glory. The human heart that has learned to behold the character of God may become, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, like a sacred harp, sending forth divine melody.”12

When the term spiritual formation is used to describe contemplative spirituality, centering prayer, and a religious experience based on a mystical involvement, however sincere its proponents may be, it is certainly not biblical. If by spiritual formation we mean blending the meditative techniques of priests and monks or non-Christian religions with biblical ideas to achieve some sort of spiritual oneness with the so-called spark of divine within us, this is not biblical at all.

Adventism’s uniqueness Adventism’s uniqueness lies in our understanding of the great con­troversy between Christ and Satan. In contrast to an ever-deepening knowl­edge of Christ through His Word and an ever-closer relationship with Him, Satan will offer a counterfeit spiritual experience. Seventh-day Adventists believe that in the final conflict over the law of God, His people, saved by His grace, and transformed by His love, will reveal His compassionate character before a waiting world and watching universe. God will have an end-time people who desire to be like the One they most admire, a people who long for something much deeper than a mystical experience based on subjective feelings, on the one hand, or cold, legalistic formalism based on an intellectual assent to doctrinal truth, on the other. The words of the apostle John will beat fervently in their hearts, “Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).

References: 1 Ellen G. White, Conflict and Courage (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1970), 28.

2 White, Counsels on Diet and Foods (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1976), 89.

3 All Bible references are quoted from the New King James Version.

4 White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1942), 58.

5 White, “Our Great Treasure-House,” Signs of the Times, April 4, 1906.

6 White, Child Guidance (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1954), 507.

7 White, The Desire of Age (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1940), 83.

8 Daniel Goleman, The Meditative Mind (Los Angeles: Tarcher/ Putnam Inc., 1988), 53.

9 Thomas Keating and Basil Pennington, Finding Grace at the Gate (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s Pub., 1978), 5, 6.

10 Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (New York: Doubleday Publishers, 1989), 157, 158.

11 See Keating, Open Mind, Open Heart (New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group), 18–23.

12 White, “Christ Our Hope,” Signs of the Times, August 24, 1891.

This article first appeared in the August 2012 issue of Ministry,® International Journal for Pastors, www.MinistryMagazine.org. Used by permission.

Obesity’s perfect solution

Today, in the United States, we are seeing an epidemic of obesity. Obesity has enormous health risks, and many scientific journals are now stating that obesity may even be more risky than smoking. As such, it is no surprise that everywhere we look, someone is touting the “best” weight loss plan. With so many options available, how does one know which method to choose? In this article we are going to examine eight, scientifically sound, side effect free methods that are inexpensive and guaranteed to work. Excess body fat causes more than its associated undesirable appearance. Scientists have known since the 1940’s that when fat cells become too large from too much fat being stored in them, they will become “sick”, and begin to increase production of dangerous hormones. Part of this course involves excess fat being stored within internal organs, arteries, and/or muscle. The combination effect of these two processes leads to a host of diseases including cancer, accelerated atherosclerosis with its increased risk of heart attacks and strokes, autoimmune diseases, as well as diabetes.

As a Christian desiring to glorify God in our bodies, is there a perfect method to loose weight and keep it off? Are you tired of worrying about weight loss? God has a perfect prescription for weight control, guaranteed to work without side effects. Using the acronym WANT REST, we will examine how these “eight natural doctors” will improve your health.

Water A recent article in the Journal of Nursing Administration showed that drinking adequate water between meals, as part of the Nurses Living Fit lifestyle program, resulted in participants experiencing a greater reduction in weight. This fits my own long-time suspicion that we often try to satisfy our need for water with food, mistaking thirst for hunger! But, what about other types of beverages? According to an article in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2007, the explosion in sugary beverages over the last 20 years has significantly contributed to the prevalence of obesity, both in the adult and pediatric populations. This underscores the importance of “snacking” on water between meals and not food or other sugary beverages.

Air Many may ask what role, if any, does fresh air have to do with obesity? According to the Hepatitis Monthly, October, 2011 issue, fatty liver disease is becoming the leading cause of cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease. Because of the growing epidemic of childhood obesity, fatty liver disease is an increasing problem even within the pediatric population. New research indicates that the two main risk factors for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are air pollution and obesity. In fact, according to the CDC, air pollution can lead to obesity by increasing insulin resistance. Take home point, we need to get fresh air every day!

Nutrition We could easily write numerous articles on the link between weight loss and healthy nutrition, but let’s focus on four points. First of all, you can’t buy weight-loss without getting more than you bargained for, so forget about weight-loss supplements. If a supplement helps you lose weight, it’s because it either has caffeine or some other stimulant, or it causes your body to malabsorb nutrients, which will lead to other problems such as vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Secondly, rapid weight loss leads to rapid weight gain. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was excess fat storage, if you want to keep it off, it’s not going to come off overnight. The third and most important point about weight loss and nutrition is that a high fiber, low-fat diet is the best. But, what about the supposed success rates of low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets? These diets place the patient in a starving state and as a result, they enter the “zone” of ketoacidosis which is very toxic to the kidneys. The ideal diet plan given in Genesis 1:29 is the healthiest and best weight loss diet and interestingly did not include any meat. Finally, as much as possible, we should stay away from processed foods, and instead get the bulk of our foods from the produce section or the farmer’s market. If affordably possible, organic produce is the best as it is more nutritious due to increased vitamins and enzymes.

Temperance The best definition of temperance is to, “dispense entirely with everything hurtful and to use judiciously that which is healthful.” (PP 562) In regard to temperance in weight loss, the timing and quantity of eating is vital to weight loss. In fact, in the August 2012 issue of Appetite, a study comparing normal-weight women with obese women revealed the biggest caloric difference between the two groups was snacking. In addition, the study also showed that shorter meal times correlated with overeating. This finding was collaborated by an article in the journal of Metabolism in May, 2012, which demonstrated that fast eaters were twice as likely to be obese. The take home point here is, temperance in the timing of eating by avoiding snacks, combined with slow eating improves weight loss.

Rest As most of us are aware, melatonin is the hormone of sleep, and it’s benefits are seemingly astronomical. In a recent publication from the American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, it was stated that through various steps, melatonin decreases appetite. In addition, in the August, 2012, issue of Appetite obese women were found to be more likely to sleep less at night and nap more during the day. Putting these two studies together the vicious cycle of obesity and poor sleep becomes evident, in that, poor sleep leads to obesity and obesity then leads to worsened sleep and around and around the cycle we go! The take home point here is to maximize weight loss, we should get early, long sleep, at night, and avoid daytime “sleep snacks”.

Exercise It likely comes as no surprise to learn that the May, 2009 issue of Obesity Reviews, an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, stated that adding exercise to a weight-loss diet produces significantly greater weight loss. Interestingly, another study published in Obesity Research found that, compared to men on a weight-loss diet alone, men who were on a diet plus exercise program experienced additional restraint, less disinhibition, and less hunger. From this we learn that exercise improves metabolism, blood sugar control and assists in weight loss. In addition, as exercise improves self-restraint, it benefits our spiritual lives and can even positively affect characters!

Sunshine Sunlight causes our bodies to increase its own production of vitamin D which is vital to the prevention and treatment of many diseases. According to the May, 2012, issue of Metabolism, increased levels of vitamin D was associated with weight loss and a decrease in metabolic syndrome (obesity, diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia) by up to 48%. Of course, this makes sunshine a treatment for obesity, and not just a preventive measure.

Trust in God As we have stated before, trust is best defined as, “God is in control” and stress as, “I am in control”. When stress is greater than trust we often see not only spiritual ramifications but also physical and mental effects as well. This is well supported in the prospective study in Health Psychology, which indicates that poor emotional functioning predicts obesity. The study showed that unhealthy eating is often used to regulate emotion, leading to obesity. Interestingly, it also noted that positive religious coping was a significant moderator of this effect. Easier said: if we have a framework that explains the world, based on the Bible’s description of a war between Christ and Satan, and we deal with difficulties by leaning on Christ, we will not need to run to food as a coping mechanism, and better yet, we can go to Christ for a fresh supply of grace to strengthen us in the battle of self gratification and temperance for improved health, claiming the promise, “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).

As you are reading this article, do you detect the Holy Spirit working on your heart? Is He calling you to turn your sleeping habits, eating habits, exercise routine and even the timing of your eating and snacking—over to Him? Our assurance is that if God can give thieves and liars victory over stealing and lying, surely He can give you and I the victory over obesity. Let’s go to Him right now in prayer, and daily surrender ourselves to Him throughout the day, leaning on Him and claiming His promises, and by His grace overcome all our maladies.

Petition asks conferences not to support Pacific Union vote

Dr. Lela Lewis authored a petition asking conferences in Pacific Union not to support its recent decision to approve ordination to gospel ministry without regard to gender. The petition does not address the theological issues surrounding ordination, but attempts to "implore God’s people to come together in the spirit of love through the power of the Holy Spirit."

[W]e the undersigned do not support Pacific Union Conference’s recent decision to go against the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists’ council in respect to women’s ordination. We believe that to do so ultimately mars the image of God in His church and His people by creating disharmony and confusion....

The petition cites the recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and Mountain View Conferences to stay in harmony with General Conference working policy, as the example each conference should follow. Both those conferences are in the Columbia Union Conference, which recently voted 209 to 51 to authorize ordination of female pastors.

A few feature changes

We've modified a few features and added a new one. All comments will now be displayed chronologically, and the most recent comment's widget has been removed. Also, we've added a new section to the website that will feature only news articles. While ADvindicate encourages readers to interact with its content, the site does not primarily exist to act as a forum. Our primary focus is to publish Christ-centered, Bible-based, Seventh-day Adventist perspectives on current events and issues within the church. We believe removing the comment widget reflects this philosophy.

Nested comments will no longer be supported. With the absence of the comment widget, it will be difficult to locate new nested comments. Also, despite the few advantages of nested comments, readers tend to find chronological comments easier to follow.

Truncated Comments Whenever you see a comment that has been truncated, it means the author has exceeded the 200 word limit. Instead of deleting comments that exceed our limit, we've decided it is sufficient to truncate these comments. This way those who wish to read the longer comments can do so by expanding the truncated comments.

Replying to Comments There are a few ways you can reply to another reader. A simple salutation to get their attention works:

Joe: I agree with what you said, but your last point needs some clarification.

Disqus does allow commenters to use the @ symbol; however, it appears they haven't worked out all the kinks, because instead of showing the commenters name, it often shows a jumble of numbers. If you want to give it a try, place the @ symbol in front of their user name: @Joe.

Flagging Comments We encourage commenters to hold each other accountable to the rules. If you feel a comment is in violation of one of ADvindicate's rules, please flag it, and a moderator will be notified and make the final judgment.

'Seventh Gay Adventist' film gives new meaning to 'truth and freedom'

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

As I gasped for my first breath of air, my mother pushed me aside as she was filled with grief and disappointment. She was adamant about giving birth to a precious baby girl. During her pregnancy she had declared over and over that she had no desire for a boy. She was certain that would not happen. Every ounce of her mental determination to have a baby girl left her in anguish. It left me without the love and crucial bonding needed in those first few hours of life.

Her anguish and disappointment manifested itself when she broke my arm on two different occasions before I reached the age of two. My father was a career air force man who was frequently on assignment. As he returned to the base one day, he saw my arm in a sling. Now the abuse rumors which had been circulating became real to him and he found it necessary to give me over for adoption to his Adventist, Christ-centered, sister and husband.

God already had a plan for me. In the years ahead, it would be difficult to recognize what that plan was. At three years old, I ran around the house screaming, “I don’t want to be a boy! I want to be a girl!” Whenever I was lifted into the arms of a woman, I would scream, “Put me down! I hate women!” Was it any wonder?

You see, even prenatal conditions deeply affect the fetus and what lies ahead. We arrive stained with the effects of sin. Thousands of years of sin and wrong choices. Choices mapped in the brains of those who have gone before us.

Christian author Ellen White says; “They have lost their manhood, and this they must win back. Many have to battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil. Unnatural cravings, sensual impulses, were their inheritance from birth. These must be carefully guarded against. Within and without, good and evil are striving for the mastery” (Ministry of Healing 173).

I have a story. A story of heartbreak that ends beautifully because of the power of choice God gave me. His grace, love, power and truth are magnificent! Unlike the stories portrayed in “Seventh-Gay Adventist,” my story brings me to the foot of the cross denying self and looking up to Jesus. His blood cleanses me.

Decade upon decade Christians have acknowledged homosexual behavior as sin and have done nothing more. Even today, homosexuals are viewed by self-righteous Christians as modern day lepers. Is God impotent? What about the multitudes of those who in their brokenness He healed and brought restoration? And isn’t the relationship of intimacy with Jesus and His truth seen in the healing and restoration of the demoniacs?

Oh what a work there is to be done in educating the believers of Jesus Christ. We lovingly need to teach how a plugged-in and intimate relationship with Jesus will safeguard us from any sin temptation. As a result of decades of this horrible silence and darkness, stories need to be told. Stories that can ignite the immense love, power and truth of Jesus Christ.

The making of “Seventh-Gay Adventist” provided such a glorious opportunity to engage the subjects of this film into an intimate relationship with Jesus. Knowing that his time is short and how he has maintained sexual intimacy as a cornerstone of deception, Satan exercises his howling cry. Through every minute in this film, Jesus is just association, rather than being lifted up as Healer and Redeemer. Instead of calling the broken to live in Christ, He is portrayed as an earthly relative. This was a prime opportunity to draw the sinner to the foot of the cross with the promise of hope and redemption. But I didn’t sense that.

When I wrote my original review of the film,  Stephen and Daneen (film producers), protested and stated it was not right for me to make such observations without having first seen the film. There are many things in life that we don’t need to personally experience to know they are not of God. I had prayed many times prior to going. When I reserved the tickets, they were the last two. It seemed like I was meant to attend. I had been invited by Stephen and Daneen to come and dialog and to finally see what they said they knew I would write and speak about.

The film is not about acknowledging sin and reaching out with an offer of hope and redemption. This film is artfully and craftily designed to deceive you into believing that we are powerless over sin. Any writer or filmmaker wants you to know its subjects in order for you to relate to them and draw the conclusion that the author wants.

If you begin to live with the subjects, you develop a relational understanding that cultivates the thought process of those being portrayed. The film is sprinkled with humor as well as painful moments that bring clarity of each person portrayed. You fondly develop compassion for them. As you should. What a tremendous set up for magnifying God’s incredible love and truth. But that never happens.

Instead, in the midst of heartache, adaptation replaces victory and a follow-your-feelings mode captures the audience and draws you into thinking that nothing else is possible. Oh how Jesus must have wept when He was dethroned and perceived as powerless in this film.

One of the young characters David Carlson, states that he has been given two choices. To be straight or to be celibate. God has given us many choices, but He requests that we choose, that we call upon Him and seek to do His will instead of our own. Nowhere in the Word of God does He point us to any kind of physical relationship of intimacy except under the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. The fact is that every son and daughter of God is called to the same acknowledgement of God’s perfect plan. We have the right to choose whether we are going to follow God’s will or our own. David made the choice to live according to his desires. And he does so with the blessings of His Adventist mother and father, who is a conference president, as well as his brother who is an Adventist pastor. His brother said something to the effect that there can be too much rejection or too much acceptance, and so he was going to err on the side of too much acceptance and let God can slap him on his wrists later.

My family and I had been faced with this very same situation. But rather than show approval for my choice, my parents neither condemned me nor condoned my choice. They loved me with the love of Jesus and never stopped. For forty years my parents prayed for me. God hears and answers every prayer. My heart was not completely hardened. After years of Satan’s deception and delusion, I was at a point where I could hear the Holy Spirit. Under His conviction I responded with deep repentance, reached out and accepted the hope, love and restoration offered by Jesus Christ.

My story and others like it are truly the missing stories in this film. They were offered to the film makers and refused. The filmmakers have an agenda. They made the film in response to the voting down of Proposition 8 in California over same-sex marriage. It is very clear that they do not see homosexual behavior as sin. And they don’t want you to see it as sin either.

In fact, they promised in writing that they would portray the life of someone who chooses to live celibate as part of their film.

They made a film that represents sinful behavior as benign, having no effect on the Adventist faith. They want you to accept the sinner and the sin, voiding any redeeming power of Jesus Christ. It’s just as though Lucifer is saying … I have a better plan. It is the introduction of arrogance and deceit without the flashing red warning lights. Terror struck my heart as this film continued to unfold. Immediately I could sense how Jesus must be pained and how it was so reminiscent of Cain’s offering of fruit, not the offering God had instructed Him to give.

Only a redeemed homosexual can see the extent of deception being introduced to the awe struck, innocent and unaware viewers the producers are seeking to captivate. My stomach was nauseous. This is no truth from the Word of God. This is exaltation of self. The film cleverly seeks to craft a new truth. The Word of God – the flesh translation. As I watched, I felt the love that Jesus has for every character portrayed on this bigger than life screen. These people were immersed in all the cultural trimmings of Adventism. But do they know Jesus?

This has been foretold by the Holy Spirit:

It is a masterpiece of Satan's deceptions to keep the minds of men searching and conjecturing in regard to that which God has not made known and which He does not intend that we shall understand. It was thus that Lucifer lost his place in heaven. He became dissatisfied because all the secrets of God's purposes were not confided to him, and he entirely disregarded that which was revealed concerning his own work in the lofty position assigned him. By arousing the same discontent in the angels under his command, he caused their fall. Now he seeks to imbue the minds of men with the same spirit and to lead them also to disregard the direct commands of God.

Those who are unwilling to accept the plain, cutting truths of the Bible are continually seeking for pleasing fables that will quiet the conscience. The less spiritual, self-denying, and humiliating the doctrines presented, the greater the favor with which they are received. These persons degrade the intellectual powers to serve their carnal desires" (Great Controversy 523)

The story of love that needs telling is not the hippie love of the sixties and early seventies where sex and drugs influenced a non conforming culture. It had consequences. The same is true today. If we promote a self love rather than a Christ love, there will again be consequences--terminal consequences.

If you’ve been duped, or if you want to make sure you are not duped, consider the stories of those who were met with divine intervention. Five such stories are available to you today via ‘Coming Out’ Ministries. These are stories of hope and redemption. These individuals speak from a combined total of more than a hundred and twenty five years in the gay culture. God spoke to them and they allowed the Holy Spirit to humble them and redeem them.

A documentary has been under production over the past year. But you don’t have to wait to see the documentary. You can hear them share the testimony and the teachings God has graciously given them directly from the Word of God. Their message is one of love. This deep penetrating pure love has won hearts from the beginning of earth’s history. It is the life changing love of Jesus Christ.

Any one or all five individuals are available to speak at schools, churches, universities and conferences. Arrangements for these presentations can be made at www.knowhislove.com. ‘Coming Out’ Ministries is currently an umbrella ministry for four supporting individual ministries.

Dialog is long overdue regarding homosexuality and the precious lives it has affected. But in such dialog both love and truth must be present. Neither is valuable alone and Jesus clearly shows that His truth is love. We are nothing without Him.

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment. Comments

Set your house in order

What happens to a nation or church that squanders its history?  God will ultimately leave them. That insight happened a few years ago when I was reading a book—the book of Ezekiel.  It was fascinating to me.  It fell upon the shoulders of a young man about thirty years old in exile to tell the people some ominous forewarnings.  And those predictions are a warning to us.

God revealed through Ezekiel that the glory of God was going to depart from His people.  God was going to say goodbye to them.  Why?   I believe that the answer is found in Psalms 138, “Though the LORD is on high, He regards the lowly, but the proud He knows from afar” (v. 6).  Pride pushes God away.

Israel was a nation uniquely privileged.  They dwelt in a land where the glory of God was accessible.  As a reminder of God’s watch-care, the marvelous glory of God was present in the temple.  Now in an incredible scene there is a movement of this radiance.  The sins of pride, errant leadership, and spiritual confusion led to that fateful day when the radiance of God began moving away. God said “Goodbye.”

The scene moves me.  As that glory leaves the inner sanctuary, He moves to the door and pauses for a long moment in a reluctant departure.  What was the Lord thinking?   Was He remembering all the hopes and promises of His people?  Was this a moment of divine regret that so little had come from so much?   And finally, the glory moves away from His people.  Only in the latter part of the book are we told how God might return.

This story is for us too. What’s the difference between a life that has the glory and a life that doesn’t?  When God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt into the Promised Land, there were three great ideas that He gave to them.  When God called the Advent Movement out of Babylon He gave us those same three gifts.  The first idea was redemption.  “I have brought you out of bondage and set you in this land.”  The symbolism was clear. They, and us, were now a redeemed people.

But not only were they redeemed, they were now going to be a righteous people.  Enter the Moral Law.  And finally He gave them the description of true worship and the voice of prophecy.  That is always the sequence that God expects of an individual.  Redemption, righteousness, and worship.  You can never change that sequence.  If you are not redeemed you cannot be righteous.  And if you are not redeemed and righteous you cannot worship.  “For who shall ascend unto the hill of the Lord, but he that hath clean hands and a pure heart?”  Redemption is indispensable to righteousness, nothing is good apart from first being redeemed.

He redeemed them from slavery, He gave them the moral law and taught them what worship was all about.  Suddenly they began to want to be like other nations.  A big red flag.  They said, “We want kings to be leading us as other nations do...”   So they wanted to be like all the other nations.  And God said He was going to depart from them, and that glory was going to leave them 1000 years after the Exodus.

Here is a warning for us to consider.  In Ezekiel, when the glory of God departed, His voice left also (Eze. 10:5).

In Ezekiel 10 we hear God’s glory departing.  His voice was the sound of a rushing army.  In Ezekiel 43, the glory is returning and we are told that his glory was as the sound of a mighty river.  And then we see in the Psalms, “The heavens declare the glory of God...Day unto day utters speech.”  Here it is, where the glory of God dwells, there the voice of God is heard!  When the glory of God departs, the voice of God has left.  Why then did that voice leave?  There are reasons:

• The Word tells us that the glory of God departed because the spiritual leadership that was to lead the temple had betrayed their trust (Ezekiel 11).  And along with that glory went the voice of God.  When the glory and the word depart, one must ask what have spiritual leaders done.  The problem began in Ezekiel 10.   They wanted a king to be like all the other nations, and they were seeking glory in the approval of the other nations!  So it is with any church that elevates culture over Scripture.
• Saul had Samuel.  David had Nathan.  Solomon had no prophet. And Jeroboam began regarding no authority and made priests of anybody who wanted it (1 Kings 13:33). Take a long look.  That is what it means to "be like other nations" (1 Samuel 8:5). So we move from the prophetic voices to the absence of a voice, to the manipulations of kings who appointed people who would make them feel comfortable.  Unqualified prophets and priests were elected to office.  Now, lies are being given to the nation.  The glory has departed.  I have reflected on the North American continent for the last two decades.  What went wrong?  While we were building glorious church buildings, while budgets were booming, while voices filled the airwaves with the Advent Message, while our hospitals flourished—like Solomon did we begin to have grand outward expressions, with no voice from God where it really mattered?  Like Israel of old, it is so easy to lose control – to compromise without recognizing it. 
• Self-aggrandizement is fatal.  There is one vice in the world from which no man is free.  Everyone in the world loathes it when they see it in someone else.  Hardly any people except Christians ever imagine that they would see it in themselves.  I have heard people confess that they have bad tempers.  I have heard them confess that they can’t keep their heads above immorality or alcohol.  Yet drunkenness, immorality and greed are merely flea bites in comparison to pride.  Pride will block the resolution of every other problem that people experience.   And pride says that there is no need for the voice of God anymore.   

Think of the gender conflict.  I’ve seen colleges and church publications advertising themselves as “Giving women a sense of empowerment.”   As if that’s all we are lacking. I have seen feminism baptized into the church, and witnessed contemporary clamor for “equality.”  It is an echo of “Give us a king that we may be like the nations around us.” I see the sociological fabric of sexuality becoming desacralized in our church.  When you desacralize that which God has made sacred, which way are you going to go when there is no voice of God anymore?  Self-aggrandizement is fatal in my life and yours.

What can we do to get the glory back?  Four things come to mind.

• Humble ourselves before God.
• Pray for our spiritual leaders and hold them accountable.
• Honor God by obedience to known truth.
• Take personal responsibility (set our house in order). 

People say the vision is failing (Ezekiel 12:22).   God says, “No. It is going to come to pass!” (v. 23).  They say perhaps a single righteous man can save us (Ezekiel 14).   God says, “No.  Just set your own house in order.”  Here is a simple question.  In the tide of history, where we seem to be moving towards so much lawlessness & unrighteousness, what should we do?  We should set our house in order.

It was in the breakdown of Rome that Christendom was born.  In the breakdown of Christendom, the Remnant was born.  If the Remnant breaks down, what is left?

As believers we are citizens of a city that we did not build and man cannot destroy.  Consciousness of this promise will cause us to reject human glory and seek His glory.  And when our lives glorify God through humility and obedience (1 Peter 2:12) something special will happen.  His glory and His voice will return (Psalm 29:9).

From death to life

Many people have experienced trauma in their lives, and as a result of this trauma, they are trapped in a downward spiral of negative behaviors and thought patterns. When they seek help, they are introduced to the solution that the world offers. This solution is called self-help, and it promotes the idea that you can change yourself if you implement certain actions into your life. The problem with self-help is that it teaches the necessity of changing oneself. God’s Word, however, teaches us that self must die. Gaining victory over the destructive habits that enslave us does not involve making our best effort to gain control over self. In order for victory to be gained, self must cease to exist. “I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.” (1 Corinthians 15:31).* “For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). So what does it mean to die to self? The answer to this question is found in the following two verses. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20). “And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24). The word “crucified,” which is found in both of these verses, is the key to understanding what it means to die to self. Jesus demonstrated the process of dying to self by His death on the cross. There is a specific reason why it was in God’s plan for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus could have died in many ways, and if we were to take our own lives—although I certainly hope not— we could do this in a variety of ways. But it is physically impossible for a person to crucify himself. The process of crucifixion can be accomplished only if a person submits himself to the will of another. The same is true when it comes to our spiritual growth. If we want to die to self, to be crucified with Christ, we must submit our will to the will of God. “Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (James 4:7).

Dying to self does not involve trying really hard to force ourselves to do something good or trying really hard to resist doing something bad. In the words of Moris Vendon, “Restrained badness is the worst kind of goodness.” Even if we did manage to make ourselves do good things and restrain ourselves from doing evil things, this external behavior would not change our hearts, because changing the heart is something only God can do. This is why Ellen White made the following statement in Christ’s Object Lessons, found on page 159. “No outward observances can take the place of simple faith and entire renunciation of self. But no man can empty himself of self. We can only consent for Christ to accomplish the work.” Notice that James tells us to resist the devil, not to do battle with the devil. If we try to engage the devil in battle, not only will we be utterly defeated, but we will be fighting a pointless battle, because Jesus has already fought the battle with Satan and won. Christ has rendered the devil powerless. Rather than fighting the devil, we are to resist the devil, to defend ourselves against his attacks, but this can be accomplished only by submitting our will to God. If we submit to God, He will empty us of self, impart to us the mind of Christ, and give us victory over sin. “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:57). When we surrender our hearts to God, the mind of Christ within us will empower us to resist the devil.

It is through the process of submitting to God and receiving the mind of Christ that self is crucified, spiritual life is imparted, and freedom from sin is attained, but in order for this work to be accomplished, death must precede life. In John chapter 12 verse 24 Jesus uses the following analogy to describe what He had to endure in order to redeem humanity and establish His kingdom. “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” Just as a grain of wheat must die beneath the earth in order to produce more grain, Jesus had to be crucified and buried before He could rise again and expand His kingdom by transforming the lives of all those who would accept His gift of salvation. In the earthly ministry of Christ, death had to precede life, and the same is true with us today. In order to be restored into the likeness of Christ in body, mind, and spirit, we must follow Christ’s example. “Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it” (Luke 9:23-24). Just as Christ had to die before He could live again, we, too, are to take up our cross and die to self by being crucified with Christ if we want to be resurrected to spiritual life through the power of God’s healing grace. The process of dying to self is a continual process. It involves coming to the foot of the cross on a daily basis, accepting God’s gift of salvation, reckoning ourselves to be dead indeed to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:11), and asking God to give us the mind of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Every day we must choose to lose our life in order to save it. Ellen White explains this concept very clearly in a statement she made in Christ’s Object Lessons, found on page 163. “As the sinner, drawn by the power of Christ, approaches the uplifted cross, and prostrates himself before it, there is a new creation. A new heart is given him. He becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus.”

In 1 John 3:14, John describes what happens when we transition from death to life. “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.” As long as self remains alive, we are spiritually dead. There is no love in our hearts, because we abide in death. When we pass from death to life, self dies, we are given spiritual life, and the new heart God gives us causes us to love God and love others. If we choose to walk the road that Jesus walked by allowing God to take us through the process of transitioning from death to life, we will experience God’s complete healing. “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin” (Romans 6:5-7).

This message of hope is the message that we as Christians must take to those whose wounded lives have entangled them in the snare of sin. Jesus not only died for our sins, but He also died for our suffering. The same Jesus who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities also bore our griefs and our sorrows. He took our pain, as well as our sin, to the cross. “When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses” (Matthew 8:16-17). If we were to witness to people who have experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, would it minister to them if we told them that Jesus died for their sins, or would it minister to them if we told them that Jesus died for the pain, the anger, the fear, the shame, and the powerlessness they experienced during the trauma they endured? Not only did Jesus bear our pain to the cross, but He also lived a life of hardship and suffering on Earth and can personally identify with us in every trial we face. If we could choose the course of our lives, how many of us would choose to be born in a barn, grow up in a ghetto, and bear the stigma of being considered an illegitimate child? How many of us would choose to go through the heartache of being slandered, falsely accused, misunderstood, unfairly judged, rejected, abandoned, and betrayed? How many of us would choose to endure the shame and humiliation that results from having our physical boundaries violated? How many of us would choose to endure the physical agony of being tortured, as well as the emotional agony of being separated from God? How many of us would choose to die by means of one of the most cruel and barbaric forms of execution ever invented by man? Jesus endured all of these things when HE lived on Earth. Since we are all born into a sinful world, we all endure things over which we have no control, but Jesus did not have to experience any of the things He experienced while living on Earth. Incredibly, He chose to experience these things. He lived as a man, enduring temptations and trials so that He could identify with us in our temptations and trials. He overcame all of this by relying on His Father’s power so that He could pave the way for us to overcome. Then He died and rose again so that He could set us free from our pain and sin. “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18). “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:14-16).

The only thing that self-help has to offer a hurting world is a futile attempt at gaining control over the sinful self, and if the world is not presented with a better alternative, it will plunge deeper and deeper into a hopeless state of decay and ruin. As God watches people desperately trying to gain the mastery over self through their own efforts, He desperately longs to cause them to die to self so that He can give them a new life of joy and freedom. As God’s ambassadors on Earth, we are called to introduce the world to a real and tangible God who not only identifies with them in their pain, but also longs to remove their pain by setting them free. This freedom can be attained only by passing from death to life, and since the process of passing from death to life can be frightening at times, people who are hurting need to be shown that God is someone they can trust because He can relate to the pain they are going through. When they see God for who He really is, when they realize that they are safe with God because HE knows them and identifies with them, they will be ready to move forward by taking up their cross and following after the God they have learned to trust. Rather than trying to maintain control over their lives by attempting to change themselves, they will allow God to take control. The sinful self that they were previously trying to change through their own effort will be crucified with Christ, and they will pass from death to newness of life. This is what freedom is all about, and God is willing to give all of us this miraculous gift of freedom if we let Him.

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

Adventist or fragmentist?

Let’s begin with two basic affirmations: First, as committed Christians we take seriously our Savior’s prayer for unity among His followers: “that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22). Second, we have personally chosen to be members of this divinely-directed movement—the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Since these facts are true, then why do we encounter evermore dissonance and disparity of both belief and practice among us? Allow me to illustrate, from recent personal experience. In the fall of 2009, while attending a communication workshop in another state, I decided to visit a local “emerging” church which had been positively promoted as a model of “how to do church.” Up on the platform was a contemporary band of about ten performers—and they were just that! Besides the sensually overpowering cacophony (notice, I did not call it “music”), these individuals looked as though they’d been brought in from a rock concert—some men even had caps pulled low down over their eyes, while the woman lead singer had a golf ball-size pendant in front of a low-cut revealing dress. “An Adventist church?” you wonder. Yes, at least that’s what they claim, even though their Sabbath “worship” time was a blatant betrayal of a biblically-based, Christ-centered, sacred service. Seeking to be “relevant,” they’re morphing into becoming just like the world.

Contrast that experience with one I had just a few months earlier, in the same state, where I spent a long weekend at an Adventist feast-keeping “camp meeting,” in order to attempt to understand why some are insisting on observing festivals that have already met their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. They held a so-called Passover seder, complete with ancient Jewish traditions and rituals, with a growing focus on referring to God as “Yahweh,” and Jesus as “Yahshua.” Many of the men sported long, full beards; and a couple of them even wore tassels. Interestingly, while they publicly professed allegiance to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they also underhandedly undermined this Remnant Church and its leaders. Wanting to be more “biblical,” are they retrogressing into becoming Judaizers, as described in Galatians?

I share these experiences merely to illustrate that, as one looks around, it becomes obvious that there are some individuals who, while claiming to be genuine Seventh-day Adventists, are practicing and promoting views and values that are not only “outside the mainstream,” but clearly contrary to the fundamentals of our faith.

After that sermon by Elder Ted Wilson on July 3 at the 59th General Conference Session, in which he made a prophetic call for “revival and reformation” among us so as to share the good news of the imminent return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I paused to ponder on the challenge the church is confronting from within. Quickly I jotted down more than a dozen different “discussions” that are distracting us from our mission. For example, some impose the historical-critical method upon Scripture, thereby denying its divine inspiration and neutralizing its spiritually-transformative impact. Others engage in highly imaginative allegorizations and subjective symbolic suppositions, thereby distorting and destroying any definitive and defensible biblical basis for our basic beliefs. Some lean toward pushing the apocalyptic prophecies into the past, while others find futuristic fulfillments for that which has already happened in history.

Incidentally, regarding both the above issues, most laity and leadership are well aware that the Seventh-day Adventist Church promotes and practices a careful searching of Scripture, in which the inspired Word of God is its own interpreter (i.e., the historical-grammatical method); also, we believe in the appropriate manner of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies—the method used by Jesus Himself (i.e., the historicist approach, in which the prophecies of the pivotal books of Daniel and the Revelation cover the span of history, culminating in the second advent of Jesus Christ). Sadly, this fragmentation of foundational aspects of our faith has begun to affect not just some of our core beliefs, but it is also starting to impact our interaction with the world around us. This erosion has become increasingly evident in the variety of aberrant lifestyle choices, whether it be in private or in public, in dress or in demeanor, at work or at worship.

Some of those causing fragmentation want the church to become a “larger tent” so as to include “tolerance” of secularism within the family of God, mistakenly thinking that accommodating worldliness will cause church growth. Others reason that we must return to a rigid ritualism, to find and follow “new light” from the Scriptures, so as to bring about the latter rain.

Ellen White, who warns of the “ice of indifference” and the “fire of fanaticism,” gives some timely counsel on this matter: “God is leading a people out from the world upon the exalted platform of eternal truth, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus…. They will not be at variance, one believing one thing, and another having faith and views entirely opposite, each moving independently of the body. Through the diversity of the gifts and governments that He has placed in the church, they will all come to the unity of the faith. If one man takes his views of Bible truth without regard to the opinions of his brethren, and justifies his course, alleging that he has a right to his own peculiar views, and then presses them upon others, how can he be fulfilling the prayer of Christ? And if another and still another arises, each asserting his right to believe and talk what he pleases without reference to the faith of the body, where will be that harmony which existed between Christ and His Father, and which Christ prayed might exist among His brethren?” (Testimonies, 3:446). True, the preamble to our “Fundamental Beliefs” rightly maintains that “Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed.” The preamble also continues to state that we as a church “hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture.” In brief, those 28 fundamental beliefs are the warp and woof of who we are—they indicate our interpretation of key theological concepts; they identify how to lovingly live for our Lord; and they inspire us to the undertaking of our worldwide work.

So, in view of the danger of either minimizing so-called “inconvenient” truths that our church stands for, or of adding to our denominational doctrines, each one of us needs to ask ourselves: “Am I an Adventist or a Fragmentist?” Isn’t it time to participate in practicing that prayer of Jesus: “that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21)? I concur with a friend of mine, when he recently wrote: “For Seventh-day Adventists, our facts and our faith are found in the Bible. I invite all in our church family to embrace and support its teachings.” (Adventist Review, 5/27/10, p. 7).

Recognizing our constant need of spiritual revival and reformation, let’s live as Bible-based, Christ-centered, kingdom-directed, lovingly-loyal and active members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, raised up by God “for such a time as this.” Be, an Adventist!

Originally published in the Michigan Memo September 2010.

An empty victory for the PUC majority, a feminine perspective

At times I found it extremely difficult to watch the Pacific Union Conference emergency constituency meeting online Sunday, and had to step out of the room a couple times in frustration. It was hard to hear people twist scripture and the writings of Ellen White, as they attempted to make their desires appear holy. Even though the majority who attended were of the same opinion, God still miraculously intervened amid misinformation and highly charged emotional appeals for equality. Now that the much-advertised PUC meeting is over, people are asking, “What exactly happened and how are things different?” 

Many people are unaware the primary purpose for this meeting was to push through a change in the union’s bylaws so it could legitimize the ordaining of women without being at odds with General Conference policy.

So when the vote to change the bylaws failed by one percent, some delegates noted an audible groan in the room. Why? Continuing to vote the second motion was, at that point, an empty victory. After all, the PUC was already ordaining female pastors.

Documents given to delegates by the legal counsel made clear that if the motion to change the bylaws failed, they would still vote on the second motion to ordain women simply so “… the constituency’s voice be heard.” Ridiculously, other than affirming what the union is currently doing and as a public relations stunt, there was no change in policy made in Sunday’s vote. The motion regarding gender was still voted, perhaps largely to mitigate the appearance the union had just wasted an obscene amount of time and money for naught. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on this meeting. A friend commented to me afterwards, “This makes me rethink where I give my tithe money.” Although I believe the church is the storehouse, I understand why she feels that way.

Furthermore, it appeared everything that could possibly be done to manipulate the decision of the delegates was done. For three months, the PUC Recorder was jammed with biased, one-sided articles arguing for the ordination of women. It acted as a bully pulpit for women’s ordination, if you will. 

Also, a day before the constituency meeting, Loma Linda University Church had a special two-hour “informational meeting” for delegates that was also streamed on the internet. This lopsided “pep rally” led by union and conference officers was solely dedicated to urging delegates to vote in favor of the motions. Absolutely no time was given to represent opposing viewpoints, held by the majority of Adventists.

If all that wasn’t enough, at Sunday’s constituency session our General Conference President Ted Wilson was rudely interrupted by a woman as he was respectfully articulating reasons to not vote the motions. This was followed with the proponents of women’s ordination clapping and jeering. I couldn’t help but think this was surely one time where quieting a clucking woman in church should have applied. I was appalled at such a lack of respect for our president, and the sorely underrepresented “other” viewpoint.

Finally, the delegates were basically forced to listen to three lengthy pro women’s ordination sermons as Sunday’s meeting wrapped up. The sermons were represented as “informational” but were obviously one final burst of emotional propaganda to manipulate delegates immediately before the vote. Other than the two minute sound bites, no time was given to represent the majority of Adventists.

The structure of the meeting was more akin to a political convention filled with all the usual emotional appeals and propaganda rather than a church constituency meeting. Even though there was a boast of love and unity from proponents of women’s ordination, there was little respect shown, even to the person representing the church’s highest authority. It was jaw dropping how the North American Division Vice-President Ernest Castillo derided Elder Wilson, who represented the one main voice in opposition to the rebellion. It was easy to see what spirit was in control.

It appeared the deck was stacked, but God still intervened. Praise Him the change to the bylaws failed. This means the PUC is still out of harmony and policy with the world church, and something has to be done. 

As a spectator watching the shenanigans of the PUC, I hope to see the General Conference Executive Committee in October effectively discipline this union with a loving but firm hand at the annual council. And I know I speak for other women as well, who also value the distinct God-given roles of men and women in the home and church.

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment. Comments

Conference will not recommend bylaw change in regard to ordination

Mountain View Conference, which is within the Columbia Union, says they will support involvement of all members in church ministry, but will only do so in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist World Church as expressed by actions taken during the General Conference in business session. The statement was voted by the conference's executive committee July 23, 2012, according to a post on the Columbia Union Conference's (CUC) Facebook page. The statement can also be found on the front page of the conference's website:

Mountain View Conference Executive Comm. statement:

Due to the current and considerable dialogue in the North American Division regarding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, the Mountain View Conference Executive Committee voted the following statement:

Whereas the Mountain View Conference has a long history of actively supporting, encouraging, and empowering women in church ministries, and

Whereas the Mountain View Conference recognizes itself as an integral part of the Seventh-day Adventist World Church, it is therefore resolved:

The Mountain View Conference, following the scriptural mandate of the priesthood of all believers, and as directed by its Constitution and By Laws, intentionally chooses to continue its long-held commitment of supporting, encouraging, empowering, and celebrating the involvement of all members, regardless of gender, in church ministry. However, we will do so only in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist World Church as expressed by actions taken during the General Conference in business session. (Emphasis added)

After the CUC's July 29th vote to authorize ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender, the Pennsylvania Executive Committee voted a statement that said, "While the Columbia Union has a more general wording in its by-laws, the Pennsylvania Conference has very specific wording, which we will abide by."

Pennsylvania Conference Executive Comm. statement:

PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OFFICERS STATEMENT REGARDING THE COLUMBIA UNION ACTION ON ORDINATION

The recent Columbia Union Special Constituency Session regarding ordination without regard to gender has led to some questions from those wondering how this might affect the Pennsylvania Conference and its future actions.

The Pennsylvania Conference Officers have carefully reviewed the action of the Columbia Union Session, and have reviewed the Pennsylvania Conference Constitution and By-laws. While the Columbia Union has a more general wording in its by-laws, the Pennsylvania Conference has very specific wording, which we will abide by. This wording states that the Pennsylvania Conference policies and procedures shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

The purposes, policies and procedures of the Conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the NAD and the GC. (Pennsylvania Conference Constitution, article 3, voted 2009)

It is our belief that according to this wording we as a Conference will follow only that which the General Conference policy provides for, in regard to ordination. Our Pennsylvania Conference Constitution and By-laws Committee is not recommending a change in this wording to the Pennsylvania Conference Constituency Session this Fall.

PUC constituents approve female ordination, reject bylaw amendment

A special constituency meeting called by the officers and executive committee of the Pacific Union Conference met for over four hours Sunday afternoon in Woodland Hills, California, to address the issue of ordaining women to the gospel ministry. A proposed change to the union's bylaws, which would have allowed the PUC to be out of compliance with GC and NAD working policies on any given issue, just failed to garner the required two-thirds vote, but the motion to ordain candidates without regard to gender passed overwhelmingly, 79% to 21%. (The constituents of the Columbia Union passed a similar motion, 80% to 20%, three weeks ago.) The session began with a hymn, and then small prayer groups were formed to pray for the meeting. A couple of tests votes were taken to familiarize the constituents with the electronic voting devices being used; a back up system of green and yellow cards was also available, but the electronic voting system was used throughout. Marianne Gilbert and Meredith Jobe were voted in as parliamentarians.

The formal speeches were begun by Elder Dan Jackson, president of the North American Division. Elder Jackson stated that he was influence by two competing values, 1) his strong desire for equal treatment for women, and 2) his desire to avoid damaging the church through precipitous action or disunion. “The church,” he stated, “is not ours to modify without regard to one another, just because we think it should be this way or that.” He seemed very torn and hence indecisive, but seemed to come down on the side of maintaining unity.

Elder Wilson spoke next, largely repeating the plea for unity that he made, unsuccessfully, at the Columbia Union meeting. He urged the constituents to wait for the study of ordination that will be completed in 2014 and submitted to the fall counsel that year. He stated that the issue is in the hands of the world church, and that the ordination study will involve all divisions of the church, as well as the BRI, and be more extensive and thorough than any other study on this topic. He did not discuss the issue of female ordination substantively, arguing, as he did at the CUC meeting, that this was not the place for such a discussion. “Do not vote something that will put you in opposition to the world church,” said Wilson.

Elder Lowell Cooper spoke to clarify that although the unions apply the process of ordination, they do not set criteria for ordination contrary to the express will of the world church. Cooper stated that the authority of ecclesiastical subdivisions such as unions comes from the world church in general conference session, and that unions are expected to work in harmony with the expressed will of that body; by implication, the notion that the General Conference acted without authority in 1990 and 1995 in voting against female ordination is false. Armando Miranda, a general vice president of the General Conference, spoke next, arguing that the shaking had begun, as many new people were joining the church, and many old members leaving the church. He urged the delegates not to become side-tracked by issues that would cause division and distraction. Elder Wilson returned to the platform to address specific questions of policy and to once again urge the delegates to “refrain from autonomous action in a matter that is before the world church. Give the process a chance.”

After this, all platform speakers were strongly pro-female ordination. Ernie Castillo spoke next, arguing in English and Spanish that the actions of the CUC and PUC were justified in light of the GC's refusal to allow the NAD to allow commissioned pastors (women) to serve as conference presidents. (But the NAD has long since agreed that it had no right to amend its “E-60” policy in a way that would be out of compliance with GC working policy.) Next, a female pastor spoke and gave her testimony about how she ended up in ministry despite not, at first, believing that she would.

Next, Randy Roberts, senior pastor of the Loma Linda University Church, delivered a sermon, at the request of the PUC Executive Committee. Roberts argued that a “wooden literalism” would have women wearing a head covering and not speaking in church at all, and hence the spirit of Scripture pointed to radical equality between the sexes. The most important text, he argued, was Galatians 3:28, which states that “in Christ there is no longer Jew nor gentile, free nor slave, male nor female, but all are one in Christ,” implying that this text should be read as eliminating sex roles. He also argued that female ordination is consistent with the spirit of Fundamental Belief No. 14, which proclaims unity in Christ, and some of the church's policy statements that speak against discrimination. He ended by appealing to the opinions of young people, who take our larger culture's eradication of sex roles as a given, and with an appeal that female ordination was culturally appropriate to the Pacific Union, even though it would not be in many places in the world.

The discussion then turned to the bylaw changes, and several speakers addressed these at length. It was argued that the PUC was, as a matter of actual history and practice, out of compliance with GC working policy on several issues, and that the bylaw changes would bring the bylaws into conformity with actual practice. When the matter came up for debate and vote, the first floor speaker to the microphone moved to foreclose debate and vote on the bylaw change. This vote failed to garner two-thirds, so debate proceeded. Several speakers expressed dismay at changes that would give the PUC Executive Committee such broad authority to depart from GC and NAD working policies. Doug Batchelor noted that there is a big difference in, for example, wedding vows, between “you SHALL forsake ALL others” and “in general, you will forsake others.” When the vote was finally taken, the bylaw change just failed to received the required two-thirds votes; it received 65% of the vote when 66.6% were necessary.

Next came the motion to ordain without regard to gender. Many wanted to speak to this and, although most were in favor of female ordination, quite a few spoke against it. Interestingly, those evangelists who convince others, with biblical preaching, to come into the church, Doug Batchelor and Stephen Bohr, argued against female ordination on biblical grounds. The pastors of the long since-converted, and of the “cultural Adventists,” tended to be in favor of female ordination. One person made a point of order based upon the idea that the failure of the motion to amend the bylaws (which would have given permission to be out of compliance with GC and NAD working policy) precluded approval of a motion (ordination without regard to gender) that is out of compliance with GC and NAD working policy. This was referred to attorney John Daggett, who misunderstood the objection, thinking it had to do with adequate notice by publication of the motion. The point of order was brushed aside and the debate continued. Finally, after a meeting of about four hours, the vote was taken; the motion to ordain without regard to gender carried by 79% to 21%.

The failure of the bylaw amendment was a victory for church unity. The PUC Executive Committee failed in its bid for broad authorization to disregard GC and NAD working policy. This should preclude any attempts to ignore policy with regard to homosexual pastors, or NAD education policy with regard to origins, or whatever the next liberal enthusiasm may be.

It was made clear once again that appeals to church unity, delivered with great solemnity by GC President Ted Wilson, will not prevail on the issue of female ordination. The SDA Church has failed to articulate a biblical doctrine of sex roles. In the absence of such a doctrine, the SDA membership in the developed countries has conformed to the culture of those countries in regard to the radical hostility to any sort of differentiation of roles as between men and women. It seems unlikely, at this late date, that the SDA Church will ever find its way into conformity with Scripture on this issue.

Ted Wilson responds to PUC constituency meeting

Top leadership of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists this evening issued a response to the Pacific Union Conference’s vote to recommend ordaining ministers without regard to gender, saying the move is a “serious threat” to unity of the world church and preempts an ongoing study on the issue of ordination. In a special Constituency Session this afternoon, the California-based Pacific Union voted 79 percent to 21 percent to recommend to its Executive Committee to “approve ordinations to the gospel ministry without regard to gender.” The Adventist Church currently does not ordain women as ministers.

Pacific Union’s move comes three weeks after a union in the mid-Atlantic United States voted a similar action. The Maryland-based Columbia Union Conference on July 29 voted to recommend to its Executive Committee to approve ordination without regard to gender.

General Conference officers said both actions are contrary to policy. Leaders appealed to all administrative units to “refrain from independent and unilateral decisions” and said the world church Executive Committee will determine how to respond at its next meeting in October.

The response from General Conference officers follows in its entirety:

A RESPONSE TO THE ACTION OF THE PACIFIC UNION CONFERENCE CONSTIUENCY MEETING ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 19, 2012

The 17 million members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are united through the Holy Spirit in a common commitment to Christ and the truths of His Word, an urgent end-time mission, and a divinely inspired church organization. A threat to any one of these places at risk the unity of the church. It is for this reason that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms the Pacific Union’s action not to change their Constitution and remain in harmony with the world church. This represents a step in a positive direction. The General Conference leadership is seriously concerned, though, with the Pacific Union’s subsequent action to preempt the collective decisions of the world church regarding ordination. Unilateral actions contrary to the voted decisions of the global church seriously threaten the unity of the church.

The world church recognizes the vital role that women play in the life, ministry and leadership of the church and encourages their active involvement. Because the General Conference Administrative Committee has already voted and commenced the most comprehensive study in our history on the subject of ordination, which will include the study of the ordination of women, the action of the Pacific Union to grant Ministerial Ordination “without respect to gender” preempts the process voted for the current study of ordination theology and practices by committing the Pacific Union Conference to a particular outcome before the study-and-discussion process is completed. It also expresses a lack of trust in the integrity of the general process accepted and voted by General Conference administrators and personnel, division officers, and pastors and lay members from all the world divisions who serve on the General Conference Executive Committee, which includes the presidents of the 125 unions representing the world church, regarding how we approach common challenges.

Further, the action is contrary to General Conference Working Policy and sets aside the 1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the practice of ordination. The action taken by the Pacific Union Conference represents a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, and thus, at its next meeting in October 2012, as indicated in another recent public statement by General Conference officers and division presidents, the General Conference Executive Committee will carefully review the situation and determine how to respond. In the spirit of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the officers of the General Conference appeal to all entities, organizations, and individuals, including the Pacific Union Conference, to refrain from independent and unilateral decisions and from implementing any such actions.

It is our prayer that the “oneness” Jesus prayed for in His great intercessory prayer in John 17, and that which the disciples experienced in Acts 2, will be manifest in His church today. We pray that the result of this “oneness” will be lives transformed by His grace, united in His love, and empowered by His Spirit to proclaim His last-day message in all of its fullness to a perishing planet, hastening the glorious return of our Lord.

Ted N. C. Wilson, President General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

G. T. Ng, Secretary General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Robert E. Lemon, Treasurer General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Source: Adventist News Network

Live blog: PUC special session at Woodland Hills, Calif.

The Pacific Union Conference's special session begins at 1 p.m. (PST). The event is being held at the Warner Center Marriott, Woodland Hills, 21850 Oxnard Street, Woodland Hills, California, 91367. ADvindicate will be covering this event via live blog, but the PUC will also be streaming the event live for those who want to watch it. According to PUC President Ricardo Graham, "This session is called to consider the following changes to the Pacific Union Bylaws. The proposed changes will enable the union to approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender, when a local conference requests such approval."

There will be two discussions and two votes on today. The motion to amend the bylaws will require a 2/3 majority to pass. The proposed change will enable the union to ordain ministers without regard to gender and that will require 50 percent plus one. The agenda can be read online.

Watch the PUC's special session.

Watch Loma Linda's special session for constituents and delegates of the SECC

Loma Linda University Church hosted an informative session August 18 for constituents and delegates in the Southeastern California Conference. There were feature presentations by Brad Newton, Ivan Blazen, John Brunt, Gerald Winslow, Bert Haloviak and SECC pastors.

Brief Bible thoughts on women’s ordination

The Issues and the IssueSilence can be eloquence. And on the issue of women’s ordination to the gospel ministry in the Adventist church, too much has already been said. Books have been written on both sides of the issue. The anti-ordination camp have urged that the Bible settles this issue decidedly. The pro-ordination camp retorts that the Bible writers conformed to cultural norms in their day when they limited the role of women in local church administration.

And I, of course, have highly oversimplified the issue by making such a summary.

Complicating matters somewhat are the facts that the Bible abounds with evidence of women prophets, but never of a female priest.

Nevertheless, I agree with many who argue that the real issue at stake here is the question of scriptural authority versus higher critical naysaying.

The New Testament Data When the Bible outlines the qualifications for being an elder, they are worded in distinctly gender-specific terms. The elder is to be the “husband of one wife” and to “rule” his house well. The apostle argues that if he is not able to rule his house, how can he be expected to rule the church well?

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

If we ask the question, “who is authorized in the Bible to rule the home?” we have a simple answer even in Genesis 3:16. Paul makes reference to this fact also in the verses just before the ones above.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

These three verses are located just between an exhortation to women to adorn themselves with meekness and the announcement that if a “man desire the office” of an elder, that he does well. In other words, the “teaching” in verse 12 is united to the idea of “authority” in that verse because the verse is about teaching authority in the church. It is about the issue of women’s ordination to the position of “elder.”

The reason that a woman is refused such a position is plain in the passages above. She ought to be subject to her own husband. And how, then, can she be in authority over him? She ought to submit to his headship. How then can she rule well her own home?

These same arguments are used by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1Co 14:35 And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The “speaking” here cannot be a reference to speaking in general. Earlier in the same book Paul laid down regulations for females to pray and prophecy in assembly. Rather, the speaking and silence and obedience here must be the same as those mentioned in the 1 Timothy verses. These speeches are the authoritative teaching of elders.

The idea of gender distinction in family government is plainly present in several other New Testament passages. (See Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter 3:1, 5-6.)

But what about the issue of prophets? We mentioned earlier that female prophets were present in Corinth. Even the female prophets, by the way they kept their hair, were to show their submission to their husband, their spiritual head.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

This is not, of course, the only New Testament reference to women praying or prophesying. Acts 21:9 records that Philip had four daughters that were prophets. The assembly by the river was a meeting place for women and a place where prayer was routinely made. Acts 16:39.

Were women refused the position of elders because of cultural norms? If this was the case, Paul had opportunity to argue this way. But how did he found his argument? He founded it on the order of creation, the origin of sin, the teaching of nature regarding gender, the model of ancient holy persons. And never once did he found it on the customs of the Jews or of the Romans or of the varied peoples among whom he founded churches.

To ignore his reasoning while countering his conclusion is to discount his authority. And as I said in the introduction, this is the primary issue.

Were women involved in ministry in the New Testament? Indeed. Even Jesus had women that ministered to Him and that, to at least some extent, traveled with Him.

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

Lu 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Acts records the work of a husband-wife team that worked hand-in-hand with Paul, the author of the anti-ordain passage. Acts 18:2-3.

Why would God allow women to minister to Jesus, to plant churches, to prophesy and pray in public, and yet refuse to them the position of elder?

Prophets have no personal authority associated with their gift. They speak for God. Socially, if they are a daughter (as were Philip’s four prophets), then they still are a daughter. They are still subject to their father. And when God speaks through them, they are as subject to those words as are the others that hear.

So Ellen White can be a prophet and James White can be an elder and theirs can be a happy home. (And it was, most of their married life.)

By way of contrast, the position of elder has personal authority with it. Let me explain.

When men organize themselves into any type of group and choose one of their own number to be a director, they are choosing to submit part of their individual independence to each other and to the leader. They do this for efficiency. Even angels are ordered in such a way.

Are such men saying that one is fundamentally superior to themselves in strength or intelligence? No. All they are really doing is saying that things will work better if there is order.

That is what the church does. If women were not an integral part of church life, then there would be no need to refuse to them the position of elder. God has ordained that the order in the family be reflected and supported by the order in the church.

So women may teach Sabbath school classes. They may conduct VBS. They may lead a stewardship drive. They may help their husbands plant a church. They may even do pastoral work in the fullest sense of caring for the flock. But may they be placed in headship over the flock? No. That would upset the order of the family.

But what if she is single? No, that won’t fix it. To put her in the elder’s position would be to forbid her to marry. And that would not be right.

Old Testament Data In the Old Testament women figure prominently. Huldah the prophet was probably a professor in the “college.” Deborah was the courage behind Barak’s success. Miriam won the hearts of her nation and led them in anthems. Women show up most often in their positions as significant mothers.

But never, in all the history of the Old Testament, do we find a female priest.

“Wait!” says one. “Wasn’t it a whole nation of priests?” Oh, yes, that is true. But that was part of Korah’s argument when he wanted to be a priest. And it didn’t hold much theological weight in Numbers 16.

The fact is that when we select a man to be an elder, he is our peer. We are not obliged to believe what he says. He is not our king. But we are to respect his headship for order’s sake.

In like manner, when God chose an Old Testament person to be a priest, he was a peer of his wife and relatives and fellow Israelites. But they were a kingdom of priests. But they all surrendered a bit of their individual independence for the best good of the body. And so they respected their God-chosen priests.

This is how Luther explained it when he preached about the priesthood of believers. He wrote that the priesthood belongs to everyone, but that not everyone can exercise it. So the body chooses who will exercise the authority that they all possess. (If they didn’t possess it, he reasoned, they wouldn’t be able to give it to their pastor.)

Ellen White and Adventist History While the prophet lived the issue of woman’s suffrage was a hot political one. Women had taken the lead in many social issues, from nursing to the care of deranged persons, to the advocacy of temperance.

And in the Adventist church itself a group of women led out in one of the most successful and pervasive of all revivals, the introduction of the Tract and Missionary Society. That organization was often presided by a woman and was one of the most significant positions in the denomination.

But women were not ordained to the gospel ministry. We were the people of the Book. And the Book spoke clearly on this issue. We had a woman prophet and the Book smiled on that. It did not smile on the idea of having women elders. (Ordaining women was suggested once in meeting. It didn’t get as far as a vote.)

Conclusion For years I have hesitated to write on this issue, and for only one reason. I wasn’t sure where to draw the line Biblically regarding women teaching and leading in church functions outside that of ordained elder. That issue is resolved for me now by the proximity of 1 Timothy 2 to 1 Timothy 3.

The Bible isn’t confusing. If it takes long arguments to make it that way, the arguments are at fault rather than the Bible.

If a man desires the office of an elder, he desires a good thing.

If a woman desires the same, she doesn’t understand. She cannot rule her house well. If she rules it, that is not well. And so, like all the other members of the church, she gives of her priesthood authority to the men chosen by her and by the church to exercise it. And then she respects that authority that, originally, was hers.

Watch PUC special constituency session live

You can watch the Pacific Union Conference's special constituency session live August 19 at 1 p.m. (Pacific Time). A list of the delegates has been published in the July edition of the PUC Recorder. Below is the special constituency session announcement:

Notice of Pacific Union Conference Special Constituency Session

A Special Session of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will be held at the Warner Center Marriott, Woodland Hills, 21850 Oxnard Street, Woodland Hills, California, 91367 on August 19, 2012. Registration will begin at 10 a.m., with the meeting beginning at 1 p.m., August 19.

This session is called to consider the following changes to the Pacific Union Bylaws. The proposed changes will enable the union to approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender, when a local conference requests such approval. [Words highlighted in gray to be deleted; underlined words 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."

The Pacific Union bylaws entitle each local conference to one delegate without regard to the membership count of the conference. Additional delegates are based on a proportional basis, on the count of the membership of the conferences, made at the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the date of the regularly scheduled session.

Ricardo Graham, President

Bradford Newton, Executive Secretary