An entertained mind is the devil’s workshop

The line, “If you go into a movie theater, your guardian angel will wait outside” is now frequently viewed as another artifact of Adventism’s embarrassingly legalistic past. A rhetorical question I’ve heard used as a counter-argument to this statement is “Does that mean that if I watch a movie on TV, the angels will leave my house?” Here are some statements from Messages to Young People regarding the theaters of the day:

Among the most dangerous resorts for pleasure is the theater. Instead of being a school for morality and virtue, as is so often claimed, it is the very hotbed of immorality. Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals. Every youth who habitually attends such exhibitions will be corrupted in principle. There is no influence in our land more powerful to poison the imagination, to destroy religious impressions, and to blunt the relish for tranquil pleasures and sober realities of life, than theatrical amusements.

The love for these scenes increases with every indulgence, as the desire for intoxicating drink strengthens with its use. The only safe course is to shun the theater, the circus, and every other questionable place of amusement.

The true Christian will not desire to enter any place of amusement or engage in any diversion upon which he cannot ask the blessing of God. He will not be found at the theater, the billiard hall, or the bowling saloon. He will not unite with the gay waltzers, or indulge in any other bewitching pleasure that will banish Christ from the mind.

To those who plead for these diversions, we answer, We cannot indulge in them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The blessing of God would not be invoked upon the hour spent at the theater or in the dance. No Christian would wish to meet death in such a place. No one would wish to be found there when Christ shall come (398).

In response to the first statement, I’ve heard many Adventists repeat the mantra that “theaters are different today.” While this statement is obviously true on some levels (moving pictures and surround sound are new additions to the theater environment), look again at Ellen White’s description of the problem: “Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals.” This description of theatrical entertainment is still dead-on. Even when it appears that a movie portrays the triumph of good, what is really being portrayed is exactly the opposite. (See "The message from Hollywood.")

If we accept Ellen White’s first statement, then the second one follows. Why would we desire entertainment that serves to strengthen our vicious habits and sinful propensities?

In light of these statements from Ellen White, is the saying “If you go into a movie theater, your guardian angel will wait outside” outdated or too harsh?

It has become clear to me over the years from personal experience and from observing others that God often protects his wayward children. However, the temptations of Christ teach us that to trust in God’s protection while acting outside of His will is presumption. When Satan tempted Christ to jump from the temple, and quoted Psalm 91, saying “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone,” Jesus replied by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” If we intentionally place ourselves on Satan’s territory, we cannot claim God’s promises of protection.

If we bring the insidious influence of the television into our homes, we should expect it to drive out the influence of the Holy Spirit and the holy angels. If we wish to remain in the shadow of the Almighty, on the other hand, we should do all in our power to become more receptive to the Holy Spirit, and make our homes places where the Holy Spirit is free to work.

Response to critiques on 'Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination'

Since first writing on the topic of gender-neutral ordination (Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination) several months ago, I have received several varied and interesting critiques of the article I wrote. Below are my responses to the best of those critiques, along with a slightly revised version of my August article after my responses. I also deal with the issue of women working well in China as pastors, and an argument drawn from Joel 2 in favor of ordination of women (sermon at Pioneer Memorial Church). I believe the prevalence of these two arguments and the apparent validity of the several critiques warrants another edition.

Excerpts from letters answering concerned readers of my August article Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination

To “Mary” You ask a good question regarding what authority a church elder has in the church. I am not sure whether you are asking, “What authority should he have?” or “What authority has the church given him to exercise today?” They are not the same question. As my writing is in regard to the ideal, let me address the first question.

In the New Testament, the elders do have authority. Their authority is not a kingly one, and I think that is a point you are making. But it is a teaching authority. They regulate the doctrinal teaching of the church (see the disputed passage in 1 Timothy 2 as well as Titus 1:11).

1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

Again, this is a delegated authority. Yes, as you say, it rests ultimately with the whole church and more particularly with the church business meeting that chooses its elders.

Responsibility and authority always come together. You cannot have one without the other. When a person is given a responsibility, he or she must be given sufficient authority to carry it out.

So what real authority does an elder have? The elders can say, “Joe will not be teaching in this sanctuary.” The elders can call a meeting and explain that Laura is a futurist and that her teachings are not to be countenanced. Anyone else could, feasibly, do these things, but the elders are responsible to do them. And for that reason, their teaching is considered authoritative. They answer to God for the words of instruction that they allow to assault the ears of their charges.

This teaching authority is best possessed by those who can handle it impersonally. Joe is wrong, not because he is mean, but because his facts are skewed. Jim is right, even though he is a lousy communicator, because his facts are right. While this may seem like it is neither here nor there, it is a hint at God’s reasoning in the gender distinctions given regarding local church administration. Some issues are best handled relationally, others are best handled objectively.

Gender uniqueness matches the work well for another reason. The trade skills of an elder are passed on through mentoring (See 2 Timothy 2:2). And gender A to gender B mentoring is a moral liability.

The business of the church (how to handle the budget, where to build the addition, whose project to fund) was never intended to be in the domain of the elders. It was to be the work of deacons. There is no human authority over other humans in the business authority of the church.

In other words, while we might think of the ability to fire the janitor as a much higher level of authority than the ability to shush an errant teacher, we would be thinking wrongly. The church is the body of believers, not the body of property holders. Regulating the teaching of the body is the highest level of authority God has given to the church.

To “Michael” You wrote “Some of the arguments [in favor of women’s ordination] seem weak to me, but there were some unfamiliar quotes in there in which EGW apparently endorsed women acting as pastors:”

Even in Colporteur Ministry EGW speaks about men and women doing “pastoral” labor. It is part of that otherwise famous quote:

If there is one work more important than another, it is that of getting our publications before the public, thus leading them to search the Scriptures. Missionary work--introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them--is a good work and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor.--Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 390. (1880) {CM 7.1}

Ellen White wrote often about ladies working and it seems clear enough to me that she had in mind “caring for the flock” as women are needed to do.

When men and women accept the truth, we are not to go away and leave them and have no further burden for them. They are to be looked after. They are to be carried as a burden upon the soul, and we must watch over them as stewards who must render an account. Then as you speak to the people, give to every man his portion of meat in due season, but you want to be in that position where you can give this food.--Manuscript 13, 1888. {Ev 345.2}

But are the female pastoral workers needed to care for both classes, men and women? Not ideally. No, they are needed to shepherd a certain part. So says the Bible.

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children.

Women instructors should labor with the young women, not to see how much work can be gained from them, but to win their love and confidence. When this is won, there will be no difficulty about the work, for the workers will be filled with a desire to please. {PM 259.5}

To “Many” regarding China If the Lord Jesus had only played things smoothly in John six, the Christian church would have gotten off to a much larger start. Thousands were inclined to follow Him that day. They were ready to take risks for His kingdom.

But at the end of the day, only a handful of persons were still following Him and He was off the radar map of the twitter-happy types.

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then again, the early church could have been much better funded long before the cross if Jesus had not handled one seeker so strictly. By requiring the earnest man to sell his possessions, it seems that Jesus squelched his interest in the truth.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to gather, from apparent spiritual successes in evangelism and church work, evidence regarding what God wants us to do. If in China there are lady pastors doing a successful work, may God bless their work with faithfulness to the Bible rule. Underground there may be a very different picture of what God is doing. But all this is neither here nor there. Why?

The Bible, not experience, is the ground of our faith and practice. We do what God says.

To Readers of a Sermon at Pioneer Memorial Church on the Topic of Ordination

Indeed, God will pour out His Spirit on both genders. May the Latter Rain come soon! But there is a significant fallacy in this argument: Since God will empower and fill ladies in the future, we have Bible evidence that God is changing His gender-role directions for the last day church.

What is the fallacy? The future filling of women by the Spirit is no change at all. There have been female prophets since early days. There have been many of them. They have spanned more than a thousand year of Bible history.

And for all that, we find no evidence of female priest or elder.

Then there is no evidence that God will make a change. And the whole bit of oratory becomes empty.

Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination (revised)

Additional remarks have been italicized.

The Issues and the Issue

Silence 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 has 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 two facts: 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 nay-saying.

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. What kind of teaching then, did Paul have in mind in verse 12? He certainly didn’t mean that a woman could never teach anyone under any circumstance. After all, he commanded elder women to teach younger women and children (see Titus 2:3-5).

The “teaching” in verse 12 is united to the idea of “authority” in the same verse. Now teaching authority in the church belongs to the elders. So this passage is about the issue of women’s ordination to the position of “elder.” And that is plain simply by the fact that, after commenting on the perils of giving birth, Paul next addresses who should be permitted to teach with authority.

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.

1Co 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.

1Co 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.  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.) Some persons can see no light in extrapolating the male-headship-in-the-home into the realm of church governance. Nonetheless, the home is the training ground for church governance. That is the logic behind Paul’s statements on the qualifications for being an elder.

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 either argue this way or to give no reasons at all. So how did he found his argument? In his writing, 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 passages. 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. And as order requires that someone do the delegating, they choose one of their own for that purpose.

That is what the church does. The choosing of only men to the position of elder is no statement of male superiority. It is only acting in harmony with a divine policy established to maintain efficient and orderly action.

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 be too similar to a doctrine of devils.

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, elsewhere, 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 exalted to an administrative position. And it didn’t hold much theological weight by the end of Numbers 16. (It did seem to hold some at the beginning of the chapter.)

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, despite our understanding of Scripture. He is not our prophet. We are not obliged to do what he says despite the dictates of our conscience. He is not our king. But we are to respect his headship for order’s sake. We expect him to the take the lead and we need him to do so.

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. They were, after all, a kingdom of priests. But they pooled their priesthood and conferred it on someone who could exercise it for their mutual benefit. 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.) And so, as long as a woman has a voting right in choosing the elders for the local church, she shows that she is a true possessor of the priesthood. For order’s sake, she gives her part of it to the man chosen to represent the whole.

Ellen White and Adventist History

While the prophet lived the issue of woman’s suffrage was a hot political one. Women in the United States 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. Often a woman presided over that organization. The directorship of this organization 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. Nearly all the primary verses used in Biblical studies of this topic could fit on two pieces of paper.

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.

Amen.

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.

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.