Shaken out of what? (Part III)

This is part three of a seven part series called "The prophesied cleansing and triumph of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." Read "The problem (Part I)" and "Open Sin and the Church Militant (Part II)"We often hear, whenever the identity and future of God’s true church is discussed among conservative Adventists, that “history repeats itself.” In recent years, for example, books and articles emphasizing the prophetic parallels between the church of today and the church of ancient Israel have warned the faithful that the doom which befell the corporate church in Jesus’ time is likely to befall corporate Adventism—if in fact it hasn’t already (1).

Moreover, just as the true and faithful at various times in history have been compelled to separate from an apostate structure in order to preserve their faith, so the assumption develops—though it is rarely stated outright—that the true and faithful in contemporary Adventism will in time be forced to leave the corporate denominational structure if they wish to stay true to God’s Word. Many of those conservative Adventists who worship in “home churches” and other independent congregations believe themselves to be following this predicable historical pattern.

We cannot deny, of course, that many parallels do exist between the experience of ancient Israel and the experience of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The following inspired statements make this clear:

For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan (2).

So Christ sorrows and weeps over our churches, over our institutions of learning, that have failed to meet the demand of God. . . . The warnings come down to all that are following in the tread of the people of Jerusalem, who had such great light. This people is before us as a warning. By rejecting God’s warnings in this our day, men are repeating the sin of Jerusalem (3).

The sin of ancient Israel was in disregarding the expressed will of God and following their own way according to the leadings of unsanctified hearts. Modern Israel are fast following in their footsteps, and the displeasure of the Lord is as surely resting upon them (4).

Comparing Adventism with Israel, God’s angel at one point declared through Ellen White, “Ye have done worse than they” (5). Elsewhere she writes:

I have been shown that the spirit of the world is fast leavening the church. You are following in the same path as did ancient Israel. There is the same falling away from your holy calling as God’s peculiar people. You are having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. Your concord with unbelievers has provoked the Lord’s displeasure. You know not the things that belong to your peace, and they are fast being hid from your eyes. Your neglect to follow the light will place you in a more unfavorable position than the Jews upon whom Christ pronounced a woe (6).

But however often the past does indeed repeat itself, neither the God of Scripture nor the Sacred Record are compelled to act in never-ending cycles of repetition. Unlike Hinduism, Christianity doesn’t teach that the cycles of history never stop. While God’s principles remain the same in all ages, His methods of operation do vary from time to time. And as we study inspired predictions of end-time events, we find that a number of future developments will differ sharply from historical patterns.

For example, the Lord brought encouragement to His people for many centuries by pinpointing future events through time prophecies. But since 1844, God has chosen to use this means no longer (Rev. 11:6) (7). After probation’s close the righteous will have to stand without a Mediator in heaven (8). Never before has this been required of God’s people. During this same time God will not permit any of His people to suffer martyrdom—another decisive break from the past (9).

Understanding this, we should not be surprised if in the last days God has chosen a different method of purifying His church than in days of old. In the past, a persistently faithless majority has meant divine rejection for the covenant community. This was the fate that befell the Jewish nation, the early Christian church, and the religious bodies which emerged from the Protestant Reformation. And we are told that at the end of time, the great majority of God’s professed people will again prove unfaithful:

Soon God’s people will be tested by fiery trials, and the great proportion of those who now appear genuine and true will prove to be base metal. . . . To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few—this will be our test (10).

When the law of God is made void, the church will be sifted by fiery trials, and a larger proportion than we now anticipate will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (11).

When the day comes when the law of God is made void, and the church is sifted by the fiery trials that are to try all that live upon the earth, a great proportion of those who are supposed to be genuine will give heed to seducing spirits, and turn traitor and betray sacred trusts (12).

In this time, the gold will be separated from the dross in the church. True godliness will be clearly distinguished from the appearance and tinsel of it. Many a star that we have admired for its brilliancy will go out in darkness. Chaff like a cloud will be borne away on the wind, even from places where we see only floors of rich wheat (13).

What clouds of chaff will then be borne away by the fan of God! When now our eyes can discover only rich floors of wheat, will the chaff be blown away with the fan of God. Every one who is not centered in Christ will fail to stand the test and ordeal of that day (14).

Shaken Out Of What?

Those conservative Adventists who believe the official church has passed the point of no return with God, or presumably soon will, understand the above statements as meaning the apostate majority will be shaken out of the true faith and away from those who live it, but will not necessarily be shaken out of the official church structure. The following remarks, written some years ago by one of this persuasion, express this view quite clearly:

Notice that the 1886 statement (see Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, 324, or Selected Messages, vol. 2, 380) does not say that they (the sinners) will be sifted from the church organization; it distinctly says that they will be sifted from the loyal and true and that this is a terrible ordeal (15).

There was a shaking (in Christ’s time) and almost the entire Jewish church was shaken out. But their church organization went right on. That is something that many people have not thought of and you need to think it through. Judaism still existed, but almost the entire group, or organization, was shaken out. I have to tell you the truth. According to prophecy, something very similar to this is going to happen to the Seventh-day Adventist Church before the end (16).

But Inspiration teaches exactly the opposite of the above statements. Ellen White is clear that something will happen to the church’s apostate majority at the end of time that has not happened before. Instead of retaining the visible church in their grasp and thrusting the faithful out, the prophet is clear that this time the faithless majority will leave the visible church:

The shaking of God blows away multitudes like dry leaves. Prosperity multiplies a mass of professors. Adversity purges them out of the church. As a class their spirits are not steadfast with God. They go out from us because they are not of us, for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, many are offended (17).

At the eleventh hour the Lord will gather a company out of the world to serve Him. There will be a converted ministry. Those who have had privileges and opportunities to become intelligent in regard to the truth, and yet who continue to counterwork the work God would have accomplished, will be purged out (18).

Some have entered the work with a human commission rather than the divine. . . . In short, they have a theory but not true conversion and sanctification through the truth. The great issue so near at hand will weed out those whom God has not appointed and He will have a pure, true, sanctified ministry, prepared for the latter rain (19).

As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position, and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light, and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side (20).

God is sifting His people. He will have a clean and holy church. We cannot read the heart of man. But the Lord has provided means to keep the church pure. A corrupt people has arisen who could not live with the people of God. They despised reproof, and would not be corrected. They had an opportunity to know that theirs was an unrighteous warfare. They had time to repent of their wrongs, but self was too dear to die. They nourished it, and it grew strong, and they separated from the trusting people of God, whom He is purifying unto Himself. We all have reason to thank God that a way has been opened to save the church, for the wrath of God must have come upon us if these corrupt pretenders had remained with us. . . . As we near the Judgment, all will manifest their true character, and it will be made plain to what company they belong. The sieve is moving. Let us not say, Stay Thy hand, O God. The church must be purged, and it will be (21).

I saw that individuals would rise up against the plain testimonies. It does not suit their natural feelings. They would choose to have smooth things spoken unto them, and have peace cried in their ears. I view the church in a more dangerous condition than they ever have been. Experimental religion is known but by a few. The shaking must soon take place to purify the church (22).

Clearly, these statements are not talking about people being shaken out of the faith while remaining in the visible church, continuing to call themselves Seventh-day Adventists while treating the despised faithful minority as a troublesome offshoot to be persecuted and disfellowshiped. Regardless of what certain ones in our time claim to have experienced, we cannot—as we said at the beginning—permit personal experience to drive our understanding of the inspired evidence. Regardless of the discouraging circumstances some may encounter in the contemporary church, it is imperative that—by the grace of God—we cling to the promises of His written counsel, especially at moments when the struggle against apostasy and wrongdoing seems to our finite eyes to make so little progress.

In our last installment we looked briefly at what is perhaps Ellen White’s signature statement on the church’s survival of the end-time shaking:

The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out, the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place (23).

A simple, straightforward reading of this passage reveals three obvious points, among perhaps others:

1. “The church” and “Zion” are one and the same.
2. The church (Zion) has sinners in it.
3. The church (Zion) remains while the sinners are sifted out of it.

One must change the meaning of plain words to insist, as one cited earlier has stated, that this passage “does not say they (the sinners) will be sifted from the church organization; it distinctly says they will be sifted from the loyal and true” (24). What the passage distinctly says is that the sinners will be sifted both from the organized church and from among the loyal and true. What else could be meant by statements which speak of those “who continue to counterwork the work God would have accomplished” being “purged out” (25)? Or which speak of those who “have entered the work with a human commission rather than the divine,” and that “the great issue so near at hand will weed out those whom God has not appointed and He will have a pure, true, sanctified ministry, prepared for the latter rain” (26)?

Purged out of what? Weeded out of what? Obviously these persons do not have a right relationship with God, or they wouldn’t be trying for years to counterwork God’s purpose or entering ministry without God’s leading. The wording of these statements simply does not allow us to conclude that these are faithful believers ceasing to be faithful, and thus being shaken out of the true faith while they presumably stay in the organized church. These statements only make sense if one understands the “purging” and “weeding” being described as referring to the removal of these individuals from a community containing both saints and sinners. And let’s not forget the statements we studied in our last installment, which clearly depicted the abominations for which the sealed saints sigh and cry—including such as “doing after the manner of the world,” together with “pride, avarice, selfishness, and deception of almost every kind”—as being “in the church” prior to its purification by the shaking (27). These are obviously not merely secret sins and concealed abominations being described here. Everything in these passages makes it clear these are open and very egregious offenses which fester within the church until the shaking completes its task.

Another statement likewise helps us understand that the shaking of the last days will in particular remove unfaithful leaders from their positions in the church:

The days are fast approaching when there will be great perplexity and confusion. Satan, clothed in angel robes, will deceive, if possible, the very elect. There will be gods many and lords many. Every wind of doctrine will be blowing. Those who have rendered supreme homage to “science falsely so-called,” will not be the leaders then. Those who have trusted to intellect, genius, or talent, will not then stand at the head of the rank and file. They did not keep pace with the light. Those who have proved themselves unfaithful will not then be entrusted with the flock. In the last solemn work few great men will be engaged. They are self-sufficient, independent of God, and He cannot use them. The Lord has faithful servants, who in the shaking, testing time, will be disclosed to view (28).

Obviously when she speaks of the “rank and file” and the “flock” in this statement, it is the visible church—with its present apostate majority—that is in focus. How else could she speak of how, when the shaking time comes, those trusting to genius and intellect, paying homage to false science, and thus proving unfaithful, “will not then stand at the head of the rank and file” and “will not then be entrusted with the flock”? The plain implication of this passage is that such persons may very well, at the present time, be standing at the head of the rank and file, leading the Lord’s flock. But when the shaking does its work, the above statement is clear this will no longer be the case.

Again the evidence is decisive that Ellen White sees the end-time shaking as the means whereby a church once filled with apostasy, corruption, deception of almost every kind, and led by persons trusting to human wisdom, will be purged of all these elements.

Let us again bear in mind that according to Ellen White’s teachings, the true and faithful at this time will be perfectly victorious over all sin. Such statements as the following make this point clear:

I saw that none could share the “refreshing” unless they obtain the victory over every besetment, over pride, selfishness, love of the world, and over every wrong word and action (29).

Those who come up to every point and stand every test, and overcome, be the price what it may, have heeded the counsel of the True Witness, and they will receive the latter rain, and thus be fitted for translation (30).

Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement. Then the latter rain will fall upon us, as the early rain fell upon the disciples upon the day of Pentecost (31).

Now is the time to prepare. The seal of God will never be placed upon the forehead of an impure man or woman. It will never be placed upon the forehead of the ambitious, world-loving man or woman. It will never be placed upon the forehead of men or women of false tongues or deceitful hearts. All who receive the seal must be without spot before God—candidates for heaven (32).

Are we seeking for His fullness, ever pressing toward the mark set before us—the perfection of His character? When the Lord’s people reach this mark, they will be sealed in their foreheads. Filled with His Spirit, they will be complete in Christ, and the recording angel will declare, “It is finished” (33).

Many similar statements could be cited (34). What these passages prove conclusively is that the end-time shaking does not purify the true and faithful. They have to be pure by the time the shaking and sealing begin. (Let’s be clear, of course, that we’re talking about the true and faithful who are within God’s church at this time, as distinct from those soon to be called out of Babylon.) So when we read Ellen White statements speaking of how “the shaking must soon take place to purify the church” (35), it should be obvious she is talking about the visible church being purified through the removal of its disobedient, apostate majority, not the purification of the true and faithful which has to occur before the final shaking starts.

To put it simply, individual purification is accomplished before the shaking. Corporate purification, by contrast, is accomplished by the shaking. While it is true some Ellen White statements speak of a shaking and sifting that had already begun in her day (36), it is clear from the statements we have considered that the final, ultimately decisive shaking is still future. This is how she can say that “the shaking must soon take place to purify the church” (37), and in another statement describe “the mighty sifting soon to take place” when “the mark of the beast will be urged upon us” (38). Obviously this ultimate testing time is yet future for the people of God.

An author we have quoted frequently, who holds very much to the negative outlook on the church’s future which this series is reviewing, writes at one point:

What happens where there are a few people and they do not go along with what the majority of the church wants to do? Who gets their way, the minority or the majority? (39).

The implication of this question, in context, is that the faithful minority is inevitably going to be cast out of organized Adventism because the persistently unfaithful ones have the majority. Sadly, this is the voice of finite logic and human reasoning, which divine power and providence is fully capable of disproving. A statement like the above is really no different from those statements by believers in evangelical Adventism—often called the New Theology—that because they’ve tried for years without success to overcome sin, total victory must be impossible. It is truly shameful for one holding to conservative Adventist beliefs in so many areas to depict human circumstances as apparently beyond the capacity of God to circumvent and overrule.

What may seem logical for the majority to do on account of numerical strength can easily be confounded by God’s intervention, as the army of Sennacherib learned the hard way (II Kings 19:35). Nothing can be clearer than the statement we cited earlier which speaks of “a mass of professors” being purged “out of the church,” who “go out from us because they are not of us” (40). Again, these are not faithful believers ceasing to be faithful, but rather, professed believers giving up their profession, which exists by virtue of their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ellen White describes just how many sins can lurk beneath the veneer of one’s profession:

As Jesus views the state of His professed followers today, He sees base ingratitude, hollow formalism, hypocritical insincerity, pharisaical pride and apostasy (41).

And again, describing what so deeply troubles the sighing and crying saints “in the midst of Jerusalem,” she writes:

They lament and afflict their souls because pride, avarice, selfishness, and deception of almost every kind are in the church (42).

Putting the above two statements together with the one which speaks of false professors being purged “out of the church” (43), we can clearly see that while gross apostasy and sin have either captivated or paralyzed the church’s great majority before the shaking, this faithless majority will find itself outside the church once the shaking is finished.

We must remember that even those who have embraced any number of heresies currently prevalent in various segments of the denomination, still profess—by virtue of their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church—to have faith in the third angel’s message, in the words of one Ellen White statement quoted earlier:

As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but who have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position, and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light, and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side (44).

Our Fundamental Beliefs as a church continue to uphold the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14 (45); thus anyone holding membership in the denomination can rightly be held accountable for faithfulness or the lack thereof to this profession on their part. Again, the above statement—like others we have considered—does not describe faithful believers relinquishing their faithfulness, but rather, professed believers lacking obedience and sanctification, whose unity with the world and its spirit causes them in the end to choose the easy, popular side in the controversy. The wording of this and other statements we have studied truly makes it difficult to understand them as meaning anything except that these apostates will stop claiming to be Seventh-day Adventists.

It may be hard to imagine highly placed church officials, whose entire lives and careers have been bound up with organized Adventism, willingly withdrawing from the fellowship of the church. But it has happened before. Witness the experience of such as D.M. Canright, L.R. Conradi, and W.W. Fletcher, each of whom held high administrative posts, but whose doctrinal heresies caused them willingly to leave the church. And the pressures of the last-day conflict—the polarizing of views, the taking of sides, and unprecedented global persecution—will vastly exceed anything in our history or present circumstances.

For the unsanctified, cultural and social ties will be powerless to keep them in the church in the face of these constraining threats. For most people, at least in the developed world, it isn’t hard to profess to be a Seventh-day Adventist just now. But the day will come, in the words of one friend of the present writer, when the name Seventh-day Adventist will be what people say when they hit their thumb!

From Militant to Triumphant

The following inspired prediction gives a detailed chronology of the final transformation of the church militant into the church triumphant:

As trials thicken around us, both separation and unity will be seen in our ranks. Some who are now ready to take up weapons of warfare, will in times of peril make it manifest that they have not built upon the solid rock; they will yield to temptation. Those who have had great light and precious privileges, but have not improved them, will, under one pretext or another, go out from us. Not having received the love of the truth, they will be taken in by the delusions of the enemy, they will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. And will depart from the faith. But on the other hand, when the storm of persecution really breaks upon us, the true sheep will hear the true Shepherd’s voice. Self-denying efforts will be put forth to save the lost, and many who have strayed from the fold will come back to follow the great Shepherd. The people of God will draw together, and present to the enemy a united front. In view of the common peril, strife for supremacy will cease; there will be no disputing as to who shall be accounted greatest. . . . The love of God, the love of our brethren, will testify to the world that we have been with Jesus and learned of Him. Then will the message of the third angel swell to a loud cry, and the whole earth will be lightened with the glory of the Lord (46).

Notice in this passage the seven consecutive steps leading to the emergence of the church triumphant:

1. Trials thicken around the church, producing both separation and unity. We see this happening already. The fact that Ellen White says this will be seen “in our ranks” makes it clear the “ranks” here described refer to the church militant—containing both wheat and tares, faithful and unfaithful, open as well as secret apostasy.

2. Some who are now ready to take up weapons of warfare will make manifest their lack of conversion, and thus, under the pressure of the final crisis, yield to temptation. What a sober warning this should be to those conservative Adventists who presently wield weapons of spiritual warfare against apostasy in the church! Such warfare on our part is most assuredly necessary, but if we fail during present moments of relative peace to build godly character, with total and practical consecration, all our zeal will be in vain. Each of us, including the present writer, need to contemplate this point with thoughtfulness and prayer.

3. Those who, for whatever reason, have failed to receive the love of the truth, will depart from the faith. Quite obviously, “departing from the faith” in this context means departure from the visible church, since the statement says these persons have failed to build on the solid Rock, have not improved their precious privileges, and have thus not received the love of the truth which they profess. Thus, as with previous statements, this cannot refer to faithful believers surrendering their faithfulness, but rather, professed believers surrendering their profession and thus leaving the church.

4. The storm of persecution will then break upon the faithful—those remaining in the church.

5. Self-denying efforts will be put forth to save the lost, which will result in the reclaiming of many former members.

6. The people of God will then draw together, divisions will cease, and the enemy will be faced with a united front.

7. The message of the third angel will then swell to a loud cry, and the whole earth will be lightened with God’s glory—His character revealed through His triumphant, victorious people.

Two other Ellen White statements offer a similar picture of what will happen when the church is purified:

When the reproach of indolence and slothfulness shall have been wiped away from the church, the Spirit of the Lord will be graciously manifested. Divine power will be revealed. The church will see the providential working of the Lord of hosts. The light of truth will shine forth in clear, strong rays, and as in the time of the apostles, many souls will turn from error to truth. The earth will be lighted with the glory of the Lord (47).

The fear of God, the sense of His goodness, His holiness, will circulate through every institution. An atmosphere of love and peace will pervade every department. Every word spoken, every work performed, will have an influence that corresponds to the influence of heaven. Christ will abide in humanity, and humanity will abide in Christ. In all the work will appear not the character of finite men, but the character of the infinite God. The divine influence imparted by holy angels will impress the minds brought in contact with the workers, and from these workers a fragrant influence will go forth to all who choose to inhale it. The goodly fabric of character wrought through divine power will receive light and glory from heaven, and will stand out before the world as a witness, pointing to the throne of the living God. Then the work will move forward with solidity and double strength. A new efficiently will be imparted to the workers in every line. Men will learn of the reconciliation from iniquity which the Messiah has brought in through His sacrifice. The last message of warning and salvation will be given with mighty power. The earth will be lightened with the glory of God, and it will be ours to witness the soon coming, in power and glory, of our Lord and Saviour (48).

The next installment in our series will consider the principle of conditional prophecy, and to what extent it applies to the inspired predictions of the church’s future on which our study has focused.

References

Subscribe

Would you like to be notified through email when the next article in this series is published?

The prophesied cleansing and triumph of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

The Problem (Part I)

The question of the nature and identity of the church whose triumph is promised in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy writings, has often raised vigorous arguments among reform-minded, theologically conservative Seventh-day Adventists.  Whenever denominational leadership at various levels has seriously disappointed the striving faithful—from the apostasy of A.T. Jones on through the Questions on Doctrine crisis to the dilemmas we face today—conservative Adventists in varying numbers have wrestled with doubt as to whether the Seventh-day Adventist Conference structure continues to be worthy of their presence and support, and what in fact its final role will be in the ultimate conflict of the last days.

During the decades that have elapsed since the Glacier View conference in the summer of 1980, this struggle in the minds and hearts of conservative Adventists has been perhaps the deepest and most wrenching of any time in our history.  The unfinished business of the Desmond Ford controversy—the fact that Ford’s dismissal from church employment was not followed either by a sufficiently thorough repudiation of his theology or by the holding of most of his fellow travelers to the same standard of accountability—gave birth in the coming years to renewed flourishing of the evangelical doctrine of salvation so strongly championed by Ford and others, increased reduction of emphasis by popular speakers and thinkers on uniquely Adventist teachings, initiatives aimed at church growth and youth retention involving notable compromises in faith and practice, along with significant relaxation in many circles of the church’s classic lifestyle expectations.  Many similar trends during the same period could be cited.

Many conservative church members during this time found their voices of protest against these developments increasingly ignored.  It is quite beyond the scope of this article or series to address at length the question of how and to what extent, in various settings, godly courage on the part of such persons might have benefited from greater tact and wisdom.  Important as this consideration surely is, it would lead too far afield for our present purposes.  The bottom line is that the last two decades of the twentieth century saw a growing number of First World conservative Adventists turn increasingly to independent ministries, even independent worship, as the preferred solution to theological and spiritual problems in the official church.

Ideas are often sought or crafted as a means of legitimizing chosen behaviors, and thus it was when despair at the state of the church drove various conservative Adventists into self-supporting venues of expression and congregational life.  As disregard of the church’s doctrinal, liturgical, and moral landmarks became increasingly widespread, a growing number of reform-minded, conservative members became increasingly open to theories about the church which marginalized and even denigrated the importance of the visible, organized Seventh-day Adventist global structure, either for the overall divine plan or the need for faithful members to maintain their presence and loyalty thereto.

(Perhaps a brief word would be helpful regarding my use of the phrase “reform-minded conservative Adventists.”  The term “reform-minded” is intended to separate conservative members with a deep, active concern for the church’s prosperity from what one might call status-quo conservatives, who may concur in theory with the beliefs and standards of fundamental Adventism, but for whom public disciplinary initiatives and spiritual risk-taking in corporate church affairs are generally avoided as too disruptive of the routine religion with which they have grown comfortable.)

Since the 2010 General Conference session and the dramatic change in leadership that took place there, it is fair to say that at least in public, negative sentiments regarding the organized church among conservative Adventists have diminished considerably.  Perhaps the most accurate observation regarding the 2010 GC session is its stunning impact on the perspective of thoughtful members on both ends of the denominational spectrum.  The refreshing candor regarding controversial issues from the GC president in Atlanta was certainly of a sort not heard for decades from an Adventist chief executive, and the response of large numbers of the striving faithful to the president’s inaugural sermon was nothing short of joyous relief.

Typical of the conservative reaction to Wilson’s election was seen in The Remnant Herald, an Australian-based self-supporting publication founded by the late Dr. Russell Standish, which has often featured pointed criticisms of various elements within the organized church.  Following the 2010 GC session, this newsletter published the full text of Elder Wilson’s inaugural sermon (1), a gesture probably unique in this particular publication’s history so far as sitting church leaders are concerned.  Not long thereafter, a favorable report on Elder Wilson’s convictions and election to the GC presidency was published in the same newsletter by Dr. Colin Standish, president emeritus of Hartland Institute in Rapidan, Virginia (2).

On the other side the reaction was equally unequivocal, though of an exactly opposite nature, perhaps best characterized by the anonymous comment of one retired church leader to a former pastor: “It took only a few days for the church to regress fifty years” (3).  Many conservative members couldn’t help recalling that it was approximately that long ago when so many negative trends in the church began, thus demonstrating that what some call regress is recognized by others as the needful retracing of steps in order to rightly move forward.

This article is the first of seven in a series addressing a cluster of errors held by some conservative Adventists regarding the nature and destiny of God’s true church.  The titles and topics of these articles will be as follows:

1. “The Problem”:  a general introduction to the topic.
2. “Open Sin and the Church Militant”:  Can God’s true church contain open apostasy and sin and still remain God’s true church?
3. “Shaken Out of What?”: Will the church’s apostate majority in the last days be shaken out of the visible church structure, or simply out of the true faith?
4. “The Principle of Conditional Prophecy”:  To what extent are Ellen White’s predictions of the triumph of organized Adventism conditional?
5. “The Voice of God in the General Conference”:  Is the collective voice of the General Conference in global session still to be respected as the voice of God?
6. “What Causes Divine Rejection of the Corporate Faith Community?” At what point does probation cease for God’s people, thus annulling their charter as His covenant community?
7. “Where From Here?” Practical steps for reform-minded conservative Adventists as they address problems within the church

Experience Never a Guide

I hope all in this conversation can agree that personal experience cannot determine what we believe about anything in matters spiritual.  Conservative Adventists have rightly admonished many of their fellow church members not to permit experience to influence their theology, worship styles, church growth methods, or lifestyle choices at the expense of the written counsel of God—the latter including both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White.  We who offer these warnings would do well to heed them ourselves.  Just because we see apostasy exploding all around us, with truth apparently on the scaffold and error seemingly on the throne, does not necessarily mean we should change our understanding of what the church is, or entertain doubt regarding God's ability and that of His faithful servants to turn a seemingly hopeless situation around.

More than once I have encountered conservative church members who have stopped worshiping in a Conference church, have stopped returning tithe to their local Conference, and embraced a negative view of the organized church’s future, because of a collection of bad experiences on their part with local pastors, congregations, Conference officials, and more.  This is truly a poor testimony to the courage of those seeking to stand as worthy heirs of the robust faith of our pioneers.  Often I have found myself wondering how such people expect to stand in the vastly worse environment of the end-time crisis if they can’t handle the slings and arrows of local church conflict in these days of comparative comfort.  The admonition of Jeremiah comes soberly to mind: “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?” (Jer. 12:5).

If our understanding of the church and its future purification has been erroneous, it is the inspired evidence alone which can decide this, not negative experiences on anyone’s part with the organized church.  It is such aberrations as the evangelical understanding of the gospel, often called the New Theology, that encourage Christians to trust personal experience as a trustworthy guide in the choice of beliefs and practices.  Those currently advocating full gender equality in ministry, as well as those promoting acceptance of homosexual intimacy within the church, often use the same reasoning.  If someone “experiences the call” to be an ordained pastor, it is claimed, how can the church stand in the way?  If sincere Christians find homosexual relationships personally fulfilling, how can their brothers and sisters possibly condemn such behavior as sinful?

Conservative Adventists cannot fall back on similar appeals to personal experience as a way of defining who and what is God’s true church, or in determining what their relationship to the denomination should be.  Only the written counsel of God has the right to do this.  The striving faithful have no more right to base their beliefs or practices on experience or presumably compelling circumstances than do those practicing unscriptural divorce, those promoting acceptance of homosexual behavior in the church, or those seeking to eradicate gender distinctions in ministerial roles.  For us, as much as for those in the church resistant to our convictions, Bible truth and its amplification in the Spirit of Prophecy must remain our exclusive authority.

It is long past time for faithful Seventh-day Adventists, who hold to the supreme authority of inspired writings in spiritual affairs, to articulate once and for all the issue of who and what is God’s true church, and how that church is destined to defeat and surmount the challenges of history’s final crisis.  None of us can be certain how long time will last; Inspiration is clear it is the spiritual readiness of God’s people which will ultimately determine when Jesus will come (II Peter 3:10-14; I John 3:2-3; Rev. 7:1-3; 14:5) (4).  Between now and the final events, we can be sure the faithful will again, from time to time, experience disappointment with the decisions of church leaders.  Such experiences cannot be permitted to bend or mold our view of the written counsel of God.  It is hoped by the present writer that the articles in this series will demonstrate the clarity inspired counsel offers regarding this pivotal issue.

References

1. Elder Ted Wilson, “Inaugural Sermon give at General Conference Session, July 2010,” The Remnant Herald, , Sept.-Oct. 2010, pp. 2106-2113.
2. Colin D. Standish, “Insights Into the Election of Elder Ted Wilson as GC President,” The Remnant Herald, Jan.-Feb. 2011, pp. 2148-2150.
3. Ron Gladden, “An Open Letter to Members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Adventist Today online, Aug. 2, 2010 http://www.atoday.org/article/595/features/articles/2010/an-open-letter-by-ron-gladden
4. Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69.

What's next in communication and IT in our church?

During the last years, there has been an increasing interest in technology-related topics in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Evidence of this is the increasing number of events where communicators and technologists meet to discuss new ways to use technology to share the Gospel. Some of these events are international (such as the Global Adventist internet Network (GaiN) forum, while others are focused on particular divisions and conferences. Moreover, a good number of articles with suggestive titles, such as “Cyber Geeks and Jesus”, make evident the hunger for technology in the church. Also, Adventist News Network (ANN) has empowered the use of social media and technology with two interesting segments on a weekly video magazine. These are not isolated facts. Elder Ted Wilson said: “There are many plans we are currently working on that have to do with large-scale evangelistic activity, a massive use of media integration, a convergence of every possible kind of media usage, including television, radio, Internet, publishing, and other media outlets within the church." Amid this technological boom, a question arises: What's next in communication and IT in our church? In order to answer this question, first it is necessary to describe a framework in which communication and IT are positioned in our organization. Then, it will be easy to identify what has been done and what needs to be solved in the future. Imagine this framework as a four-wheel wagon. The two front wheels represent communication and the two rear wheels represent IT. Each wheel illustrates the following dimensions:

• Dimension of communication use: This dimension is about using traditional (e.g. radio and TV) and new ways (e.g. the Internet) to communicate the Gospel. Well-established communication departments in all levels of our organization enrich this dimension. What's next? We should look for attractive and pedagogical ways to teach pastors and church members to use the latest and most effective technologies. For instance, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) can be used to teach them how to do Internet evangelism. Basic concepts can be taught with simple and innovative ways such as cartoons and short video clips.
• Dimension of communication development: This dimension is about developing effective communication strategies. For example, successful campaigns have been developed in this dimension to position hashtags, such as #RBHW, as a trend topic in Twitter. What's next? We should give emphasis on creating more mass communication strategies. These strategies can be cheap--for example, using the social media which is visible to millions.
• Dimension of IT use: This dimension supports daily tasks with a computing infrastructure (e.g. servers, networks, etc.). The software that we use in daily activities (e.g. word processors and accounting software) are also in this dimension. I have realized that IT departments in different divisions and conferences mainly focus in IT maintenance and rarely play a strategic role. What's next? In my opinion, the next step is to consider IT departments as strategic assets. We should move from focusing only on IT maintenance into a more strategic role.
• Dimension of IT development: This dimension is about developing strategic technologies to support the Adventist mission. Although some divisions already have strategic IT departments, most of them do not. The following simple question can help us to understand the current panorama of this dimension: How many apps in Apple Store have been developed by Adventist IT departments to reach the postmodern society? The answer is, not so many. What's next? IT departments should be motivated to use the best methodologies and tools to create technologies to invigorate the Adventist mission and our institutions (for example, for reducing costs). Furthermore, knowledge and resources should flow fluently among IT departments around the world. In this way, they will help and learn from each other.

Traditionally, the focus has been on communication and IT usage-related dimensions. Although these dimensions should be strengthened, more emphasis needs to be put on the development of communication strategies and technologies. As there are communication departments in every division, I encourage leveraging IT departments to a more strategic position. In addition, Adventist universities should be encouraged to train communication and IT departments and help them develop strategies to support the Adventist mission. In conclusion, although we have taken significant steps, there is a lot to be done, specially in the dimension of IT development. As a wagon cannot go forward with a missing wheel, the aforementioned dimensions cannot work in isolation; they have to work together in symmetry to preach the Gospel, help the needy, and support our institutions.

Harvey Alférez is a lecturer of computer science at Montemorelos University. He is currently doing a PhD in Computer Science at Valencia, Spain. He has worked in Adventist universities, IT companies, and research groups on four continents. 

An open letter to Ted Wilson, Lisa Beardsley-Hardy, Larry Blackmer, and the La Sierra constituents

In a couple of days, fewer than 100 people will determine whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America will hold onto any of its tertiary educational institutions. The constituents of La Sierra University have been called to a special session this Thursday, February 21, where they will be asked to approve radical changes to La Sierra's bylaws that will loosen the University's connection to the Church. Under pressure from WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, a sub-committee of La Sierra's Board of Trustees has drafted proposed bylaw changes that dilute church representation on the Board of Trustees, weaken the position of the Board chair, and transfer most of the Board's governing power to the president of the University.

The proposed bylaw changes ensure that lay Trustees will always outnumber church official Trustees; in fact, the provision regarding Board quorums is amended so that there is no quorum unless lay Trustees outnumber church officials. The new bylaws would make the office of board chair an elected office, elected by the other board members, and would prevent the Pacific Union president from ever serving as chairman, or vice chair, of the Board of Trustees, assuming that he continues to serve as chairman of the PUC Board of Trustees. The proposed bylaws also strengthen the position of vice-chair and make that officially a lay position.

These changes are in response to WASC's expressed desire for greater board autonomy, by which WASC means greater independence from the official Seventh-day Adventist Church. But all of our union-affiliated colleges' governing boards are set up exactly like La Sierra's: the union president is ex-officio chairman of the board, and all affiliated conference presidents are board members. No other secular accrediting organization has ever taken issue with this arrangement. But you can expect that, if La Sierra knuckles under to WASC's demands and approves these bylaw changes, all the other regional accrediting bodies will try to enforce similar demands of our other colleges. If sound educational policy demands an autonomous board in Southern California, then sound educational policy demands it in Northern California, Washington, Nebraska, Texas, Tennessee, Michigan, and Maryland, as well. Eventually, and sooner than you think, all of our Adventist tertiary educational institutions will be Adventist in “heritage” only; they will no longer be governed by officers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

How did we get to this dangerous place?

We got here because some of “us” do not want our educational institutions to be governed by the Adventist Church, and are willing to go to great lengths to see that they aren't. This faction has long seen accreditation as a way to secularize Adventist tertiary education. They would love for the SDA Church to be forced to choose between a truly Adventist education, on the one hand, and secular accreditation with its prestige and government money, on the other. They constantly argue, on such blogs as Spectrum, that Adventist education cannot be truly Adventist and still maintain secular accreditation. Indeed, they argue that Adventist education cannot be real education, much less accredited education, unless it abandons the Adventist educational philosophy. For example, T. Joe Willey recently wrote at Spectrum:

Beyond governance issues and outside interference, how will Adventists come to terms with not just biology, but all of higher education? This will be problematic if the church’s traditionalists continue to maintain that Scriptural authority has absolute priority over history, science, psychology, social science, philosophy as well as theology — that it is infallible and cannot be circumvented and is above challenge by methodological naturalism or scientific data or evidence. If this policy is going to be used to cast off outside approvals or accreditation commissions . . . the church could then face closing down its academic colleges and universities [or] transforming them into unaccredited Bible colleges. Willey, “The Accreditation of La Sierra University: Tampering with Financial Consequences,” Spectrum, January 28, 2013.

So far, there is no real conflict between accreditation and upholding the Adventist philosophy of education, just a strong desire for such a conflict on the part of secularists within our midst. Secular accrediting associations understand that church schools exist to further the mission of the sponsoring denomination, which will sometimes include a different view of origins, among other things. Creationists in the Adventist Church and elsewhere want Darwinism taught and understood in our schools—indeed, we want our students to understand it better than students in state universities—but we want it taught and understood as a false theory of origins. The truth about our origins is set forth in the Word of God and in the inspired testimonies of Ellen White.

But although there is no genuine conflict between Adventist education and secular accreditation, certain ones so desperately want such a conflict to exist that they are willing to foment it. They are willing to make it actually happen. Which brings us back to the immediate situation at La Sierra.

Apparently, former La Sierra Trustee Lenny Darnell wrote to the WASC commission with responsibility for accrediting La Sierra and urged them to demand that the board structure be changed. Darnell managed to record himself saying, “And if there's any way that Lenny can figure out, there's gonna be a memo to the WASC commission that says that you need to demand that we dismantle this ex-officio structure, or these problems will never go away. And this needs to be . . . whatever language you want to use, you need to say that we're coming back in two years and it has to be different.”

Even if we didn't have a recording of Lenny Darnell planning to solicit WASC to demand the exact change to the structure of the Board of Trustees that WASC ultimately demanded, and that the constituents will be asked to vote on Thursday, it could easily be deduced that Randal Wisbey, or some intermediary working on his behalf, had contacted WASC and solicited bylaw changes, based upon the following facts:

1. Denominational ownership has never before been seen as an impediment to secular accreditation.
2. All of the union-affiliated Adventists colleges have governing boards set up exactly like La Sierra's: the union president is ex-officio chairman of the board and all affiliated conference presidents are board members. WASC is essentially decreeing that any sectarian school that is actually governed by the sect--as opposed to just loosely affiliated with a denomination--cannot receive secular accreditation. This is an astonishing position, and may well be a novel argument. As far as I am aware, no other secular accrediting organization has ever taken issue with our standard governing board structure.
3. WASC would never say, “La Sierra, you're too tightly bound to your sponsoring denomination; make changes to your bylaws to loosen the connection” without knowing in advance that the suggestion would be agreeable. If the president, Board of Trustees, and the Pacific Union were all united on the present board structure, such a demand to re-structure the board would be expected to draw a lawsuit. Yet WASC made that demand of La Sierra because it had been assured that the administration wanted these board changes, and hence WASC would not be buying a lawsuit by demanding them.
4. WASC would expect to lose such a lawsuit. When I've mooted this issue online, liberals argue that WASC has a free hand to bully colleges because accreditation is voluntary and a college can simply choose not to be accredited. This is a poor argument. Accreditation is effectively no longer voluntary; federal grant and loan aid depend upon accreditation, as does transferability of credits and use of a degree as a prerequisite for admission to graduate schools. Because accreditation is crucial to a college, it cannot arbitrarily be removed; an accrediting association cannot make unreasonable demands. If La Sierra sued, WASC would back down, but they never would have made this demand had La Sierra insiders not solicited it.
5. Randal Wisbey resents efforts to interfere with La Sierra's inculcation of Darwinism. He allowed Louis Bishop to be disciplined three times for pointing out that La Sierra was undermining Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on origins, he demonizes those who, like the founders of Educate Truth, call attention to La Sierra's wrong teaching on origins, he has frustrated all efforts, internal and external, to address La Sierra's origins problem, he fired Lee Greer over Greer's rapprochement with Larry Blackmer on the origins issue, and he had three Trustees thrown off the Board for their efforts to address the problem. Wisbey wants these bylaw changes in order to put an end, once and for all, to any efforts by the Board of Trustees to address the origins issue. The proposed bylaw changes will put faculty, curriculum, and normal university operations far beyond the purview of the Board of Trustees.
6. If the bylaw changes were really driven by WASC, they would address only WASC's stated concerns: the structure of the board and the close connection to the official Seventh-day Adventist Church. But the overwhelming majority of the bylaw changes take governing power away from the Board of Trustees and give it to the president. This is contrary to WASC's stated policy on governing boards. WASC intends for governing boards to have strong oversight and strong committees in such areas as finance and academic affairs, but these bylaw changes strip the Board of most of its power to in these areas. In fact, the bylaw changes strike out the committee names (Executive, Membership, Academic Affairs, Personnel, Student Life, Trusteeship, and Finance) because these Board committees will no longer be necessary—the Board will lose its governing authority in these areas. That most of the bylaw changes are contrary to WASC policies demonstrates that WASC was never the driving force behind the bylaw changes. This is a power grab. Randal Wisbey is seizing power from the Board of Trustees and from the Church.

Where do we go from here?

First, we go to California and defeat these bylaw changes. They will require a two-thirds majority to pass, and things are not so far gone that two thirds of the La Sierra constituency will vote for something that has the potential to divest the entire church in North America of its tertiary educational apparatus.

And make no mistake, we are playing for all the marbles. Some fourteen months ago, I was blogging with someone who seemed extremely knowledgeable about La Sierra, but who was using a pseudonym. He wrote:

Interestingly enough, the LSU bylaws are being rewritten under WASC's guidance as we speak. Presuming the "permanent" (ex-officio) board member positions including the automatic Chairmanship by the PUC President are eliminated or weakened would you expect the PUC to stand idly by and see their "ownership" of LSU diluted by a bothersome third party whom they see as the cause of their problems in the first place? Perhaps they will go to the courts to protect their investment and control.

I responded:

On the question of how much WASC can interfere with curriculum and board structure, my answer is, not much. The strategy of using secular accreditation to effectively wrench La Sierra free of church control is too cute, and it won't work if the church is willing to sue WASC on First Amendment Freedom of Religion grounds. But, as I've said several times, if La Sierra even comes close to setting a bad precedent with WASC, we should close it down and sell the property.

He responded:

As for how much WASC can interfere with board structure - isn't that what is happening[?] Quite a bit, it seems, if rumors are correct. WASC even visited the LSU campus a couple of months ago to lay out exactly the changes they are demanding. . . . In the end, I don't think the church will have the option of shutting down only LSU. I think it's going to be an all-in game. Accept accreditation and accept severe limits on church structural and functional control of the church's tertiary institutions in the U.S. or close them ALL down.

I have since come to believe that the person I was blogging with was Lenny Darnell, the same former La Sierra Trustee who said he would write WASC demanding that the ex-officio board structure be done away with. Lenny is wrong about La Sierra, and Adventist education, and Seventh-day Adventism, but he's right about one thing: This is an all-in game, one hand for all the chips on the table. We defeat these bylaw changes or we risk losing all of our colleges.

Analysis of La Sierra bylaw changes

Part I: A Summary and Evaluation of the Bylaw Changes, Taken as a Whole.

These bylaw changes have three main goals: 1) to dilute the vote of the church officials on the Board of Trustees, and ensure that they are outnumbered by lay Trustees; 2) to weaken the office of Chairman of the Board of Trustees; and 3) to greatly diminish the governing power of the Board of Trustees, and, pari passu, to concentrate power in the hands of the University's president.

The changes aimed at diluting official church influence include making the Pacific Union Conference president ineligible to be chairman of the Board, changing the rules on constituent-elected Trustees so that only two can be church employees, changing the quorum rule so that a quorum is achieved only if lay members outnumber church officers, and expanding the powers of the (lay) vice-chair. These changes are clearly intended to dilute and weaken the Seventh-day Adventist Church's influence over the Board of Trustees and hence over La Sierra University.

The changes designed to weaken the office of chairman of the Board of Trustees include changing the position from an automatic ex-officio position to an elected position, providing that the chairman may be removed from office, with or without cause, by a two-thirds vote of the Trustees present, strengthening the office of vice-chair, and strengthening the power of the president relative the power of the Board Chairman. These changes are designed to make it difficult for the Chairman of the Board to exercise real authority over the Board, the University, and the president, and constitute a counter-balancing power to the president.

The changes designed to weaken the Board of Trustees include stripping the Board of the power to set policy, stripping the Board of the power to write policy manuals, stripping the Board of the power to hire and fire the vice presidents, deans, provosts, department chairs and faculty, stripping the Board of any real financial oversight, stripping the Board of the power to oversee fund raising, and stripping the Board of its power to “control all affairs and business, and to be informed of the work of the various schools, departments, committees, and programs.” All these powers that the Board currently exercises are given to the president, concentrating an extraordinary amount of power in the president's hands. The obvious intent of these bylaw changes is to prevent the Board of Trustees from exercising control over the operation of La Sierra University, and to render the Board a rubber-stamp to the president.

Part II: A Detailed Description and Analysis of the Major Proposed Changes

A. Changes to the Structure and Composition of the Board of Trustees:

Change: Section 6.2 is amended to lower the number of non-ex-officio Trustees (i.e., constituent-elected Trustees) who may be church employees from 5 to 2.

Analysis: This change ensures that lay Board members will be a majority of the Board of Trustees. Currently there are 8 church officers automatically on the Board. There are fourteen other Board members appointed by the constituents, of who five can be church employees. If all five were church employees, the church officers and employees would outnumber the lay Trustees 13 to 9 not counting the president. With this change, church officers and employees will be a maximum of 10, and can never outnumber the lay members, who will be a minimum of 12, not counting the president. This change clearly dilutes and weakens official Seventh-day Adventist Church control over the University and can only be intended to do exactly that.

Change: Currently, the president of the Pacific Union is automatically the chairman of the Board of Trustees. Section 6.5 is amended to provide that the chairman shall be elected from among the union officers serving on the Board (Vice President, Secretary, or Treasurer) Also, “neither the chair or vice-chair shall be the chair or vice-chair of any other accredited institution.” The president of the University serves as acting Board chairman until the chairman is elected.

Analysis: The president of the Pacific Union may never again be elected chair of La Sierra's Board of Trustees, assuming that Pacific Union College does not change its bylaws and hence that the president of the Pacific Union continues to serve automatically as chair of the Board of Trustees of Pacific Union College. The chairmanship is effectively taken away from the Pacific Union president and given to one of three lower union officers, to be determined by majority vote. The president of the University is acting chairman, pending the election of the chairman (which is a conflict of interest, because the Board of Trustees supervises the president). This change clearly weakens official Seventh-day Adventist church control over La Sierra University. An ex-officio chair that need not run for office, and cannot be voted out of office, is obviously in a much stronger position than one who must electioneer and seek approval of a majority of the Trustees. These changes make the chairmanship a popularity contest to be determined by a Board vote.

Change: The current section 6.6, specifying the duties and term of office of the vice-chair, is removed and replaced with an expanded section 6.5. The changes specify that the vice-chair must be elected from among those Trustees elected by the constituents; currently the vice-chair could be any member of the Board, including an ex-officio Trustee. Under the current bylaws, the vice-chair merely fills in for the chairman when he is absent, but under the proposed bylaws, the vice-chair can be tasked with “such other duties as the Board may delegate.”

Analysis: Under the proposed changes, the vice-chair may not be an ex-officio Trustee (and, under the proposed changes to § 6.2, the odds are 12 to 2 that the vice chair will be a layman, not a church officer or employee). Absent a PUC bylaw change, the president of the Pacific Union cannot serve as vice-chair of the La Sierra Board, because he will still be the chair of the PUC Board of Trustees. So the Pacific Union president is effectively shut out of the offices of both chairman and vice-chair of La Sierra's Board of Trustees. Moreover, the vice-chair's authority and responsibilities may be expanded in an open-ended manner by a vote of the Board of Trustees. This strengthens the position of vice-chair (now almost certainly a lay position) weakens the chairman (an elected union officer) and potentially weakens official church control over the Board of Trustees and hence over the University.

Change: Section 6.5 a is changed to alter the description of the chairman's duties. The chairman is to plan Board meetings “in consultation with the president.” He is to preside over the Board's self-assessment; (2) ensure that the Board is “well informed about and engaged with the university's needs and issues; and (3) “have ongoing consultation with the president” between meetings “regarding goals and directives established by the Board.”

Analysis: These changes decrease the chairman's responsibility, and increase the president's responsibility, to plan Board meetings. They seem to turn the chairman (a union official) into a sort of special confidant and assistant to the president. They also enshrine in the bylaws a navel-gazing process of Board self-assessment, which seems intended to distract from the Board's legal and fiduciary obligation to govern the University. Proposed changes to the Board's powers, discussed below, will make it difficult for the Board to be “well informed” about anything having to do with La Sierra University. The language about “the university's needs and issues” is not legal language and seems like psychobabble, as though the university were a neglected wife.

Change: Section 6.7 (new 6.6) is changed to reflect that the chairman may be removed from office, with or without cause, upon a vote of two-thirds of the Trustees present at the meeting.

Analysis: This change underscores how weak the chairman will be under the proposed bylaws changes. Under the current bylaws, the chairman is the union president, he does not have to be elected, and he cannot be removed from his position as chairman. It is a strong position, reflecting the University's strong ties to the Seventh-day Adventist Church at the level of the union conference. Under these bylaw changes, the chairman is no longer ex officio, he must be elected by the Board of Trustees, and he can be removed, with or without cause, by a two-thirds vote of the Trustees present.

B. Changes to the Powers of the Board of Trustees:

Change: Section 6.9 (proposed 6.8) is changed to add language about efficiency and transparency, and also to again mention a duty of self-assessment.

Analysis: Any lack of transparency is due to the overuse of executive sessions (closed sessions) when they are not appropriate. The second mention of a duty of self-assessment seems intended to tie up the Board of Trustees with navel-gazing, self-criticism, and self-analysis, crowding out the Board's statutory duty to control and govern the University, and its duty to provide effective oversight and supervision to the president.

Change: Sub-section 6.9a is revised to spell out a more specific oversight goal for the Board of Trustees, including to ensure that the University's mission and polices are aligned with the goals, philosophy, and objectives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Analysis: This change is a very positive change, a change for the better. Unfortunately, however, the Board is stripped of the power to carry out that oversight in subsequent sub-sections of § 6.9.

Change: Where the bylaws state that “The functions of the Board shall include, but not be limited to, the following:” the phrase but not be limited to is proposed to be struck out.

Analysis: The Board's powers will thus be limited to its enumerated powers. This is a subtle but very important diminution in the Board's powers.

Change: In sub-section 6.9b, the Board is stripped of its power to “control all affairs and business, and to be informed of the work of the various schools, departments, committees, and programs.”

Analysis: How is the Board supposed to perform its duty of oversight and governance if it is not allowed to be informed of the work of the various schools, departments, committees and programs? This is obviously aimed at foreclosing any efforts by Trustees to directly inform themselves about what is being taught in the biology department, or other departments that may become controversial, such as the theology department.

Change: In sub-section 6.9c, the Board is stripped of its power to formulate, revise, and maintain official policies.

Analysis: Formulating policy should be a core concern of the Board of Trustees. This is a major step toward taking practical control of the University away from the Board of Trustees and giving it to the president.

Change: In sub-section 6.9d, the Board is stripped of its power to approve major policy handbooks.

Analysis: Again, this a remarkably bold step toward removing any meaningful control of the University from the hands of the Board of Trustees and giving it to the president.

Change: In sub-section 6.9e, the Board of Trustees is stripped of its power to remove a Trustee from the Board for cause and declare vacant the seat of any Trustees upon a two-thirds vote of the Board.

Analysis: Section 6.9e is surplusage, because § 6.7 already gives the Board the power to remove any Trustee, with or without cause, on a two-thirds vote of the Trustees present at the meeting. Section 6.7 is problematical, because it does not provide enough protection to outspoken Trustees who are a nuisance to the president. We saw this provision abused when President Wisbey had Dr. Lidner-Baum, Dr. Tooma, and Ambassador Proffitt thrown off the Board in the autumn of 2011.

Change: In sub-section 6.9b, the Board is stripped of its power to promote, discipline, reassign, or discontinue the president, the provost, the vice presidents, deans, administrative department directors, academic department chairs and faculty. The Board had the power to delegate the “appointment, promotion, demotion, or removal” all of these personnel, with the sole exception of the president, but this power is also removed. The Board is empowered to “recruit, appoint and support the president as the chief executive officer charged with the leadership of the institution: to evaluate the effectiveness of the president: and to make changes in the office of the president in harmony with the goals, philosophy, and objectives of the University.”

Analysis: The Board is stripped of the power to fire anyone other than the president (which power is explicitly granted to the Board in § 7.1). Stripping the Board of its powers to fire vice presidents and deans is a substantial step toward emasculation and neutering of the Board of Trustees.

Change: In sub-section 6.9c, the Board is empowered to charge “the president with the task of leading a strategic planning process, participate in that process, approve the strategic plan, and monitor its progress.”

Analysis: The president, not the Board of Trustees, leads the strategic planing process. It appears from the language (although it is vague) that the Board is allowed to “participate in that progress,” “monitor” that progress, and possibly approve the final plan. Strategic planning should be a Board prerogative. That these bylaw changes make it a presidential prerogative show how radically these changes would empower the president and dis-empower the Board of Trustees.

Change: In sub-section 6.9m, the Board is stripped of the power to review the articles of incorporation and the bylaws, and to recommend changes to them.

Analysis: Apparently this is the last time the Board of Trustees will ever have to vote to recommend changes to the bylaws, because its power to review them and recommend changes is stripped by this bylaw change. If the Board finds that these bylaw changes render it unable to perform its statutory duty of oversight and governance (as it certainly will) it has no power to recommend changes that would restore some reasonable power to the Board.

The annotation says that bylaw changes are governed by the bylaw committee, which is established in § 5.7, but that committee is a sub-committee of the Board of Trustees, and makes recommendations for action by the full Board. Stripping the full Board of the power to recommend bylaw changes leaves the sub-committee without any lawful purpose, and effectively dissolves it.

Change: In sub-section 6.9(l), the Board is stripped of its power to approve salary scales and compensation packages, to receive the annual report of the auditor, and to approve the annual audited financial statements. The Board is empowered to approve major capital expenditures.

Analysis: This change strips the Board of Trustees of financial oversight of the University, with the exception of major capital expenditures. This is a substantial diminution of the Board's power and ability to govern the University. Under article 8, the Board of Trustees will still have the power to receive the annual report of the auditor, but without the powers enumerated under § 6.9l, it isn't clear that the Board will be able to do anything with the auditor's report other than “receive” it.

The annotation says that salaries and compensation are covered in the approval of the budget, but the power to approve or reject a budget does not necessarily entail the power to set salary scales and compensation packages, so the annotation is misleading.

Change: In sub-sections 6.9s and t, the Board is stripped of the power (or obligation) to cultivate, facilitate, and personally support the fund raising efforts of the University, and to approve and provide finances, including voluntary support for the long range development of the University.

Analysis: This provision strips the Board of an important aspect of financial oversight, namely, the power to oversee and regulate fund raising efforts. The secularizing bond covenants are a perfect illustration of why the Board of Trustees needs to continue to be involved with oversight of fund raising. Secularizing the University's physical plant with inappropriate financing does not serve the long term mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Raising funds by naming things after the donor is another area that needs careful Board oversight, as per the recent naming of a “Center for Financial Literacy and Entrepreneurship” after a notorious abortionist.

Change: In sub-section 6.9o, the Board is given the power “to engage regularly, in concert with the president, with the University's major constituencies.”

Analysis: It is not clear what this means. The University's constituencies are the Pacific Union Conference and the larger Seventh-day Adventist Church, but it is not clear how the Board is supposed to “engage” these groups. This seems to be an effort to reverse the role of the Board of Trustees from ensuring that the University furthers the mission of the SDA Church to forcing the Board to plead the University's case to the larger SDA Church. This is backward. The Board should ensure that the University serves the Church, not that the Church serves the University.

Change: In sub-section 6.9p, the Board is empowered “to adopt a Board policy manual providing effective policies to guide the Board and its committees, as well as Board relationships with University staff, and to facilitate assignment of responsibilities among them.”

Analysis: The implication here is that the Trustees need a manual to tell them how to exercise oversight and governance of the University. If this is true, new Trustees are necessary, not a manual. The bylaws themselves are a sufficient manual to the Board of Trustees. Again, the purpose of the Board of Trustees is to govern the University, not vice versa.

C. Changes to the Power of the President, and Miscellaneous Changes

Change: In section 6.15, regarding quorums, language has been added to ensure that, in order to have a quorum legally necessary to conduct business, a majority of Trustees present must be elected Trustees, as opposed to ex-officio Trustees.

Analysis: In essence, this means that the Board of Trustees can never conduct business unless lay members outnumber church officers. Obviously, this change substantially weakens the Seventh-day Adventist Church's control over the University. This change can have no other conceivable purpose.

Change: Section 7.1 is changed to indicate that the secretary, chief financial officer and vice presidents are no longer to be appointed by the Board of Trustees.

Analysis: The Board now has real power to hire and fire only the president. All other positions are appointed by the president, and only he has authority to fire them.

Change: In section 7.2, the president's title is changed from chief administrative officer to Chief Executive Officer.

Analysis: This would be inappropriate under the current bylaws, but under the changed bylaws it fits. These changes really do give the University president the kind of broad ranging power that a corporate CEO has, if not more.

Change: Sections 7.2 a and b are amended to relieve the president of his obligation to present a comprehensive annual report including a financial report. He is instead required to give “regular” reports, whatever that means. The president is empowered to “appoint promote, direct, discipline, reassign. and discontinue the provost, vice presidents, deans, administrative department directors, academic department chairs, and faculty members, in accordance with established university policies and procedures.”

Analysis: Here the president is formally given powers that were previously given to the Board of Trustees. This change represents a substantial concentration of power in the hands of the president, and an equal diminution in the power of the Board of Trustees.

Change: Section 7.2h is amended so that the president can “exercise such additional powers as are assigned by the Board of Trustees.”

Analysis: This is potentially an open-ended grant of power to a position that already wields enormous specified power.

[AUDIO] Persecution good for the church?

Liberty magazine editor Lincoln E. Steed was a guest speaker at the Beaumont Seventh-day Adventist Church in Beaumont, Calif. His theme was perhaps it's not so bad for us to be persecuted after all. Liberty Magazine is freely circulated among legislators and individuals in positions of influence and highly respected and appreciated by people of all persuasions. Only about 10,000 Adventists, out of about one million in the North American Division, subscribe to Liberty, and according to Steed, 185,000 magazines are sent out each year.

[audio http://advindicate.com/audio/religiosliberty.mp3]

(If your current browser does not support HTML5 audio, or Flash Player is not installed, a direct download link will be displayed instead of the player.)

Report on antisemitism allegations against Walter Veith

Amazing Discoveries reports on antisemitism allegations made against Walter Veith, an ordained evangelist in South Africa who is one of its main speakers. "It is probable that the people who lodged the complaint are the group from EANN (the German equivalent of SPECTRUM MAGAZINE) because they propagated such action immediately after the lecture," Veith said in a letter dated Nov. 28, 2012, to the Transvaal Conference. While EANN was originally involved in a complaint against Veith to the German Union, it has declined responsibility for the inquiry "lodged at the public prosecutor’s office in Nuremberg to investigate whether Walter Veith in the said presentation had commited [sic] sedition," according to Amazing Discoveries. It is still unknown who made the inquiry.

Below is the beginning of Amazing Discoveries' full report regarding Veith's situation, along with correspondence between Veith and church leaders:

On October 20, 2012, Walter Veith preached the lecture “King of the North (Part 2)” from the new series Repairing the Breach in German [German title Sturm aus dem Norden] in Marienberg SDA Church in Nurnberg, Germany, to an audience of approximately 350 people. The lecture was also live-streamed to approximately 1500 people. Almost immediately after the presentation, Walter Veith received violent opposition by way of an article by EANN about his claims of Freemason/Jesuit involvement in the creation of the State in Israel after WWII and the way he expressed himself in regards to the Jews during Hitler’s regime. Although EANN is run by a few Adventist individuals, it is not an official institution of the SDA church in Germany but a privately funded online news magazine that designates itself as an “Independent Journal for Religion, Church and Society”. Three points specifically were brought up as points of contention:

• The usage of the words “little yellow cloth” [German “gelbes Tüchlein”] in reference to the markings the Jewish people had to wear during the post Napoleonic era and during Hitler’s regime.
• The usage of the word “herded” when referring to the situation of the Jews after the end of the war as a result of Hitler’s persecution and their transference to the newly formed State of Israel, as well as the lack of compassion on the part of many countries, including Canada, the UK, and others who refused entrance to Jews that had escaped the Nazi totalitarian regime.
• The use of quotes from the book Facts are Facts by the Jewish author Benjamin Freedman, as evidence that most Jews aren’t really of Jewish descent, because Freedman is considered an anti-Semitic.

The writer of the EANN article felt these comments were derogatory towards the Jews and as a result raised severe opposition towards Walter Veith, accusing him of anti-Semitism and a “relativization of the holocaust” because Walter connected it to secret plans to create a modern Jewish State in Palestine.

When the SDA leadership of the two German unions was confronted with these allegations, including a personal letter of the EANN author to the two union presidents, it attempted to make contact with Veith without success. Since they felt that the situation was potentially explosive in nature the German Union (including the SDA administrators of Austria and Switzerland) decided to take immediate action by publishing a statement which condemned in very strong terms Veith’s usage of “herding” and “little yellow cloth”, his manner of dealing with other religions as well as his supposed “conspiracy theories” about the involvement of secret societies in history and in general. They requested that local churches not provide a platform for “events like this”. The statement was to be circulated via email to all pastors and elders, via Adventist press agencies, and printed in the monthly church organ “Adventisten Heute”. Furthermore, the document was styled as a reiteration of an official 2005 statement of the German speaking SDA church where it confessed its shortcomings during the time of the Nazi regime thus lending momentous significance to the statement against Walter Veith.

As soon as Walter returned to South Africa, he wrote the following letter to the German brethren explaining that he did not mean anything derogatory in his remarks, and that the expression “little yellow cloth” was due to German being his second language. (Read full report)

After debate, Annual Council votes statement on church polity

Following three hours of respectful study and discussion, leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist world church voted to approve a “Statement on Church Polity, Procedures and Resolution of Disagreements in the Light of Recent Union Actions on Ministerial Ordination” on October 16, during the Annual Council of world church leaders held in Silver Spring, Maryland, United States. The vote was 264 in favor and 25 opposed.

The move comes after three local unions – the North German Union in the Euro-Africa Division, and the Columbia Union and Pacific Union in the North American Division – separately voted this year to permit ordination “without respect to gender,” something the Adventist Church as a whole has twice rejected in votes at the movement’s General Conference Sessions, which are held every five years.

The voted statement expresses disapproval of the independent actions of the unions, appeals for all Church units “to consider thoughtfully the impact and implications of decisions” made independently of the world community, and affirms the role of women in the Church’s life and ministry. The document also points toward continuing studies on the theology of ordination, the results of which are expected to be ready in 2014, ahead of the following year’s 60th General Conference Session. No sanctions are applied, or suggested, in the document.

“This statement deals with Church structure and procedures. It does not address the question of ministerial ordination practices per se,” the statement said. “The central issue is one of Church polity – how the Church defines its organization, governance and operations.”

“Decisions to pursue a course of action not in harmony with the 1990 and 1995 General Conference Session decisions (with respect to ministerial ordination) represent not only an expression of dissent but also a demonstration of self-determination in a matter previously decided by the collective Church,” the statement said. “The General Conference Executive Committee regards these actions as serious mistakes.”

The statement text continues, “The world Church cannot legitimize practices that clearly contradict the intent of General Conference Session actions. … Accordingly, the world Church does not recognize the actions of unions or conferences that have authorized or implemented ministerial ordination without regard to gender.”

But the statement is also clear in stating the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s position on women: “The General Conference Executive Committee specifically affirms the important roles that women fill in the life of the Church. Their giftedness and commitment is a blessing to the whole Church and a necessary part of its work in mission.”

The measure passed on a secret, paper ballot after the day's discussion, which began with comments from Pastor Ted N. C. Wilson, Seventh-day Adventist world church president. Wilson expressed the hope that the world church's units would continue "focusing on the mission of the Church, uniting in Christ, even though we will face some differences and disagreements."

Wilson was followed by noted evangelist and retired General Conference vice president Pastor Mark Finley, who spoke about the question of how the early church made decisions and worked in unity. He referenced three incidents in the book of Acts.

"The essence of unity is not uniform action; it is respecting one another enough to listen carefully, respond thoughtfully and decide together," Finley said. "Insurmountable difficulties were resolved as early church leaders met together, prayed and surrendered their personal opinions to the decision of the larger corporate body."

During an extended comment period, Pastor Daniel Jackson, North American Division president, sought to reassure world church leaders that the division supported the Church's mission, despite the polity question discussed in the statement.

"We want to make it abundantly clear that the NAD without any hesitation expresses our unity with the world church," Jackson said. "We are not just an adjunct to the world church; we are brothers and sisters with every person in this room."

A pastor in the NAD’s Atlantic Union Conference, Dedrick Blue, told his fellow delegates that “the process deals with the mechanism, but the effect is just as important as the process. What we are grappling with here is the effect of our decision as a world body,” adding, “Don't get involved with process to neglect justice and mercy.”

While he voted in favor of the statement, Northwest Pacific Union Conference president Pastor Max Torkelson II said he hoped younger Adventists wouldn’t get the wrong message from the action. He spoke with a reporter following the meeting.

“I’m concerned that, particularly our younger church members have less patience” to wait for the world church to act, he said. “And we’re asking them, we have been asking them, for years, to be patient, and now again we’re asking them to be patient. I admire them to the degree that they are, but I’m wondering how long we can presume that they will be patient. I’m afraid that we may disappoint them.”

Following the vote and before prayers by Adventist university leaders from three continents, Wilson said he appreciated delegates’ careful approach to the matter.

“Thank you for your confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring unity to God's Church,” Wilson said. “We're not at the end of the road, we still have a journey to complete, but by God's grace, let's do it together.”

By Mark A. Kellner/Adventist Review, and Edwin Manuel Garcia/ANN

—Click HERE to read the full statement (PDF download)

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.

'One wife husband'

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

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

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

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

Grammatical Considerations

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

Lexical Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

A summary of the definitions are as follows:

Episkopos

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

Presbuteros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparative Considerations

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

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

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

Syntactical Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological/Contextual Considerations

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

References

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

PASTOR = BISHOP = ELDER? (Part I)

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

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

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

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

Presbuteros (“Elder”)

Linguistic

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

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

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

Grammatical

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

Definition(s)

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

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

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

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

Comparative

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

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

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

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

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

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

Episcopes (“Bishop”)

Linguistic

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

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

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

Grammatical

Episkopos is a masculine noun.

Lexical

The meaning of episkopos is summarized as follows:

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

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

Comparative

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

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

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

Poimen (“Pastor”)

Linguistic/Grammatical

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

Lexical

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

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

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

Comparative

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Read ELDER = PASTOR = BISHOP? (Part II)

Can liberal Christianity be saved?

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

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

By Josh Haner The New York Times

Collective neglect, individual indifference

That particular Sabbath was a gorgeous day with golden sunlight falling through the large window above the baptistery. The congregation was electrified with shared joy as the mother and her three teenaged children proclaimed their commitment for Christ through the waters of baptism. After the service, a long line formed to shake the hands of the new members. When I reached the mother, I gave her a big hug, a warm smile, and said: “Welcome to the family!” What a joyful Sabbath indeed! A few weeks later when up front with the praise team, I noticed that the new family was missing from the congregation. Perhaps someone was sick or maybe they were away visiting relatives. Whatever the reason for their absence, no doubt the pastor or the elder assigned to them would contact the family and make sure everything was all right.

But they did not return the next Sabbath or the next. A couple of months passed, and it dawned on me that I could no longer recall their names. A year went by, and the family whose baptism had been an occasion of great joy had been completely forgotten. I felt a little concerned—or was it a pang of guilt? —But it was the pastor and elders’ job to check on church members. My own life was challenging enough without having to worry about a family to whom I never spoke more than a single sentence. Who am I? My brothers and sisters’ keeper? That is not my job…

Or is it?

Friends, perhaps you can relate to this true story. Maybe you have witnessed new members—whether new converts or new transfers—in your own local church be neglected, marginalized, and forgotten. Then they slip away almost completely unnoticed. Maybe the one who was left, for whatever reason, was you and no one from your local church even reached out.

In the ten years since my own baptism, I have attended a handful of churches across the continental United States, and I feel the need to raise a warning regarding a dangerous mindset that is aiding in our complacent attitudes and neglect of our brothers and sisters in Christ. I am guilty of this abysmal indifference, and this message is a personal reprimand to myself. Are you also guilty?

This perilous mindset, this spiritual trap, is the mistaken belief that nurturing the believers at the local church level is solely the responsibility of the pastor and/or elders. When the Holy Spirit pricks our hearts with the question: “Beloved, where is your brother? Where is your sister? Where is the one that I entrusted to you and this local body of my children?” then we, like Cain, feel the guilt of our actions (or in many cases, our inaction) and defensively respond with: “I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9)

According to the Scriptures, we are our brother’s keeper. The teachings of Christ on how we are to relate to and treat one another are very clear: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). The disciple John explains the importance of loving and caring for our brothers and sisters in 1 John 4:7-8. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.”

So how do we demonstrate this love? The apostle Paul gives practical advice in Romans 15:2, “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification.” The word translated here as edification comes from the Greek word oikodome, which in this context means: “the act of one who promotes another's growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness.”

Beloved, it is not only the pastor and elders of a church who are responsible for encouraging the spiritual growth of the members, but each of us is likewise responsible. The Lord has placed us in a specific congregation at this exact time for a reason: not only to receive edification from others but to allow the Holy Spirit to work through us in the edification of those around us.

Growing in Christ is a life-long process; it does not end at baptism. The Lord has called you and me to promote the growth of our brothers and sisters in the church. That man or woman who was recently baptized in your church needs to be shown friendship and gentle guidance as they face an entirely new set of challenges now that they have pledged their allegiance to the Lord. The new family that recently moved to the area and is transferring their membership needs to be welcomed and included in church life—not a year or two down the road after suspicious church members feel that they have proven themselves--but today. The widow or widower needs companionship. The young mother-to-be needs encouragement as her military husband is stationed overseas and she, herself, is far away from loved ones.

It does not matter if you are not a pastor, elder, deacon, deaconess, or Sabbath schoolteacher. There are many ways that you can encourage the spiritual growth of others such as, inviting visitors and new members over to your home for a fellowship meal, sending a card or call a church member when you did not see them on Sabbath, sharing devotionals or inspiring Scripture verses through email or Facebook, and starting a small group Bible study. What are some of the ways that the Holy Spirit works through you to edify your fellow church members?

As Adventists, we place great emphasis on the preaching of the Gospel and the three angels’ messages, and rightly so. We often succeed in drawing the seeking children of God into the church by providing answers to their questions with sound Biblical doctrine; my family and I are living testimonies. However, once the people have committed or recommitted their lives to Christ and become one of us, our collective neglect and individual indifference results in too many not receiving the spiritual attention they need, and so they slip away, often unnoticed.

I challenge myself and everyone who reads this article to do more to encourage the growth of our brothers and sisters in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, and holiness. If we did so now instead of falling into Satan’s trap of “it is not my job” and waiting for someone else to do what the Lord has called each of us to do, what a wonderful, happy, and healing place our local churches would be.

All Scripture is from the New King James Version.