A very helpful Adventist perspective on the topic is Andrews University Press's 1998 volume, Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives.

Read Richard Davidson's chapter, "Headship, Submission and Equality in Scripture" for free: http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Women%20in%20Ministry/head...

The sermon reveals a problem with the notion of "the plain reading of Scripture." Specifically, nobody applies the principle evenly (except this guy).

When Paul says that men are the heads of households and that women must be submissive, the sermon takes this at face value--the plain words of Scripture. However, when Paul says that women are not permitted to teach men or to speak in church, the sermon rejects these plain words of Scripture, embracing the idea that women can indeed teach and preach. The hermeneutic reason for this inconsistency is not evident in the sermon.

One would also assume that the pastor rejects other clear teachings of Scripture pertaining to stoning adulterers to death or killing disobedient children, mixing fabrics, trimming the edges of one's beard...

The point is that everybody chooses which passages to take at "face value" and which passages to "interpret."

I have found it so hilarious that a church that basically started with a woman at its core has oppressed women so resolutely. For the 26 years I have been in the SDA church I have been one of those women...oh the stories I can tell you. But my voice will not be silenced because I listen to God & obey Him not man as I follow his commandments.

Thanks Jared, for summarizing this sermon which has been talked about a great deal, with a sense of surprise that Batchelor preached it, because women are pastoring around the world.
I hope the policy of the church can soon reflect this reality of congregational life. Women are very effective pastors. There is no reason not to honor their work with ordination. And since many of the administrative leadership positions in the church are keyed to ordination, that will have an effect not only on the local church, but the entire organization.

"I have found it so hilarious that a church that basically started with a woman at its core has oppressed women so resolutely. For the 26 years I have been in the SDA church I have been one of those women...oh the stories I can tell you. But my voice will not be silenced because I listen to God & obey Him not man as I follow his commandments."

Posted by: Renee Hernandez

This is typical of a woman affirming herself like a man. And it is also interesting to see that EGW did the same thing at times. But EGW accept the calling and ministry that was not originally designed for her. God called two men first.

She is an enigma in this sense, and shows that God is sovereign in His activity and is not limited to rules He sets down for the created order.

None the less, we must still acknowledge that EGW was the exception to the rule as were other women prophets in scripture.

So we must ask this question, Are the women who seek this authority to govern and rule the church willing to admit it is the exception to the rule?

What do you think?

Bill Sorensen

Thanks for the comic relief. Steven Colbert couldn't have done it better. This is the kind of stuff that is so laughable that arguing against it makes you look ludicrous. And anybody seeking to contest Bachelor's thesis that men are 5 percent more intelligent than women need only listen to this "sermon."

Aage

Good for you. Now I know he crawled out of a cave. Tom

The parody of this on the Comedy Hour would be hilarious! Saying that women are better communicators (of course this would be no reason for them to be pastors, as that is not a necessary requirement); and that men's IQ is highter indicates that Bachelor is not informed well on this information which has been publicized many times.

With this poorly presented argument he only shows his lack of being and informed and educated pastor. Fortunately, my family in Sacramento do not (nor would they) attend his church. What a disgrace to be such a ballyhooed SDA TV personality. But then, the segment of the population that is enthralled by TV evangelists are likely to agree with these sentiments.

Even his textual exegesis is sad: To say that there are more NT reasons for limiting women than sabbath is his eisegesis. Has anyone clarified his educational qualifications after exiting from that cave? Is he a self-taught Bible "scholar"?

He is right on one thing: Too much plain reading of the Bible may be harmful to you or to your children. Warning signs should be attached.

In a time when we are trying to spread the true gospel to all the world, in these last days when we truly believe Jesus is coming soon, why would anyone discriminate against or hold back anyone who is willing to spread the word in any way.

Doug says this is something he feels passionate about. Is this something Jesus felt passionate about? I remember the story of those who were casting out demons in Jesus' name and when His disciples wanted to chastise them,Jesus said to leave them alone.Perhaps given our short time left on earth, we should prioritize our pet passions and make sure they are in line with what Jesus actually taught and focused on.

Discussions of the meaningfulness of IQ aside, Bachelor's claim about men outperforming women on IQ tests is odd. His "fact" presumably comes from the work of Richard Lynn, the one researcher finding a difference in a long line who found no meaningful difference in IQ between the sexes. Unsurprisingly, Lynn's results are contested.

We CAN measure meaningful differences in psychology between the sexes. Why choose this one which is contested and is likely to be experienced as inflammatory? And more importantly, so what?

Like Bachelor, psychology is miles from my area of expertise. But the relevant Wikipedia articles are well-cited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences

If women's IQ is lower why are there more women college graduates than men today? Is it because they have more perseverance?

Doug should crawl back in his cave. His thinking certainly reflects the traditional caveman.

When I read stuff like this, what I hear them to be saying is, "We are bigots because the Bible requires bigotry of us."

Doug Batchelor could have written this sermon about black people, Muslims, Jews, or Hispanics. He chose to write it about women. That this is even possible for a guy like Batchelor to do in this church speaks to the extent of our moral retardation.

No matter how absurd Batchelor's arguments appear to the modern mind, one must admit it has a strong basis in the supposed "word of God." The heart of Adventism is a literal view of scripture. It is one of the (many) reasons the SDA church appears hopelessly irrelevant.

Members who attend college and university churches engage in the conceit that they represent the church. (If they did I might still be a member, despite my agnosticism/atheism. It was my lifelong home and I am still an "atheist Adventist" culturally.) The institutional church lionizes Doug Batchelor and his ilk and ignores academic Adventism as a necessary embarrassment. The church's face presented to the public in its evangelism is virtually identical to the church of the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's. The dozens of evangelistic meetings I attended in the 60's liked to identify our time in Daniel as the time that "knowledge increases." But, the church wants nothing to do with any increase in knowledge. The "knowledge" of the ancient world is good enough for "us," thank you very much.

This takes "March Madness" to a new level!!!

exandglad:

One of the purposes of this article is to demonstrate that the arguments being made in this conversation are less about the "Word of God," ironically, and more about using a few biblical texts to buttress a trenchant ideology.

I would also suggest that while there are plenty of Adventists who have no problems with this presentation, there is also a huge number, perhaps even a majority, for whom this type of rhetoric is no longer acceptable, and who do not find that it correlates with their understanding of God and Scripture.

If you were wondering why young people are leaving the church in hoards, re-visit Doug's sermon and you'll know. Now... where are my running shoes? I need to get the heck out of this church!

Premise four – The result of the curse is that the man would rule (reign, govern, have dominion and power) over the woman.

It is interesting that whether you taking this as a description of human history or a command from God will affect your whole view point.

Premise Sixteen - So we believe that the ancients had a good concept of the moon being a body that reflected the sun light.

Premise Seventeen - Doug's Trinity belief has a hierarchy.

Premise Twenty – The Church is an extension of the family. You can’t have one order in the family where the man is the priest leader, and a different order in the church where the woman is the priest leader (31:30-31:50).

No technically in the metaphor all of us in the assembly are feminine, the bride.

"I would also suggest that while there are plenty of Adventists who have no problems with this presentation, there is also a huge number, perhaps even a majority, for whom this type of rhetoric is no longer acceptable, and who do not find that it correlates with their understanding of God and Scripture."

Posted by: Jared Wright

I think Jared is correct. And the modern spirituality of Adventism is not reflected in bible Sabbath keeping as taught by the SDA church historically. And thus, most if not at least many will abandon the church when the issue gets "hot".

As long as "Sabbath keeping" presents no substancial "cross to bear" they will play along. The fact is, Sabbath keeping and the non-ordination of women are in the same boat.

You accept both, or neither. Since the liberals generally control the spirituality of Adventism today, it is doubtful the Doug will ever become very popular with the statis quo.

The liberal agenda is to suck everyone in by persuasion at first and in the end, finally do "what ever is necessary" to accomplish their goal at last.

What Glenn Beck stated was the "power of persuasion, that eventually culminates in the persuasion of power."

How is it people fail to see the perfect parallel in American politics reflected in the SDA church today?

Bill Sorensen

Premise 12 is the most hilarious of them all, quite apart from the fact that it oversimplifies and broadly generalizes some complicated research about differences between the sexes. What evidence does he pull out of this research to support his conclusions? Women communicate more effectively; women excel at language; women "tend and befriend" in times of stress. These are arguments [i]against[/i] women in pastoral ministry? God chose men to receive the gift of pastoral ministry because ... they are better at combat and can rotate objects in their brains?

As for the "plain reading of scripture" ... you know, I actually have some respect for the ultra-conservatives (in our own denomination and others) who take the texts about women keeping silence literally and do not allow women to teach or speak at all. I disagree with them strongly, but I respect them because they're consistent in interpreting Scripture as they read it. But anyone who can make texts like 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Cor. 11 a key part of their argument that women should not be ordained pastors, yet also claim that "Women can preach, teach, chair board meetings, give Bible studies, do evangelism and be prophets," is displaying a stunning level of hypocrisy in using the Bible to support his own prejudices.

That the author of this same tortured exegesis can then accuse others of "go[ing] through phenomenal mind-bending gymnastics to escape the plain truth" really would be hilarious ... if it weren't so sad.

Batchelor's position on women ordination is going to be a real turn-off to many. And, I can't even begin to tell you what Christians from other churches are going to think.

I can't help but wonder if many are going to now think that if you can make the Bible say such things, then what else of a prejudicial nature can you make it say? I don't understand why Doug Batchelor doesn't take into account the culture of the time. Was all of scripture meant to be cast in concrete for all time? If the Apostle Paul were alive today would he say the same things about women, slaves, and homosexuals? I think not. My God is not that small, and he is definitely not limited to what one person has to say on any given subject--be that a Bible writer or otherwise!

Many years ago when Doug Hackleman (a former Psychology teacher of mine at La Sierra University) was editor of Adventist Currents magazine, he shared with me something quite revealing. During his time as editor, he received over 40 manuscripts spelling out what will happen in the end-times, all based on the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation. EVERY SINGLE ONE was different! NO TWO were alike! Is it really true that you can make the Bible say what you want it to say since there is just so much material in scripture from which to draw conclusions? How do we know when we are taking things out of context and applying them incorrectly? Not an easy question to answer, is it?

It is my hope and prayer that the Adventist community of believers will rise up and reject what Doug Batchelor has said about the ordination of women in the church today. If the church accepts such reasoning many more members will just quit coming back. Who knows where they will go, if any where. For some, this could be "the straw that broke the camel's back." To be very honest, in Doug's ideal church women are second-class human beings. I hate to put it in such stark terms, but that is the gist of what Doug is saying.

What does all of this say about the Adventist Church. It may just very well place us squarely in the camp of other fundamentalist evangelical and extremely conservative protestant churches. Up to now, the Adventist church has not officially gone down that road. Will this be the year? The Seventh-day Adventist General Conference five-year session in July is just around the corner. I think we can expect some real fireworks this time! Stay tuned! We haven't heard the last on this or many other issues in the church.

The really big issue is the nature of biblical inspiration. Our church still has not yet come to grips in a meaningful and long-lasting way with this hot potato. The different camps have been just too entrenched! Whether we like it or not, many conservatives in the church believe in "verbal inspiration" or "biblical inerrancy." The OFFICIAL church has rejected this up to now, but there are many who hold to these views, even prominent evangelists and TV personalities in the church! If the conservative element within the church takes control at the next GC session in Atlanta, then we just may see a decided turn in this direction.

John Anderson
Yucaipa, California

Thanks for the link to Pastor Batchelor's very helpful and convincing sermon. And the comment that "Now I know he crawled out of a cave" clearly demonstrates where intellectualism is very much lacking. To disagree with Batchelor's hermeneutics is one thing but isn't the denigration of Batchelor unChristian?

It is noted that references have been made to pro books and while I may have missed it I saw none to the very conclusive book Prove All Things with, can you believe it, a woman editor, Mercedes Dyer, Ph. D. I surmise it is much more Biblically based than the one mentioned. Why has the feminist movement apparently caused women to generally eschew the task of Bible worker and covet the Pastor's calling?

EGW said herself, at a time I understand when a feminist movement was quite active,

“Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. {AH 115.2}”

Batchelor's appeal has always been his use of folksy logic - his ability to "reason" with the "plain" Scriptures using the persuasive techniques of an infomercial pitch man. He is unusually gifted in this area.

Unfortunately, such an approach overlooks careful exegesis, which must account for the context of the author and the author's expression of ideas. Only a verbal inspirationist could love Batchelor's arguments. The view of plenary inspiration, as put forward by Ellen White and others, demands a much more careful and nuanced interpretation of the Scriptures. I wish Batchelor could see this. Unfortunately, he plunges deeper and deeper into the dark cave of his own "logic," quickly creating the hermeneutical inconsistencies that Jared and others have pointed out already.

My general sense is that this presentation will appeal to a minority of Adventists and that his sermon will be used by some in an attempt to revive a debate that essentially ended a decade ago, but with little effect.

Batchelor seems to be arguing against the second-wave feminism of his youth, which demanded equal rights for women in a man's world. My sense from young women in ministry today is not that they want to take on a man's role, but that they want to bring their unique gifts - as women - to the ministry. They are not at all the "angry lesbians who want to be men" that he so demeaningly depicts. They are called women of God who want to use their God-given gifts as individuals and as women to serve the body of Christ.

Bachelor assumes that ordained ministry as a "role" (I would argue that ordination to ministry is more a "recognition" than an assignment to a fixed "role") is a male construct that has no place for the differences of women. He seems to fear that if we ordain women we flatten out these differences. Apparently, in his mind, difference must always lead to deference. But what if calling, ministry and ordination are not meant to be male constructs across time and cultures? What if there is a more inclusive view of ordained ministry that could embrace, and in fact capitalize on, the differences of men and women? What if ordination was simply the church's recognition that God has offered the church a complementarity of gender-inflected roles within the context of a called pastorate? How does this upset the divine order?

"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Simple test. Take a paper and pen and make two columns. One column for all of the comments that are written in a sarcastic tone, making attacks against the speaker or responder and the other for those who comment focusing on the issue at hand, treating all with respect.

Now count up the ones on the "sarcastic, demeaning" column and see how many of them are promoting the ordination of women.

Since vast portions of scripture often go ignored, sometimes we can see truth by the attitude of those who oppose it.

28 yawns. Nothing new here. I'd love to be surprised by Doug Batchelor. Maybe an equal length sermon on the causes of poverty with 28 solutions would do it. That'd be something worth my energy.

As a veteran of two Bill Gothard seminars and several years in a Gothard-dominated church, I have huge reservations about Adventism incorporating such "chain-of-command" theology on top of its other weighty doctrines.

Several years ago there were references to Bill Gothard on the General Conference site. I kicked up a fuss on atomorrow and they have since disappeared, for whatever reasons.

Folks, the people who are going to buy this are the people who already buy into following Ellen White's every word, as I did.

You don't have to believe me, but this is a recipe for insanity.

I would be very surprised if Batchelor isn't into Gothard, given that the GC was apparently leaning that way in years past.

I think Doug hit a rercord this time. 28 errors in one sermon. Not even Jerry Falwell came close. The problem is far too many in SDA leadership believe in Doug's end-point--women have no place in the ordained ministry. It will be interesting to hear/see what takes place in Atlanta on this issue. Tom

The most sad and discouraging part of all this is that Batchelor is a very successful TV evangelist, advertised widely in the Review and other SDA publications. It becomes quite impossible for the official church to get into this discussion when he has been so actively promoted. The church is in a no-win situation with Bachelor: if the condemn him, he can show his favorable results; if they support him, it will alienate many in the NAD.

Some one has said that probably the majority of Adventists disagree with his interpretaion of Scripture. That is likely limited to first world countries. Now that the largest membership is in third world countries, it will only confirm those sentiments. After all, which part of the world church is adamantly opposed to women's ordination?

Doug may be trying to keep the church from falling down another slippery slope....while already sliding down it.

if women were to become ordained...would that not be in opposition to Paul's admonition? and wouldn't that mean we were redefining Christianity the way WE wanted it, and not as Paul explained it should be?

of course, Pauls counsel to Corinth that one day of worship or another is no big deal is a concept where Doug already defines Pauls writings the way he wants, and not the way Paul suggests.

So Doug is ON the slippery slope already....and doesn't want
a woman behind him (pushing).

This whole mistreatment of women dates back to the ancients ignorance of a womans part in conception. Women to the ancients were merely ovens in which to incubate a mans "seed"...which were already preformed "little people", that just needed growing in the right medium.

If "seed" were "planted" in another man, or in a woman the wrong way, or in the case of Onans premature withdrawal, the "seed" would not grow up to become another solder for the tribe, hence it was a "waste" of seed, and deplored as an abomination to the Lord...

In addition, because the ancients did not understand that half the new child's genetics came from the woman, it was thought to be OK if a Hebrew guy took multiple wives, even slaves and captive foreign virgins in which to "plant" his seed...and all the children resulting were believed to be his....not the womans.

God is said to have commanded this "saving" of virgins apparently to enlarge the tribe, but obviously without any explanation of how that would dilute the Hebrews genetic uniqueness!!!

But even God Himself failed to understand conception....if we are to believe some of the ancient tales literally.

God is said to have blessed Jacob when he used the magic "striped stick" method of increasing the blems in his Uncle's flocks....so God helped Jacob overcome what we today understand as the laws of genetics, and the purpose? to help Jacob cheat his uncle, and get rich.

http://lavatoryreader.typepad.com/the-lavatory-reader/2009/10/public-uri...

Portion of this comment deleted for personal attack. We remind commenters to refrain from attacking individuals while making their points. Thanks. -Website Editors

The whole thrust of Batchelor's sermon is chain-of-command authority, it seems to me.

The ordination process is a mystical way of transferring this authority, it seems.

I liked what David Larson said here:

Posted by: davidrlarson | 30 January 2009 at 1:29

As evidenced by the story of the Centurian and his servant, unless it is very carefully clarified the notion of "authority" is foreign to genuine Christianity in the first place.

The Centurian said to Jesus that his servant would do whatever he commanded, just as he would do whatever his superiors ordered. In other words, neither the servant nor the centurian thought for himself, deferring always to the thinking of his superior in the "chain of command," even when this did not make overall sense.

As far as I can tell, God has no interest in having a "chain of command" relationship with us. Scripture could not be more clear about this than when it says that once we were "servants" but that now we can be "friends" of God.

A servant of the sort the centurian described has no mind of his or her own. A friend does. This is one of the big differences between true and false Christianity.

http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_school/2009/01/26/inspirati...

And yes this "culture" argument is without basis insofar as principle is concerned. If culture were the mean by which Bible doctrine should be compared, with culture being preeminent, then of course we should worship on Sunday.

Carried further, if we are in a Muslim culture women should walk, what is it five steps, behind the husband. If culture reigns then kids should be put to work at age 6 or 7 as in some areas of India.

It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, that the GC Agenda has been set and female ordination is not one of the matters to be discussed. Can the agenda be changed during the Session?

"Since vast portions of scripture often go ignored, sometimes we can see truth by the attitude of those who oppose it."

Very astute observation.

The sad part of this is that because the church doesn't want to ordain women, we can send no women to be prison chaplains as they must be ordained, nor can we provide women chaplains in the military.

Your Friend:

If anyone had as his sermon subtitle: Me Tarzan You Jane! Must have come out of a tree house or a cave.

I may have told this story before--but it tells the mind -set of the power elite. Years ago, LLU held a constituency meeting immediately following the Spring meeting of the LLU Board of Trustees. Elder Neal Wilson was presiding as each committee chair brought their rercommendations to the floor.
One recommendation was on the qualifications of the Chair of the Board of Trestees. In every reference to the chair the pronoun "he" was used. A lady, constituent rose and asked""Why limit it to the male gender?" Elder Wilson, said that is a good point, I don't see why we can't make some adjustment. At which Elder Pearson stood and took the Mike from Elder Wilson. Elder Pearson said: "You can use any pronoun you wish, but the Chair will always be a male. Because the Chair must be a Vice President of the General Conference and only ordained ministers can be elected Vice President and we don't ordain women to the ministry!!!!!

I seriously doubt the comment about males having an IQ 5 points higher than felmales. I can think of dozens of women who could awake out of a sound sleep and give a better sermon that Doug. Tom

How little change has occurred in 30 years. Tom

Two proverbs seem particularly relevant.

Proverbs 16:2
We can always “prove” that we are right, but is the Lord convinced?

Proverbs 11:29
The fool who provokes his family to anger and resentment will finally have nothing worthwhile left. He shall be the servant of a wiser man.

Misogny with a clerical collar is still misogyny.

Premise 9: Interesting that from 1585 to the 1930s, the common usage of the word 'seminary' was describing any school, but particularly academies for young ladies!

Culture should never be preeminent. But neither is it nonexistent when it comes to the Biblical record.

All cultures are ambiguous - that is, a mixture of good and evil. Even our own. Thus, cultures should be judged Scripture which, as God's Word, transcends culture.

Yet, Scripture - as it has come to us through the mouths and pens of human beings - must necessarily be interpreted in light of the cultural realities in which it was produced.

We all recognize this to some degree. We understand that that certain cultural customs reflected in the Biblical record have since changed, and that these should no longer be insisted upon today.

The question seems to be "which ones?" We live in a time when postmodern philosophy has turned virtually everything into a "social construct," and therefore I understand the hesistancy of some to give any ground to the cultural argument. And on a subject as core to our beings as gender it can be difficult to accept that culture plays a role. Yet it does, as previous comments on women in other parts of the world acknowledge.

Turning to the Bible to establish some "cultureless" role-definition of men and women will not clear the waters, in my view. Establishing a biblical ethic of the value of all persons as made in God's image, of mutual respect and love for one another, of valuing each person's uniqueness, giftedness and calling - these things can properly address the cultural treatments as well as abuses of women around the world far more quickly than imposing our own set of retrictions.

It's far too easy to point out the speck in someone else's cultural eye (though I would not minimize the oppression of women and children mentioned earlier) while ignoring the board in our own cultural practices. Is it not?

Simply put, I do not believe you can take culture out of this discussion. You can argue its place, but not its legitimate presence.

The ad hominem attacks on Pastor Batchelor is deplorable.

Seems pretty obvious why the Catholic church took the bible away from the people. It was the only way to stop the "bickering" and control the people completely.

In the end, those who "really believe the bible" will band together and support God's word.

Also interesting, or maybe not, the majority on this forum either attack the bible or EGW and certainly attack historic Adventism on a regular basis.

Why would anyone expect, given the situation, that very many would agree with Doug?

It only proves this forum is hyper liberal forum with a small percentage still holding on to the traditional biblical values.

I hope Doug "presses the battle to the gate" and at least some pastors and conservative bible believers will stand up and be counted.

Everybody knows where I stand. Many who would agree with Doug will not stand up. "Wouldn't be prudent at this time." Bush

Bill Sorensen

Ellen White was asked by the church to be ordained and she refused for biblical reasons.

We either live by the Word or we don't.

It's sad to see all of the attacks on Batchelor on here because he is holding to what the Bible says. Arguments for the ordination of women have exactly the same amount of support in the Bible as does Sunday observance, and the methods for proving both are similar.

Your Friend

If you are old enough you may remember Harry Truman's whistle stop campaign for re-election. Someone in the crowd would yell: "Give em hell Harry!" President Truman would respond. "I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think its hell!" Pastor Batchelor denegrated more than half of the human race and you defend him? I didn't attack the man--I just classified his public utterances. Neanderthal would be a complement.

The tragic truth is the number of egocentric males that agree with him. I'll give you just one outstanding example of women scholars/teachers/evangelists. Dr. Beatrice Neall, retired from the mission field and from Union College. There is not more that 6% of the male pastors that can equal her IQ, her orthodoxy, or her command of the homily. She is well published in the Review and Ministry. She and her husband Ralph are enjoying a well earned retirement near Collegedale.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has produced some outstanding pastors sadly Doug ain't one of them. That is not an ad hominem attack that is the truth.
Tom

Tom

"This is the kind of stuff that is so laughable that arguing against it makes you look ludicrous."

I'm with Agee.

There was a time in my life when I would have gotten angry about something like this. I'm so far past trying to argue my basic intelligence and worth to certain men who beg to differ that it only produces a yawn now. This feminist is just not going to get "angry" at such silliness.

Besides, since becoming a feminist it's taking all my time to get in touch with my deeply buried lesbianism and man-hatred that must be there - since I'm a happily married hetero it's been hard to find;) Maybe listening to a few more sermons like that will help.

This is more accurately entitled, "Women Pastors: A Superficial Litany of Non-Sequiturs."

Jared, I believe this is entrenched ideology. Sadly, the displayed reasoning is galaxies removed from trenchant.

Guess what Doug Batchelor and anyone else listening: I have been ordained a minister of the Gospel by the Highest Authority in the Universe, and you don't get to have any say in that. The One who called me chose me, delivered me, filled me with His Spirit, and gave me His commission directly. I am authorized by Him and Him alone -- the ONE HEAD with Whom ALL have to do -- to baptize in His name, to lay hands on new believers and pray for them to be filled by His Spirit, or upon the sick and anoint them for healing, to proclaim His glad tidings, to prophesy as His Spirit gives me utterance, to teach what He has taught me from His word to WHOMEVER He sends my way regardless of their age or anatomical configuration, to do whatsoever I see my Master doing even as He did whatsoever He saw the Father doing, to be in this world not just as He was but as He is NOW, and to spend and be spent for His sake, up to and including knowing Him, and the power of His resurrection, and entering into the fellowship of His sufferings.

When He called me, chose me, filled me and commissioned me, He did not ask me to do a genitalia check first to see if I was qualified to serve Him. And because He did not so require of me, neither will I permit ANY mere mortal human to lay upon me any burden past what my own Lord and Master Yeshua, Jesus Christ, has required of me. I don't care who you claim to be, what you claim to believe, or how clever your capacity to twist scripture to suit your prefabricated position. His word declares me utterly equal in unity with Him as any male person (Galatians 3:28) and equivalent in the sense that both male and female in Him are "Abraham's SEED". This makes me, in Christ, "a man and a brother" regardless of my anatomical form. I am qualified by Him and Him alone. I am adequate in Him and in Him alone, and I receive my orders directly from Him and from Him alone -- and no human being on the face of the earth, past, present or future, of whatever gender, race, creed, nation or culture may say anything about it or against it, ever, period. I know in Whom I have believed and am fully persuaded of all He has done for me and taught me, and I need no recognition from mortals to do the job to which He has appointed me.

And if you don't like it? Take it up with my MASTER -- the conquering King on the white horse Whose eyes are like fire, Whose tongue is like a sword, Whose robes are dipped in blood and whose Name is writ upon His sweet thighs as THE WORD OF GOD. If anyone reading this would be fool enough to try to take Him on, to contradict what HE has decreed, find fault with whom HE has ordained, or call common that which HE has cleansed, that's your funeral. I won't be attending.

I agree with "Yourfriend" The quote from Adventist Home is relevant to this discussion. Men AND women are increasingly confused about their roles in the family and society at large. Homosexuality and lesbianism is only one of the indicators of this problem. We are built differently and each sex has their individual role to play yet we are to work together for the common end of glorifying God. True that we are adaptive and often find men performing the role designed for women and vise-versa but that does not mean God meant it to be.

Jesus gave us the Perfect example of submission showing us what the order of heaven looks like. Satan on the other hand has shown us what it looks like when we believe that we are being deprived of our rights by submitting to Gods order. We try to tear the other guy down instead of being joyuful in service. I am sad that we are so ready to attack our leaders,Pastor Batchelor included. Remember David and Saul? It is one thing to disagree and another to disparage.

Pastor Batchelor has the courage to say what many are thinking. He seems willing to take the heat while sharing the light.

As Dr. Samuel Pipim says, "Must We Be Silent?" I refer you to some of his studies on this topic. http://www.drpipim.org/womens-ordination-contemporaryissues-46.html
Dr. Pipim also does a sermon on this topic called, "Where Are The Men?" http://www.hopevideo.com/media_with_samuel_koranteng-pipim-2.htm
Look near the bottom of the page. This sermon is available for free download somewhere but I could not find it at this time.

Keep Faith, Have Hope, Always Love,

-KellymanSDA

I'm most bothered by premise 21, I even watched the video to make sure Batchelor really said that. God has never and will never wink at sin, Batchelor's theory is hearsay.

If discrimination against women is allowed because it happens in the Bible then so is slavery and polygamy. Of course that is ridiculous so Batchelor's invents this preposterous theory to segregate the issues.

Stan:

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" -- Acts 17:30

There were probably lots of non-Levites who could have argued why it was unfair to allow only Levites to be priests. I think God is looking for people who are more trusting in His wisdom than to question His clear instructions.

If God says it, they simply do it. This is what the 144,000 will be comprised of. Not second-guessing Him. It is a lack of trust in God's will and wisdom that is destroying the Christian church -- the same thing that has been at the seat of rebellion since Lucifer wanted a position he was not to have. History constantly repeats itself.

I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.

I went to church to hear the gospel and listened to Amazing Facts about The Women Haters Church.

Well now that's a curiously devious little ad hominem dance you got going there Martin. If them "uppity wimmen" won't keep their place beneath your bootheel, let's just assume they all take orders from "Lucifer" instead. Hmmm, seems to me a certain religio-political power during the first dark ages and the medieval times tried that same tactic ... the beast (#2) apple doesn't fall too far from the beast (#1) tree, does it.

When we trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not unto our own understanding, exactly which understanding are we throwing away in favor of which Lord we are trusting in?

As for myself, I want to be found trusting in the Lord of Love full of grace and truth, with Whom I can have a genuine and intimate relationship based entirely upon what He has done for me in His great mercy and how He has had compassion on me, while throwing away the toxic legalistic false portrait of a "lord" concerned only with proliferating senseless rules and regulations administering a behavior modification program at arms' length, and not the other way around. I know where the latter leads -- I followed Him once just to make sure. It's a very very dark place I have no desire to ever return to again.

sorry, apologies -- that last "him" in my post above (next to last sentence of my post) should NOT be capitalized (it matches to the "lord" in quotes which precedes it).

Kelleyman, your post ends with the words "always love". Though you may believe your words are an expression of love, they are not. For hundreds of thousands of transgendered and intersexed people there is no clear binary between male an female. For us, your insistance only two social roles are a dismissal of us, who we are at the deepest level.

There is nothing to indicate that men and women are confused about their roles. Instead, people have looked at the traditional roles practiced in the past and found them to be unfair and in conflict with the principles of justice, truth, and freedom that we hold dear. We have chosen to cast off the burden of these roles and to live more egalitarian lives, splitting tasks at home and at work by the individuals training and strengths rather than by their traditional role, one that carries a heavy burden on women.

Anybody know if Doug gets payed by the church for saying stuff like this? And, what "semen-ary" did he graduate from?

Excellent sermon.

Points well made and validated by the word.

Thank you, pastor Batchelor.

Some can dismiss Doug as just a mouth but not much influence. Some of us out in the back waters don't have that kind of faith. He is watched faithfully and revered. This will only add fuel for those who will not hear of women in leadership. The choice will be to either stand up and leave or pretend we don't hear or see the prejudice around us.

I am a woman, i am a SDA, i am married. I totally agree with Pastor Doug and this sermon that he had put together, co-working with God. I agree with all the Bible and SOP. I am thankful that i am not mistaken nor confused. Men have their very specific role in the church, as do the women in the church. Ordained pastors is a roll that only men can fit. Not women. Thank you Pastor Doug for this study. Please continue to address the current issues in our churches that are out of line with the Bible and are becoming more and more apostate. Thank you God Bless.

ali thoms

I'm going to go ahead and be very vulnerable here and expose my own sinfulness - please pray for me.

When I read this article my first thought was a vision of Doug on his deathbed with many of the other elders who propagate hate theology. I imagined that as they were taking their last gasping breath of air I was able to whisper in each of their ears, "once you are all gone, our church is going to undo everything you've worked so hard to accomplish. You've failed. May God have mercy on your soul." The last thing they saw as they closed their eyes was the door opening and thousands of young woman and men from the age group of 18 - 38 all walked in and a voice was heard, "these are the ones who you chased out with your fundamentalism - these are the ones who will now take your place."

I feel guilty just expressing this - and may God clean me from the inside out. I'm a hypocrite and I need healing just as much as Doug. Reading this article simply sickens me. I could repeat everything Jarad said but there is no point. I don't care how one decides to interpret the scriptures - but if they come out the other side with a conclusion that oppresses others, then they are contrary to the word of God. Period.

I'm sorry to have exposed the truth about Marco. I hope you all can forgive me.

Sadly,

Marco Belmonte
HeavenlySanctuary.com

Not long before she died, my beloved and highly respected mother, who devoted the whole of her life to our denomination, carefully explained something to me that others must have also noticed.

This is that at this time in our denomination the only thing that ordination means is that a fully qualified minister has a penis.

Because men and women ministers in our denomination are now permitted to do virtually the same thing, we would not know which of them have penises and which of them don't if we didn't ordain those in the first group but not ordain those in the second.

The conceptual point she made was both serious and important. It is that at this time the SDA church is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it wants women to be free to minister in any way God leads them. On the other, it does not want to ordain them.

Over time, our denomination will find some way to resolve this fundamental incoherence. In order to do this, it will either ordain qualified women or restrict the things women ministers can do.

Although I don't know when, I am confident that our denomination will end this incoherence by ordaining fully qualified women. There is virtually no taste in circles of leadership for returning women to more restrictive roles.

I think this is what worries Pastor Batchelor and people with his views and that this is why, consciously or not, he is making such an issue of it at this time, just a few months before the next General Conference session.

I agree with Doug Batchelor.

An orderly God gave an orderly system in the Bible. There is scant evidence in the Bible for women pastors. That does not mean that one is superior to the other -- just different functions. This rose does not want to be a tulip or lilly -- just content to fill the position in the best manner possible that God gave women.

It is the world and our sinful natures that are corrupting God's original plan. I don't care to participate in the corruption with a "vote" for women pastors -- I would "vote" no at the General Conference.

And, I believe that God defined marriage in the Bible -- another God given order that our sinful natures are corrupting. On accepting gay marriage or gay pastors, I would also "vote" no at the General Conference.

Jody ;)

I looked up Romans 16:4 - the commentary stated the following: Junia or Junias - this may mean the name of either a man or a woman... to come to a determination with respect to gender would be conjecture... why did the article state it as fact? Discussion of women ordination triggers thoughts about disappearing male spiritual leaders for me... I recently attended an Anglican service- which was performed by women - exclusively - oh - except for the "steward" (he deals with the finanacial affairs of the church) - who offered a prayer - and they had an altar boy - - but otherwise - all women - it was such a strange experience... this ornate - half empty church - where were the men? the diocese of the area was a man (and a lawyer) - he was married to the minister (they were lovely - hosted us for lunch in the church basement). However, I couldn't help thinking that there is no loss of male leaders in the secular world - where the money is - where the power is - and that male leadership would return to the church when it gains back cultural significance (and civil significance)... when there is prestige associated with officiating (not suggesting these are good reasons)... But I digress - think about it - we have examples of churches that have ordained women - case studies if you will - and I visit alot of them - United Church included. Where the minister is a woman these churches are almost always half empty or less - generally only women officiate - these churches are sad that they are half empty and running out of money - they know that there is a gender issue in leaderhip but aren't addressing it - like the emperor with no clothes... if you want to argue that this gender imbalance and lack of interest in church attendance is due to many factors I would not disagree but could it be that the ordination of women is at least a contributing factor? if not - how would you rule it out? and if so - what are the implications with respect to this discussion? This is just a personal observation.

I really appreciate the time folks above have spent expressing themselves. Some really great posts! Thank you all.

Tom Z. and David L. and Steve have all posted thoughtful comments and ideas, along with others. Thank you! (Tom Z., I think I was at LLU when that particular meeting took place! Probably when I was a student.)

Just a reminder regarding "the plain word of scripture." The Bible clearly reveals that at times God's prophets and God's apostles were clearly in error. The Apostle Paul had to confront Peter to his face regarding the issue of circumcision for gentiles. And, God's prophet in I Kings 13 made an error in judgement that wound up costing him his very life!

When a prophet or apostle or some Bible writer is clearly in the wrong, I have no problem disagreeing. If Sister White were still alive today, I would have no problem respectfully disagreeing with her TO HER FACE regarding some of the things she wrote. I believe she would be the first person to admit that she is a weak and fragile human being subject to error and would respectfully decide to take another look at the issue in question, and, hopefully, would wisely change her position on the matter.

Unfortunately, a lot of us have turned Bible writers and God's prophets into gods who are perfect without question! Nothing could be further from the truth. Ellen White herself said that only God and Heaven are perfect. All things connected with the human family are subject to imperfection and error. Why do we have more than 40 people involved in the writing and production of scripture? Why didn't God just dictate His messages to an Angel-scribe using the language of Heaven? Why involve weak and fragile and imperfect human beings in the salvation of their fellow men and women? Why not just spell everything out in minute and infinitely precise detail! If God had done this would any mortal ever have understood His "words"? Would the Angels even have understood at that time?

John Anderson
Yucaipa, California

Carlitas,

Forgive me before I speak. I hope I do not sound condescending or too naive. I have no idea what a challenge it must be to be transgendered in this world. I do know that our heavenly Father did not create us to be like that and He does understand the difficulty. It must be very difficult to figure out how to "fit in". I too have been born out of harmony with the original design God intended. My challenge is the gene of alcoholism. Each one of us is faced with our own unique challenge.

Since the fall in Eden, nothing is like God intended. I believe in the original design of Adam and Eve at creation. Until then all of creation groans under the wieght of sin. I look forward to the redemption of creation when all will be made right.

I am thankful that Jesus loves us all just the way we are and is working to restore His love in our hearts and minds. That is what salvation is essentially about.....to apply the "salve"....to heal our characters.

I have found a helpful website in understanding how God is working to accomplish this. Here is a link to an article on sexuality. http://tinyurl.com/y9zcwbo

Here is an audio message that presents what I believe is Gods method of healing us. God Made Man Upright - What Happened? http://tinyurl.com/dhv3aq

Keep Faith, Have Hope, Always Love,

KellymanSDA

Premise Five – All of history has been altered in the last 50-60 years. Up until the feminist movement, the church understood for 1,900 years that the final authority was to rest solely with husbands and men pastors

I think slavery is a biblical concept. Bring it back I say!

"Why didn't God just dictate His messages to an Angel-scribe using the language of Heaven?"

Even if God had chosen that means there is no doubt in my mind that the self-described intellectuals and fringe groups would have been engaged in all sorts of legerdemain to revise, reinterpret, distort and amend Scripture to suit their proclivities.

Incidentally, to use Pastor Batchelor's division of the human race into male and female to demean his message because of other alleged permutations within the human race is not worthy of a further comment other than to say it is transparently untenable.

If orthodoxy is to be trusted, God was unable to provide the vast majority of world cultures with a road map to salvation. In fact, the only divine idea he was able to spread worldwide seems to have been the message that women are inferior. Until recently that was one of the few ideas that all world religions agreed on. (Slavery, racism and homosexuality being the others.)

Of course, if you're a person of ill will, such as myself, you could equally well argue that Judaism and Christianity succumbed to the pagan idea that anybody who is physically weaker than a man, is inferior to him. (If you can beat up your wife, why should you let her decide?)

On this issue, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the pagan hordes past and present.

Perhaps the plain truth of the word as Paul writes in New International Version was overlooked by Doug. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Bill S.

Do you feel the same "burning in the bosom" as does Glenn Beck?

Jay

Jay,

Batchelor did comment on that text in fact. For him, it must be understood in light of Paul's other writings that say that the head of woman is man, etc.

That is true, just as the parable of the workers in the vineyard were all paid the same. Some things are irreducible. One cant be just a little bit saved.

>>> Premise One – Everyone in this room falls into two categories: You are a boy or a girl—a man or a woman. It has been that way since the beginning.

How can anyone take seriously a person who starts with a false premise?

He starts by showing how ignorant he is, and then proceeds to use his knowledge...

/Bevin

I also find it interesting that Batchelor talks about the hierarchy of men and women as BOTH God's original design and part of the curse. He can not have it both ways. If he wants to have it as part of God's original design - which is he free to do but which also has serious logical and Biblical problems - he must also affirm that NO woman can be in ANY position of authority of a man in the church. Therefore no principal can be a woman because she is in a position of authority over male teachers. They cannot chair a boardmeeting or teach because that is a position of authority over those whom they are instructing. What he does state is a weak, tepid, middle-way position that does not make any sense logically or Biblically. How can women be in authority over man in any way and not violate that original design? Next time a woman cop pulls him over he must defy her authority or he is defying God's design. If the hierarchy is part of the curse then we should welcome any return to the God's original design through His Church. If it is a sin to seek solace from the curse then any woman who has taken drugs to deal with the pain of childbirth has defied God's will and therefore sinned. The comments on ordination are interesting as well. In the NT ordination was not a conferment of power but a recognition of the power of the Holy Spirit that was ALREADY there. God gave the church the authority to recognize that power and not to confer it. That idea is very Catholic and one would think that the very ones who are defending it would be the first to throw it out in their fervor to purify the church of all things Catholic. The teaching of ordination of only men can be clearly traced back to Cyprian's teaching that only men can be priests since Jesus was a man. He had to clarify that idea because up until his time it was not clear in the church.

It should not go unnoticed that the majority of Christians attending church in all the countries where it predominates, are WOMEN! Women have kept the church alive by their attendance and worship throughout the centuries. Yet for all that time, men have been sole custodians of its worship, orthodoxy and doctrines. Is it any wonder that it is a "male-ordered" church to this day?

This hierarchay began with the Roman church and was adopted by most of the Christian denominations that had little biblical support but was instituted when women had less education, were considered inferior, and were told to keep quiet.

Since women have been considered equal in most areas of life, the church is the last bastion of male prerogative and they are very reluctant to let it slip from their fingers.

The church should be vitally concerned as they already are losing vast numbers of young people and this is one area where young people will no longer accept women as second-class citizens. One should be warned before joining such a church "caveat emptor."

As others have said, one hesitates to take this kind of argument seriously. Yet for those who feel discriminated against, the pain is real.

One has to ask why this pitch now, and why 28 points?

Clearly the timing is political, and the number is either related to the lunar cycle or some other significant list? Had the argument come up 5 years ago, no doubt there would of been 27 points. The structure of the pitch is that cheesy.

For some reason no one has picked up on the politics.

At the last Autumn Council, I understand that reports on the growth of the church in China were significant, and that much of this growth can be attributed to the leadership of women, and that in their affirmation of women leadership, people in those parts are not much swayed by the niceties of church policy or north-south arguments. They just get on with things.

To see God doing what he is doing in China just challenges prejudice.

The net effect was a softened expression from cultural representatives who have resisted change in prior years.

Now figure...

Jared, thank you for your attempt to break down for analysis Doug Batchelor's arguments in "Women Pastors: A Biblical Perspective." On just about every point, I think you represented him fairly. However, "premise 9" regarding the etymology of the word seminary is not really a premise of his argument; it is clearly an aside. Like many other people, I think it is a ridiculous and irrelevant aside, but still, more of an off-handed comment than a foundation of his presentation. You also say that his 19th premise is that "If you spend too long on plainly reading the Bible, pretty soon it’s not going to mean what it says anymore." It does seem that those are exactly the words that he uses, but I think he mis-spoke here. He makes that comment right in the middle of an argument about how we can't chop up the Bible and pick and choose what we want it to say. In fact, he quotes a Bible text about women submitting to men, then has this hypothetical conversation:

"--Well, explain what that really means, Pastor.
--I think it means what it says! If you spend too long on plainly [un-plainly?] reading the Bible, pretty soon it’s not going to mean what it says anymore."

Also, to the people (like "V") who think that this structure of 28 fundamental arguments was Batchelor's attempt to be political, though this Spectrum article outlines his argument using 28 points, Batchelor himself did no such thing. We can't infer anything about his argument from the method that someone else employed to explain it.

Those issues aside, Batchelor's thesis does in fact seem to be that women may minister, but only under the authority of a male pastor; by God's design, they should not be ordained as elders or pastors. Firstly, this middle-ground position is not true to a face-value reading of Scripture which Batchelor promotes. Secondly, his argument is riddled with logical inconsistencies, from etymological fallacies to straw man arguments (against the 1970's feminism movement, for instance).

In my opinion, the critical point where his argument was weak is in arguing from (A) wives need to be submissive to their husbands, to (B) women in ministry need to be submissive to men in ministry. This was a great leap in his logic which he tried to bridge by saying "As goes the family, so goes the church." It wasn't enough for me.

I would encourage people who do believe that ordination is exclusively for men to give the Adventist community a better argument than what Doug Batchelor presents. His argument is too weak to rest a conclusion upon.

Kessia

OK - the 28 is a corny construct, but timing this broadcast before GC Session is not accidental.

The issue is alive in the corridors of power at the moment.

The enforcers a laying their mark. No kidding.

"I am a woman, i am a SDA, i am married. I totally agree with Pastor Doug and this sermon that he had put together, co-working with God. I agree with all the Bible and SOP. I am thankful that i am not mistaken nor confused. Men have their very specific role in the church, as do the women in the church. Ordained pastors is a roll that only men can fit. Not women. Thank you Pastor Doug for this study. Please continue to address the current issues in our churches that are out of line with the Bible and are becoming more and more apostate. Thank you God Bless."

posted by Ali Thoms

How can women defend Mr. Batchelor's reasoning when he dismisses them as scatterbrained.

".....women have more connections between left and right hemispheres in their brains. Consequently, in discussions women will often bring up random, unrelated topics"

Is this true for you as a woman. It certainly is not for me.
I cannot help but wonder about the women in Mr. Batchelor's life.

This entire argument seems to me to be based more on culture and tradition than on Scripture. The entire practice of pastoral ordination is nowhere to be found in the NT. Nowhere! Ordination of apostles, elders and deacons? Yes? Ordination of an individual to the office of pastor? No.

The NT never even describes pastoring as an office. Pastor/teacher is mentioned in Ephesians, and is recognized only as a gift. This means that if we really want to be in line with what the NT is saying, we would ordain nobody, male or female, to the "office" of pastor. We would simply recognize the God given gift of pastoring/teaching given to individuals in our midst, and allow them to use this gift to minister in the way that God has wired and called them to... as we would with any of the other gifted individuals among us.

Where did the whole idea of the full-time, salaried pastor of a "parish" come from? It came from the medieval church, not the apostolic. It was all part of the artificial division between clergy and laity that arose as part of that ecclesiastical edifice. It is a distortion that the reformation touched in theory when it trumpeted the truth of the priesthood of all believers. Unfortunately, it never addressed it in practice. This polarizing and marginalizing of the laity and its gifts and its function in ministry has been perpetuated by Protestant practice, including our own.

So, if we really wanted to be biblical about the credentialed "pastoral office," like Doug Batchelor is saying, we would do what he says. We would recognize all those with the gift of pastoring, male and female, and equally unleash and empower them with their gifts to serve. But, we would also dismantle the entire structure that recognizes only paid, full time, credentialed people as pastors, male or female. I guess if we got that radical, it would put a lot of people out of work, maybe including Doug.

If we don't get that radical, then lets call it like it is. This is an argument based on traditional, male dominated church patterns that have been in place for 1800+ years. It is not based on the reality of the pastoral gift as practiced by the NT church. If we were to go by that, we would simply recognize the gift, regardless of gender, as Paul seems to with Priscilla...placing her in the place of primacy in her house church. Or, as he does with Junia, a woman he refers to as an apostle!

If we are willing to continually keep gifted women from being equally recognized and financially supported as full time pastors alongside their gifted male counterparts because of such church tradition, then shame on us! Just don't make the NT the culprit.

Thanks...

Frank

Kessia wrote:
--
Jared, thank you for your attempt to break down for analysis Doug Batchelor's arguments in "Women Pastors: A Biblical Perspective." On just about every point, I think you represented him fairly. However, "premise 9" regarding the etymology of the word seminary is not really a premise of his argument; it is clearly an aside. Like many other people, I think it is a ridiculous and irrelevant aside, but still, more of an off-handed comment than a foundation of his presentation.
--

I actually used his statement on the seminary in my blog article as well saying:
--
"Batchelor then says the following but cuts off, though it is really funny to think how his mind must work:

“…By the way, the word seminary comes from the same word as semen. So it’s interesting that you’ve got so many women in the seminary studying for – that’s just where the root of the word is…”

The word comes from the Latin for seed but through that little twist and the context of women in the seminary verses the majority of men in a seminary he distorts the meaning from seed to the fluid from male reproductive organs containing spermatozoa. Technically neither man or woman have seeds in the reproductive tracts and each is required for the process.

Origin of Seminary from Dictionary.com:
“1400–50; late ME: seed plot, nursery < href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semen">semen + -ārium -ary”
--

Just think about that for a moment to even make the statement that Bachelor makes what kind of confused mind he must have. Factually of course he is mainly wrong based upon his usage. But there is that tiny element of truth. It is his mode of operation. Mix in a little bit of truth and then the faithful in the pew will say but look he said this you can't discount the things he says when this is true. Of course most in the pew won't look closely at what he actually says so they just say he is a godly man doing the work of God, but when those of use point out his errors and they are numerous he has the element of truth occasionally present to reinforce their faith in him.

And we can't deny that Batchelor and many politicians and TV evangelists are very accomplished at this sort of thing. We have to ask is it the fault of the manipulative speakers or of the easily duped audience, which came first and which supports the other. I think the main fault is our own, the audience that lets people like Batchelor get a way with it. And that is a huge problem in the Adventist church and Christianity in general.

Ron

Frank,
On the topic of "gifted" pastors. How is that determined? Not by any methodology that I know of.
It has been the practice to let as many as can afford the tuition into the seminary as long as there was room in the program.
It goes without saying that many people have passed the classwork that are abject failures for a number of reasons when they become employed.
So what are your thoughts on "gifted" in those realities?
The bible is replete with examples of leaders/prophets the people loved that were completely useless in Gods view.
Itching ears are not the tool by which members know if a Pastor is "gifted" or not.

I agree with Frank, there isn’t a single “ordained church pastor” in the biblical text. Since the title/role is not derived from biblical authority, but on much later post-biblical canon church tradition, any “biblical perspective on women pastors” is, for lack of specific reference, interpretive.

Are there biblical principles on how to treat/hire/pay/empower/value/recognize/ordain/commission women (and men) pastors? Absolutely. I personally like starting with my friend Wanee’s reference to Micah 6:8 in a related thread, “He hath showed thee, O MAN (could we “generously”, extra-bilblically, non-literally, eisegetically and interpretively include women in this text?) what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee….”

Let the discussions and interpretation begin; but please, let not thy argument starteth with “Thus saith the Lord…” unless “Thus really, truly, and plainly spake the Lord about ordaining women pastors, ….”

@Frank - Thank you!.
I am a 42 year old female seminarian and ordained Elder who was happy living my life when God came calling in 1999 and told me I was to be a pastor. I did not seek this calling or spiritual gifting ( Eph 4:11). I now find myself in an position where I am challenged on every side to do and be what GOD has called and gifted me. How can man override God? I am so confused.

This is not a matter of women "lording " over men . It is a matter of women who have been given the "spiritual gift" of pastor by the Holy Spirit to be able to do the work of the gospel. It should not be connected to marital relationships. How many men have female bosses? Does this take away their place as head of the home? No it does not . Neither should it be an issue if a woman is the pastor of a church .

I just want to be able to do what God has asked me to do without all of the politics involved. I am determined to follow God's will for my life and know that HE will make a way for me to serve Him as He sees fit because He has ordained it so. He has opened doors already and will continue. Why ? because my being a pastor was His idea. Let's stop limiting God.

Thanks for this opportunity to share.

Renee
p.s here's a link to my ministry story as printed in the Adventist Review December 2007

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2007-1534&page=8

Someone over at AToday made the observation it's ironic a pastor gets railed on from Spectrum and AToday for preaching what he thinks is the truth, but professors of the same employer get the pass.

Batchelor, by the way, is not negating any decision by the GC on women's ordination; however, the LSU professors are.

Perhaps if Batchelor was a professor at LSU his insights would be met with less critique.

"Perhaps if Batchelor was a professor at LSU his insights would be met with less critique."

It should be hoped that college students would immediately discover his lack of logic and drawing unwarranted conclusions. High school students should also be able to "see through" such shoddy conclusions. But sadly, manipulative techniques are one of the ploys often used by evangelists.

How foolish! And we keep wondering WHY we can't keep young people in the church. My oh my! The feminist movement was over 30 years ago. The Adventist church is in the dark ages.

Shane, I don’t think Spectrum and AToday readers are being inconsistent with respect to biblical perspectives on “women pastors” and “creation science”. Both need to be carefully evaluated and tested against the “latest and best progressive truth” and faithful biblical interpretation/application. One may have honest disagreements with the readers' positions, but the positions are not inconsistent.

I'm surprised at some of Doug Batchelor's comments frankly. I wonder if he would have made them if he were a woman. I agree that man should be at the top in the family pecking order but beyond that I say let the best person available deal with it.

Let's remember that the Bible was written at a time when women weren't even considered persons so we must put this into proper perspective and context.

nuff said.
Larry F

The bible is replete with examples of leaders/prophets the people loved that were completely useless in Gods view.
Itching ears are not the tool by which members know if a Pastor is "gifted" or not.

************

Michael...

Judging by the wide disparity of ability and competence I've seen come out of our system over the years, I wonder if their would be any appreciable "quality control" difference between the local community recognizing the gifts among them, as opposed to a centralized system. Does that mean that I believe that the organized church should provide no training or education? No. But the situation that we are in is that pastoring is viewed as much as an office and a career as it is a gifting and calling. And, the NT never characterizes it as such. That's why this entirely non-biblical debate on women's ordination keeps raging. This is a product of church tradition over hundreds of years...not the practice of the NT church.

Does that mean we can or should dismantle everything and go back to such practice? Not necessarily, I believe. But those who are trying to make biblical arguments for female exclusion regarding ordination to the "office" of pastor, need to stop making NT church practice as the grounds for such. It just isn't there.

Thanks...

Frank

So, you have recognized "the wide disparity of ability and competence I've seen come out of our system over the years"
And yet if you asked any of them I'm sure all of them would say they felt "called". So we know they themselves cant really tell if they have the spiritual gift of Pastoring.

The other indicator is if others would estimate they had the spiritual gift of Pastoring. We all know of Korah and others who the congregation felt was doing a fantastic job as well as God and the prophets talking about heaping teachers on themselves speaking smooth things and Micah 2:11 (NIV) "If a liar and deceiver comes and says, 'I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,' he would be just the prophet for this people!"

So we know the congregation isnt to good at recognizing the spiritual gift of Pastoring either.

My question is how then does one know when a woman in this context, but could be a man as well, says, You should hire me because I have been "called" to pastor and you shouldnt discriminate, or you should make a job for me because I have a DEGREE and everything, etc etc.

Perhaps if we could weed out the truely called from the wannabe called it would go along ways on this issue as well as quite a few others huh?

Christian fundamentalism is a scary thing: what if Exodus 35: 1-2 were to be applied by an SDA group that takes the Bible literally:

"And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.

2Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." King James Version of Exodus 35:1-2.

Shane, why bend every issue back to LSU? In any case, criticism of Batchelor's truly embarrassing level of reasoning and exegesis in a forum like this isn't quite the same as launching a concerted drive to have him condemned by the church on charges of commandment-breaking. Let's not confuse the issues.

Premise four talks of the curse to Eve as her husband ruling over her and God establishing this to protect families. Following that same line of thought, consider the curse to Adam - that of the sweat of his brow would he get his food (Gen 3:19). So I guess getting food from the supermarket is violating the principle set forth in this curse by God (which incidently I would guess Doug's wife does the grocery shopping for the most part). We should all grow our own food in our back yards. One has to be careful when "proof" texting to not forget the entire context - textual, historical, and otherwise.

It is disappointing to hear so many people comment against Doug Bachelor, but fail to use the Word of God to back up their beliefs.

Peter

"It is disappointing to hear so many people comment against Doug Bachelor, but fail to use the Word of God to back up their beliefs."

Peter

People over don't use the bible to back up anything, Peter. And when they do, it by pulling some quote out of its context to make some point totally foreign to its original meaning.

They use culture and human speculation for the most part.

"I don't like what the bible says, so I'll make up my own conclusions" is pretty much the order of the day.

Bill Sorensen

Bill
You're right when you say of some people:"I don't like what the bible says, so I'll make up my own conclusions". Where you go wrong is your assumption that only some people do so. They all do, including you. Just look at the verse Mike MacLennon produced:

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." King James Version of Exodus 35:1-2.

Not even you, Bill, would support this today. If SDAs had a Utah state of their own and didn't have to worry about federal legislation, you would not support the execution of sabbath breakers, would you?

Elie,

You said: "why bend every issue back to LSU?"

This is an unsubstantiated assertion, which can easily be shown false by a cursory read of the many articles and comments posted here.

You said: "criticism of Batchelor's truly embarrassing level of reasoning and exegesis in a forum like this isn't quite the same as launching a concerted drive to have him condemned by the church on charges of commandment-breaking."

Another unsubstantiated assertion and on top of that it's false. I did not compare Batchelor's "level of reasoning and exegesis" with the "launching a concerted drive to have him condemned by the church on charges of commandment-breaking."

Also, he may not be condemned for breaking a commandment, but he certainly is being condemned. Ironically, little of the criticism seeks a biblical foundation for their accusations.

I said: "it's ironic a pastor gets railed on from Spectrum and AToday for preaching what he thinks is the truth, but professors of the same employer get the pass."

Professors apparently have the right (according to some) to be able to teach practically what ever they want ; however, the same generosity is not being applied here to Batchelor.

The reaction here and other places illustrates a double standard. That's my point Elie.

Many years ago when I first became an adventist I seemed to be able to tune out this type of hypocrisy but I would wonder how so much could be swept under the carpet and never openly and intelligently be discussed. I guess because I have such a low I.Q. of 145 I had problems reconciling the God of the bible with the God of the Doug Batchelors of the SDA church. For years I watched as philandering pastors and half educated, unqualified teachers were shuffled around from conference to conference instead of getting fired, all under the leadership of ordained men. I sat in church and watched and listened as preaching became begging and more and more male elders and deacons and ministers were allowed to spew hatred and prejudice toward women all while the men spurned more and more duties turning over their God given authority to the so called weaker sex. "Women tend to communicate more effectively than men; women have more connections between left and right hemispheres in their brains. Consequently, in discussions women will often bring up random, unrelated topics." HUH? DID HE JUST SAY WOMEN ARE SCATTER BRAINED? God winked at slavery? Feminists are raging lesbians? Women must be under the authority of a man when they preach or teach? Eve forced Adam to sin? This man is still blaming women for all the faults of the human race! This is an archaic belief. Were we not all created with a free will? I am baffled. I do love God and I believe the Sabbath is the sign of His creation and authority. I no longer attend the adventist church or any church. I just can't listen to this rhetoric anymore. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

The admonition from Scripture to be was wise as serpents and as harmless as doves comes into my mind. It seems that a lot of people want to be spoon-fed truth without checking it out for themselves. The mere thought of exerting any effort in delving into Biblical, cultural, and traditional realities seem somehow so distasteful to us that we relegate it to Biblical scholars, historians, and others to root around in this Biblical, literary and historical mess to find some sense of it all. A lot of us want to avoid becoming dirty in the process of uncovering truth. We want an "instant fix" to satisfy whatever agendas we may carry, be it consciously or subconsciously. If we can attach ourselves to a celebrity who agrees with our innermost convictions, we gladly do. We can say, "(fill in the name) said it and I believe it, and that settles it for me!" But the sad reality is that truth can be messy. It can challenge the conceptions or misconceptions that we grew up on and embraced freely without reservation or hesitation. It can tear our own worlds apart, and for a lot of people, that is not acceptable! So, here we go on fighting to keep our own little realities intact...fighting for our very own existence as human beings, blissfully ignoring that we, as human beings, are imperfect and subject to error. I tell you, that freedom is not free. Neither is the search for truth. It is a hard and daunting task. Be willing to dig deeper and uncover the veneer of misquotes, things taken out of context, and things assumed but not checked into.

Nothing amazing about these facts.

The first comment posted recommends "A very helpful Adventist perspective on the topic... Andrews University Press's 1998 volume, Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives." Undoubtedly, this book is very helpful to understanding the position of those in favor of women's ordination.

However, regardless of the side of the discussion to which you adhere, given the nature of the this forum and its commitment to fairness and full disclosure, it should also be mentioned that that work does not represent the unanimous perspective of Adventist pastoral or academic leadership. To read an articulation of the position of those opposed to women's ordination and the book "Women in Ministry" in particular, see "Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry." http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/proveallthings/fulltoc.html

I mention this in the hope that everyone will come to this discussion personally, not just anecdotally, aquatinted with both sides of the conversation.

So now there is a "poorly quoted Bible verses/too few Bible verses quoted" debate. Can't see a winner coming out of that.

You always make me laugh. :)

Did God make a mistake in creating women highly intelligent...that is, if He intended them to be submissive and non-thinking? I just hope my daughters' never get wind of this sermon; it would drive them further from the church. My older daughter has double degrees in physics and math and a minor in chemistry. She went into medicine. My younger, a degree in biology and a masters in object art. Sculpture is her profession--one that requires rotating objects in her brain. I could go on and on about the physical and mental pain my daughters' endure in their professions...better than most men.

My daughters went through our church school/college systems, and their intelligence and talents were dismissed over and over again, mostly by male teachers. If this kind of thinking persists, it will send the highly intelligent women running from the church--and leave only those women willing to be 'non-thinking' and submissive.

"men are better suited for combat"??? This is an argument for maintaining dominance of men over women at the pulpit??? Considering some very pointless conflicts in the world today, maybe it is time for women to lead the world (or talk Peace in the church)...to talk (reason) through disagreements...to befriend, and try to understand those who think differently from us...instead of knee-jerk 'shock and awe.'

Consider this: justification for slavery was promoted primarily from the pulpits in the South--with scripture to back it up. Why? Fear mongering; to convince poor whites to fight a rich man's war--a war fought to MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER? Sound familiar?

White and straight, and the mother of two daughters gifted by God with intelligence and creativity,
Llynn

Llynn
My country of origin, Norway, some years ago began requiring that political parties work towards parity between the genders with respect to representation. It's now approaching 50-50 in the national assembly and it has had a huge impact on quality of life. By including women, life has become better for all. In this country we have a long ways to go. The more conservative people are, the more they hate women who reject the submissive role that ancient culture has assigned women. Prominent women such as Nancy Pelosi are scorned and derided as 'uppeti' you-know-whats. Men of the right pretend to love women--just listen to Rush Limbaugh--they just don't want them to have a say in how things are done. And this weekend we saw what disasters can befall us when women lead: healthcare for (nearly) all!

How many fathers of daughters would choose to limit their abilities? Isn't this exactly the position of those who are aginst women's ordination? Limiting acknowledgment of God-given talents and abilities is denigrating and suffocating, and no loving father would humiliate his daughters as did father's of old when they had no property rights, marriage rights, and were dependent in every way on men.

Even back in the 30, my dad (father of four daughters) wanted us all to become financially dependent (very difficult on a pastor's salary) so we would never have to depend on a man for our sustenance. Of course at that time, in Adventism, as well as public education there were few possible areas for women: nurse, teacher, or secretarial. Now the entire educational system is open for women who are graded solely on merit, and in many areas, as most teachers will confess, the girls are more intellectually prepared for college and grad. school than their male colleagues.

Closing the doors to any area is to return to the dark ages when women were "to be seen and not heard" and kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Evidently, there are preachers who would like to return to those "good old days" when an infertile woman was both barren and cursed; baby-making was their sole profession and pity was on the barren woman. Today, mothering takes only a limited amount of a woman's lifetime. What is she expected to do with the remaining 30-50 years?

Shane, I wrote: "why bend every issue back to LSU?" You replied: "This is an unsubstantiated assertion, which can easily be shown false by a cursory read of the many articles and comments posted here." But my comment wasn't about other people's comments. It was about your own. And you clearly were trying to make LSU somehow relevant to this thread. Since that was your only comment here, and since you linked your name to EducateTruth, my question remains: why make the creation/evolution debate somehow the issue in every conversation?

2) I also wrote "criticism of Batchelor's truly embarrassing level of reasoning and exegesis in a forum like this isn't quite the same as launching a concerted drive to have him condemned by the church on charges of commandment-breaking." You replied: "Another unsubstantiated assertion and on top of that it's false. I did not compare Batchelor's 'level of reasoning and exegesis' with the 'launching a concerted drive to have him condemned by the church on charges of commandment-breaking.'" No, but what you did do was lay charges of hypocrisy against others, suggesting that people criticizing Batchelor here are not much different than others attacking LSU elsewhere, so if people think the one is fine they ought to accept the tactics and language of the other as well. That is silly reasoning. There is a big difference. This is an open forum for discussion and debate. It is not a campaign backed by powerful and wealthy interest groups asking for church officials to take concrete actions against Batchelor in order to more sharply define the boundaries of Adventist community and pressure people like him out.

3) You write: "Professors apparently have the right (according to some) to be able to teach practically what ever they want; however, the same generosity is not being applied here to Batchelor. The reaction here and other places illustrates a double standard. That's my point." But who here is saying that Batchelor does not have the "right" to preach whatever he wants to preach? He certainly has this right...and the rest of us have the right to analyze and critique what he says. There is no double standard in challenging someone's ideas or even saying they are deplorable and need to change. The double standard, as far as I can tell, would be saying that professors you disagree with on a doctrinal question may be subjected to the most relentless criticism over many months with the goal of having them removed from Adventist institutions, but then suggesting that Batchelor's public statements must not receive any kind of scrutiny or criticism because his chauvinism doesn't challenge the fundamental beliefs.

Kameron, I find your appeal that we approach the issue with an awareness that the church does not hold a unanimous position on this issue, and that we read Pipim to hear the other side of the debate, rather curious. This thread began not with the comment you cited but with a point by point summary of Batchelor's reasoning and a video of his entire sermon. Do Batchelor's words not speak for themselves? Is Pipim saying something substantially different?

Do others not find it disconcering that any pastor would use the church's pulpit to speak such a negative sermon? Shouldn't one expect that a preacher would address how we can live a more ethical and compassionate life rather than such a denigrating (yes, that's the word) to more than half the church's membership?

If any pastor holds such views, they are his right and prerogative, but to use the bully pulpit to browbeat and villify women (yes, he did that if you've read the sermon) is more than inappropriate.

There could be no better way to discourage today's modern young people than to claim Bible reasons for women to be lower than men, unless misogyny is one of his doctrines. Which makes the program's title "Amazing Facts" amazing that he continues to spout such personal views as facts. If I were a member, I would be greatly insulted to claim this as "my church."

Thank you very much for your article. I can't tell you how much it pleases me to read words written by men like you who want to defend women in ministry.

I was deeply saddened to read about Batchelor's sermon. I used to listen to him regularly but then I went to study theology and I realised just how misguided he was.

His words saddened me because I instantly recognised how damaging they were to women everywhere and not just to women in ministry. The church seems to have done a lot and continues to do a lot to stop violence against women. Batchelors words are violent words. And, what he apparently fails to realise is there are some men who will take his words as tacit support to assert authority over their wives and, when it is not forthcoming, some will resort to mental, physical and emotional violence against them.

I am saddened because there are many women who have answered the call to ministry and who work with compassion in their churches, have been spiritual guides and who have continued to be faithful to God through all sorts of adversity. This is just another hurdle those women will now have to overcome.

I am saddened because his words are so very divisive and some will read it as permission to suppress women and to attempt to mould them into the image that they want, ignoring the fact that we are God's creation and not theirs.

I am saddened because he has abused his position of authority and not given due care and consideration to the responsibility that he has as a pastor. He has ignored the hurt and damage that his words have caused and pandered to his own need and desire to get something off his chest - at the expense to a little over half of the global population.

I am saddened because I know the impact that his words had on me. I felt as though I was hated, yes hated. Simply because I was born a women. It is nothing more than the difference in chromosomes which meant that I was born with different genitals to him. Had it been the other way around, he would be just as hurt as I am today. I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully but Batchelors words suggest something different.

I am saddened because, men like him turn people off God, church and the Bible. They believe that all churches think like Batchelor and all christian men think like him. My colleague know the pain and the hurt that comments like his have caused me. They are not Christian and I doubt that they will every want to come any where near an adventist church if this is the sort of thing they expect to come out of the mouths of pastors.

I am saddened because the timing of his sermon seems to be deliberately time for maximum damage to any discussions that might take place at GC in a couple of months time.

I am saddened because those who really need to read the words of Jared Wright and Ryan Bell may never actually get to read them. Batchelor has caused damage that, for some, may never be undone.

I pray for Doug Batchelor. I pray that God will open his eyes to understand what it means to be compassionate, to love and care for the church. I pray that God will soften his heart. I pray that his eyes will be opened and that he will be able to see that God does call women as well as men to the ministry. I pray that he will see that he has constructed a reality that does not exist on the pages of the Bible that I read. I pray that he will cause no more hurt or pain to either men or women in ministry. I pray that, unlike me, other women will not be so deeply damaged by the words of men like him and that they will continue in the ministry that God has called them too. And, for those women how just can't go on anymore, I pray for them also.

Wanida

A well written response. I learned to love Jesus first at my mother's knee and then working side by side with my father. It is men like my dad who make the words: "Our Father, which art in heaven" so full of meaning. It is women like my mother who guide the first Steps to Christ. It was Edgar Guest who wrote: "I'd rather see a sermon that hear one any day." The story of Mary anointing Jesus is at the top of the list of sermons one can see. Why didn't Doug mention that comment of Jesus. It certainly tells us more of the tender regard God has for all humanity regardless of gender or national origin.

The call to minister or to take on a pastoral role is not limited by God but by willful men of antiquity and coveted today men who dwell in the past. Tom

"I am saddened because the timing of his sermon seems to be deliberately time for maximum damage to any discussions that might take place at GC in a couple of months time." posted by Wanida.

Wanida, hopefully the issue of fundamentalism could be addressed at this coming GC session because resolving this could resolve some of the other problems facing the church. For example: the problems of the SDA church in Uganda where conference personnel have voted in favor of the law to enforce the death penalty against gays based on Old Testament commands; as well as the rights for women to be ordained etc.

To show how extreme fundamentalism can be see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08 (Warning: this does contain language only suitable for mature audiences.)

Some of the texts quoted in this clip are:
Matthew 15:4 New King James Version:

4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[b]

17 “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” Exodus 21:17 New King James Version

May be some creative people at PUC could do a dramatization on the Women's ordination issue and put it on U-tube? (I am sure that between Ms Rankin, Jared, Alexander and Greg something really creative could be posted on U-Tube.)

Elie,

I didn't make myself clear in regard to my comments responding to: "why bend every issue back to LSU?"

The reason I said this was an unsubstantiated assertion was because of your wording. Now whether or not you intended a literal meaning with "every" or not makes no difference. The connotative meaning in your assertion was that (at the least) I frequently bend the various issues here (Spectrum) back to LSU. Perhaps you intended to say, "Why are you attempting to bend this issue back to LSU?"

In point 2, you concede your previous assertion about your assumed comparison, so there's no need to belabor this. But you did bring up another point that I want to address.

You claim: "suggesting that people criticizing Batchelor here are not much different than others attacking LSU elsewhere"

I wasn't trying to draw a comparison between those who criticize what is taught at LSU and those who criticize what Batchelor.

I thought it was ironic that Batchelor is receiving so much criticism for his beliefs (upheld by the GC), but when others question the beliefs of what LSU professors are teaching, the reply is that they should be free to teach what they want and thus the fuss is unjustified.

Are you suggesting that Spectrum and AToday, though they disagree with Batchelor, are advocating he should be allowed to teach what he believes the Bible says on this issue? I submit this is not the case as evidenced by Ryan Bell's recent article: "It’s time for church leadership to lead – to take a stand for what is right and tell pastors like Doug Batchelor that their teaching is dangerous and theologically unsound."

Is that all he wants church leadership to do? Tell Batchelor his theology is unsound and dangerous? Or would he rather Batchelor be stopped, and if so, at what cost? Being fired?

This leads me to your third point. You said, "who here is saying that Batchelor does not have the "right" to preach whatever he wants to preach?" Judging by the reaction of AToday and Spectrum it would appear they don't think he has a right to preach whatever he wants. They think Batchelor is wrong and thus he should not be preaching such things. They think it is wrong and thus it should not be preached.

Are you suggesting that Spectrum and AToday and all the commenters in favor of their position are avid supporters of Batchelor's "right" to preach what he wants? That they're just merely criticizing him because they disagree with him? I don't think so.

Shane, yes, you are right. You made one comment here and I'll take your word that you haven't made similar comments elsewhere, so it was not fair of me to say you were turning "every" issue back to LSU without knowing if you do that or not. Still, that was what you were doing here, so I think the comparison/contrast you drew needs to be looked at more closely. I can't speak for Ryan but I think there is a great difference between people saying with regard to Batchelor, "Wait, this is unacceptable. Church leadership needs to make very clear that these particular statements on women are not representative of where the church is at in its thinking and are in fact unacceptable and dangerous in terms of what they have historically meant for many women," and people saying "Wait, these professors have divergent views on a church doctrine and so are thieves and liars and should be prevented from working at Adventist institutions and should not be allowed to speak in public church settings about their views and should not be published in church periodicals and are in fact non-Adventists if not non-Christians." That is the gist of much that has been said on your website and elsewhere. I think you will be hard pressed to find people advocating those kinds of views or actions here.

Being at the end of the post, this may not get read, but I'll share anyways.

I am a pastor, and have been for a while now. I have always been supportive of women in ministry and leadership positions of the church. There was a time I challenged my assumptions of women being ordained, but then reason got the better part of me, and I believed the Bible didn't forbid it, as Doug B and many others proclaim. When I challenged my own beliefs, I allowed for the idea that women can minister as equals to men, and more often than not, the spirituality of the women remains higher than their counterparts.

I pastor in Chesapeake Virginia. In my one church is a beautiful lady, Luanne Cross, who has been part of the church for 60 years. She is 76 (and wouldn't mind me telling you that) and one of the most spiritual, God-led persons I have ever met. For all these years, the leadership of the church never asked her to be an Elder until I did one year after I arrived. The women were following her anyways, seeking her out for guidance, and the men had a profound respect for her too. I recognized in this woman a spirit that only came from the Spirit. The nominating committee asked her to be an Elder, she humbly, and reluctantly I might add, agreed. three months later I had the privilege of ordaining her. I shed tears while I was praying, for I felt quite insufficient to ordain this godly woman, who is much more advanced than I am.

In the time she has been an Elder, she has proved to be more than any one thought possible. She is a quiet, unassuming leader, who garners respect just by living. What a shame that the close-minded attitudes of men, and women, for the past five decades have kept this leadership asset from the church by not asking her to be an Elder, and not ordaining her. How many other women have been neglected in the churches they serve in, and how many other countless other women may turn away from ministry when God has called them to ministry? They hear 28 outrageous beliefs about why they shouldn't be ordained, and see the attitudes that still remain in pockets of the church.

I say this in closing; if women are called to serve, they should ordained without question. For even if man doesn't want to lay hands on her and acknowledge it, God has already called, ordained and equipped women to serve where He leads.

I have seen some of the discussion on this sermon by Doug Batchelor, and I have heard the sermon. I am saddened by this sermon. Not so much of where I am living today, in a local church who supports me in my pastoral ministry and the conference and union who give me support and treats me as any other pastor, male or female.
I am saddened by the fact that this affects my fellow sisters in the faith, wherever they are in our Adventist world, and whatever they are doing in the church, whether they are ministering as elders in a church where there are no men who can do it, or they are working as pastors.
I am saddened to hear again and again the role of women being defined by the fall, sin. When God had other plans for the partnership of working together, side by side in Eden.
Why do we want to amputate the church in these last days before Jesus is coming back? Why is there a fear of women in leadership and ministry? What is the threat? In Christ there is no division, there is no "lesser than thou".
I just want you women who minister, who are shocked by this sermon, who want to quit to be encouraged. Jesus is coming soon, and he needs us all, male and female to work together in ministry, spreading the GOOD news from the pulpit and drawing people to him, before he comes back.
Gods blessings, Marianne, pastor in Norway

Why do we blame Eve for the Fall?

According to Genesis, she was tricked. Adam made a conscious choice - thereby showing that his judgement is much worse than Eve's...

Of course, Doug Batchelor also demonstrates the inferiority of male judgement :-)

/Bevin

What saddens me is that this man and this ministry is one of the most publicly recognized of the Adventist church. What saddens me is that this kind of proof text, fundamentalist, literalism is what gets put out there week after week as representative of what we are and believe. and the GC gives its full support and approval.

Concerning this issue, why don't we just reendorse slavery while we're at it. Hey, Paul sent Onesimus back to his master, and never, ever said anything about the injustice and brutality of Roman slavery....and it was no walk in the park. He never, ever showed any concern to change the exsisting social order concerning slavery, so I guess we're speaking of his tacet approval. So, if we're so concerned about reading Paul literally, then we should have no problem with this practice, either. I mean, what were Wilberforce and all the Christian abolitionists thinking?

Ah...Theological non sequiters...

Thanks...

Frank

I didn't watch this, much for the same reason I don't like watching YouTube videos of people hurting themselves. I did, however, read the synopsis. Is number 9 an attempt at humor? Or was it made an actual argument so the total could equal 28 and thereby be given more authority because it just HAPPENS to be the same number as the church's fundamental beliefs?

To say it's ironic that so many women are in the seminary, being that the word comes from the same word as semen, is like saying it's a coincidence that the fruit called an 'orange' is actually the color 'orange'.

I think the greater issue here, and there are many ISSUES at play, is the misunderstanding of how inspiration works. I'm not saying that I understand it fully by any means, but I see all kinds of problems that arise from viewing inspiration in a fairytale kind of way. Humans are not like a blank word document with God doing the typing. We are not a microphone with God doing the speaking. How does inspiration work? I don't know! But I know how it doesn't work. If some idea comes into my head or heart and I pick up my guitar to write a song about it, the song that comes out is going to sound like me - I can't help it. The chords I use, the way I play, and lyrics I write, are going to reflect lessons I've had in the past, people I've made music with, and the music I listen to among other things. The song will be in English. Not because I have anything against other languages, but it's the ONLY ONE I SPEAK (well). There is something separating inspiration from the result of the inspiration - humanity. So when we talk about following the peripherals in the bible just because they are there, let's ask ourselves which came first: society or the bible? Or do they reflect each other?

Thankfully we can actually see the end result of following what the bible says about what women can and can't do. Doug is welcome to move there and report back to us. I think I could round up a few people to pay for the one-way ticket. Stop hurting yourself and our church!

In the end though, he does make a good point: not everyone should be given the power of the pulpit.

Eh-hemmm...

The curse of Eve, the curse of slaves; same Biblical justification to maintain SOCIAL ORDER.

This excerpt taken from a sermon given around 1854 to justify slavery does not address the issue of the curse, but it does show the human tendency to use Biblical rationale to support personal beliefs. See if any of this rings a bell.

With regard to the assertion that slavery is against the spirit of Christianity, we are ready to admit the general assertion, but deny most positively that there is anything in the Old or New Testament which would go to show that slavery, when once introduced, ought at all events to be abrogated, or that the master commits any offense in holding slaves. The children of Israel themselves were slaveholders and were not condemned for it. All the patriarchs themselves were slaveholders; Abraham had more than three hundred, Isaac had a “great store” of them; and even the patient and meek Job himself had “
a very great household.
” When the children of Israel conquered the land of Canaan, they made one whole tribe “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” and they were at that very time under the special guidance of Jehovah; they were permitted expressly to purchase slaves of the heathen and keep them as an inheritance for their posterity; and even the children of Israel might be enslaved for six years.

Continued--the rest of the sermon
When we turn to the New Testament, we find not one single passage at all calculated to disturb the conscience of an honest slaveholder. No one can read it without seeing and admiring that the meek and humble Saviour of the world in no instance meddled with the established institutions of mankind; he came to save a fallen world, and not to excite the black passions of man and array them in deadly hostility against each other. From no one did he turn away; his plan was offered alike to all-to the monarch and the subject, the rich and the poor, the master and the slave. He was born in the Roman world, a world in which the most galling slavery existed, a thousand times more cruel than the slavery in our own country; and yet he nowhere encourages insurrection, he nowhere fosters discontent; but exhorts always to implicit obedience and fidelity. What a rebuke does the practice of the Redeemer of mankind imply upon the conduct of some of his nominal disciples of the day, who seek to destroy the contentment of the slave, to rouse their most deadly passions, to break up the deep foundations of society, and to lead on to a night of darkness and confusion! “Let every man” (says Paul) “abide in the same calling wherein he is called. Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather” (I Corinth.

Llyn,

If slavery was common in Bible times, and neither Jesus nor Paul argued against it, is it not proper and right to endorse slavery today? Isn't that exactly the same argument that Bacherlor is making: Because in the NT it endorses women being submissive to their husbands (not all women have husbands today) that it should be the order of the church?

IOW, should we incorporate all the practices in the Bible time to infer for all times? Are you advocating the social practices in Bible times should be continued today? Some, or all?

I find it quite revealing that Pastor Batchelor accepts the mysogonistic viewpoint of the Apostle Paul without question as being endorsed by God. This is patently false. You made a good point, Jared, in calling our attention to the fact that Eve did not leave Adam when she was tempted at the Tree of the Learning of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam was right there with her and should have spoken up and stopped the interaction between the Serpent and Eve, but he did not. So in reality it was not Eve's sin that placed us where we are today, it was Adam's sin of omission, and then active disobedience that put us where we are today.

Eve was in Adam when God created Adam, so in reality they were both created at the same moment. God used Adam's DNA to 'form' Eve. In genetic terms she was a diploid compliment, a mirror of Adam, exactly the same except for one chromosome.

Eve was never inferior to Adam, she was his compliment. There is nothing in the Genesis account that would imply inferiority on the part of one or the other, they are equal. We can see this in the God head after who's likeness Adam and Eve were made; God the Father, God the Mother (Holy Spirit), and God the Son. This depicts a true family. Can one part of God be considered less than another part? Certainly not. So to conclude that women are inferior to men such that they should be relegated to only filling support roles in our church hierarchy is going directly against the design God had for the Kingdom of Heaven from the beginning. Women are just as smart (maybe smarter), just as motivated, just as articulate, and in every other characteristic just as good (or bad) as men, and should not be held back in service to the church just because they are female.

Posted by: DFNeufeld | 23 March 2010 at 11:48

God the Father, God the Mother (Holy Spirit), and God the Son. This depicts a true family. Can one part of God be considered less than another part? Certainly not.

I have long thought of the Holy Spirit as feminine, DF. How can there be a father and a son with no mother?

Still, I think there are different functions inherent in the masculine and feminine - does not Nature herself teach us that?

(Granted, these things regarding the Godhead are beyond our human ken....)

E: NOT AT ALL! The point I am trying to make is that we can find Biblical support for most of our personal stereotypes. No one today would argue that slavery was a good thing, but when the morality of slavery was being debated in the North, the South found Biblical support to maintain the social order (even poor whites believed they were better than slaves). This issue is resolved and judgement passed. Yet, here we are in the 21st century, still struggling to escape male-imposed stereotypes--to escape the "social order" of the church so to speak.

Llyn, anyone can find support in the Bible for nearly every position because the Bible is full of contradictions. Few care to study whether there are prescriptions or descriptions and confuse the great difference between.

As has been mentioned before, there is no accepted general practice on the hermeutics used. Each reader determines that for herself and thus the great variations.

To claim Eve was equal to Adam in authority in the beginning is false. Adam was "king" of this world, and Eve was not. Adam was the representative of the human race, Eve was not.
In Job, where Satan came as representative of this world, it was because he had usurped the authority and position of Adam. Had Adam not sinned, he would have been there and Eve would not have been with him.

This world was not plunged into sin until Adam sinned, even when Eve had sinned first. Had Adam not sinned, God would have dealt with Eve in a seperate situation.

Jesus is called "the second Adam" by Paul. The headship role is so clear and obvious, we must deliberately ignore the biblical norm and create our own scenario in defiance of the clear statements and implications.

There is even a headship role in the Trinity. God the Father is first in authority. I Cor. 15:24-28. This is not an issue denying an equal quality in value between men and women. It is simply an issue of authority.

Since many if not most of you don't believe the bible anyway, and apparently many others don't read it, and apparently even fewer understand it, and last of all, most don't care, I don't expect the response to be otherwise.

This creates an atmosphere in the church where even many of those who agree with Doug would not stand up and say so anyway. In which case, the liberals win and Jesus looses.

When Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", He did not mean "whatever suits you or fits your own scenario".

Nor did He leave it up to any individual to decide what is important and what is not. In my estimation, it is pure duplicity and hypocracy for the SDA community to chide other Christian groups, including Catholics, about Sabbath keeping, state of the dead, or second coming issues while ignoring their own departure from the word in the name of the gospel.

In Amos, he begins by chiding the heathen and cursing them for the evil and wicked ways. He continues naming several nations and finally moves the Judah and Isreal. As long as he curses what the people consider to be heathen, all is fine and dandy. But as soon as he focuses on themselves, it is different story.

Finally they complain to the civil authorities. In essence they say, "Run Amos out of town, he is attacking us and our kingdom." Adventists are so blind, they never see the bible applies to themselves. We are always "the good guys" who are helping God warn the wicked. We never suspect we may well be the "bad guys" who have abandon the word and the greatest curse is on ourselves.

A real OT application of the prophecies are so obscure as to be considered an impossibility in application to Adventism.

And Jesus' warning to the Jews? Must be somebody else, couldn't be us. It must be Rome or apostate Protestantism. When in fact, it is Adventism that is rock and rolling around the golden calf, wearing jewelry, dressing like heathen, and worshiping the devil greedily with both hands.

"The kingdom of God are we, the kingdom of God are we" is their presumptous clamor. Thank God someone like Doug is willing to put his job and reputation on the line. I could only hope and pray some other influencial people would stand with him openly and demand accountability of this apostate self righteous church that defies God and "worships, they know not what."

"It is time for thee to work Lord, for they have made void they law." David

Bill Sorensen

Bill: Sounds like you have contempt for those who do not share your schema of what an Adventist should look like, sound like, and think like.

Aside from the issue of "headship," D. Batchelor made emotionally charged statements that women are, in essence, scatterbrained, have lower IQ's, and are not as tough as men. THIS IS A STEREOTYPE OF WOMEN that is generally held by men with control issues. I am a student, and if I make an argument on paper, I'd better have emperical evidence, with references, to back it up. I cannot just spout out my own perceptions, ideas, and stereotypes--if I want to be taked seriously. If Pastor Batchelor can't get his facts right here, there is danger that further statement by him may be questioned as well.

Further, he not only based his argument on false stereotypes of women, but he also alienated (insulted) half, or maybe even more than half, of the church; and who knows how many viewers not in the church.

So glad God gets to be the Judge, and not man.
Llynn

>>> To claim Eve was equal to Adam in authority in the beginning is false. Adam was "king" of this world, and Eve was not. Adam was the representative of the human race, Eve was not.

I note that Bill doesn't offer any detailed scriptural support for his assertions here.

Genesis teaches that the male and the female were equal (2:23) "now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh", and were both (1:28) charged with subduing the earth (curious that it needed subduing though)

In short, Bill creates his opinion out of nothing

/Bevin

I read this article an hour ago, and am deeply and unashamedly saddened by it, and the direction mindset like this will take the SDA church, in which I was raised.
That Mr Batchelor stepped into this rather controversial discussion on women's ordination is excusable, and not surprising, given the timing and the content of discussion to be held at the GC. However, His lack of respect for women is inexcusable, and it breaks my heart.

The unbiblical view that Eve left Adam's side, tho sad, is not uncommon for Adventist's, much like the stance that the wine Yeshua created at Cana was non-alcoholic. Neither can be substantiated in the Scriptures within the story. I hate that we, "the church at large" use such texts to back up our pet beliefs. I'm not suggesting drunkenness, just get your Scripture proof texts straight if you want to argue it. In the same way, If you are going to argue against women ordination, and want to use Adam/Eve as an example, please, get your Scripture straight!
And, look at the conversation Paul was having about women in context to what was going on in the church he was speaking of!!! It literally had NOTHING to do with women teachers! Just a lot of new convert women who were afraid they were going to die in childbirth if they didn't also worship the goddess of the town who promised women safety in childbirth, and who were causing raucous due to their fears in the midst of the meetings.

Point being, again, I'm deeply saddened. I think this will be another nail in the coffin, so to speak for the SDA denomination, throwing them into years of turmoil and misunderstandings of the Character of God, much like the conversation of Righteousness by Faith, which was struck down in 1888.

Father God, rescue your Bride, specifically the part of your Bride which is contained within the SDA denomination.

Pastor Batchelor has not shown any disrespect for women. That's a gross exaggeration. He has shown carefully that the Bible does not in any way support the ordination of women. How is that disrespect for women? Please explain.

Paul in his epistles made some statements about a woman's role which the feminists object to and try to reinterpret. Pastor Batchelor has made a solid case despite the fact that naysayers wish to discredit him. We plan to send him a letter commending him for his treatment of this issue. I hope that those who agree with him will do the same.

With all the controversy over gender in the pastorate, I cannot help but wonder what would happen if we fired ALL the pastors and then sat back to see what God did about it?

"Pastor Batchelor has not shown any disrespect for women. That's a gross exaggeration."

Then, why would he give erroneous "amazing facts" that women's I.Q. is lower than men? All the studies have shown that men and women are equal in the various parts of the test. Plus, if men are smarter, why are there more women graduating college than men?

None of this is based on Bible texts, but clearly, his personal and biased opinions. Also, it is true that men are stronger physically and more war-like, which is hardly to be recommended when women's superior communicative skills are needed to diplomatically negotiate with other people rather than going to war as the only choice. That is, unless as an Adventist he places higher priority on jingoistic ability.

"A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.

"Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.

"Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/education/4183166.stm

IQ testing. Ah, yes. That long and venerable tradition that has its historic roots in social Darwininan pseudoscience and race eugenics. But why should we be impressed by the law of averages Shane? Bogus as IQ testing may be, it turns out the person with the highest recorded IQ is a woman, Marilyn vos Savant! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

IQ tests are socially constructed and weighted to get whatever the author of the test wants to get. If you wanted sub-sahara females to have higher IQ's than NY males, you would simply put in different questions.

/Bevin

" We plan to send him a letter commending him for his treatment of this issue. I hope that those who agree with him will do the same."

Posted by: Your Friend

My wife and I have supported his ministry for years and will continue to do so. Neither do I claim all his presentations are flawless on any issue. None the less, he is closer to our historic message than most and I admire his conviction to take a stand on his convictions.

Few will do this, even when they agree with him.

Many don't even believe the bible, so I would certainly not quote EGW when she says had Adam not sinned, God would have dealt with Eve in some other way.

People love to misrepresent others and claim Doug and anyone who agrees with him hate women. EGW said those who stand for the truth will have their motives misrepresented and lied about to prejudice others.

No doubt such activity will intensify more and more as we near the end. And I have said many times, "The church will get a lot smaller before it gets bigger."

Thanks "Your Friend" for your support of Doug and the truth of God's word. I know others here feel the same way in their defense of the truth.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Ron:

I wasn't making a statement of any kind. I was merely giving the source for Batchelor's information. I could care less what IQ tests say in regard to this topic. For me, the ultimate authority for this subject is the Bible.

Even if women do, according to some studies, score a few points lower then men on IQ tests, it doesn't mean that they are not as smart. They also get better grades through out school and graduate both high school and college at a higher rate then do men. But that doesn't mean women are smarter.

The big big problem I see here for Batchelor is not that he is citing this research, it's that he is citing it to imply something wrong and harmful - that women are not as intelligent as men. He is not doing the hard work necessary to plow through the various reasons why various groups of people score differently on IQ tests. There are many and better explanations besides actual intelligence. Instead, he is taking the intellectually easy way out and propping up his own biases in a very dubious way.

In fact, I see much of his sermon like that. It's not that he is disagreeing with women's ordination, it's that he is using such downright awful reasons to disagree.

Some people argue that we should meld white and black conferences - some disagree. We can discuss that without citing research that shows blacks score lower on IQ tests on average and therefore shouldn't be with white conferences KWIM? There is reasonable and there is hateful only partially disguised as reasonable.

This IQ point is being pulled a tad out of context. This point was one of many he was using to show how men and women are different. This was hardly a hardline "fact" he was using to bolster his argument. If what he cited was wrong, it makes no difference to the bigger point he was making.

To refuse to ordain a woman is a denial of the gospel, because "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 New King James Version

What I see here is women bashing.
You know that you do not need to hit someone, to bash them.
The church has been doing that for sometime and getting away with it.
The weaker sex, on what grounds, mans!
Women feel they need to let men do this, why!

If it wasn't for women amazing facts wouldn't be amazing.

What men will do to get the ratings!
Only the weak, watch amazing facts.

Besides, since becoming a feminist it's taking all my time to get in touch with my deeply buried lesbianism and man-hatred that must be there - since I'm a happily married hetero it's been hard to find;) Maybe listening to a few more sermons like that will help.
Beth.
Thanks Beth for pointing that out.

Yes it does come up, his hated for homosexuality.

Doug used his mother to deflect his dislike.
May be it wasn't the fact that women shouldn't be ordained but just certain women.
What an amazing fact.

How dare the ministry of the church dare to equate the ministry of called women with the feminist movement and with lesbians. How disgusting, especially when it comes from a person who claims to have the concern of the church at heart. Perhaps we need to only ordain members to the ministry who truly understand the history of our church, including the writings of Ellen White. And who is this person to say what is socially acceptable, especially since he still finds his naked cave-living days noteworthy.

I personally like Doug Batchelor but I always sit with my fingers crossed whenever listening to him, knowing his penchant for excessively creative eisegesis (the 10 coins in Luke 15 are the Ten commandments, for e.g.), wild story telling, and glorification of his millionaire-daddy-Hollywood mommy-caveman-eating-out-of-garbage-can testiphony.

In my view the Adventist "if it's in the Bible we want it" approach can lead to none other conclusion than that congregational leadership by women is not promoted in Scripture. The issue of ordination is not the biblical issue in my view.

The early church provides a model for how ministry evolves to meet existential challenges. When there was a quarrel with ethnic (and probably gender)implications over distribution the solution involved the creation of a new ministry, different from the existing apostolic ministry. Later we see Paul doing the same thing in calling for a 5-fold ministry structure in the church (Ephesians).

There is little doubt in my mind that although I cannot find clear biblical justification for female pastors/elders in congregational leadership roles, and there appears to be some resistance to it in the NT, it is an appropriate response to the challenges of doing ministry today. Women have educational access and training opportunities for ministry as good as what men get, women are more active in the market place at all levels, and women bring added value to the ministry in many areas.

Wow, Trevor, I hope you stick around!

I Timothy 3 describes what kind of person should be an overseer in the church. Perhaps the reason it mentions that a male overseer can have only one wife is simply because women didn't need to be told to have only one husband; that wasn't an issue.

The text does not say, "the overseer shall be a man." But it does seem to say that the overseer can not be unmarried. Does the church ordain unmarried men? How can we justify that?

More interesting to me is the requirement that the overseer's children must be obedient. I do not hear anyone calling for pastors to be dismissed when their children rebel against God and their parents. And I really don't see any way to say that we should ignore this part of the text because of changing culture.

It is curious that all the attention is merely on the sex of the individual called to serve God. Has anyone ever heard of denying ordination to a man because of disobedient children? Or even because he has NO children at all?

Btw, I'm not trying to denigrate the passage. I believe we should follow the Biblical counsel. It's just not always obvious how to do that.

In the words of the Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"

"It is curious that all the attention is merely on the sex of the individual called to serve God. Has anyone ever heard of denying ordination to a man because of disobedient children? Or even because he has NO children at all?

Btw, I'm not trying to denigrate the passage. I believe we should follow the Biblical counsel. It's just not always obvious how to do that."

Posted by: E. M. Horn

All the answers may not be so easy, but you don't just ignore what is clearly stated and then do as you please in the name of the gospel.

All the same issues could be cited in reference to the Sabbath/Sunday issue.

When does the Sabbath begin?
How do we exactly keep it?
What authority does the church have in an individuals responsibility to keep the Sabbath?

We could make an endless list of questions on this issue. None the less, "the day" aspect of Sabbath keeping is non-negotiable. There is nothing ambiguous about that. Neither is there anything ambiguous about Paul's exhortation and the reason given why women do not qualify for ordination.

I see it as simular to explaining to a Sunday keeper why the Sabbath is valid. We use bible texts to "prove" our point, and they use bible texts to "prove" theirs.

Those who support women's ordination follow the same format Sunday keepers do and argue from the same spiritual perspective. Namely, the gospel gives us the authority to ignore and deny the law and use our own wisdom to determine what is right and what is wrong.

A classic example is how they use Gal. 3:27-29. Isn't it interesting that Sunday keepers appeal to Paul's writings to negate the moral law when Paul speaks of ceremonial law issues. And this is exactly what the passage in Galatians refers to as well? Simply this, all have free access to God through the ministry of Jesus in heaven vs. going through the earthly priesthood where various means of access were limited to certain groups of people.

Men in one apartment, women in another. Gentiles also having specific limited ways and now Paul tells us all can approach God equally by way of Jesus.

But now the ordination party corrupts the bible and uses a scripture that has no bearing on the order of government in the home, the church, or even society in general.

So they set aside the moral issue of family and church government and claim women are equally qualified to hold any position a man can. If so, it also applies in the home and their is neither husband nor wife, we are all equal in Christ.

The principle also endorses homosexuals to hold any position in church since there is neither "male nor female" in their agenda of authority.

It is a "sick" church that can not define itself nor its role in society as a spiritual guide to biblical issues.

I hope more and more people will stand up publically and support Doug and demand accountability for a church leadership that can not define themselves nor their role in church government.

Bill Sorensen

It is profane to claim to know the mind of God; and to claim to know exactly how God wants His (every) Word interpreted.

I just want to know how many of you thumping the Bible in defense of the “men only” position of authority in the church…how many of you would accept Ellen G. White as a prophet of God…today?! I think she would be quickly dismissed. I believe that even D. Batchelor would check his facts on women, check out his scriptures, and proclaim from the pulpit, “it just can’t happen!”

Bill: Please explain: how does reverence for the Sabbath have relevance in proving that women should not be ordained? Keeping the Sabbath was written in stone and given as God’s Ten Commands--and then to love others as we love ourselves. Nothing to argue about here. These topics, women’s authority and the Sabbath, are not even remotely related.

I really don’t care if women in the church can be ordained, or not, just as long as they receive the same salary and the same respect as men. What bothers me is Batchelor’s lack of social skills (a basic developmental domain), and of perspective-taking (the ability to put ones self in someone else’s shoes, and to “feel” how one’s spoken words impact the listener)………….and, over an issue that probably won’t be a deal-breaker for salvation. How many women sitting in his TV audience are still bruised from a physically and/or emotionally abusive marriage; have spent decades in ‘Christian submission’ with an Adventist man, only to have him leave, sometimes with a younger women; how many daughters, or sons, listening to Batchelor have “witnessed” their father slam their mother against a wall, or had a father neglect (the most deadly form of abuse) the family because he was married to the church???? And then to sit there as a women who has experienced this, and hear once again that you are not as smart as, or as strong as, or as focused as…a man. Words like this shut people down and make them defensive, not receptive.

We, as members of this church, should not be wasting time arguing the degree of power to allow, or not allow, a women; we should be spending time empowering her!!!

Pastor Doug is wrong. Everything else is superfluous.

It's interesting that, quoting from p. 12 of the Nov. 12, 2009 issue of the Adventist Review, "Only in China, where ordination is a function of both the regional Adventist authority and the government-led Three-Self Patriotic Movement, have female Adventist pastors been officially ordained."

The same article notes: "... whether a local conference president 'shall' or 'should' be an ordained pastor will wait for resolution at a special meeting of the General Conference Executive Committee on June 23, 2010, one day before the start of the General Conference session."

The Adventist church in China has been made to conform to their laws.

The Church was made to conform with U.S. equal pay for women several decades ago.

When a nation's laws conflict with church organization in order to continue to operate, the church chooses expediency.

Do "commissioned" female pastors receive all the pay and perks as men? This could be a legal problem, if not. Otherwise, it is sheer semanitcs in refusing to recognize women who are functioning equally with men. But then, there are those who are experts at
"word games."

Doug Batchelor is not a theologian and has no seminary training. He rejects formal education and chooses to rely on his own interpretation. Apparently he has risen to prominence because of his preaching style and personality and not because of his understanding of Scripture or inspiration.

Funny, it is easier for Adventists to ordain women as pastors with the Scripture in hand and forget the Levite Musician as Asaf to ordain Music Ministers.

Sorry, I forgot I have met an Ordained SDA Music Minister. Well not ordained by the SDA church but with a Legal State Licence as Minister.....

I forgot that you can be ordain by mail !!!

http://roseministries.org/?gclid=CMq5t6LN1aACFSpeagodCghJug

I've read through this thread and I don't see where anyone commented on or responded to what Teresa (I.Q. of 145!) said about her not attending the Adventist church, or any church, anymore. Forgive me if I missed it.

Teresa, don't give up on the Adventist Church just yet. You will never find a perfect church because churches are more like hospitals, and never like the MENSA society! With all the SDA Church's imperfections, I would not want to be anywhere else. There will always be contentious issues in the church for as long as time lasts. We will never reach the point where all members are in perfect agreement on every single issue concerning the Church. (Even in Heaven, I seriously doubt whether or not we will all perfectly agree on what took place here on Earth! For those that want, the Heavenly records will be available for those wanting to investigate. Eventually though, thousands of years into the future, God may remove them like He did the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from other created worlds who finally and irrevocably met their tests of obedience.)

I would like to suggest that you read Alden Thompson's new book, BEYOND COMMON GROUND: WHY LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES NEED EACH OTHER. There will always be liberals, moderates, and conservatives in the Church. Perhaps we can learn to look for the best in each other, and then realize that some members of the family of God will always have crusty or even quirky ideas that need continual shaping and molding before they can meet the light of day!

It is my hope and prayer that we can keep the moderates in power within the church in order to continue functioning as wise mediators between the other two groups!

John Anderson
Yucaipa, California

Randomly picking one of the 28 (#17), I notice that Doug does not have a basic working understanding of the Trinity. To comment further on the remaining 27 would be a waste of bandwidth.

Wasn't Ellen White an ordained SDA Minister? It is my understanding she was. I have a document dated Dec 27 1887 that reads ...... This is to certify that Mrs E.G.White of Healdsburg Cal is an Ordained Minister in good standing in the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists and is authorised to perform the duties of said office in the Conference year commencing Nov 1 1887. By order of the Conference. Geo.I.Butler (signed) President Uriah Smith (signed) secretary Dated Battle Creek Mich Dec 27 1887.

As a church, we have a responsibility to be open to a diversity of viewpoints in our on-going search for truth. At the same time, we also have a huge responsibility to encourage each other to used good exegesis: to understand the great themes and of the Bible, and not get stuck in inconsistent, literalistic interpretations. There must be limits as to how freely we an accept poor exegesis, especially by prominent, charismatic individuals in the church. To argue that "successful" evanglists should have more latitude because they are successful, is bankrupt. The more "successful", the higher standard these individuals should be held to, due to their wider influence.

The church leadership stands silent and tacitly accepts an abuse in mis-reading of the Bible by "successful" evangelists. These well-meaning individuals with their fantastic oratorical and persuasive abilities effectively lead many in the church down a path were we sell-out in an honest search for truth. Ultimately we end up accepting, that it is more important that we are good at selling, irrespective of what we sell. This is a sure road to fanaticism, divisiveness, intolerance and what hereof follows.

Ultimately, we risk saying that the growth of the church is more important than the values of the church. It seems to me that the leadership of the church to date has solidly planted its head in the sand and refused to address these issues. They do not dare to rock the boat for fear of division in a large, diverse worldwide organization. From the perspective of optimizing "peace" in the organization and "not rocking the boat" this may have been wise. But from the standpoint of being true to our calling of honest pursuit of understanding God's will for us, we may end up selling out.

Thus, the survival of the church becomes more important than the God it seeks to understand and worship, and the church becomes an idol to itself. We end up worshipping our church, not our Lord.

Finally, and sadly, we risk wasting our energies in destructive theological debates when we need to nurture and love each other in the church. Unfortunately, many of these debates deeply hurt so many of our members, and alienate so many of existing and potential future truth seekers.

Who has the courage to stand? The fundamentalist movement in the Adventist church has certainly spoken with a strong, clear voice. But where are those who will speak up to challenge the fundamentalist movement, engage in a constructive, listening dialougue where perhaps we can move closer to each other in our understanding of the Word, while strengthening our community and unity.

Carsten Thomsen

Carsten, you make many fine points. However labeling each other with emotional charged and pejorative-tainted labels along with direct accusations of complicity contribute to the destructive climate, the hurt and alienation that you appear to eschew.

How does accusing church leaders of "silent[ly] and tacitly" condoning , dishonest exegesis further healthy dialog? How does accusing evangelists of selling out the truth contribute to healthy debate? And do you really expect any kind of rapprochement with this "fundamentalist movement" in the church?

"In the sermon firmly denouncing women ministers, Batchelor lays out 28 tenets pertaining to the roles of women in the church."

Talk about yellow journalism this takes the cake. I listened to his sermon and Pastor Batchelor shows Biblically ordination of females is not God's plan. In no way does he disparage women ministers. Come on Spectrum headline developers we know you want to stir up interest but resorting to misleading statements is inexcusable.

Rather than read Alden Thompson take a look at:
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=7

Batchelor is right when he argues that there has been a vacuum of male leadership in the church. How else could we understand that such a bigot like him came to be an ordained minister in our church?

Mr. B. quotes Paul, in Premise #22 & #23: "I don’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be in silence because Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Very good, Mr. B. But I'm afraid both you and Paul missed the first several acts of the play. The ancient text indicates that rather than Adam being formed first, he was formed second-to-last.

Before him, says the Good Book, came snakes and snails, puppies and whales.

If we're going to set up lions of authority based on who was here first, we'll all be horsing around. And that's what bugs me.

The other Tom (not Zwemer)

"How else could we understand that such a bigot like him came to be an ordained minister in our church?"Jorge Fabbro

Does blog supervision allow this sort of defamation? Isn't this a reprehensible attack which the rules forbid? Please comment.

Bigot, def:
"
A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him."

Precise land descriptive anguage is not defamation!

One of the most serious problems I see with Batchelor's position is that he fails to recognize the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit over the life of the Body of Christ. The Spirit gives gifts essential to the life of the Body to whomsoever He will. It is up to the Church to recognize those gifts, no matter when or to whom they are given.

It is the Spirit who ultimately conquered slavery through the Church, even though churchmen had previously argued in defense of slavery, using the same style of reasoning used by Batchelor.

What bothers me even more is the impact Batchelor has had on my congregation. He has added fuel to the discontent of the divisive, abusive elements in it, such that they have even removed themselves from our fellowship after we ordained several women to be elders. Need we say "By their fruits we shall know them?"

Needless to say -- I am ashamed of my brother's presentation, and its effects.

One more thing: It is my understanding, from the "plain reading of Scripture", that the curses of Genesis 3 were rescinded after the flood. Furthermore, the curse of sin has been cancelled through the person and work of Jesus Christ -- His life, death, resurrection, and ascension has conquered sin and death, everything that has held us in bondage. Should this not mean that women have been restored to their original position of co-partnership and equality beside their men through Jesus Christ?

Is this not Paul's intended meaning of Galatians 3:28? Previously he has discussed our change from being kept under the law to our full "sonship" before God through faith. As he says in the next chapter: "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth His Spirit into your hearts, crying, 'Abba, Father.' Wherefore you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Galatians 4:3-7). This is more than just salvation here; it is exaltation to a position we did not occupy before. And it applies to BOTH Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, men and women.

No one, as yet, has given us Batchelor's CV, other than his self-promotion as a former "cave-dweller" which has nothing to do with theological acumen other than self-taught, which his messages seem to have relied upon.

What is his background in education? Did he graduate from Andrews Seminary? Does anyone know why he was chose to be speaker for "Amazing Facts" other than his persuasive rhetoric?

If there was an ordained pastor that was once a woman then had gender change to become a man, married a lady, adopted two children, and in the mix found the LORD and went to school and took theology. If some years later he was speaking the "TRUE" SDA historical views outlined by the Amazing Facts keynote speaker then would he/she be ok in the Biblical views of the "TRUE" SDA view to be ordained? Just wondering because if this is true then there might be a way for woman to be ordained after all.

I am sickened by the poison being spewed by false prophets on this forum. A hundred posts clearly delineate Doug Batchelor's bigotry, and yet somehow a couple of people refuse to acknowledge that he has said anything out of line. This tells me that those couple of people are the very types of bigots so arrogant, so steeped in hatred for 50% of God's children that they use the very same insults without a thought.
My grandmother, who has been gone for ten years, was a lovely Christian woman, who regularly referred to persons of African heritage by using a particular word; you all know which word I'm talking about. She would tell you that she had nothing against people of color. She wasn't trying to be insulting. She just referred to certain people that way, using terms that her parents and grandparents used. She never realized how damaging her words were.
I am sure Doug Batchelor, and the two or three anti-female posters on this forum, do not realize how insulting they sound and how hurtful their misogyny is to our church. I am sure they believe that DB's interpretation of scripture is the only correct interpretation, and if DB tosses in a few wisecracks about women being irrational and feminists being angry lesbians that's just wacky ol' Doug.
You are so very wrong.
So to the couple of people who are on this forum from, shall we say, the conservative camp, first of all you must stop claiming that Doug Batchelor's sermon was not insulting. Just because YOU were not offended by his insults does not mean that NOBODY is offended by his insults. I'm not a woman, but even I am offended by his insults; therefore his sermon was, in fact, insulting. Claiming otherwise makes you look profoundly arrogant.
Will you deny that he was sarcastic? Even he admits it. His sarcasm is contrary to the worshipful reverence expected of a pastor in God's house. The Lord loves a good joke (made a few of His own), but sarcasm tears people down and I can't imagine the Lord appreciating that.
Now let me ask you a few simple questions:
As an SDA, do you concur with the official position of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists towards women?
I would guess that your answer is yes. Now I invite you to hop on over to the GC website and read the official position on women: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat28.html
Go ahead, we'll wait for you.
Okay, done? Good. Now let me ask you another question:
Do you believe that all 28 of the Fundamental Beliefs are true?
Okay, now go read #14. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
Is DB showing his firm belief in #14, or is he demonstrating that he, like you, believes that women are inferior to men?
Okay, now it's your turn. Cite the usual scriptural passages by which you thump your chest and claim authority over women: Ephesians 5:22, I Timothy 2:12, I Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:6, I Corinthians 11:3, I Corinthians 14:34-35. I've read them, we've all read them, and we disagree on their interpretation. You believe that those verses indicate that women must in all cases submit authority to men.
Actually, I agree with that interpretation!
I'm going to ask you to read Ephesians 5:21.
Submit to one another.
Submit.
To one another.
Okay, now roll over to I Corinthians 11:11-12.
Paul contrasts his earlier statement, which DB shared, with a revision. Things have changed now. Woman came from man, man came from woman, we all came from God. So which one is superior?
Paul does not command men to have authority over women. On the contrary, he commands everyone to submit to everyone!
Is this Christlike, or does Christ support the idea that we should exercise authority over one another? Maybe this is one more place where we'll disagree, but I'm pretty sure when Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, He was symbolically submitting to them. Read Luke 22:24-30 and tell me Jesus wanted Christians to demand authority over one another.
Sorry, am I proof-texting? All right, your turn, then. Show me where Christian men are told to exercise authority over women. Find me a text that says "Men, you rule over women."
Men are advised to maintain control over their households and their children; nothing in that command refutes the idea that Christian men and women are equals. Husbands and wives can work together as equals, not as master and servant.
As a churchgoing Seventh-day Adventist, and one who studies the Bible, I gladly and willingly submit to a woman in a position of leadership, as God has told me to through His apostle. When she asks me to serve the church, I will do so, for she also serves the church in a very necessary way. God has ordained this woman to serve Him and to serve His church; I can clearly see that, and many others can see it. We see God's power working through her to bring men and women to Christ, to show them the good news of salvation. How can the church be so blind to God's gift?

How are we supposed to spread the Gospel and say we believe in equality when in order to be qualified to spread the Gospel through pastoring a church, you need to have a penis?

Many people here are quick to jump to Doug's defense and say we are being too harsh on the man. Quite frankly, if I hear something riduculous, I will label it as such. The same thing goes for Doug whose ideas seem to have little logical back up at all.

If God calls women to be ministers, then who are we to say that they were influenced by the Devil? If they are true Christians who are a blessing to others, who are we to call their work forfeit? The only reason why we do so is because they are women. Such an idea is the very definition of sexism!

Frankly Doug's comments about feminists being "angry lesbians" is far more offensive than anything that is being said against him here!

When Jesus saw hypocrisy, he called it by its right name.

I believe we also should have no problem by calling bigotry by its right name. Doug Batchelor was being an offensive bigot.

Shame on Doug Batchelor. His article nearly made me unsubscribe to this magazine.

As a psychologist, I must note that when the first IQ test was created (by men), women scored higher than men. Those specific items on which women scored higher were eliminated so as to create a test where both men and women had an average score of 100. Clearly, it is impossible to claim that either men or women are more intelligent since there are verified differences in the genders. It would be a bit like discussing which tastes better--apples or peaches! I must add that IQ predicts about 20% of success. IQ was originally set up to predict who would be likely to succeed in school. Results were used to exclude those who were mentally deficient from the classroom. A more recently studied set of skills EQ (emotional intelligence) predicts a larger proportion of success than IQ. Abundant research has shown that women tend to outperform men (on average) in EQ.

A second point must also be made to counter Bachelor's IQ and "better communicator" arguments. The variation within genders far exceeds the minute differences in average abilities within each gender. Hence in is not hard to find individual women who excel in abilities on which men fair better (on average), nor is it hard to find individual men who perform better on a particular ability that on average women are better at!

No gender difference found in math scores
An analysis of results for 7.2 million girls and boys contradicts the stereotype that males excel in the subject.
The Nation
July 25, 2008|Wendy Hansen, Times Staff Writer
The notion that boys are better than girls at math simply doesn't add up, according to a study published today in the journal Science.

An analysis of standardized test scores from more than 7.2 million students in grades 2 through 11 found no difference in math scores for girls and boys, contradicting the pervasive belief that most women aren't hard-wired for careers in science and technology.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/25/science/sci-math25

Now guys, don't go trying to confuse poor Doug with facts

/Bevin

A professor at the U. of Wisc. wrote a spoof of the I.Q. test.
I hase since misplaced my copy but the questions when like this.

1. What is the best breakfast food? A. Raw oats. B. Cream of Wheat. C. Pancakes. D. ham and eggs.

2. What is the best foot wear? A. Canvas. B. Iron. C. Leather. D. Rubber.

3. What can run a miles the fastest. A. Man. B. Women. C. Horse. d. Dog.

4. Where is the best place to sleep. A. Tent. B. Barn. C. House. D. Out under the stars.

The correct answers are 1. A: 2. B. #. C. $. B.

Then in italics at the bottom: Test Composer. Man O War.

A professional friend of mine was a test composer for the SAT test. He said that a good test writer could produce two to three questions a day that would pass the complete review process. Even then it was impossible to remove all bias. Generally the University of Georgia colleges and universities will accepts students with a combined test score of 800 and above. At the 800 level they would be required to take remedial course work not leading to a degree, prior to entering the B.A. or B.S. curriculum. At Ga. Tec etc the entry level was much higher in the 1100-1300 range and above.

The daughters of several of my faculty friends had or have daughters at Ga. Tec. on into advanced studies. The point is simply that within the SDA collegiate community there are more than enough talented/gifted women to fill SDA pulpits at a much higher level that the majority of the males they have sent to Augusta, Ga. in the past 42 years. Tom

To me most of the arguments and perspectives outlined in Bachelor's above arguments are in line with many of the arguments of what I considered an extreme fringe perspective within the Adventist Church. His "Oh! and another thing..." thoughtless shotgun "offend everyone" approach to sensitive and thought deserving issues betrays some serious flaws in his ability to represent and reach others on the behalf of Jesus Christ. I discounted Bachelor many years ago when he stuck a dollar bill in his ear on a satellite broadcast and likened it to fashion jewelry. It was being shown in my local church and two visitors got up and walked out. Several did not show up again. What truly saddens and troubles me is that he is and continues to be a mainstream fixture in this church. What does this say about who the Church continues to be and where our values are?

David Amen. Tom

"No one, as yet, has given us Batchelor's CV, ..
What is his background in education? Did he graduate from Andrews Seminary? ..."
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 26 March 2010 at 7:33
Elaine what is your point? I am always amazed by people alleging bigotry resorting to other kinds of bigotry and ad hominem attaacks against alleged bigots. Education and intellectual bigotry are as bad as other forms of bigotry.

Doug Batchelor either makes sense or he doesn't. He is either contributing to a search for truth or he isn't. Whether he is an autodidact or he has sat through seminary classes will not help us evaluate his claims. So what if he didn't go to seminary? So what if he did? Tear apart what Doug said as much as you want but leave his character and his background alone.

Elaine, I'm thinking that Doug doesn't have a degree. I've never seen or heard mention of one...so I wouldn't state anything with 100% certainty.

David B. I saw the sermon he did on jewelry, including the bills sticking out of his ears. I'm guessing he thought this was a clever way to make a point, but alas, it was painfully ridiculous. Perhaps the women who left found something better. Probably a blessing in disguise. His style and delivery, comes across to me, as somewhat snide and condescending. I don't agree with his theology, anyway, so he's not a pastor I listen to, for a learning experience. I mainly listen, occasionally, to be shocked and awed (in a bad way). I must say, he rarely disappoints.

I also have a bit of a bone to pick regarding his book "The Richest Caveman. As I understand it, his father was rich, Doug wasnt'. So unless Daddy Batchelor was living in the cave too, the title is a bit misleading.

Another 47 nails in my Adventist coffin. 28+ from doug. the rest from some respondents' illogical and demeaning and ridiculous comments.Tthat this is being taken seriously is another. An earlier encouragement to someone to stay, coz nowhere is perfect doesn't work. Of course I'll hang out with some of my adventist friends and interesting cultural experiences - just as i enjoy visiting a mosque every now and then and enjoy cultural experiences of atheists. i'll go where i find value. but belong and believe! yikes - that's deadly. Nearly killed me once. Never again!! I'll encourage friends and acquaintances to try out all kinds of different experiences that I find value in - but to encourage anyone to hang out regularly in Adventism or worse still, to become one: no way! I treasure people's quality of life and engagement with reality too much to wish that on even my enemies.

I wish this whole thing was a joke. Unfortunately it isn't. That anyone is listening is really scary.

What truly saddens and troubles me is that he is and continues to be a mainstream fixture in this church. What does this say about who the Church continues to be and where our values are?

****************

Without denying the genuineness of Doug's own conversion and personal experience....I couldn't agree more, David. There are real problems with his approach. But the organized church has made him and the whole ministry into a star to place out front. It's very unfortunate.

I sat in an evangelistic presentation in midtown Manhattan one evening about 11 years ago, and listened to 45minutes of his railing against jewelry, and about how he didn't even wear a tie clip. This, in a city where people are dying of loneliness, alienation, AIDS, homelessness...you name it. But a tie clip and earrings were the focus of the evening. Many of the Adventists in the place were shouting Amens. I was cringing and so happy that I brought nobody from outside.

Evangelism? What a joke. Embarrassing? For any thinking person, yes.

Thanks...

Frank

Yes, we have freedom of speech. But under the auspices of a particular sponsor, in this case the SDA church where he is either an employee or heavily advertised speaker, his sponsors are, or should be responsible for what he promotes. If he were being paid by Toyota would he be advertising unapproved or unaccepted personal facts or impressions?

As long as he is being promoted by the SDA church they are ultimately responsible for his teachings; otherwise, it IS tacit agreement, and leaves a very bad impression of Adventists as has already been given here. Is this the idea of Adventism that the church wants projected?

Yes, his educational qualifications DO matter. Otherwise, we could have anyone who said the Spirit of the Lord converted him and told him to preach--regardless of whether snake handling or stuffing dollar bills in his ears to illustrate the sin of wearing jewelry! This certainly is attempting to villify all jewlry-wearing individuals. Better educated people do not use his rules or hermeutics for Bible interpretation; otherwise, anyone could prove most anything from the Bible--minor points and making them major. He is a disagrace to the Adventist church. But, as long as the official church is silent and continues to advertise his seminars, he will continue to influence the biblically illiterate and desperate-to-believe individuals.

His correction regarding premise 2 is false. Ellen White says that they were separate when Eve ate the fruit. When it says that Adam "was with her" EGW says that it was referring being with her relationally and not in proximity. "The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it." PP 54. The SDABC confirms this.

Rob

Rob makes a good point. Many commentators also agree that this is what the Hebrew implies.

Thanks...

Frank

Many of those supporting Doug’s theology and exegesis on this matter must obviously be descendants of the supporters of slavery and segregation in the not too distant history of the godly/Christian fundamentalist US of A. One can picture the Dougs of yesteryear preaching similar Christian Biblical fundamentalism tirades in support of: slavery/segregation, holy wars, women’s place in the home, while the holy white men and women heartily bellowed “amen brother”. Thank God for the Humanist Enlightenment Philosophers who taught some us of to use our critical thinking facilities that the Good Lord/Nature gave us rather than slavishly parrot some hobbled-together, out of context passages written some 2000 years ago.

I prefere to all of you: http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/proveallthings/index.html.

"Premise four – The result of the curse is that the man would rule (reign, govern, have dominion and power) over the woman (Genesis 3:16, supplemented by Strong’s Concordance). God had to establish from the very beginning, because the devil would try to destroy the family, that there needed to be authority in the family. So the Lord went back to his original design—man was created first (6:00-6:15)."

In an algebraic sense, how does the "curse" distribute to both sides of the equation? How does evil distribute? What is the answer after balancing both sides? What is left? Man?

Elaine said: "Yes, we have freedom of speech. But under the auspices of a particular sponsor, in this case the SDA church where he is either an employee or heavily advertised speaker, his sponsors are, or should be responsible for what he promotes. If he were being paid by Toyota would he be advertising unapproved or unaccepted personal facts or impressions?"

Thank you very much Elaine. This is almost exactly what I've been saying all along in regard to LSU professors.

In one respect it's good to know that Spectrum and AToday agree with Educate Truth fundamentally even though they fundamentally disagree with the Seventh-day Adventist Church belief #6.

Shane - why would you conclude that Spectrum agrees with 'Educate Truth' based on a comment by Elaine? She does not represent Spectrum any more than you do. Both of you are welcome to comment here but that commenting does not make you represent anyone but yourselves. - website editor

You see, when a church representative teaches something THEY don't agree with then it's acceptable to make calls for accountability.

Reminder though that Batchelor is not out of alignment with the world church as voted by the GC. It is the NCC and SCC who are out of alignment.

By the way, I've been told by a local pastor that these two conferences have written a letter to the GC to reprimand Batchelor. Sound familiar?

Spetrum and AToday are treating this issue almost exactly like Educate Truth. Now a quick cursory read of their articles on this subject will reveal the huge double standard.

If one word is mentioned on this blog about Batchelor being fired, asked to resign, etc, that will really be ironic.

Failure to understand and differentiate the specific responsibilities of a pastor and teacher results in placing them on the same level. A pastor's responsibility is to preach the Gospel and help people come to Christ.

A teacher is NOT to indoctrinate but to present differing ideas and discuss them and help his students eventually to choose those which seem logical, after considering the various theories. It is NOT to be an indoctrinating pulpit. For those who do not appreciate the different parameters he should return to school where there are various positions presented, not merely one--which is a perversion of the teacher's responsibility to help his students think and critically evaluate all possibilities.

For anyone who has taught, particularly in non-SDA schools, or pursued collegiate and graduate studies in such institutions, it should be instantly recognized that it is prostituting the teacher and the institutional charter to TEACH, not INDOCTRINATE. The Roman Catholic Jesuit universities abide by this standard, and so should all religious schools who wish accreditation.

To repeat: a pastor is not a teacher, nor a physician, nor a dentist. He should stick to his profession and not attempt to encroach on the boundaries of those professions for which he is unqualified. No one has yet provided Bachelor's educational qualifications. Why?

When God gives gifts, he does not worry about the politically correct thing to do, nor does he worry about hot topics. He is no respector of persons, and will use anyone who is willing to be under His complete control, women or men. We spend so much time and energy majoring in the minors it is a wonder that we have time to advance the kingdom of God. In the end of time, when we are all in hiding and there is no "organized denonination" issues such as this will fade into insignificance. This may be why we are told by the pen of inspiration that the work we did not do in "easy times" will be done in times of great difficulty. We will not be worring about these things then, and the work will get done. Some of it will be done by women ministers. Get over it and focus on finishing the work, even if you are working side by side with a gender you don't think should be there.

I remember a sermon a long while back by Gary Venden at Redwood Campmeeting. I took copious & detailed notes.

The sermon was on Adam & Eve & "The Curse." He broke down the King James words into Aramaic & Hebrew & pointed out that "the curse" of man "ruling" over women was IN THE CONTEXT OF A PROPHECY. A prophecy of what WOULD happen for men & churches in the future would ALWAYS BLAME EVE for "starting" "original sin." When Genesis specifically, as noted in many comments, states that Adam was by Eve's side.

I envision El Shaddai ("the God[dess] of many breasts") shuddering by the Garden of Eden, while looking down through our future history & seeing this day in which Doug, a mere mortal, drives in the 96th Thesis on the subject on the Wooden Door of the Church that forbids those with breasts to enter.

Might I remind all of us, whether we sit in the SDA pews still or remain way out on the sidelines (like myself), that it was WOMEN who first "GOT IT" ! It was WOMEN who followed Jesus & knew His ministry far, long before the 12 disciples ever did.

It was MARY MAGDALENE who was THE FIRST PERSON ON EARTH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT JESUS' MISSION WAS, WHAT HE DID FOR HER LIFE & THOSE OF ALL PEOPLES, TRIBES, KINDREDS, NATIONS, & GENDERS, & SHE WAS THE FIRST TO ACT UPON HER "AHA MOMENT."
THEREFORE, MARY MAGDALENE WAS THE FIRST TO SEARCH FOR JESUS AT THE EMPTY TOMB. SHE WAS THE FIRST TO SHOW CLEAR DEEP EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED & WAS NOW MISSING FROM THE TOMB. THE ANGELS TALKED TO MARY & TOLD HER WHERE HE WAS, not because she had breasts but BECAUSE SHE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO ASK & SEEK & KNOCK & DO SOMETHING ABOUT HER LOVE & FAITH & BELIEF & UNDERSTANDING OF HIS ROLE...

Where were the MEN? I'm not being sexist or demeaning or critical here. Just the facts will answer my question: They were hiding under the bed! They were hiding in the closet! They were hiding in the upper room! They had barricaded the door! They were in fear for THEIR OWN LIVES. They were NOT OUT LOOKING FOR THEIR BELOVED FRIEND WHO HAD SUFFERED MUCH. No, they were scared & embarrassed & humiliated that their hopes of sitting on His Right Side on a Throne was not to be. Their reputations were gone with the apprehension, trial, sentencing & death sentence carried out in 24 hours.

I fear many more will leave the church over this. I am deeply sad that Doug has gone this far. I urge each person to search the Scriptures for themselves & NEVER TAKE AT FACE VALUE THE KING JAMES VERSION'S WORDING! Always, all ways, ALWAYS search Strong's Concordance to find what the words REALLY mean in Aramaic, Hebrew & Greek. You will find a treasure that will turn your life around, boggle your mind, & bring you closer to a beautiful, truly phenomenal loving & lovable God that is NOTHING like Doug or any other pastor or any other preacher has or ever will teach us.

I think we're on our own, now, on this subject. To each our own. And thank God for that individuality & the power to think & to choose wisely within our own hearts.

I am suprised but yet not shocked by what I may clasify as an emotional outburst by a man who I strongly believe has lost his way.
"Pastor" Batchelor has been a well respected man on the lines of tele-evangelism but his comments on women in leadership are totally unacceptable and inapropriate, especially in his position as a Senior Church Leader of a world wide church of about 17 million members world wide.

He may be good as a tele -evangelist but sadly has been found wanting as a Leader of church that includes both genders. In a year the Church is working hard to reclaim those that have left the faith for one reason or the other, the timing of this issue just feels like a kick in the teeth and an unnecessary distraction for those who are sacrificing all their efforts to bring many to the knowledge of God and share in the blessed hope in the coming of the Lord.

Is Doug Batchelor taking a jump before the innevitable result from the coming GC conference. I would implore the Church Leadership to take decisive action and offer Doug Batchelor the opportunity to resign. The last thing the Church needs at this delicate time in earth's history (just before the coming of Jesus Christ) are people who are going to put self importance/publicity before the critical needs of the Church and the world out there. Everyday, people are dying and probably with the risk of missing out on enternity, instead of focusing on speading the good news of Jesus Christ.

The selective approach by Doug Batchelor just goes to show that Doug has not taken a balanced view/application to studying the word. The references used in the presentation seem to have been tented with "theological Passage shopping syndrome" Picking and choosing areas of the bible that conform with individual hobby horses. The church as a system of believers has a position on this matter and I would go with the principle that "there is wisdom in the counsel of many"

As much as the Seventh-Day Adventist Church embrances the principles of democracy in its deliberations and freedom of speech, it does not take away the element of responsibility.
Every organisation whether secular or religious, there is corporate responsibility. Freedom of speech does not include "Shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre"
As a member of the World Wide Church do not agree with Doug's of choice to use his official capacity to propagate personal views which may be misconstrued as the Church position.

Finally, its God's business who He chooses to use to do or finish his work (Male or Female)

Out of all of these replies (and maybe I missed it because I'm only human), I have yet to see anyone explain why we should ignore the words of the New Testament. In the book of Timothy, Paul was very clear and plain-spoken about the role of women in the church. I have yet to read why we should ignore those words.

In the first premise, yes, there are transgender persons in the world, I doubt it seriously that there were any in the room when he made the statement. But in case there were, I'm pretty sure a transgender person does not go around referring to themselves as an 'it'. In their heart, they know what they are and are either sure about it now, or one day will be. So the sermon is opening with a 99.9999 percent of the world population surety. (but don't let this be reason)

In the second premise, you have to believe that Adam had conversations with Eve about what should and should not be done (or eaten) in the garden. Come on, you can't list every conversation between two people and one God in the bible, there ain't enough room or pages. I'm sure that they (God, Adam, and Eve) had more than one talk about not eating that blasted, beautiful fruit from that absolutely fantastic, facinating tree in the middle of the garden (c'mon people, loving partners have conversations about everything in their world). I believe Adam and Eve loved each other.

After all of that, Eve allowed a moment of weakness within herself. We don't know what her emotional state was at the time. For all we know, she could have been perturbed about something with Adam that day. Why do we constantly want these two people to be unemotional automatons, when the truth is they were two people who clearly, emotionally had otherwise. Remember, Adam was LONELY, that's why God created Eve. Adam, being a GUY, could've said or done something that day, that just plain rubbed Eve the wrong way. I mean, why else do women (or people, for that matter) get an opinion from and listen to a clever snake. A snake that was also well aware of the rules in the garden.

(Did you notice that there are no scriptures that reveal where God specifically has told the snake - or any of the other animals in the garden - not to eat any of the fruit, but we all know that the snake knew better.)

Eve took a bite of it anyhow (after a little coercing from you-know-who), Adam clearly wanted to maintain his relationship with his partner, because he loved her so. I mean, he was right there! Can you imagine the thoughts going through his mind as she sinks her teeth into that fruit, at that very moment (OMG!!), wanting to obey his Heavenly Father, but seeing the love of his life take this unbelieveable, strictly forbidden step, so he took a bite, too.

Reading this article, you can piece by piece dissect every premise listed to your hearts desire:

Putting all that you feel about Pastor Doug and his church (and personality) aside, please find scripture that specifically says, and without twisting or turning or exegesis, 'women shall be pastors or bishops just as men.' The Bible is excellent and just plain saying what it means. It is also excellent at just bottom-lining incidents such as the premise two, where you have to see people as just being people, and not being able to go into emotional detail about historic events.

I've been looking for that confirming scripture in direct, clear favor of women obtaining pastor or bishop status, but I just can't find it anywhere! Please help me.

And I don't want to read about any arguments about 'well, what does this person know about what women will do?' or 'how does this person know what Adam and Eve were thinking?' or any of that crap...just find the scripture(s) that specify the woman's role as pastor or bishop please!

Central Command as a nom de plume says it all! The serpent didn't tempt Eve. Satan used the serpent as a foil to tempt Eve. The argument goes down hill from there. Tom

God is a God of order. Even the trinity while being equal as God, had different roles. So it is with God's institution, Marriage and the Christian home, as well as the Church. The Bible is very clear on the issue as Pr Doug and others have rightly pointed out. Some may think because they have a PhD in theology or some other education that they have earned the right to re-interprete God's words. Are we smarter than God? Remember, the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Let God be God. Our only duty is to follow Him faithfully even when we don't see His logic.

Thank you for the messgae Pr. D Batchelor. May God continue to use you in powerful ways as we live in these end times.

Wilson, the foolishness of God is more often than not the bigoted ridiculousness of humans justifying their own illogic that has hurtful consequences.

To those who ask for Doug's cv, qualifications or educational background, I'm no fan of Doug's ideas, especially after reading this, but they don't prove anything. Both educated and uneducated people have bee profoundly brilliant as well as being ridiculously stupid. To judge a person's ideas on these is sloppy thinking. As sloppy as Doug's - but probably with less hurtful consequences, at least in this instance.

I find it hard to believe that pastor Batchelor suddenly woke up one morning and decided to preach a televised sermon on a red hot topic like this one. It seems a lot more plausible to me that he was asked by someone in the hierarchy to deliver this sermon at this particular time for several reasons. His folksy charm and populist logic make him the perfect candidate to check the political wind of the NAD on the issue and rally support among the faithful. Also, his everyday guy approach and popularity might help mitigate some of the disappointment that will occur when our good brothers from Africa and South America resoundingly crush any real discussion of female ordination this summer's General Conference session. Finally, it serves as an unofficial notice to the NAD that we as a church intend to remain firmly planted, theologically, culturally and intellectually, rooted in the 19th century.

"I would implore the Church Leadership to take decisive action and offer Doug Batchelor the opportunity to resign."

Wow, that didn't take long.

What happened to rally cry that truth is progressive and people shouldn't loose their jobs just because their view may differ with the world church?

This idea that women shouldn't rule over men is absurd! Just a few names: Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth II, M. Thatcher, Ellen White, The second Mrs. Woodrow Wilson, Clare Booth Luce, Hillary Clinton, a gaggle of women Senators, Governors at least a baker's dozen in that past 30 years, Women of senior rank in the military. Now there are two women anchors on newwork news. Yes women have commanded the space shuttle. Doug should come on camera with a leopard skin loin cloth and a tree limb club dragging a woman across the red carpet by the hair. After all he brags about being a cave man! Tom

..."it serves as an unofficial notice to the NAD that we as a church intend to remain firmly planted, theologically, culturally and intellectually, rooted in the 19th century"...

AD or BC?

and should we blame it on the Greeks?
http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/infe_gre.asp

who got it from the Egyptians and passed it on?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

who got it along with the Hebrews, about the time Olde Abe pimped his wife/sister to the Pharoah? or was it about the same time that Abe kicked his firstborn and his mother out into the desert to die?

or do we have King David to thank, a man after god's own heart, who raped his neighbor and had her husband sent to the Russian front to be killed?

or do we have King Salomon to thank...the wisest man who ever lived, thanks to the advice from a thousand mothers-in-law?

or should we wonder if God should shoulder some of the blame for inspiring Paul to say that women should not be preachers and priests?

or was Paul just reflecting the misogynist morays of the day?
and we can do better?

Now this is Amazing Theology.
I would imagine or brother has had to much sun.

This is beyond embarrassing.
I have heard three sermons in a row from women Pastors in the last three
weeks and they were full of insight, true Biblical perspectives and better expressed
than our brother shares here.

From the moment our brother suggests "Biblical Truth" I knew I was in for a good laugh.

Heaven help us.

How hurtful and divisive some of the comments below are. Difference and variance of opinion are a part of life, and unsurprisingly a part of the church. Should we then use this to launch into these shockingly malicious comments? God help our church.

Tony...

It's me, your paesan. You're right! Heaven help us if this is representative of the stance of this church.

Frank

Hello Frank -

When my good wife gets home tonight, from working a 15 hour day at an Adventist Church School in the South Bronx, I will explain to her that she is under my rule and perhaps should stay up late tonight and clean the floor, paint the house, wash the dishes but never, ever think that she can be a pastor.

Will someone please smack me and tell me this was some kind of sick joke.

The War In Iraq. Human Trafficking. Haiti and we waste time wondering if Women should be ordained as pastors? What is up with that?

Must be the marijuana in the ducts at that church.

Unfortunately, I have lost all respect that I had for Doug Batchlor after this sermon.

As a scientist-in-training I am extremely sensitive to anyone using scientific 'facts' without first determining if they are accurate. As pointed out above, even a cursory reading of well referenced Wikipedia article will reveal that there is not a difference between men and women's IQ; it takes all of 30 seconds to discover this. This leads me to the conclusion that Doug arrived at his conclusion about women's intelligence before examining the data, and then tried to find information supporting this conclusion.

This leads me to suspect that all of Doug's arguments were created to shore up a personal opinion, rather than via a careful examination of relevant data. This view is supported by his positing personal opinion as proven fact in many of his premises (as mentioned in the article).

His Biblical inaccuracies were the last straw. I have always respected Doug's knowledge of the Bible and his ability to apply it to everyday life. However, this sermon had several Biblical inaccuracies such as the premise that Eve wandered away from Adam to eat from the tree, when Genesis 3:6 clearly states that Adam was with her. This again supports my feeling that Doug was looking for support for his personal feelings, rather than carefully examining the pertinent information.

This leaves me greatly disappointed, and will make it difficult for me to take anything that he says in the future seriously.

Muzzle Paul! Please!!!

I'm glad Doug has made his global sermon and brought things to a head. I hope it gets broadcast to the whole church and to every non-adventist in the world (of course i know that is impossible - just making a point). It could cause a revolution of church members seeing the ridiculousness and immorality of the women-bashing and female-denying, breaking from the absurdity of it all once and for all. Or it could show the world the backwardness, irrelevancy and immorality in the truest sense of the adventist church and have them shun us until we can get even the most basic of human rights right.

If this sermon is from one of our best and brightest who is glorified and promoted at the highest levels, as well as almost worshipped by many people in the pew, then we don't deserve to bring people into the faith on the strength of logic - which is what evangelistic campaigns attempt to do.

I could not and would not show anyone who is in my circle of friends and colleagues who are outside the church. I would be deeply ashamed to be associated with the lack of logic, the insensitivity and the ludicrous statements put across so seriously.

Is this a throwback to the dinosaur era, or is this the future of adventism? who knows? but it's on shaky ground if this is in any way representative.

greetings to all.
for those who are so critical of doug (in very unchristian way). i say please be a good listener and carefully quote doug well. it's not fair to simply quote what the mother said (issue about angry lesbians) and come out as though he said it...it's just not fair. we ought to be kind and courteous even when we disagree... it's by having different viewpoints and coming together in the fear of God present these to each other that we are to grow. this is how adventism was started..there were different views just about every important topic! but they put out there "selves" and studied the Word and here we are...lets continue with that spirit. having said that would you kindly listen to doug again and courteously critisize.

God bless you all.

The sad part of this is that because the church doesn't want to ordain women, we can send no women to be prison chaplains as they must be ordained, nor can we provide women chaplains in the military.

Posted by: renie longfellow (not verified) | 20 March 2010 at 10:15

Actually, Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries does give credentials to women to become chaplains. The credentials are different, but they make it possible for women to become prison chaplains. I know of at least one woman who became a prison chaplain this way.

Is this a throwback to the dinosaur era, or is this the future of adventism?

not quite back to the dinos....

but all the way back to the stone age...when the first stories of the OT got told;

click below and find that women have been oppressed since day one. Doug is only continuing the caveman-Mesopotamian-Egyptian-Greek-Roman-Christian tradition.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

and EGW agrees....women have less vital force, because of their indoor life style, probably shouldn't be pastors!!!!

read this quote from EGW's Appeal to Mothers...and weep:
http://ellenwhiteexposed.com/appeal.htm

begin neanderthal-like quote which surely must appeal to all cavemen:
..."Females possess less vital force than the other sex, and are deprived very much of the bracing, invigorating air, by their in-doors life. The results of self-abuse in them is seen in various diseases, such as catarrh, dropsy, headache, loss of memory and sight, great weakness in the back and loins, affections of the spine, the head often decays inwardly. Cancerous humor, which would lay dormant in the system their life-time, is inflamed, and commences its eating, destructive work. The mind is often utterly ruined, and insanity takes place."...

so there you have it..

Paul says its better to stay away from women if you can

Jesus appears not to have married...tho He enjoyed the company of several women...at least one reported of easy repute

Doug says women are not well prepared or equipped to be pastors in addition, the Bible forbids it;

And EGW says women don't have enuf vital force to keep up with men.

Even that great modern philosopher Hef has been known to suggest that women should be obscene and not heard.

And Landover Baptist Creationist Scientist Dr. Jonathan Edwards suggests below that women may not even have a soul...and like the animals, may not be needed in heaven.

here's a disturbing quote from
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html

..."Dr Edwards recently announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."...

Is my tithe going to pay for this guy?

Congratulations Doug Batchelor!

You have taken the conservative anti-women-in-ministry approach a giant leap forward
into the 20th century!

The literalists (who are only literalists when it selectively suits them) fought for years to keep women from being allowed to teach and speak in church. in some parts of them world they still have to wear head-coverings to church.

Women were kept out of all kinds of roles because they had to follow the rules and dictates of Paul and other Biblical writers.

It was said that the Bible wasn't to be culturally evaluated. It was written as it was written by God, meaning exactly what it said.

Doug, you've helped to challenge and move on from those old ways of thinking. You disagree with taking Paul and others literally. You acknowledge that there are things that need to be understood culturally and that these days we can and do things, and must do, differently.

I applaud that you don't ask women to cover their heads in church. I delight that you don't ask women to be silent, and wait until they get home to ask questions of their husbands. In fact, you value, request and celebrate women teaching and preaching and ministering in church. You don't just limit them to a subservient Bible Worker role, in role and title. You actually believe and value women pastors. Fantastic! That's the greatest thing I have heard from opponents of women in ministry for years.

You even value and believe in a special ceremony for women pastors to be recognised and commissioned into their role as women pastors. A ceremony that is ordination in everything but name only.

The main thing is that you don't want a woman to be Ordained. You want to reserved that for the men. Mind you I haven't heard any where in the New Testament of something specifically called ordination. Just acknowledgement that people were appointed as bishops and deacons etc. (Oh yeah - bishops? How come we aren't biblical when it comes to having bishops? And deacons? - where in the New Testament is that about someone mowing the church lawns and taking up the offering? Their NT work and ministry was much more profound and humanitarian and spiritua than that!! Contemporary dumbing down of the role seems to have taken place.)

So Doug, the fact that you as one of the chief evangelists and spokes"men" for conservative adventism accepts, values and promotes women in ministry and additionally values the ceremony called commissioning that shows the church communities' recognition and blessing of their pastoral calling and role - that is wonderful!!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Just a little aside - some of the things you said about women in general and women in ministry were a little silly. But that betrays your subcultural conditioning both in time, chauvinism, culture and historical adventism. It offended and hurt people needlessly. Some statements where quite irrelevant. Perhaps they were some of your shadow self speaking out of your subconscious mind. We all have that. It's just a good idea to keep that part of you from making public, difficult to eat-your-words and retract statements. Spend some time in therapy and and also in truly listening to and relating to women of all kinds, including lesbians (they could even bless you! - they have me, in more ways than one.)

Doug, you've come a long way baby. You're mostly on the right track, even if a lot of us think you should be further along the running track than you are. But we all have a journey to go on.

May your ideas continue to grow, as you show they have. May you lead people on into ever increasing light. May your shadow self find healing and may some of the light shine in there. May the spirit of Jesus rock you to the core and blow your ministry to smithereens in unpredictable ways that are a catalyst for the healing and liberating of many. May your words bring healing to the bruised and battered, and to the women of our world (including our church) and contain the healing "salve" that is the foundation of "salvation".
May your foes forgive you and encourage you in your progressive enlightenment and humility, as well as be a continuing mirror back to you of the effects of your ideas and words.

See you at the foot of the cross with Mary Magdalene and me.

Gabe Sanchez

There are a number of statements in this sermon that are simply out of line with what the General Conference has already decided on this topic. For example, "It is easier to support from the New Testament that God has ordained that only men be pastors and elders than it is to support the Sabbath." The 1990 GC Session voted to recognize that after years of study the theologians of the Adventist Church could not find a clear answer on this question. At the 1980 Session, the GC voted a clear statment on the Sabbath. Batchelor evidently does not follow the voted positions of the General Conference.

The observation that "when Scripture says 'honor your father and mother' it always gives deference to the father first" is interesting when one gets to Romans 16:3 where Paul mentions "Priscilla and Aquila" (the woman first) in a list of leaders of various churches. He calls them by the same title that he uses in verse 21 to refer to Timothy's role and mentions the woman first. He also mentions Phoebe, Mary, Junias ("outstanding among the apostles"), Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, the sister of Nereus, and the mother of Rufus--10 among 28 leaders of churches listed in Romans 16:1-15 or 36%, a high number for "exceptions to the rule" one would think.

Batchelor takes 1 Corinthians 11;3 out of context and ignores verse 5 where Paul says that women who pray or prophesy must cover their heads. Adventists have never believed this. In verse 14 Paul anchors this entire passage in an appeal to "the very nature of things." Since he is trying to deal with the difficult situation in Corinth where church members are involved in adultery, etc., it seems that the most conservative reading of this passage is that it is very specifically related to the situation in Corinth and cannot be safely used more generally. Batchelor avoids the parallel passage in Ephesians 5-6, probably because (1) it clearly begins with the general principle, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ," before making any observations about wives submitting to husbands, etc.; and (2) it ends in 6:5-9 with a clear plea supporting slavery, which Seventh-day Adventists from the very beginning have rejected as unjust, immoral and outside God's will.

I like his statement, "If you spend too long on plainly reading the Bible, pretty soon it's not going to mean what it says anymore." This sermon is clear evidence of that reality.

I also like his comment, "There is no sense arguing against anecdotal evidence that suggests God blesses churches through women who preach and teach because God can bless even if it is not his ideal." Am I wrong, isn't that "Game Over!" for Batchelor's entire argument? If he admits that God can bless the church through women pastors despite Batchelor's interpretations, what difference does it really make? Why fight about it? What is the point of his sermon?

Batchelor's references to Ellen White ignore the fact that when the General Conference Session in 1881 voted to approve the principle of ordaining women pastors, she did not speak against it ever in any form whatever. He notes that the word "ordained" was crossed out on her credentials, but neglects to say that happened only a few times, that for decades it was not crossed out. And, in fact, Ellen White did say that women should be ordained. You can see that in R&H July 9, 1895, and specific language that women should serve as pastors in 6T 322 and 8T 229.

I don't know why Batchelor came up with 28 "reasons" in his sermon; it seems a bit disrespectful toward the 28 doctrines that represent the Adventist consensus on what the Bible teaches. His view on ordination (and mine) are not among the doctrines that we all agree on; the GC recognized in 1990 that there is no consensus on this topic. Why does Batchelor feel that he most preach about this now? Is just an internal issue in the Sacramento Central Church? Is this sermon in response to women and men among his own congregation who are uncomfortable with his view of things?

The saddest thing about his sermon is the way that it undermines his evangelistic work. How can people outside the Adventist Church trust his preaching of the actual doctrines of the Church when he displays such a headstrong approach on a side issue?

"How can people outside the Adventist Church trust his preaching of the actual doctrines of the Church when he displays such a headstrong approach on a side issue?"

Essentially, that is the strongest reason that Batchelor should no longer be promoted by the Adventist church: For those who are careful Bible students, he will have lost all credibility for anything he might have said in the past, or will say in the future.

But then, his is preaching represents the majority of the Adventist church today. At least one who swallows this whole knows what he is doing if he joins such a church.

I am curious if anyone knows if there is any forum where DB answers challenges to any of his statements. Does he enter into any discussion or just declare truths?

Sorry to disappoint you - but the earlier mentioned landover baptist site is a spoof website for making fun of the fundamentalist churches and thinking. it may literally be fiction but in reality it isn't coz its based on real life.

I can't think of a finer subculture of honorable people to have been a part of. I owe my education and the successful trajectory of my life to this institution. But there comes a time when something is just no longer palitable and you realize why this institution is nearly dead in North America. If this church wanted to save itself it would start by breaking all ties to Doug Bachelor and his toxic ministry. There is no room in the gospel for misogyny. Theological word smithing isn't going to save this collapsing dinosaur, and the line of reasoning in this sermon is only accelerating it's demise.

I am in support of you Pastor Doug. We need to ask ourselves the question: Are we going to follow the Bible or are we going to allow Feminism and the secular mind to dictate our position. Be careful Doug the organization will attempt to rid themselves of you etc. Let's see in they will try to sneak this in again at the GC in Atlanta. They will not stop until they get their way. Lord Help us!

Pastor Doug:

You addressed an issue that needs attention as the church is slowly submitting to Feminism and secular pressure. I have spent 10 years in the detail study of the subject and conclude that if we are to stay true to the word of God, women can serve in ministry but they cannot be pastors or elders. Women should attempt to be Titus 2 women. Isn't interesting that women who are "fighting" and "clawing" for pastoral positions are not even trying to follow the Titus 2 model? How come we don't see them seeking this? It is because of the coveting of power and position. Since the industrial revolution the decay of Biblical masculinity and femininity has been gaining momentum as Satan is destroying the family. Let us stop playing games with the word of God and follow His Divine Design for the Family and the Church with Men (as servant leaders) as the head of both. As Gods the family, goes the church, goes society. We can now see why society is in the mess it is: The church is following the world's pattern of family life; wrong headship at home and many churches. Let's follow the Patriarchal Pattern of the Bible. For excellent study on the topic I encourage you all to read the resources below:

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=7

http://www.amazingfacts.org/store/product/tabid/268/productid/502/sename...

Must We Be Silent by Samuel Korateng-Pipim

[Slavery] “was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.”
– Jefferson Davis

Sorry to let you know, Dee, that many scholars within the church have studied this out from the Scriptures for years, and disagree with you, Doug, and Pipim.

Additionally, Doug is not a well trained expositor...plain and simple. He seems to have a proof text knowledge of systematic theology...and not much more. His scholarship is sloppy and shallow...as evidenced by his presentation of this issue.

Thanks...

Frank

I have listened to Doug and I have read a lot of the comments about it as well.
I don't believe that those who have said that Doug said women score lower or have lower IQ's listened to what he said directly after. He quoted the information from some journal, yes, he did state it as if it was his own belief and it could be and should not have been brought to the sermon, although he is entitled to believe what he wants. I do not think that IQ test mean much anyway. What does an IQ have to do with telling about Jesus anyway, the Holy Spirit works through us. I'm guessing here but I would think HIS "IQ" is greater than ours. Jesus said not to worry about what we will say when the time comes, that it will be given to us, so IQ smIQ
I did notice that in the first part when he spoke of Eve he then started reading EGW, well, in my opinion that is where he made a mistake. I am SDA and I really have a hard time when EGW is quoted as if it is a quote from the Bible. I won't suggest that I know everything about the Bible, but I will say that I believe that GOD wants the gospel (the good news, the story of Jesus...) spread, when Jesus said, go and tell the news and baptize (my words, not a quote from the Bible) he did not say "Men, you and you alone should go a spread the word". Although the Bible tells of the (my words) "requirements" to be an elder or deacon, as many times as I have read / studied the Bible, I honestly cannot remember any where when it says Only Men can be priest maybe I missed it, I believe the church is like a flock and should have a strong leader, I myself believe this should be a man, but that's what I believe. I wonder how many people would not accept Christ because they heard the truth from a woman minister, PLEASE!! We should never get fixed on who tells the truth, but the truth only, even Paul said something like, don't make this or that an issue (he was talking about food and a day) but none the less he said keep focused on Jesus, (again my own words not a quote) Besides, isn't it the Holy Spirit that does the rest of the work, we can only do like the disciple and say... Hey, come and see.

Hey Frank do you realize what you are saying, Listen to yourself. It is evident you have not studied on your own. you said:

"many scholars within the church have studied this out from the Scriptures for years, and disagree with you, Doug, and Pipim."

Many have disagreed yet not all who have studied it out. So you agree many scholars agree with Doug etc. Have you taken the Bible on you own away from the critics and studied it out? 2x at the GC session it was studied and able scholars proved the position that women ordination is not Biblical. That is why the vote was not to ordain women. Yet, they (people for woman's ordination) keep trying. If already proven that it is not Biblical and voted down, why keep trying? Because we are people that are not satisfied until we get our way. That is very unchristian behavior. For you and others the issue is not a biblical one but a power and let's follow suit with the world!

Then you said: "Additionally, Doug is not a well trained expositor...plain and simple. He seems to have a proof text knowledge of systematic theology...and not much more. His scholarship is sloppy and shallow...as evidenced by his presentation of this issue."

You have judged the man because he does not agree with you.

How sad.

Love you Frank.

Hello Frank,

Just a quick note.

The resources below are composed of and reference a lot of Bible scholars. I mentioned them in one of my first comments. Please look them up and see the names of all the many scholars who agree with sound Biblical interpretation of the issue. Once again, don't call Doug names, pray for him and study the matter.

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=7

http://www.amazingfacts.org/store/product/tabid/268/productid/502/sename...

Must We Be Silent by Samuel Korateng-Pipim

Blessings to you Frank

Hey Dee...

"It is evident you have not studied on your own."

Yes I have. My views come from my own study of the bible. You assume. You know what they say about that.

"...many scholars within the church have studied this out from the Scriptures for years, and disagree with you, Doug, and Pipim."

Yes they do. Go read what Monte Sahlin posted about how long our scholars have studied this out. In 1990 they came to the conclusion that no solid case could be made for or against...after years of study...not just two GC sessions. Do your homework.

In fact, if you would bother to study out the whole idea of lifetime ordination to a paid, career pastorate for male or female, you may find that the whole institution is not even biblical.

"For you and others the issue is not a biblical one but a power and let's follow suit with the world! "

No it's not for me. Again, you assume my motives without even knowing me. Let's talk about unchristian?? I'm concerned with what I believe is Christian and a proper and loving application of biblical principle...just like you or Doug or Pipim. Amazing that I could have the same motivation while not seeing it your way?

"Then you said: "Additionally, Doug is not a well trained expositor...plain and simple. He seems to have a proof text knowledge of systematic theology...and not much more. His scholarship is sloppy and shallow...as evidenced by his presentation of this issue."

You have judged the man because he does not agree with you."

I have not judged the man or his heart at all. I would never assume to. But I can share what I think of his exegetical methods. We're called to evaluate any teaching by our understanding of the Scriptures. The Bereans were called noble because they did such with Paul. And yet, Doug is to be above such evaluation? Unless of course one agrees with him?

Whether I agree with his conclusions or not, and I sometimes do, his exposition of Scripture is sometimes sloppy. He often reads acontextually and proof texts to make his point. I've seen enough of it in his ministry, and this, to me, is one more example. And, giving me an Amazing Fact website/literature as support for his pointakes no sense to me. It's circular logic.

"Once again, don't call Doug names..."

I never did. Somehow you confuse an honest view with name calling.

And please, spare me the patronizing salutations. Your address to me spoke otherwise.

Frank

..."Let's follow the Patriarchal Pattern of the Bible"...SK Pipim

ok...lets do some research to find out what that entails:

4:17 And Cain knew his wife;....but where did she come from? there were only Adam, Eve, Cain and dead Abel listed at that point.... maybe his sister? like other patriarchs would do later, including Olde Abe? so God actually protected Cain, the murderer, from...from whom? who else was there to worry about or marry?....could there be real time if not whole generations missing from this story...leading to the further conclusion that the Usher chronology based on Genesis cannot be taken literally?

...Patriarchs should have multiple wives...it started way back when....

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives:

Genesis 16:1-4
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

so women 'servants" could be forced to mate with their patriarchs? and it appears Olde Abe and the patriarchs had several wives at a time:

Genesis 25:6
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....

Genesis 26:34
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.

Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife....

Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....

Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

2 Samuel 12:7-8
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....

1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....

2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....

and the ultimate patriarchal experience for us to follow?

1 Kings 11:2-3
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.

reminds me of the story told about a taciturn Pres Cooledge...who took his wife on a campaign trip to a chicken farm, where the farmer pointed out that in the entire hen hosue there was only one rooster.

Mrs C in an apparent dig at Mr Cooledge's bedroom abilities asked...
"you mean one rooster has the stamina to take care of all these hens"....to which the farmer replied..."yes...it only takes one"

to which Cooledge asked: "same hen every time"????

so, Pipim...are you suggesting that we overturn USA laws and go back to the old ways? like the Mormons still (quietly0 do, and the Bigamist-Islamists openly brag about?

another wonderful patriarchal example to follow?

..."12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land."

so the Lord failed to help overcome the famine in the 'promised land" which the Lord had inspired Abe to go to, and so Abe and family had to leave for Egypt!!!

12:11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Sarah -- An irresistible beauty at 70
12:12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee."

so Olde Abe, married to his (half?)sister, conspires to pimp her to the Pharaoh...and later gets rich because of this!!!

so...Pipim...do we still want to follow the examples of the patriarchal ways? buy and sell our women? mistreat them? sell our daughters into slavery if we get a good price? stone them to death if they "cheat", while we get to spread our "seed"? even in foreign captives...with no regard how that will affect the genetics of our offspring?

Sorry I didn't have time to read all these comments so some of this likely is redundant. I know the topic. As a person..a woman, who grew up in the church, now on the periphery and still not a member my comments are:

1) fish and birds were made 5th day, land animals the 6th day and then the high point of creation: Adam? OOPS...Eve came AFTER Adam...the zenith? The most "evolved?"

2) Jesus left the majesty of heaven to come to this earth as a Prince? No, the lowest of the low...a woman? No, a man.

3) Presumably Lucifer had/has a higher IQ than Adam/Eve, but I didn't realize that the church was now testing (and requiring?) high/higher IQ's for ordination....actually that might not be a bad idea. BUT I bet THAT never happens because OOPS...there might be a whole lot of disqualified male pastors.

4) My reading from Jesus is that those who are FIRST here will be LAST in heaven/New Earth and those who are LAST here will be FIRST in heaven/New Earth. What does that tell you about the ETERNAL future? It tells me that women are foolish to strive to be first now. OOPS...in future Mr. Batchelor will have an awful lot of women in authority for an awful long amount of time. (Maybe to see if he will be well prepared for heaven he should start giving up some of that authority now...just for the sake of character development here on earth.)

5) If women are not welcomed ministers in the SDA church they certainly will be welcomed in many other churches/venues. Perhaps it is time to move on....Jesus said not to throw pearls to the swine. I think we need to take those words seriously.

Other PREMISE ERRORS not mentioned below:

4) As a result of the fall (through her guilt at Adam submitting to her?) Eve now "desires" to submit to her husband who will now rule over her. As we "fight" death with medicines and surgery, as we seek to cultivate the land without the sweat of the brow, as we seek to relieve the pain of childbirth we also seek to restore the original relationship between man and woman. Some women's "desires" no longer reflect the results of sin: husband authority over them. When we no longer reflect the results of sin we call that sanctification, no?
5) EGW authority was prior to 50 - 60 years ago but perhaps Mr. Bathchelor doesn't accept that authority?
6) Mr Batchelor supports equal pay for equal work but doesn't want women to do ordination work because men have been abusive and the feminist movement has lesbians? A simpler approach might be to not let lesbians be pastors or abusive men.
12) If women communicate better than men and excel better at languages (preaching?) doesn't the church want the best communicators/preachers or does it only want the second best; men? If women "tend and befriend" and men are better at combat wouldn't that favor women being pastors and men soldiers? Or is his point that we want combative pastors?
14) Women can do the same work and have the same pay but can't have the recognition/status/benefits?
16) So if a father wants his daughter to be an ordained minister in the SDA church then she can and should honor her father in this way because one is the organization and the other is the family...two different entities.
19) What? Those who study the Bible the most are the most wrong?
20) Who said that? Jesus or Mr. Batchelor? My understanding is that Paul did not even condemn those who preached Christ from a monetary motive instead of a righteous motive..."as long as Christ is being preached." God could work through the stones themselves.
21) What was the gender roles BEFORE the fall NOT after the Garden of Eden? We are trying to get back to God's original plan, NOT that which was NOT planned through sin but was a RESULT of sin.
26) Why was EGW ordained/credentialed just in order to get her husband's pay? If this is not deceitful but rational then why not do it now for any wife of a deceased pastor? And once we do it for them maybe for women without a deceased husband?
27) Mary Magdelene's preaching to the apostles of a risen Christ was not under the authority of any man but under the influence of the Holy Spirit. And that is where women's ordination fits...under the influence of the Holy Spirit and God's authority. Likewise men's as well. No one should or can stop that.

Not a member:

I can understand your responses. It is a hard decision to become a member of such a group who places more than half its membership at a lower level than the men.

Hello:

I do not think it wise to debate as we all have been. Christ is ready to answer our questions.

May I say that all who have made comments on this site go to the following web-site and read as well order some books from them.

http://www.cbmw.org/journal/

It will help much in reasoning the truth in our minds.

from Dee's link above....'the "about us" page....
The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood

..."In 1987, a group of pastors and scholars assembled to address their concerns over the influence of feminism not only in our culture but also in evangelical churches. Because of the widespread compromise of biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood and its TRAGIC EFFECTS on the home and the church, these men and women established The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

In opposition to the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism they articulated what is now known as the "complementarian" position which affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function.

In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.

An organization like CBMW is needed because the gender issue is so complex, and the consequences for violating God's Word in this area are so devastating."...
end quote

no wait...let me emphasize the main part of that quote:
..."women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands"...

I tried that...didn't work....my ex just didn't see the need to leave camp for thaaaat week each month. (ggg)

and this comment?

..."I do not think it wise to debate as we all have been. Christ is ready to answer our questions"...

the issue is fractious because no precise word has come from Christ....Didn't Jesus treat women better than his day and background would have suggested? and in the theatrical story of the stoning of the woman of ill repute...Didn't he suggest that only "he who is guiltless stone the cast first?"

otho, was it Jesus who inspired paul to put women down? or at least relegate them to inferior positions in society as was the norm of the day?

do we not find it strange that varied and far reaching issues of import seem left to discussion?

should we do as God commanded the israelites and "kill them all, including any women who have had sex, but save the virgins? or should we love others as ourselves?

should we forgive 70 times 7, like God forgave King David for his rape and murder? or should we figuratively kill (or literally abort) innocent kids like God is said to have done to Davids innocent child to blame the parents?

while details such as picking up sticks on the wrong rotation of the earth carry the death-by-stoning penalty.

if we no longer kill the janitor for turning on the furnace on cold sabbath days, thereby overlooking one set of commands, should we feel any less certain that times and mores have changed, and we should no longer treat women as 2nd class citizens?

One needs to look no further than the polygamous Mormon sects who maintain submissive wives (plural) and they obediently do as he says, even agreeing to his adding new wives to his harem.

Only when they rebel and "Escape" to write books about their very constrained lives, do we discover that part of their belief is to indoctrinate the females from birth to be submissive; the young males are sent elsewhere so as not to compete for the women with the older males.

Great community, why don't more women join and submit to the husbands as unto the Lord? It follows the patriarch's example of numerous wives, so it can't be wrong if the Bible never condemns it.

Thou shalt make me a sandwich.

The liberal agenda is to suck everyone in by persuasion at first and in the end, finally do "what ever is necessary" to accomplish their goal at last.
What Glenn Beck stated was the "power of persuasion, that eventually culminates in the persuasion of power."
How is it people fail to see the perfect parallel in American politics reflected in the SDA church today?- Bill S.

LOL. Bill, you've just lost all credibility. You're more concerned with the 'truth' of glennbeck the mormon than the subject at hand. If you're really interested in the current 'politics' in the church, I'd suggest you look further than your own back yard (or your own television), and realize that for a long time, the evangelical movement has been making itself very at home in most Adventist minds- whether they know it or not. To attempt a slam at 'liberals' is a simple twisting of the issue at hand- to create an 'other' for a particular element to be angry with.

To address the 'sermon' in question, I have this- It becomes apparent that Doug Batchelor is very interested in Paul- and not so interested in Jesus.

I am in support of you Pastor Doug. We need to ask ourselves the question: Are we going to follow the Bible or are we going to allow Feminism and the secular mind to dictate our position. Be careful Doug the organization will attempt to rid themselves of you etc. Let's see in they will try to sneak this in again at the GC in Atlanta. They will not stop until they get their way. Lord Help us! - Dee

Dee, in reading your above posts, it appears that your feelings on this issue haven't nearly as much to do with the Bible as they have to do with those who claim to 'know' the bible on this issue. When you use the term 'feminism' in a systematically negative way- or 'secular mind' - you're making assumptions on those that disagree with the viewpoint that, I'm sorry to say, it appears you've swallowed. Now, I don't want to freak you out or make you feel as it you're being attacked- but we need to realize that not everyone will come to the same conclusion in this church that was started with a female at it's core, regardless of the assertion that that argument is a 'strawman'. Women are led to ministry- it's unfair and unjust to expect them to give everything for free when men are salaried. Perhaps if all of our male ministers agreed to forego salary to level the field.. but I doubt that will happen.

I do not think it wise to debate as we all have been. Christ is ready to answer our questions.

****

Great, Dee! So, you send people who disagree with you to a website where PEOPLE are giving their biblical perspective that agrees with your view, and equate that with an answer from Christ. Yet, you fail to personally engage those with differing perspectives...also from their own reading of the bible...with your own scripturally thought out position.

What happened to "Come, let us reason together?"

Frank

Hi,

I'm not one to debate and I'm not about too. There have been some good points made here. 1. Doug does have an opinion and I hope he reads all these statements, not to bring him down in his ministry but to just realise what is truely going on. I read only a very few but one that caught my eye was moriah's. I am entering into the ministry field in a few years as I am currently studying at a college in Australia. It is a struggle stepping up 2 be a woman pastor. We get critised all the time. How would you men like it if we critised you about this.

I never wanted to go into ministry, quite frankly that was the last thing on my mind, but God has called me to do his will, regardless of how i feel. Therefore who are you to judge whether I am fit enough or capable enough to go into ministry! If God wants me to do it, you should all be proud that he not only uses men but women also! We give different perspectives and views, so therefore i feel different perspectives are valuable.

"The Great Commission can and will be finished only by those who are humble, sincere, honest, not discriminatory, not racist, not empire builders or control-freaks and not looking for self-gratification and honour!"

Well, that eliminates nearly all who are presently attempting to do that. Anyone who steps up to the challenge must risk being accused of wanting honor and insufficiently humble.

Lord, forgive Doug, for he does not know what he does. Help me to not want to strangle him for totally missing the whole point of you, and claims he is the "real" Adventist, and instead gets caught up in tradition, misinterpetions, out of context passages, etc. I feel he is the Glen Beck in Adventism, and is not healthy for Christians.
AMEN

the Lord will probably "forgive" Pastor Doug, because if you watch the video which started it all....

http://www.amazingfacts.org/Television/EverlastingGospel/tabid/78/ctl/Pl...

...you will find that Pastor Doug is just giving his opinion based on what he finds in "God's Word"....the biblical perspective.

However, it is not difficult to understand how there could be a different interpretation, based not just on todays culture, but also on the fact that the Bible is a collection of different writings which do not always give the same interpretation to things.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html

so if we don't like the way women are treated in this regard, why blame the messenger just because he once lived in a cave... why not reinterpret the message (the Bible)

I can only say that I am a woman and an ordained elder who, with her husband's financing, blessing, prayers,and total support, has presented 17 evangelistic series and baptized about 1,500 people. I never enter into an argument about the ordination of women with bigoted members of my denomination. I simply dedicate my entire life to winning souls for God's kingdom--and let the Holy Spirit determine the outcome. May God help us to ignore Batchelor's opinion sermon and go about our duty of winning souls.

Ellie - Amen! Keep on keeping on! Serving God and winning souls is what it is all about.

Have to remember that we work for God and God alone! Our mission is to take Jesus to the world regardless of our gender! Jesus gave ALL of us authority to do that and He calls us to be ministERS where we are best suited and sometimes that doesn't make sense to anyone but God - sometimes we might even wonder why we are where we are.

God didn't just call me into ministry, He placed me into a specifically designated ministry where He could expand His kingdom and accomplish His will for my life. I believe He does that with everyone - every person has a God-ordained purpose - our job is to except it and to be willing to be used by God for that purpose! He made it almost impossible for me to run and I still tried to run and was completely miserable until I came back. And now I sit in the middle of what God has for me to do and while it can be a terrible job at times, I know it's what He wants me to do! It's not an easy route to go - ministry is hard, hard work - but God is so good and faithful and it is SO worth it!

Other part of it is that if I (and many other women) were to give up being ministERS, I/we would be in direct violation of God's instruction. Maybe a relevant study would be to look at all the people in the Bible who turned down God's calling/instructions and what happened to them. I'd take great caution in questioning being obedient to God's will regardless of gender. If I'm creating some horrible sin by being a female minister, I and the folks I've brought to Christ by God's grace, will have eternity for Him to explain it to me/us.

The only thing Pastor Doug's sermon does for me is make me more committed to following Jesus, the plan He has for my life, and taking His Word to a deeply, tragically hurting world.

..."every person has a God-ordained purpose"...

...including Hitler? who thought he was doing away with the people who killed Jesus

... Judas? who either was a traitor, or if one believes the newly found Book of Judas, was only trying to force Jesus hand in overthrowing the Romans...

... Cain?...who killed Abel...and his purpose? and for what possible reason would God have protected him?? and protected him from whom?

...Ishmael? what was his purpose? to father the Arabs who later became the enemies of Gods favorite tribe?

...Lot? the guy who was so willing to give up his daughters to be molested by the crowd? to what purpose was his life and story if we are to believe it all literally?

...there is a possible non traditional explanation for why the Israelites brought us the tale of Lot and his salty wife who ended up resembling a natural hoodoo overlooking the dead sea.

The Israelites, returning from Egypt, had to "ethnically cleanse" (murder, rape, pillage, etc) their claimed Promised Land from its inhabitants...

Wouldn't it be natural for Moses and Joshua to tell their soldiers anything they could to motivate them to overcome the "enemy"?

here are the top 7 possible motivational issues whipping up the soldiers enthusiasm for the upcoming attack:
..."you must kill all the inhabitants of Moab because

A) God told us to do so, and who are we to question God; and
B) you can keep their goats, gold, little girls and stuff, and
C) God gave us their land, and
D) you must kill all the men and little boys so they will not propagate further, and
E) you must also kill any women who have possibly been inseminated, because we want to wipeout their tribe, and we don't want to raise any little Moabites...but
F) you can keep the virgins to use, because
G) they are all SOB's anyway...the product of Lots drunken incest in the cave, and prior to that, they were misused by the crowd anyway, so who knows about these peoples ancestry...certainly they cannot lay claim to "our" land of Abraham because of their questionable ancestry.

so was Lots story for God's benefit? " God ordained"???
or for the Israelites use in justifying their "conquest" of Canaan?

"this church that was started with a female at it's core,"

Are you talking about the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

Villagetree, can you get me the information on that? I met some Baptist people who were close to making a decision to join the Seventh-day Adventist church, (it sounds like your an Adventist) and when they heard that it was founded by Ellen G. White they took issue with that and remained in their church. I was part of that discussion and one Adventist said the church was founded by E.G. White and the other said it was not. The conclusion from one side as I remembered it was: Joseph Bates, James White and some others, including E.G. White were all part of the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Is this true? Do you have any information for someone that is seeking. I too want to know the truth. Thanks for any information you can give me.

Hello Seventh-day Adventist Friends:

I just read an official document from this web site written by the Southeastern California Conference. It looks more like the Roman Catholic Church! We should all be able to speak our mind and not get slammed and then told that anyone else with this same opinion will get disciplined. Sound like the flames of Rome will be burning once again.

Villagetree forget the information, maybe I am searching in the wrong place for the truth. This type of tactic scares me.

Here it the quote:

"We also believe that when these boundaries are violated by those whom the church credentials to minister for it, the following should take place:

• Church leadership needs to hold them accountable.
• Official church entities need to go on record disavowing the distorted content of such presentations.
• Media outlets that are controlled by the church and carry such presentations need to recruit credible voices to offer appropriate, biblically sound responses that show the
church's true position."

Who all determines this! I have read many of Adventist ministers and teachers express that the Bible does not teach womens ordination, pastor, or elders. Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church going to go after them all? Whoa! Once again, if this is indeed what they are attempting to do, I'll try another group, church, denomination, home church or something. Once again, this scares me, it scares me, it scares me. Why can't someone express their view with out this. If you recalled I did say in my first response that they might come after Doug for this. Here it comes, as well as anyone else with a different view.

Please read this site below. And tell me is this true?

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=145

..."tell me is this true?"...

yes.

it's at least "true" in the mind of the author...

from their "about us" web page:

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=6

quote:

ADVENTISTS AFFIRM is dedicated to upholding the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and supporting its leadership in upholding those beliefs.

Together with many other churches, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is feeling the impact of liberalizing trends, eroding confidence in the authority of the Bible in defining belief and practice.

Therefore, a group of scholars and other interested people began this publication in the spring of 1987.

Positive response has been so strong and so widespread, coming from church leaders, pastors, and concerned constituents alike, that the conviction has deepened that a conservative approach to issues facing the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not only needed but welcomed.

Addressing issues in the Bible2. The purpose of ADVENTISTS AFFIRM is to address issues involving doctrine and practice faced by the church, and to do so on the basis of the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

3a. The intent is to affirm the fundamental beliefs of our church as confessed in the "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists," affirm the Bible as the inspired Word of God...

3b. ...affirm the Spirit of Prophecy writings as inspired counsel and illumination on the Bible, affirm the Bible-based lifestyle and piety of Seventh-day Adventists, and affirm the leadership of the church as appointed servants of the Lord.
end quote

but does that mean you and I must agree?

I for one am in agreement with Doug on the point that women should not "usurp authority over the man" in church matters. A woman should not be head pastor - the New Testament says so.
Just as gays want to make the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrha a lesson in not be hospitable, so modern church members want to put down Paul - However, Doug may want to rethink his devotion to Ellen White - according to Genesis Adam was with Eve - according to White -she left his side- need another witness to prove that one. Eve was deceived, however but Adam was not - that is the difference. A lot of false doctrine in the church in the last 200 years has come from women - I am a woman by the way. This does not mean women cannot be leaders in other areas - but if you really want to be people of the Book - stick with the Book and not so-called "Prophets" or feminists or anyone who wants to lessen the authority of that book for their own ends.

A woman should not be head pastor - the New Testament says so.

**********

Where in the world does the NT ever even talk about the office or position of head pastor?? It's not there. It's a later church creation that helped divide the clergy from the laity, a clear violation of the priesthood of all believers. Any wonder why we're so divided in this issue?

Let's take one more step back, and question the biblical validity of lifetime ordination to a full time, paid, career pastorate for anyone...male or female! This would put the issue and discussion on an entirely different footing.

But, we're Just not comfortable with admitting the extent of how bound we are to tradition.

Thanks...

Frank

I somehow after reading the comments written, see another picture of what’s happening. Forcing ones feeling's of how they feel the right women to have more power in the ministry.
Maybe there is an endangered species, "the man". When God created men he did a complete job, meaning not only the appearance but also his character. We as humans can only look at the outside but what a man is is revealed in his heart. Who not only made in the image of God, but by his character as well.
The real picture maybe is the proverbial cart before the horse. If the male gender filled the role as priest, provider, and protector and accepted the role as the head instead of relinquishing the responsibility and letting go of the steering wheel, who else is there to grab the steering wheel to stay on the road.
There is a lost art, men being men and women being women.
Are women in our society looked down upon and not as good as men? Or is the role of women not valued if not dismissed. Is there not a distinct difference in men as women! And so the hand does not look like a foot nor function like a foot. There is distinct difference, yes, in extreme situations the body adapts to survive. The same is with our roles in society, don't you think?
Isn't it wonderful to see Olympic athletes like an ice skater who has trained and worked to perform, and how much more exciting to see a couples skating pair. Working in perfect unison to perform, each having a role that the other partner is not built to do. But when they work together it is a thing of beauty and silence fills the air even enough to hear the blades of their shoes grabbing and cutting the ice as they maneuver their individual tasks. Isn't it so when the world sees a family functioning as a whole and, watching a man and woman building each other up by performing the divinely given functions of their own gender, that’s real beauty and almost art Maybe God, has a blueprint we and we have lost the plan.

"Maybe God, has a blueprint we and we have lost the plan."

If we have lost the plan, that infers that there was a plan, but not knowing, we have devised the pragmatic way. Has God really planned that each male would find his mate? If so, why are there more males born than females? Shouldn't there have been a perfectly even ratio? Is everyone a suitable mate? There will be many more singles in the future as there is even now. Other than biology, what is limited for either sex?

I watched Pastor Doug's sermon and know that he is a man of God who is serious about God. We need more Church leaders like him. As of now, we are really lacking in the leadership department at many levels within the Church. When more leaders stand up for Jesus and His lifesaving truth, we will begin to experience a Holy Spirit revival. When this takes place, those who are not grounded in Jesus will be shaken out of the Church. Pray that we will truly surrender all into the hands of the Creator.

Premise four – The result of the curse is that the man would rule (reign, govern, have dominion and power) over the woman.

This statement is biblical - but I fail to see why Doug thinks it is mans' role to inflict this curse!

I hadn't actually attended any of DB's crusades, nor watched on the TV....but after viewing the youtubes of his explanations... its makes it easier to understand where he is coming from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzsFdxB-R7M&feature=related

he says he found a Bible in a stone cave on the slopes overlooking palm Springs (Mt San Jacinto)...

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/San-Jacinto-Peak

and didn't understand it, but it changed his life from being a rich kid-spoiled -dope smoking, lying, cheating, stealing hippie to a crusader for God!!!!

to bad he never checked out the 11,700 yr old creosote bushes along I-10 going down to palm Springs....or maybe he would have modified his belief in the very young earth!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1853828.stm

too bad he never studied the local rocks around his cave which tell a story of millions of years of earth history
http://www.riversidecountyparks.org/locations/nature-historic-centers/sa...

he seems a really nice guy...who has lost most of his family, (including a son if I remember, run over by a bulldozer) and probably wants to meet them in paradise, and take us all with him, and to do so, his belief is that we must take the ancient texts literally....

...and as Paul indicates...women should not speak up, much less be ordained!!!!...literally.

but if we take the entire bible literally:

... one must send one's wife and daughters out of camp for a week each month during their uncleanliness.... and

they should take a shovel to bury their human exhaust so that God will not have to step in it, and

if one gets a good price, one can sell a daughter.... and

if a son becomes unruly, a stoning at the city gates is necessary, and

to remove mold, one should kill two birds, sprinkle their blood on the affected surfaces, then call in a witch doctor to perform incantations....etc.

times have changed. DB apparently pines for the old daze when the goat herders had not yet heard of satellite TV...radiometric dating...genetic OR continental drift....or the San Andreas Fault which could shake his old cave up to an 8 some day.

is it possible that we should be less concerned with DB's beliefs based on "God's Book of Words" and bronze age writings than with why the source of those beliefs differs so dramatically from what today's science shows us from God's Book of Rocks?

I am a female ministerial student, and I respect my opponents for their views. My one ax to grind is the lack of encouragement anyone seems to be giving for people my age to study for ministry. There are not many women in my degree program--but there are not many men, either. There is a large freshman class (maybe twenty), but I am one of two in my own.

To both sides, I issue a challenge: instead of focusing on who can or cannot do ministry, focus on raising sons (and daughters) who will step up to lead the church. The pickings are getting slim, and the situation is grave. When this generation of pastors retires, there will be a severe leadership crisis--if there is anyone left to lead after half of my generation leaves at graduation, as the statistics say.

One biblical principle we can all agree on is that God charges us to pass on the faith to the next generation. This is not happening. To the supporters of womens' ordination: prove your arguments by sending us your daughters. To the opponents: prove us your arguments by sending us your sons.

To those who are still not sure: work on raising children who will stay in the church through loving education in the faith. The future rests on it.

Any Biblical interpretation that leads to abuse is an evil interpretation!

What I’m about to say about women’s ordination and ordination in general may greatly reduce my sphere of employment within my church, but let’s face it, we may quote Scripture to support our practices of ordination, but honestly, we do not have a sound biblical basis for the way my church practices it. In my denomination, yes I am an ordained pastor in the SDA church; no pastor is ever ordained to the Gospel ministry upon graduation from seminary. Biblically, “ordination” if that’s what the “laying on of hands” can be described as, happens in the process of sending to proclaim the Good News, not after he/she “proves” his/her grain (yes, in the NT men and women get sent out to preach the Gospel. Men and women were sent during Jesus’ ministry and especially after the resurrection. (Read Acts 1-2 where both men and women receive the Holy Spirit which, if understood contextually, it is generally received in the context to preach the Gospel and as a testimony of its power). When a young male enters the ministry (I said “male” because in our church’s policy only men are placed in the “ordination track”) he must prove that he has been called by God should he fulfill the “10 year track” starting in his first year of religion/theological studies in college, two years of seminary studies, and four “in the field.” Until he is ordained he will not reach the top rung of the salary ladder, which is 150%. Bible teachers, religion and theology professors (in most of our universities), as well as Conference treasurers are ordained not because they are directly involved in Gospel ministry, but in order for them to reach this “top” rung in the salary ladder of 150%. In North America, where either by compulsion (read legal) or ethics an employee must have equal pay for equal work, but in most cases, it is not so. Let me give you a real scenario as to how a pay scale is linked to ordination/commissioning. The female pastor I happen to work with, is a Spirit-filled and very effective pastor, she’s at about 120% of the salary scale, and she will not reach the 150% until she is “commissioned”, which means she must first complete her master degree and be at least four years in “active” ministry. Equal pay for equal work? Hardly. Other North American institutions use other formulas in order to bring their female employees up to par with their male counterparts because the law demands it, but not so where there is no law to regulate this, which is what happens in my church outside North America. Believe me, I know. I served there quite a few years. Things for church employees, especially women, outside North America really get trickier when it comes to salaries since these are directly linked to ordination (no commissioning of women there). Women there, using my teenager’s expression, really “get the bum rap”. Women are usually kept away from salaried positions that may require “climbing up” the salary scale. When some women become salaried employees they will always be underpaid while their male counterparts will get “ordained” and their salaries will reach the top of the wage scale allowed by policy. It is truly rare to see a woman teach religion/theology at any of our “seminaries” (religion departments). Mission/Conference and schools treasurers or business managers are generally men, who although never setting foot in a religion class in college, or even preached a sermon in a local church, are placed in the “ordination track” and eventually ordained so that they can reach this “top rung” of the salary ladder. Since the great majority of delegates are from outside North America, do we really expect a vote in favor of the ordination of women even if it was brought to a General Conference session? Naw! They don’t have to. Women do not fill pastoral ministry positions (except in some rare Asian places). Young women who graduate with religion/theology majors end up as boarding school deans, elementary school teachers, school counselors (never called “pastors”)… You see, for the rest of the world church there’s no need to have a worldwide policy on ordination for women. So, North America, a just society call for equality, but a biblically grounded society (read church) needs to recognize that when God sent his Spirit women were there to receive it (Acts 1:14). When gifts are distributed, “All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses” (1 Corinthians 12:11, NRSV, emphasis mine) with no concern with genitalia.
Pastor Carlos

What is up with all the bad attitudes? The name calling and belittling is shameful. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Visit www.AdventistVoice.com to take part in a balanced discussion on Adventist issues.

What is shameful is the way women are treated in the Adventist church. Will they awake one day to see that the only females left are the old or unaware that women are equal humans in God's sight--but not the church.

Very interesting debate here. I have a feeling that the GC Session will be something to behold. We are living in interesting times, I also can not believe the amount of non/former sda's that post here very interesting.

If you believe gender roles and responsibilities have no place in Church leadership, then shouldn't you be also willing to vote "yes" for same sex marriage?

We fail to recognize that the Bible was written by men; women were only the recipient of a man's seed and had no part in the genetic heritance of any offspring.

This is seen throughout the entire Bible--a product of the system under which Judaism and the world operated. Allowing women freedom apart from men was unknown, as it still is in much of the Middle Eastern countries.

Since Augustine, and before, women and sex were seen as necessary evils: they seduced men, corrupted their morals and were the cause of original sin.

With that prevailing opinion expressed in the Bible, those who claim to use only the Bible for their positions will continue to subordinate women.

Questions:

The latest Time magazine shows the statistics:

81% of college grads who wed in the '80s at 26-plus were still married 20 years later;

65% of college grads under 26 when they wed in the '80s made that far;

49% of high school grads under 26 when they wed in the '80s hit their 20th anniversary.

Where is the evidence that same-sex marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

Isn't it intriguing that, as the Atlanta GC comes closer, the LSU evolution issue is swamping the Womens Ordination issue?

Could it be that those opposed to Women's Ordination are desperately using Evolution as a distraction?

/Bevin

I'm refusing to go to GC in revolt. Signs of the times. Waiting for the church to split in two over this....stay tuned.

Within the global Adventist community, there are female pastors, female theologians, female professors in university theology/seminary departments, etc. Even according to Bachelor's message, women are fully capable of preaching, teaching, evangelizing, and other forms of sharing the Gospel. Yet I find myself a little bewildered: why is it wrong to ordain women if these women are already doing the exact same job and tasks as their male counterparts? That is illogical.

Why are we, as followers of Christ, blinded by gender stereotypes instead of seeing the individual person who was given unique spiritual gifts from the Lord Almighty? If the Lord has called a person to a specific ministry, should we sinful mortals deny them because some feel they are the "wrong" gender? Everyone has different personalities, strengths, and spiritual gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:1-11) Why are we trying to force our church members into narrow, stereotypical roles that may be contradictory to their personalities and spiritual gifts? There are men who are blessed in the area of hospitality, teaching, and cooking. Should they be discriminated against because these areas of the church have traditionally been female? Likewise, there are women who are blessed in spiritual discernment, communication, and evangelism. Is it acceptable for us to keep them from using the gifts the Lord has given to them because pastoral ministries have traditionally been male? No one is trying to usurp anyone else's position within the church. They are simply finding their own place through the use of what the Lord had given to them. This applies to both men and women, young and old, and all nationalities/ethnicities. Why is gender even an issue? We should focus on finding people with the right gifts and talents for a position and train them to be successful in that position.

May the God forbid that in the midst of this debate on out-dated stereotypes we should forget our place as followers of Christ and lose focus of our duty and mission. Micah 6:8 says: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." And Matthew 24:19-20 said: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

"Regarding premise two (trouble started with the woman leaving her husband's side and not heeding his advice): This is simply unbiblical. The Bible says, “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (Genesis 3:6, 7)."

Have you not read the first few chapters of Patriarchs and Prophets that say that Eve got bored and wandered off on her own whilst Adam was doing some gardening? Have you not also read in the SOP that it is because of restless Eve's that there is so much trouble?

"The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden, with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it. Unmindful of the angels' caution, she soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree. The fruit was very beautiful, and she questioned within herself why God had withheld it from them. Now was the tempter's opportunity. As if he were able to discern the workings of her mind, he addressed her: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Eve was surprised and startled as she thus seemed to hear the echo of her thoughts. But the serpent continued, in a musical voice, with subtle praise of her surpassing loveliness; and his words were not displeasing. Instead of fleeing from the spot she lingered wonderingly to hear a serpent speak. Had she been addressed by a being like the angles, her fears would have been excited; but she had no thought that the fascinating serpent could become the medium of the fallen foe." {PP 53.5}

"The serpent plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of the half-reluctant Eve. Then he reminded her of her own words, that God had forbidden them to touch it, lest they die. She would receive no more harm from eating the fruit, he declared, than from touching it. Perceiving no evil results from what she had done, Eve grew bolder. When she "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be disired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat." It was grateful to the taste, and as she ate, she seemed to feel a vivifying power, and imagined herself entering upon a higher state of existence. Without a fear she plucked and ate. And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had occurred." {PP 55.3}

"Adam understood that his companion had transgressed the command of God, disregared the only prohibition laid upon them as a test of their fidelity and love. There was a terrible struggle in his mind. He mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side. But now the deed was done; he must be separated from her whose society had been his joy." {PP 56.2}

These three quotes from Patriarchs and Prophets say that Eve wandered away from Adam, that Eve came to Adam with the forbidden fruit and that Adam regretted allowing Eve to wander away.

"Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them." {PP 59.1}

Ellen White clearly said in 5MR page 449, 450 that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. See also 5T page 617.1, 10MR page 110.1, 21MR page 98.3.

The leader of the flock must be a man.

As for Junia, Paul never said that she was an apostle. Read the verse carefully. Paul says "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen," (aren't we all kinsmen, brothers and sisters in the faith(but these two had been personal useful to Paul)?) "and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." In other words the Apostles held Andronicus and Junia and all the prisoners with Paul in high regard, they were respected among the Apostles. Paul is not saying that these two named individuals were Apostles.

Thanks for reminding us again that the Bible alone is insufficient and we need EGW to 'splain it. She was there and knew better than the Bible that Eve "wandered from Adam's sight" regardless of the Bible not describing such an event.

Seen through her "inspired" and visionary eyes, why read the Bible when she was far more descriptive? Never mind that it does not agree with the Bible, "filling in" the story is acceptable to most Adventists.

The Church with No Women Pastors

Here's to a laugh or a cry, howl of rage or a hearty amen depending on your perspective: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1836309&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=5...

In honour Creator God, inventor of the funny bone, and the achilles heal.

The word comes from the Latin for seed but through that little twist and the context of women in the seminary verses the majority of men in a seminary he distorts the meaning from seed to the fluid from male reproductive organs containing spermatozoa. http://tinypic.com/r/mb5yxy/6

Doug is entirely self-taught. He works for the SDA denomination as pastor of the Sacramento Central church, which functions as his television studio. He also works for the completely independent, self-supporting organization 'Amazing Facts'. This has always seemed a conflict of interest to me, yet his ability to 'bring home the bacon' in baptisms caused his rise in both organizations. He is a gifted and fun-to-listen-to speaker (just discount the content) who pretty much preaches to his choir of donors, as Joe Crews did before him. Pity the denomination took him on, rather than leaving his catchy style to the self-supporters. : > (

These type of threads makes me so proud to be an SDA. I just want to go down the street and show ALL my neighbors how the 3 Angels Message is so loved and respected and that so many SDA's are so kind and open minded..........how so close to GOD's Kingdom we ALL are......I probably won't make it because I refuse to follow the rules of eating fruits and veggies during the same meal and wash them down with H20.

Keep up the good work Jillian, we need you.

I have a strong suspicion that the majority folks in this discussion are not christians, however the point I want to make is to the few that I suspect are true christians. Here it is; Don't get distracted by the rhetorics and sarcasms thoughout this blog, this is just another tactic by the evil one to discourage and distract us saints from our true purpose. Keep in mind that we are but pilgrims passing through this dark world. The LORD called us all to be ministers of righteousness and we don't have to be "ordained ministers" to spread the gospel, you can ask the Samaritan woman at the well. If only the LORD could give us all a true picture of what he has saved us from [sin], then maybe like the woman at the well we will want to to tell others about HIM that has called us out of darkness into HIS marvelous light. My prayer and hope is that we won't allow one man's strong desire to preach a sermon on a controversial topic to cause us to loose our focus. There is always going to be controversy within the church but I hope that we will allow JESUS CHRIST to be the final authority of our will. Study the scriptures for they testify of JESUS CHRIST and HIS purpose for us all. Furthermore it is my belief that Doug's sermon was just fuel for the evil one to stir up strife among the believers. Be strong and of good courage. GOD bless.

premise one: Your facts are terrible. What experts?
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/84/10/3455
Let's just skip to the end....all I see is tentative speculation. I dare say, there is never an unbiased opinion on how gender is decided. There are no half breeds. IF mistakes are made, it is because of societal mistakes, if you read that article you will well see how that comes into play. Point and case being, you talk as though science really had a solid final word on this, and they dont, actually, science can't tell me anything for sure, it's probabilities. Thus, since science can only give estimations (and in this day estimations ridden with assumptions and agendas that are anti-biblical), never solid Truth, the Bible should be the sole authority on the issue, and the Bible never gives an inkling that there is some middle ground between man and woman that is acceptable (please don't pull out the "angels in heaven" verse Jesus talks about because that's about the after-life).

premise two: you're right on the direct words, but it's true that Satan tempted Eve and not Adam, from all appearances Adam was "with" her could mean nearby, otherwise it's a bit strange that Genesis would have excluded Adam from the tempting and include the detail that Eve bit first and relate Adam's excuse begging to God that Eve made him do it, if in fact Eve did not make that first step and there was no truth whatsoever to his appeal or importance to those details.

premise 28: http://www.carm.org/junia ...that's an elementary treatment of the issue, you stated is as though Junia was FOR SURE an apostle in authority, and since that's very debatable, let's just throw that point out the window.

Although I may not agree with the IQ theory test I do think I agree with most of his argument on God's order in the church and home. It's hard to accept such a sermon in this day and age because of abuses of powers etc.

I believe that women and men are equal but do have different roles. Just because in most cases God may have had it that the man is the head of the home and leader of the church that doesn't mean that the woman is lesser in intelligence than the man. It is hard to swallow but God must have a reason why He has put these roles in place like this.

The seminary comment was slightly strange but none the less I agree with the gist of his message and I'm a woman. I'm also not a woman who finds this easy to accept but nonetheless I prefer to trust what God has to say than how I feel in this day and age. I also pray that my future husband will not abuse his position as I may have to ask God to help me from smacking him upside his head. (Joke).

God bless,

Rachel

When someone writes of God assigning roles to men and women, when exactly was that assignment given? Before or after sin?

Should we meekly follow a curse simply because it was a curse?
Shouldn't we seek and work to remedy the curse by restoring the original design?

The curse that was ecological (ground cursed with work required to provide food) has been largely overcome with modern advances. Was it wrong to improve upon the ancient back-breaking method? Some believed it was frustrating God's plan to provide anesthesia for women in labor as God said it would be in pain, therefore no remedy should be given.

Restoring the sexes to equality was God's original intent. Never did he say when he created them that either was to be subordinate to another and one should have "dominion" over the other. Mankind was only to "rule over" the plant and animal life, but not HUMANS.

One can choose to live under a curse, or one can choose to live by the original plan. How many have talked about returning to the "Edenic diet"? How about returning to the original "Edenic plan for humans?

When someone writes of God assigning roles to men and women, when exactly was that assignment given? Before or after sin?

Should we meekly follow a curse simply because it was a curse?
Shouldn't we seek and work to remedy the curse by restoring the original design?

The curse that was ecological (ground cursed with work required to provide food) has been largely overcome with modern advances. Was it wrong to improve upon the ancient back-breaking method? Some believed it was frustrating God's plan to provide anesthesia for women in labor as God said it would be in pain, therefore no remedy should be given.

Restoring the sexes to equality was God's original intent. Never did he say when he created them that either was to be subordinate to another and one should have "dominion" over the other. Mankind was only to "rule over" the plant and animal life, but not HUMANS.

One can choose to live under a curse, or one can choose to live by the original plan. How many have talked about eating an "Edenic diet"? How about the original "Edenic plan for humans?

So we're speaking strictly about the argument of God calling men to be Priests/Pastors in the church and their roles as husbands in their homes. I'm not speaking about any other position within the church.

I think even before sin God had different roles in mind for a man and woman. Nothing is wrong with us have differences. The Bible speaks about a woman being created as a helpmeet to man. Does that mean slave or subordinate? No I'd think not but possibly as a companion, a friend, a confidante, someone to share and solve problems with and vice versa. But I think we were called a help meet as well because man was made first.

I hear you on the curse situation but people will always take all things to the extreme. The curse is still the curse. 'Man' (as in humans) can't change what God has said. Regardless of the advances in technology the curse remains the same, the land must be toiled for food whether it be using machinery or whatever other advances there are. And a woman being able to use pain suppressents still doesn’t change the fact that the curse is still there. I don't think God would have a problem with us using aides to make these situations easier.

But as I said before I think God may have had it as a plan always for there to be different roles in that way. Of course sin has made it that these roles now need to be qualified and may even seem extreme in some cases but the Bible does show this order in many places e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:3. But it's not about a dictatorship style of leadership in a marriage or a pastor of the church. Good leadership is a democratic style of leadership. Look at God with us He doesn't lead us as a dictator, no He gives us choices and allows us to reason with Him. Isaiah 1:18.

It's not about being unequal in God's eyes. It's about structure and order. And again we are only speaking about God's original plan with Priests/Pastors and husbands. I'm not speaking about anything else. God did give humans (men and women) dominion over the animals etc and that still is suppose to be the case but of course sin has made this harder. But God's plan was that the men were suppose to be Priests not women and there's no where in the Bible that shows this position being given to a woman. Does that mean that a woman is not good enough or smart enough to do it? No it means that God gave that role to a man for whatever His reasons are. Men and woman are equal but are made up differently when it comes to many things, e.g. body types, emotions, etc. A woman can still take up the position as we see some of us have done where a man has not stepped up (just as in the example of Deborah) but it wasn't God's original plan. That doesn't mean that it makes a woman less smart or anything like that. It's just roles.

Coming back to the curse. The curse was as a result of sin but again I still believe that God had an ideal for our relationship before we sinned. But regardless we sinned and in Genesis a curse was placed on both men and women. Nothing we can do can change that. God said it. Man can try to change it but it's not within man's power to change it. We can try, maybe succeed with suppressing it a bit but it will always be there. Our diets are different sin definitely was a reason why we eventually started eating differently (not to say that eating flesh is a sin) but it wasn't part of God's original plan but like I said before I believe that God's original plan was for there to be differences in the roles of a man and woman even before sin.

We look at the God head there are differences there and Christ who is God also submits to God the Father. So what then? We know that they are equal but there is an order and structure to their relationship. God made it the same way for us. It's just different roles. The ideal is that we do not abuse our roles.

Women were considered "property" for thousands of years..I for one do not believe God ever intended for that to happen. With that mentality of looking at woman as inferior it held women as nothing more than similar to a man's house,animals, & possessions. this is a leading cause of abuse of all kinds. In the old Testament men were in priestly roles but there is a change when Jesus Christ came..."you also, as living stones are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5. " and has made us kings & priests to His God & Father, to him be the glory & dominion forever & ever. Amen" Rev.1:6. Paul speaks of spiritual gifts in several passages but does not say some gifts are exclusive to men & others exclusive to women.. he states"having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophecy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching: he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good." Romans 12:6-9.
In the above passage Paul is speaking to all believers not just men.

But that's it no one is saying that God hasn't called everyone to minister. We're all called to minister there is no arguing that and all are given gifts and talents. Pastor Doug says that too. That's not the argument. The argument is regarding leadership in the church with regards to the office of the Priest and what the Bible says.

I also don't believe the Bible has ever promoted women as inferior or to be treated as property of someone. That isn't God's way. If we are to look at the example of marriage we are told that when we're married to someone our bodies are no longer our own but belong to 'each' other. We become one. But that doesn't stop there from being different roles for the couple.

But it's a subject that I suppose everyone won't ever agree on i this day and age. I suppose the best thing to do as a Christian is to take it to God and ask Him to show us the truth (sometimes pride gets in the way of our prayers and we have to ask God to take that way too so that we can hear him clearly).

Women are great leaders too!! there is no place in the Bible that states a woman cannot lead..it is only men who continually want to "control" women that stand for the exclusiveness they espouse in regards to women being capable & ready to use the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them. There is no "ordination" in the Bible just the Holy Spirit imparting gifts for the building up of the body, the church. i say it is high time for men to stand aside & allow the Holy Spirit the freedom to move as the Spirit chooses. there is so much rigidity in regards to the gifts of the Spirit & formality in this church. It again so surprises me that people take EGW as their authority & a receiver of the gift of prophecy but do not allow the Holy Spirit the freedom to move on all people when will this church stop being afraid & acknowledge that God gives His gifts freely & all these gifts remain to the end. Meaning that the gift of prophecy has not ended with EGW " But one & the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills" 1 Cor.12:11. Paul exhorts us to desire the "best gifts". there is no exclusion here either as the context speaks of the members of the body as all making up the church & utilizing the gifts God bestows. "And God has appointed these in the church:first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles,then gifts of healings,helps,administrations,varieties of tongues. Are all apostles?Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have the gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way." 1 Cor. 12 28-31 And what is that more excellrnt way.. to love " the greatest of these is love."

Of course women are great leaders too but we're speaking only in regards to the position of the priest/pastor and what the Bible says. Not how we feel.

Just a question have you listened to the sermon? Not trying to be funny but Pastor Doug addressed the issue of God giving everyone gifts and abilities not just one sex and the fact that women can lead out in many roles but we're speaking strictly about the Priests. The Bible only shows the position of a priest being given to men. E.g. Exodus 28: 1; Lev 1:8. God's instruction doesn’t say sons and daughters. It says sons. Is God sexist or chauvinistic? No I wouldn’t think so. Even with the instructions for the priests in Lev 21, it's only instructions for men and doesn't include women or even the possibility of a future woman.

The Bible uses Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, Shepherd, Pastor interchangeably and they all seem to refer to a single office in the church. Consider 1 Timothy 3 - there is no allowance here for a woman to take it up and there isn’t a hint of one either where it might say “a woman could have”…etc. The Bible always speaks of that particular office as one for a male. Consider Titus 1:6-9 again it's speaking about a male. Whereas the scriptures that you quoted above are referring to all of us men and women but not every position there is given to all of us but we’re all called to minister in one form or the other and which is equally important. 1 Corinthians 11: 1-12 says Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

There are many areas in the Bible where God shows women as being good leaders but we never see a woman in a priest's/pastor's position. A woman can be an excellent leader and often is. That's not about sex that's about individual qualities and gifts. But for some reason the Bible has given the role of a ‘Pastor’ to men in the Bible. God must know why that is. And we know that men and women were made in God's image and likeness. We even see female attributes in God in the Bible examples in Matt 23:37, Isa 49:15, Isa 66:13. But God isn't a woman and He isn't a man either. But God gave that position to men. It doesn't mean that a woman isn't or can’t be a good leader and a woman who is a Pastor isn't doing a good job because God can still use her. It just means that God saw it best for whatever reason He had/has for this to be a post for men.

I also don't think it's a sin for a woman to take up that position nor will I oppose a female pastor who comes into my church to lead ( I will submit to her too) but I don't think it was/is in God's plan and that doesn't make us inferior to men. EGW helped found the SDA church, God gave her mighty and powerful gifts that have ministered to millions but she wasn’t a pastor and never tried to be one. She also never promoted the idea for a woman. But she was still a leader and a great one.

Yes I have read Doug Batchelor's message on woman 7 I totally disagree with his assumptions.I disagree with many of his statements. I think he is quite fanatical. i have given Scripture references that show the bestowing of gifts by the Holy Spirt. I have given examples of how this benefits the body. I am not stuck in a n archaic system that limits all people including young adults, women, & men. This position you( and i mean you,Rachel)& others who are so opposed to women utilizing the gifts God has given them is demeaning to women as God's children. Let the Spirit of God manifest in whomever the Spirit chooses.

Renee I'm certainly not opposed to God using women in the church or as leaders in the church and there is nothing in what I have written that can allow you to justify making a blanket statement like that.

I didn't ask you if you read a book or any literature by Pastor Doug I asked if you 'listened' to the sermon. I'm going by the sermon that I heard and nothing else and that's what we're suppose to be commenting on.

Insulting someone will never aide you in forwarding your argument. We can agree to disagree. We're all adults and more importantly and hopefully Christians.

It is most difficult to say anything about Mr. Batchelor's article that will not be insulting and harsh. To think that a person of such "intelligence" and "understanding" actually is allowed to stand up in front of thousands of people, holding a Bible firmly in his hand and "preach".
No wonder the church is dying.
Lord have mercy upon us.

"To think that a person of such "intelligence" and "understanding" actually is allowed to stand up in front of thousands of people, holding a Bible firmly in his hand and "preach".

That is the usual assumption, and in many cases has proved to be totally unfounded. Like many TV evangelists of every stripe, as long as one is bringing in money, it seems they will be able to use the "Adventist" label. Whether it is a benefit or curse depends on the individual.

The feminist/humanist movement is marching along quite well on this blog...one comment at a time.

Those that wrote the Southeastern California Conference Response will have to answer in the JUDGEMENT. Blow the TRUMPET Doug.

God Bless you Doug.

The equating of an apostle called by Christ with that of a pastor is uncalled for.

Few pastors today exercise lordship anymore or receive submission.

Those who support equality for women should thank Pastor Doug for his sermon. Here is a man with a Bible basis central to his ministry, one who presumably makes the best apologetic for what he and the church believe. The absurdities, illogical reasoning, low level of Bible interpretation, did more to damage the cause of keeping women a step away from full equality in church government than it did to help--or so it seemed from a few conversations at General Conference.

Sam

The criteria for ordination, as demonstrated in Bachelor, are pretty low standards, it would seem: poor exegesis and hermeneutics as well as poor people skills. Evidently, none of these are important for ordination.

When I first came across this article I was outraged with Mr. Bachelor's premises. I then watched his sermon and again was outraged by some of the things he said. I felt that his whole approach to the issue and the way he argued his position was a little weak. In the end, I felt like ordination should have been done away with at the time of the reformation. With little investment in the issue, I turned to the bible to see what it had to say. Looked at 1st Timothy 2 and sure enough the bible lays it out rather plainly. It's hard for me to except this detail in Paul's writing. I am 23 yrs. old and I have studied women's studies at Portland State University and would consider myself a feminist on most issues. Yet if I choose to believe the bible in it's entirety believing that it was written for all times and cultures, I must accept this passage on faith. Every ounce of me wants to object and ask questions why a woman cannot hold authority in the church - but I have felt this way many times I read the bible. At these moments I have to make a decision. Either I believe in the veracity of the bible or I don't. If I don't then I cannot consider myself a Christian... I really do have to question at these moments whether I want to be a Christian or not. I feel this is where trust in God is needed.