Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[lazarus]

Batchelor goes further, stressing the biological differences between the sexes. He states that "[M]en have more neurons in their brain, and some of that is because we have more mass and that may mean more nerve endings. But you should also know…and I know this isn’t gonna get me reelected. According to the British Journal of Psychology, [men] on an average score five points higher on an IQ test." He continues, "t’s important to recognize that as we approach this subject that those who are clamoring and campaigning to say that there shouldn’t be any difference in the roles of men and women in the church - we are different. We are gifted differently and God has said there should be a different [sic]."

http://www.atoday.com/content/doug-batchelor-preaches-against-women-pastors

[Neil D]

Not one of his better theological sermons, me thinks......

[oldsailor29]

Not one of his better theological sermons, me thinks......

I would have to agree. It seems to me that all those who are against women pastors neglect to recognize the reason Paul rejects the leadership of those women in the text they quote for support of their position. It was well covered in the adult sabbath school lesson several years ago.

Those women were former pagan temple prostitutes, leaders in the pagan temple. They were trying to teach some of their pagan theology in the Christian church. I think Paul's counsels to them would be applicable to both men and women who come into our church from other churches and try to bring their theology with them. I think maybe we have seen some non-SDA theology expressed here. I suspect all the emphasis of the kingdom here on earth comes from Jehovah's Witnesses. And perhaps the idea that Jesus isn't actually God in the flesh comes from the Mormons. Emphasis on works, from Catholics. Emphasis on faith, from other protestants. Of course, all heresies, including the rejection of the investigative judgment, rejection of the 2300 day prophecy ending in 1844, rejection of the midnight cry, rejection of Ellen White as a prophet of God, rejection of Paul, rejection of Jesus as the only way to heaven, and rejection of the true nature of inspiration as opposed to fundamentalism all comes from Satan.

Some people think I am a heretic because I think all of creation will be saved. I could be mistaken, but this I know: The flesh and blood of Jesus represents learning His teachings and following His teachings. We are covered by His blood when we follow His teachings. And it ain't a simple either faith or works question. The only way to follow His teachings is to have faith in them. Our faith results in our actions. I think there is actually more to it than that, but that is all we need to know.

[Woody]

Here's a good response:

http://www.atoday.com/thank-you-doug-batchelor

[olger]

So where is the rest of Doug's message?

oG

[Guest]

What do you expect from atoday? They said:

"There is no such thing as a literal reading of the Bible".

What hogwash.

[olger]

A washed hog is still... a hog.

[Tom Wetmore]

It would seem that Doug is being a bit selective and is outdated on the science part. I wonder how he would see the recently released study that girls now match boys academically in science and math and outdo boys in reading skills. Maybe girls brains are getting bigger, with more nerve endings...

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: Here's a good response:

http://www.atoday.com/thank-you-doug-batchelor

Thanks for posting this link. I think it's important to read and give consideration to the arguments on both sides of this issue.

I do believe Doug Batchelor's argument is generally right, though. Paul's reasons for teaching what he does leaves no room for anyone to say it was due to women's role in the ancient world. He specifically relates it to the way God created man and woman in the beginning and to what happened at the Fall. 1 Tim. 2: 13, 14.

Paul also specifically says that his instructions concerning women's role in "all the churches" "are the commandments of the Lord" and agree also with "what saith the law." (See 1 Cor. 14: 32-37) Nowhere does Paul suggest that the reason for his instructions is the misbehavior or false doctrines of the women or that it's connected to cultural differences.

Notice that although the phrase "as in all the churches" may be placed with the line beginning in verse 33, most translations today connect it with the sentence which follows, so that it reads, "As in all the congregations of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches..." (vv. 33, 34; see NIV; English Standard Version; God's Word; etc).

Doug Batchelor isn't saying that women don't have any teaching or preaching roles in their work for the Lord.

It seems to me the role of men and women is the same in the home as in the churches. God intends for the man to be the head of the home, and this is closely related to their roles in the church.

[phkrause]

Batchelor goes further, stressing the biological differences between the sexes. He states that "[M]en have more neurons in their brain, and some of that is because we have more mass and that may mean more nerve endings. But you should also know…and I know this isn’t gonna get me reelected. According to the British Journal of Psychology, [men] on an average score five points higher on an IQ test." He continues, "t’s important to recognize that as we approach this subject that those who are clamoring and campaigning to say that there shouldn’t be any difference in the roles of men and women in the church - we are different. We are gifted differently and God has said there should be a different [sic]."

http://www.atoday.com/content/doug-batchelor-preaches-against-women-pastors

I have a lot of respect for Doug Batchelor, and for him to take the stand that he has, couldn't have been easy or been taken lightly. I think he is one of the more sincere Pastors we have. Even EGW never said for or against women be ordained, I believe? We'll have to see where all this leads.

pk

[Guest]

Quote:

Woody: Here's a good response:

http://www.atoday.com/thank-you-doug-batchelor

Thanks for posting this link. I think it's important to read and give consideration to the arguments on both sides of this issue.

I do believe Doug Batchelor's argument is generally right, though. Paul's reasons for teaching what he does leaves no room for anyone to say it was due to women's role in the ancient world. He specifically relates it to the way God created man and woman in the beginning and to what happened at the Fall. 1 Tim. 2: 13, 14.

Paul also specifically says that his instructions concerning women's role in "all the churches" "are the commandments of the Lord" and agree also with "what saith the law." (See 1 Cor. 14: 32-37) Nowhere does Paul suggest that the reason for his instructions is the misbehavior or false doctrines of the women or that it's connected to cultural differences.

Notice that although the phrase "as in all the churches" may be placed with the line beginning in verse 33, most translations today connect it with the sentence which follows, so that it reads, "As in all the congregations of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches..." (vv. 33, 34; see NIV; English Standard Version; God's Word; etc).

Doug Batchelor isn't saying that women don't have any teaching or preaching roles in their work for the Lord.

It seems to me the role of men and women is the same in the home as in the churches. God intends for the man to be the head of the home, and this is closely related to their roles in the church.

Amen John!

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: It would seem that Doug is being a bit selective and is outdated on the science part. I wonder how he would see the recently released study that girls now match boys academically in science and math and outdo boys in reading skills. Maybe girls brains are getting bigger, with more nerve endings...

Doug Batchelor isn't basing his belief about this topic on what he's read outside of the Bible. From his viewpoint, the studies he refers to simply give a possible explanation for the Bible's teaching on the different roles of men and women. Yet I'm sure that if you asked him what he would think if the studies showed that women are more intelligent than men-- which many of them are!-- he would tell you that it doesn't change what the Bible says and therefore he couldn't change his mind on the basis of scientific studies. In the final analysis, it's an issue that can only be settled theologically and from the Bible rather than from studies or from society at large.

[Gregory Matthews]

Geegory Matthews

March 20, 2010

The Role of Women in the Church and Doug Batchelor:

Doug Batchelor is correct in suggesting that the central issue is the role that women should have in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and it is not whether or not they are ordained.

Elder Batchelor is correct in his assertion that Scripture should govern our spiritual life and ministry. I will leave it to others to debate the position that Scripture takes in regard to the role that women should have in the SDA church. Doug Batchelor seems to ignore the leading of God in the life of the Adventist Church. This is not a Roman Catholic position that may appear to place denominational history on a level of authority equal with Scripture. Rather it is a position that acknowledges the role God gave Ellen White in the development of our denomination.

Any student of denominational history will likely acknowledge the EGW filled a role that placed her in a position of authority over male leadership. She directed men in their duties and obligations, often in the name of the Lord. She reproved males when she believed that they had done wrong. We would not exist as a denomination today in the form that we now have if it had not been for her leadership. It is in the areas of education, health care and publishing that she speaking in the name of God played a significant role in the development of this denomination.

Elder Batchelor needs to deal with the reality the in the time of EGW, she was considered to be an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister. Elder Arthur White writing on the 26th session of the General Conference, in 1887, makes the following statement:

“The last meeting took action recommending those who should receive ministerial credentials. Ellen White’s name was among those voted to receive papers of the ordained ministers, although her ordination was not by the laying on of hands by men. The conference session closed on November 27.” [see Vol. 3 of the EGW Biography, page 377.]

A second historical statement is also of interest:

“She [Ellen White] was not ordained by the laying of hands. Her name appeared, however, in the ministerial lists of such official publications as the YEARBOOK. . . . After the death of James White, in August, 1881, she was paid a salary equivalent to that paid an officer of the General Conference.” [see Vol. 10 of the SDABC, THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ENCYCLOPEDIA, REVISED EDITION, Page 1592.]

So, we now have a historical timeline of the following:

a) 1881, James White died and Ellen White began to receive the salary of an officer in the General Conference.

1887 At the 26th General Conference, it was voted that EGW receive the credentials of an ordained minister. It should be noted that those credentials were not only granted her, but they were renewed as they expired on several times.

c) Ellen White was listed in official records as an ordained minister for a number of years.

Some will propose that the granting of the ordained minister credentials to her was simply a means to pay her a salary. This is rebutted by the fact that she began to receive a salary in 1881, years prior to the vote to grant her the credentials of an ordained minister in 1887. Therefore, this argument is without foundation.

The historical record clearly shows Ellen White as reproving male church leadership when she believed that they had done wrong. I have to believe that EGW would have not only have reproved leadership for voting to grant her the credentials of an ordained minister, but that she would have rejected then if she had thought it wrong to grant them to her. The historical record is completely lacking of any indication that she either rejected those credentials or that she thought it wrong to grant them to her.

I believe that if the church had been wrong in granting her those credentials, that God would have instructed her to reprove the church in terms that would be understood and to personally and publically reject them. That did not happen.

I will suggest that in the history of this denomination since the time of Ellen White, God has clearly shown that women should fill the role and function of our ordained ministers and therefore be ordained as are males in recognition of this:

a) I see this in the history of two females in Scandinavia who brought several thousand into the SDA church in a time when males were not in a position during WW II to do so.

I see this in the present life of the SDA Church in China where females have converted thousands and are officially recognized as ordained SDA ministers.

I I believe that God has spoken in the life and ministry of EGW and many other women in our church. That word, as I understand it is this: I appoint whom I will to lead as ordained ministers in my church. I have appointed both men and women to lead in my church. Listen to my voice and obey what I have shown you.

[Tom Wetmore]

THen why mention them at all?!?!

If they don't matte riether way then they are irrelevant. That he mentioned them as he did only suggests that he thinks they are relevant to bolster his ideas. No need to gloss over a bias...

Some may say its an effort to put a shine on something else...

[olger]

"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights... might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1)

regards !

`oG

[BobRyan]

Batchelor goes further, stressing the biological differences between the sexes. He states that "[M]en have more neurons in their brain, and some of that is because we have more mass and that may mean more nerve endings. But you should also know…and I know this isn’t gonna get me reelected. According to the British Journal of Psychology, [men] on an average score five points higher on an IQ test." He continues, "t’s important to recognize that as we approach this subject that those who are clamoring and campaigning to say that there shouldn’t be any difference in the roles of men and women in the church - we are different. We are gifted differently and God has said there should be a different [sic]."

http://www.atoday.com/content/doug-batchelor-preaches-against-women-pastors

Now and then Doug brings up side issues that only hurt the case he is trying to make. This is one of those times.

I doubt that anyone would want to go out on a limb and say "we have a man as our pastor because no woman in the Adventist church has as high an IQ as our pastor".

I doubt that anyone would want to argue that "Deborah" in the OT or "Ellen White" in the NT were not "gifted" to the level of actually providing inspired counsel to church members or to the point of actually speaking to the congregation on behalf of God.

I respect the debate on the subject and I consider it right to conform to the voted positions of the Adventist denomination - but silly talk does not do anything for the state of the debate.

in Christ,

Bob

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Gregory,

It has been a while. In the past I have thought it a bad idea to have women as ministers/pastors. I have not changed my mind. I have no problem with them preaching, teaching, or speaking in the office of a prophet. I have no problem with them doing many of the duties that a church needs in order to function. But I do not see anything in the Bible that gives solid reasons to ordain women as ministers/pastors.

To carry some letters to a church for someone or to tell the Disciples of our Lord's resurrection does not mean that a woman is a minister. That's too subjective to use as evidence for me. If a woman wants to minister, she should do so with her Husband and work as a team. There's much good that can come from that without causing dissension.

Why must people get involved with controversial issues? Why not take the work that's at hand and fulfill the Gospel commission? Will the ordination of women hasten the day of the Lord? No. Will there be any special revelation given to us from the Lord for doing this? No. What will come of it? Division, controversy and a weakened church. Is that what we really want to end up with just to be politically correct or because some think that this must happen?

I don't see too much good coming out of this. It probably will cause some to leave the church and will encourage a spirit of competition. Some men will not want to be outdone by a woman whom they will perceive as a threat and the women will do all that they can to prove themselves worthy of their new positions and there will be conflict and weakening of this church.

That's my view of this. I have other reasons for saying what I have, but will not mention them so as to not cause what I am warning about.

In Christ and His service,

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights... might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1)

regards !

`oG

Good quote Olger

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'm glad Doug Batchelor spoke his piece.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Some will propose that the granting of the ordained minister credentials to her was simply a means to pay her a salary. This is rebutted by the fact that she began to receive a salary in 1881, years prior to the vote to grant her the credentials of an ordained minister in 1887. Therefore, this argument is without foundation.

It could have been simply a means to pay her a salary since her husband died in 1881, and she had no income.

[SivartM]

I don't understand why it's okay for a woman to do everything except be ordained. We're happy to let them do the same things, we just don't want to pay them salaries for it?

[Neil D]

"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights... might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1)

regards !

`oG

I believe the above quote is misleading...Here is the complete quote in context....and ALL of it...

There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety.” 1 Timothy 2:9.

Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman’s rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel’s message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women. Spiritualists have, to quite an extent, adopted this singular mode of dress. Seventh-day Adventists, who believe in the restoration of the gifts, are often branded as spiritualists. Let them adopt this costume, and their influence is dead. The people would place them on a level with spiritualists and would refuse to listen to them. Testimonies For The Church Volume One, page 421, paragraphs 3,4

After reading the context of the quote, I find that this text is more about dress than women's rights or the reformation of women's rights...By inference, mention is made of the veracity of people who do such things.....

[BobRyan]

It could have been simply a means to pay her a salary since her husband died in 1881, and she had no income.

She was not paid at the rate of a retired minister - she was paid at the rate of an active Conference Administrator. Her role as "prophet" was recognized as a valid role for receiving tithe dollars from the conference - as an officer of the church - without actually having an "officer" voting status.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

I doubt that a small increase in Ellen White's salary would make much difference considering the huge debt she was in when she died.

[Woody]

Quote:

After reading the context of the quote, I find that this text is more about dress than women's rights or the reformation of women's rights...By inference, mention is made of the veracity of people who do such things.....

Thanks Neil. This needs to be pointed out. For this tactic is used frequently by this group who are opposed to women.