Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[aldona]

My husband and I visited the US a couple of years ago and we were fortunate enough to worship at Sacramento Central church and meet Doug B.

I have a lot of respect for Doug and I have always thought he was an excellent preacher.

So this latest turn of events is very disappointing and seems to be out of character.

My sincere wish for Doug is that ends up in heaven living next door to a female preacher or evangelist who had the privilege of leading many people to Christ. Someone like Priscilla, Ellen White, Catherine Booth, the ladies who have helped to build up the church in China, or one of the many female missionaries of all denominations who were sent where many men feared to tread.

They would have plenty to talk about for all eternity.

aldona

[phkrause]

My husband and I visited the US a couple of years ago and we were fortunate enough to worship at Sacramento Central church and meet Doug B.

I have a lot of respect for Doug and I have always thought he was an excellent preacher.

So this latest turn of events is very disappointing and seems to be out of character.

My sincere wish for Doug is that ends up in heaven living next door to a female preacher or evangelist who had the privilege of leading many people to Christ. Someone like Priscilla, Ellen White, Catherine Booth, the ladies who have helped to build up the church in China, or one of the many female missionaries of all denominations who were sent where many men feared to tread.

They would have plenty to talk about for all eternity.

aldona

LOL, wouldn't that be something.

I knew God had a sense of humor.

pk

[Gregory Matthews]

Re:

Quote:

Hi Neil, thanks for posting that. It brings up another topic. If women are ordained, (I know some are now and deal with this) what will be the influence of their dress/attire? So few women in our church understand the concept of dress reform.

Could this by any means be applied to a minister who was a male?

I could think of examples--for one a minister who spent lots of money on making his bald head look like it grew hair.

[karl]

I went to the Amazing Facts website. Doug has been preaching the same thing for at least 15 years. Here is a link to an article he published in 1995:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/Publications...x-in-Jesus.aspx

At the end of the article, he says that "Jesus was following His own Word by ordaining only men. Of course, some will argue that He was merely conforming to popular customs and traditions of the day." But the truth is that, in Christ's time, most of the pagan religions had women priests. God's people were the exception.

[John317]

Quote:

karl: Doug ....says that "Jesus was following His own Word by ordaining only men. Of course, some will argue that He was merely conforming to popular customs and traditions of the day." But the truth is that, in Christ's time, most of the pagan religions had women priests. God's people were the exception.

Good point, and something that I think is significant. There was a great deal of sexual immorality mixed in with the pagan religions. I think this is related to what happened in the Garden of Eden, where Eve had a powerful influence over Adam because of his love for the woman. Women have a greater power over men than many women realize, and this power is easily exploited by Satan to lead men to do wrong. When the woman took over Adam's leadership role-- and Adam abandoned his own role to the woman-- she led him into sin.

As for your point that some say Christ conformed to popular customs in choosing all men as his disciples, I think that's hardly likely given the fact that there's no evidence Christ did anything simply on account of its being a tradition, and particularly if there's any reason to think the tradition was wrong or that it kept Him from doing what He believed was the Father's will. There is no doubt that Christ chose the 12 disciples because He was convinced that the Father wanted Him to do it. Tradition wouldn't have had anything to do with it unless it was a matter of complete indifferecne. But I'm quite sure we can say it wasn't a matter of complete indifference to Jesus who He selected as His disciples. In fact, it was very important and in line with the whole history of the people of God up to that point. The twelve tribes were all headed by men, and therefore it would be surprising indeed if Jesus hadn't selected males to be the leaders of the new Israel.

There's also the fact that even though God occassionally chose women as His mouthpiece, His choosing them didn't cause a change in the way the nation chose its priests and leaders, i.e., among the men. In other words, they did not reason that since God made women His prophets, it meant that God wanted them to select women as their priests or to be in other leadership roles.

[karl]

Quote:

karl: Doug ....says that "Jesus was following His own Word by ordaining only men. Of course, some will argue that He was merely conforming to popular customs and traditions of the day." But the truth is that, in Christ's time, most of the pagan religions had women priests. God's people were the exception.

There's also the fact that even though God occassionally chose women as His mouthpiece, His choosing them didn't cause a change in the way the nation chose its priests and leaders, i.e., among the men. In other words, they did not reason that since God made women His prophets, it meant that God wanted them to select women as their priests or to be in other leadership roles.

The problem here is that, as much as we just want to be people who follow the Book, those who are pushing female headship malign us as women-haters. This is not the case. We are simply noting what Christ did and what He had His people do. It is hard to believe there was no reason for it.

"Well," some say, "Christ removed the curse of sin from the planet, so now male headship is irrelevant." If He removed the curse, why is all this bad stuff happening?

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda): so youre pretty much going on others understanding of what that verse means....

Do you go just by your own opinion-- or do you care what others understand and think?

When you read discussions of what the Bible teaches, do the writers quote what other writers have said, or do they only speak of their own viewpoint?

It's always a good idea to see what other scholars have said or written about a particular text. And it is esepcially helpful to look carefully at the various translations, as well as at the original languages.

Quote:

then there is one big problem in all the churches.

What's that?

Quote:

seems pretty ridiculous to me that a wife would be expected to "learn" from her husband. what if hubby couldnt care less about the Lord? what would she be learning then?

I think the evidence shows the apostle is talking to women whose husband's are in the church.

Quote:

from what i read in the ot God never expected women to answer to their husbands.

If the husband tells his wife to do something contrary to God's commandments, she ought to obey God rather than her husband.

Look at the example of Abraham. His wife submitted herself to him and called him "lord."

Who has God acknowledged to be the head of the homes in the Bible?

Does the Bible say the husband is to submit to his wife? Or does it say the wife is to submit to her husband?

I accept what Ellen White says about the relationship between husband and wife and also about the relations between men and women. I also think her example as a wife is a good one. She sometimes separated from James, not because they didn't love each other, but because they both were very strong-willed people and they were making each other feel that they weren't free to do what they felt they were supposed to do. Ellen White submitted to James but that didn't mean she submitted her conscience to him. James was good, loving husband, but he could also be dominating and stubborn and insensitive.

Quote:

ill let you review the angel and manoahs wife. strangely the angel felt no need to give any directions to hubby. both times he appeared to the woman, and in the end told "let her", not "see to it that she"

What you say here is true, but you are neglecting to include the significant fact that God never directed Manoah's wife to have authority over any man. Yet when God gave directions to men, He usually gave them directions that included having authority over both men and women.

Compare, for instance, the work of the female judges and prophets in the Bible with the work of the male judges and prophets.

By the way, what was Manoah's wife's name? How does the Bible refer to her?

Notice also that the angel told Manoah's wife that she would have a boy who would grow up to lead Isreal. God never told anyone they would have a baby girl who would lead Israel.

This doesn't mean God loves girl any less than He loves boys, but it clearly demonstrates that there's a pattern of God's choice for leadership among His people. Girls simply have different roles than boys do. It doesn't mean girl aren't important or that they are inferior to boys. Christ has a different role from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but all three are completely equal.

Quote:

...i think we get a better picture of what God expects taking all the biblical situations into account and not just a couple of "proof" texts.

I agree that we need to take the entire Bible into consideration, including the fact that God gave Israel kings, not queens; that He gave them priests, not priestesses; that the heads of the tribes were always men, not women; and that all the writers of the Bible were men, not women; and that God usually called men to be prophets, and not women. In other words, the Bible shows a distict and clear pattern of male leadership, in both the Old and New Testaments.

None of this means women don't have an important role and work in the church, but it's a different work from that of men. There are many different kinds of ministries that God calls women to do. I believe the evidence shows that God wants there to be clear differences between men and women, not only in the clothes they wear and in how they look, but in what they do in the home and in the churches.

Men and women are equal, and women should never be treated as if they are inferior to men, whether in the family, society, or in the church. In the same way, the three Persons of the Trinity are equal, yet they have different roles or functions; and this doesn't make one better than the other.

[aldona]

So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

Or is it just a phrase that sounds nice when sprinkled through sermons or writings, but in reality we only reserve "priesthood" for those with a certain set of biological organs?

Sorry for speaking frankly (as a medical person), but this is what it comes down to. Whether you have the right to fulfil a certain role and function in the church depends on which biological appendages you have.

(and I would like to make it clear that I have no calling to do anything pastor-like and public speaking (for me) is a fate worse than death, so I can confidently state I do not have a vested interest in one side or the other of this debate.)

aldona

[John317]

Quote:

karl: The problem here is that, as much as we just want to be people who follow the Book, those who are pushing female headship malign us as women-haters. This is not the case.

This is true, unfortunately, but the same thing applies with regard to homosexuality. Those who oppose the practice of homosexuality on the basis of the Bible are often called gay-bashers, which makes no sense to me since I lived as a gay person most of my life. I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that the day will come when there will be a move made to change SDA policy on gays, and when it comes, those who oppose the practice of homosexuality will be called gay-haters or some such name.

[karl]

So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

Priests and kings.

As opposed to priestesses and queens?

[oldsailor29]

There have been Priestesses since early in the history of Earth. Though I think most of them were pagans. But there have been many female Prophets who preached sermons and counseled individuals and groups of Jews and Christians. So it is very rational that we could veer away from the norm of all male leadership, but to some that would seem so much less like a church.

[John317]

So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

Good point.

Yes, we do, and so did Paul. Paul was the same person who wrote Gal. 3: 28, which says, "There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus." Yet Paul was also inspired by the Holy Spirit to write 1 Cor. 14: 33-38, 1 Tim. 2: 12-14; 3: 12, and Titus 1: 6-7.

Notice that although Paul wrote that "there are neither slaves nor free people," he also wrote, "All slaves who believe must give complete respect to their own masters... Slaves whose master also believe should respect their masters even though their masters are also believers... believers who are slaves should serve their masters even better because who receive the benefit of their work are believers whom they love. Teach and encourage people to do these things." (1 Tim. 6: 1, 2).

The Bible teaches the priesthood of all believers, yet it also makes a clear distinction between men and women in terms of the organization of the church. Men and women are completely equal before God and as far as opportunities for salvation is concerned.

Quote:

Or is it just a phrase that sounds nice when sprinkled through sermons or writings, but in reality we only reserve "priesthood" for those with a certain set of biological organs?

Those biological organs are not irrelevant because along with them comes hormones, different brains and different ways of thinking and relating to others.

Why does God tell me that it's a sin for me to be with someone who has the same biologial organs as I do? Obviously those biological organs are important.

Quote:

Sorry for speaking frankly (as a medical person), but this is what it comes down to. Whether you have the right to fulfil a certain role and function in the church depends on which biological appendages you have.

It also determines who you can marry and have sex with or be romantically involved with, so a lot is riding on those biological appendages people have. But like I say, it's not just the appendages but what comes with them. Men and women are different in many ways as a direct result of them. God made those differences for a good reason. He wouldn't be happy if I removed them, either. They're important. I have often wondered why and wished I could remove them, and for a long time I didn't understand why it would be wrong to do it. For the longest time it didn't make sense to me, but he's helped me have some understanding of it. And I have decided to submit to God's will and to His revelation about these things.

I don't find your frank speaking at all offensive and I hope nobody finds mine offensive, either.

[karl]

There have been Priestesses since early in the history of Earth. Though I think most of them were pagans. But there have been many female Prophets who preached sermons and counseled individuals and groups of Jews and Christians. So it is very rational that we could veer away from the norm of all male leadership, but to some that would seem so much less like a church.

Nehemiah 9:34

Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers, kept thy law, nor hearkened unto thy commandments and thy testimonies, wherewith thou didst testify against them.

Revelation 1:6

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

[Tom Wetmore]

The only ones framing, or as you say "pushing", women in ministry and WO as a headship issue are those that are opposed to WO. Most female pastors that I know of are not into some head trip or seeking to be in charge. Then again, most male pastors aren't either. Why? Because they know and understand most clearly that the call to ministry is not to a headship role, but to a "hand" role, to serve. The core meaning of minister is "to serve" not to be the head of anything.

And that is what those advocating for women in ministry are also saying.

[John317]

... there have been many female Prophets who preached sermons and counseled individuals and groups of Jews and Christians. ...

Yes, this is true. However, when it comes to the way the church is organized and run, the female prophets and those who counseled indviduals and groups, were not put in the positions of being church officers who led the church. For instance, God didn't call Ellen White to be in an official capacity in the church as one of its leaders who would supervise and be over men. She was very careful to make that distinction. God selected Ellen White, and her work did not depend in the least on the church for her authority. Church officers do depend on the church for their authority. If the church pulls their licences, they are without a job in the church. They may write and teach or preach, but they won't any longer be representing the church. Ellen White didn't speak for the church as pastors and elders do. Ellen White was the mouthpiece of God, not of the church. The church never voted her a position. Her authority didn't depend on the church at all. The pastor's and elder's authority does. The church can vote them in and the church can remove them. The church couldn't remove Ellen White because it never put her in any position to begin with.

Anyone can give counsel. It doesn't require any kind of authority or credential from the church to do it. All one needs is the confidence of the person one is counseling.

Preaching is the same. 1 Cor. 11: 5 shows that women were allowed to the pray and prophecy, or preach, in the NT church. The NT says that the pastors, elders, and bishops of the NT church were to be men.

[aldona]

Originally Posted By: aldona

So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

Priests and kings.

As opposed to priestesses and queens?

Either we have the priesthood of all believers, or we do not.

Either all believers (male and female) are priests and kings, or all believers are not.

And yes, that would mean that female believers are priestesses and queens (if it is important to follow grammatically correct forms of speech).

So let me ask again: do we believe in the priesthood of all believers, or not?

(And while we are on the topic, wasn't the OT priesthood done away with at the cross? We do not offer animal sacrifices to atone for our sins, and we do not require any human mediator - male or female - to stand between us and God. That was what I was taught all my life as an Adventist, anyway.) As for preaching the gospel - we are all ordained to preach the gospel - men, women and children. Some with words, others in other ways.

AJ

[phkrause]

To no one in particular, but its interesting to me that through all the years of being an SDA I've actually never heard one women Pastor, and I've known a few, ask or want to be ordained, and that includes EGW, from what I've heard. I do believe that God does call women to do there part as he does men.

pk

[Woody]

I have one thing to say ...

Scripture is very clear on this issue. If ONLY we would read and follow it.

As for me ... I will stick with the Bible and not the desire of MEN.

[John317]

Quote:

aldona: So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

....Either we have the priesthood of all believers, or we do not.

Either all believers (male and female) are priests and kings, or all believers are not.

...So let me ask again: do we believe in the priesthood of all believers, or not?

My own answer to your question is Yes, we do.

But I would like to know what you understand "the priesthood of all believers" to mean? Does it contradict what Paul was inspired to write in 1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 33b- 36?

Second, what is your evidence that the NT teaches the priesthood of all believers signifies that both male and female are to be pastors, elders, or bishops?

Quote:

aldona: ... As for preaching the gospel - we are all ordained to preach the gospel - men, women and children. Some with words, others in other ways.

It's true that all believers are to be missionaries and to lead people to Christ, but that is not the same as everyone being the pastor or elder in the organized church. One need not be elected by a local congregation in order to preach and teach the gospel.

[John317]

Quote:

CoAspen: No one will address the issue from the point that is the calling of God. Stop with this obscure text obfuscation and discuss whether or not God calls women to be pastors/ministers/preachers of the Gospel or not! If God is not doing it, then who is?

I have no doubt that God calls women to the ministry and to teach and preach. Of course He does. But that is different from God's calling women to becomes pastors and elders of local congregations.

My own grandmother was a Bible worker for the Adventist church, and this was during the time Ellen White lived. She never considered becoming a pastor. That was for my grandfather, her husband, to do.

It is possible that some women are mistaking God's call to mean something it doesn't. For instance, God may call a woman to lead people to Christ through various kinds of ministries, but because of the urging they get from other people, they may wrongly conclude that God wants them to become a pastor or elder.

On the other hand, they could be right that God wants them to be pastors, especially in places like China where's there are few SDA men available to do that work. That is the way it was in ancient Israel during the time of the Judges. God called women to be judges and prophets because there were few men who would do it. God called Ellen White, but apparently God first called two men.

But in the final analysis, like all doctrinal questions, it must be settled on the basis of the Bible's teachings and not through our feelings or because of the pressures coming from outside the church.

Quote:

CoAspen: Letting God control seems to be a forgotten part of our belief system!

The question is, would God ever "control" the church in a way that contradicts the things He inspired people to write? I don't believe He would.

[Pockey]

I'm listening to his sermon, only about half way through, but I gotta say, if he wanted to be more tactful, he perhaps should've left out mentioning the 'study' which said "men have IQs that are 5 points higher than women". Wasn't sure what purpose this statement served. I'm surprised he would even believe that study, let alone mention it in a sermon.

I don't know if he's 'right' about this topic. He certainly knows more about the bible than I do, but some of his 'anecdotes' were a little rough around the edges.

With that being said I still will listen to his sermons, I learn a lot from what he says. I just think he might've missed the tactful train on this one.

The good news out of all of this is a reminder that "In His mercy and faithfulness God often permits those in whom we place confidence to fail us, in order that we may learn the folly of trusting in man and making flesh our arm. Let us trust fully, humbly, unselfishly in God." MH p486.

[WayneV]

I have no doubt that God calls women to the ministry and to teach and preach. Of course He does. But that is different from God's calling women to becomes pastors and elders of local congregations.

John,

When I was growing up in the church, I remember being taught that we did not call our pastors Reverend because they were not to be revered above any other member in good standing. Instead, we referred to them as Elder due to the responsibilities put upon them by their calling. Therefore, as least the way I understood this, there was no "headship" involved in the pastorate. If my understanding is correct, your points based on "headship" are not applicable. On the other hand, if my understanding is erroneous, would you please clarify it, biblically?

Agape`

[WayneV]

John 317,

Here is a tidbit that I previously posted in the thread titled, Why are so Many Women Unhappy? I am reposting it here, as I believe it deserves your consideration.

"Perhaps the subordination of women occurred as a result of the fall rather than as a part of God's creation (Gen. 3:16); just as we seek to overcome the other effects of the fall, we should seek to overcome the subordination of women." It may also be argued "that biblical principles promote equlity (Gen. 1:27-28; Gal. 3:28)." Moreover, "Since the Bible promotes a just society free from any kind of oppression, Christians should promote equality between men and women (1 Peter 2:13-14, 18; 3:1)." Additionally, "Although much of the Bible suggests a hierarchical relationship between men and women, the trajectory of Scripture promotes the equal opportunity of men and women..." (Thorsen, Don. pg. 346. An Exploration of Christian Theology. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishing. 2008).

Agape`

[karl]

Quote:

aldona: So do we, as a denomination, really believe what we preach about the "priesthood of all believers"?

....Either we have the priesthood of all believers, or we do not.

Either all believers (male and female) are priests and kings, or all believers are not.

First, we have to determine whether your inclusion of females in the description, "Priests and kings" is warranted.

A search of John's writings shows that he knew the difference between kings and queens. Therefore, his mention of "priests and kings" in Revelation cannot be assumed to be referring to both sexes.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Wow!! I can just imagine the dress patrols. And then all the Board Meetings to measure and determine the severity of the dress offense. Our entire time would be spent on Dress Enforcement rather than the intended purpose of the Church Board .... which is evangelism.

Hi Woody,

Somehow I missed posting the reference. 4t P. 647 "Simplicity in Dress." Read the entire chapter it will revive those who are spiritual.

To your statement I reply: Wow, can you imagine people actually that loving, that they themselves would be concerned about not causing others to stumble? Can you imagine a church where people are settled in the truth, who are serious about evangelism and live in the light that Jesus has given us to fulfill His commission? Can you imagine how quickly the issue of dress would be settle and done with if the "saints" of God were converted and motivated to reach the lost instead of being so concerned about how they looked?

If the statement made by EGW that I posted was needed then, how much more today when going to church in some places is worse than going to a bar!!! Make up, jewelry, tight pants, skirts that are way too high, hair that must have cost more than what they give for an offering lol, I mean it has gotten out of control. And if you were to say something...the same people who you would try to counsel would tell you that you are living in the past and would promptly want to revive an ordinance from the past called, stoning.

In Christ and His service,

Norman