Church Unity--the True Basis and False Basis

[Ron Lambert]

The reason I am circulating this paper is because others in the SDA church are becoming strident in their agitation of a position I believe is wrong and could potentially harm the church.

 

Some people are aggressively trying to use force to compel people to conform to the majority vote of the General Conference Session in San Antonio in 2015. Organizations such as “Secrets Unsealed,” headed by Elder Stephen Bohr, openly vow to strip ministers of their credentials, and even to abolish and reorganize divisions that do not comply. They have no tolerance at all for those women who have already been ordained to the pastoral ministry, or as elders. They will not listen to anyone who tries to tell them about the evidences of the Lord blessing these women in their ministries. They disregard the testimony of these women that they sincerely believe God has called them to the ministry. To these would-be Inquisitors, the highest concern is preserving church unity on the basis of complying with the vote of the General Conference.

 

Some of them have even gone so far as to say church unity should not be based on individual interpretation of Scripture, but on deference to the vote of the world church. They do not seem to realize that this is the same argument—the EXACT same argument—used by champions of the Papacy against Protestants ever since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

 

Zechariah chapter four gives us a picture of true church unity. The lampstand represents the church (Jesus said the seven lampstands are the seven churches—Rev. 1:20; NKJV). In Zechariah’s vision, the lampstand is connected to the two olive trees (which represent the Word of God), from which olive oil (which represents the Holy Spirit) flows through pipes to the lampstand, keeping it burning and giving light. This is a picture of the internal unity of the church.

 

Zechariah chapter five gives us a picture of false church unity, based on constraint that is externally imposed. In that vision a woman (a woman also represents a church in Bible prophecy) is contained within an ephah, a container with a lid. When Zechariah looked at the woman in the ephah, the angel of God said, “This is wickedness.”

 

Organization, government, or administration is one of the gifts placed within the church (1 Cor. 12:28). Since it is WITHIN the church, as a servant of the church like all spiritual gifts, it is not the church itself. The Spirit of Prophecy gave the only true definition of the church: “From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth.” (“Acts of the Apostles,” p. 11) Whenever any servant gets too uppity, that servant can be dismissed. Authority comes from Christ, the one and only Head of the Church, who does not share headship with the General Conference or any other organization of human beings. His authority flows to the individual faithful souls, who submit to the Word of God as their only authority for faith and practice.

 

This is Protestantism. This is Adventism.

 

In advance of the 2015 Session, the General Conference financed a study by some of the denomination’s best scholars and theologians. The name of the committee was the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC). This committee voted 62-32 in favor of recognizing that ordination of women is completely in harmony with the Bible. They pointed out that there is not a word in the Bible that expressly forbids ordaining women. Those few passages that opponents of women’s ordination cite, they do not properly understood in their cultural contexts.

 

Any who are willing to consider the issues involved, I hope will find the following discussion of the Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy evidence beneficial:

 

Consider these two clear and explicit statements by Ellen G. White:

 

“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” (6T p. 322; RH January 15, 1901)

 

“There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God.”—Evangelism 472; Manuscript 43a, 1898.

 

A passage frequently cited as an argument against ordination of women is 1 Timothy 3:1-7. In fact, this is the “proof” text they cite more often than any other:

 

“This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);  not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (NKJV)

 

It is a fault of most human languages that when the gender is indeterminate, or could be either, that the masculine gender is used. For example, consider James 1:5-8 (NKJV): “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

 

We see here that it only speaks of the masculine. It uses the pronouns “him” and “he” and even says “that man.” But no one would deny that this whole statement also applies equally to women! It starts out by saying “If any of you....” Is it not true also for women that if they lack wisdom, they may ask of God, and it will be given to them? Is it not true also that women as well as men must ask in faith, not doubting?

 

What is the real point of 1 Timothy 3:1-7? Is not Paul saying that anyone who desires to have the position of bishop (or elder, etc.) should not be a bigamist, but must live in obedience to the seventh commandment? No multiple wives—and equally so, no multiple husbands! It is wresting the text to make it dictate that only those who have wives can hold a high office in the church. In fact, it is misusing the text to use it as a pretext for saying elders must be married.

 

Now let us consider the other main Scripture passage used to try to imply that women cannot be pastors, 1 Timothy 2:9-15. This whole passage is not just misinterpreted, it is incorrectly TRANSLATED!

 

A prime example of a case where neglecting to consult the cultural context has led most translators of most versions of the Bible astray, is verse 15. In the KJV this reads: “Notwithstanding she [the woman] shall be saved in childbearing….” Most modern translations render this essentially the same way. But if we take this literally, just as it is commonly translated, we have the Apostle Paul apparently contradicting the basic principle of his gospel—that we are all saved by faith in Christ’s blood shed for us. The idea that women are saved by having babies is ridiculous and obvious heresy. Would Paul really say that?

 

This text only makes sense at all if we consider the historical, cultural context, which informs us how to translate the original Greek properly. At that time, one woman in five died in childbirth. The cult of the goddess Artemis (known as Diana by the Romans), which was the main obstacle to the gospel that Timothy had to deal with in Ephesus, which Paul was counseling Timothy in how to deal with, promised women that Artemis would keep them safe during childbirth. What Paul was really saying was it is the Lord who has the power to keep women safe during childbirth. So they should pray to Jesus.

 

Of the 12 English translations of the Bible I have on my computer, only one gives the sensible, obviously correct translation, as a marginal reading: "But a woman...will be kept safe through childbirth." (The English Version Good News translation.) The fact that so many translators got this wrong should be a warning to us that we cannot simply go by a superficial, literal reading of what our favorite version may say; and we must compare Scripture with Scripture, consult multiple translations, and even take into account the historic, cultural context.

 

Now what about verse 12, which some people like to take "literally" as meaning that Paul never allowed a woman to have any authority at all over a man? We see from other Bible passages that Paul approved of Phoebe, whom he described as a prostatis in the original Greek for Romans 16:2 which means “a woman placed in charge of others” (according to Thayer’s Bible Dictionary—the standard reference used by most translators).

 

In verse 1 Phoebe is called a diakonon in the original Greek—which is the Greek word from which we get the English word, “deacon.” There is no separate word in the Greek New Testament for a female deacon. Acts chapter six shows us that the New Testament church recognized deacons by the laying on of hands ceremony. Therefore Phoebe must have been consecrated by the laying on of hands ceremony. Paul said she was a deacon.

 

Some have argued that Paul used diakonon to refer to any common servant. But a survey of all of Paul’s writings in the Greek shows that he used doulos and sometimes oiketes for a common household servant or slave. The only other way he used diakonon was to mean “minister,” as in Romans 13:4; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Colossians 1:23; etc. In fact, one time when he uses a form of doulos (sundoulou) to refer to a fellow gospel worker, he additionally uses the word diakonon to refer to the same person (Epaphras) in the same sentence, showing that doulos and diakonos were not interchangeable or redundant in his mind.

 

Paul also mentions favorably an apostle named “Junia.” (Romans 16:7) Most scholars recognize that the name is feminine, and had to be a woman. Some ancient manuscripts give the name as “Julia.”

 

So here we have two examples of women that Paul approved of who obviously exercised authority in the church.

 

Most English translations of 1 Tim. 2:12 make it seem like Paul never allows women to have any authority at all over men. But actually, the KJV itself suggests there is more to it than that, when it says that Paul does not allow a woman to "usurp" authority over a man.

 

But if we will check the cultural context, and what it was that Paul was counseling Timothy about—dealing with the Artemis cult of Ephesus—we will see that Paul was addressing the way that women in the Artemis cult claimed the right to dominate men, because of their myth that Eve was created first, and her eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge conferred upon all women a secret wisdom.

 

Also women in the Artemis cult would reward men with sexual favors if they submitted to their control. This is why the unique word Paul used for “authority” here—authentein—(the word is only used this once in all the New Testament) in other Greek literature of the time carried obscene sexual connotations. The Vulgate translation rendered this as Paul saying he did not allow women to DOMINEER men. The Living Bible renders this: "I never let women teach men or lord it over them."

 

And as for never allowing women to teach—that cannot be taken literally, as it is commonly translated, because Paul did clearly allow women to teach—if they knew God's Word (such as Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe, and the three daughters of Phillip, who were prophets). But Jews normally did not teach women to read, and Gentiles did not believe in educating women at all. So the women in Ephesus were uneducated, except in the myths of the Artemis cult. Of course Paul did not allow them to teach in churches! But if they heeded what he said in verse 11 where Paul says women should be taught (if the Greek is properly translated), and they did learn the Word of God, then they would be qualified to teach in church.

 

And notice also how considering the cultural context makes perfect sense of what Paul said in verse 13: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Paul was not presenting this as an argument for never allowing women to teach or have any authority over men; used this way, the argument does not even make sense. If we are responsible for choosing among two available candidates for a sensitive job, would we choose someone who knowingly, deliberately committed treason, or would we choose someone who was deceived and tricked into committing treason? This would argue in favor of preferring women rather than men to teach and have authority in sensitive positions! But what Paul was actually doing was correcting the errors of the Artemis cult, which wrongly claimed that Eve was created first, and that her eating from the Tree of Knowledge conferred upon all women a special secret wisdom that entitled them to authentein men and promise them sexual favors in exchange.

 

Verses nine and ten are also made much clearer when we consider the cultural context. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

 

Members of the cult of Artemis had a special way of adorning themselves, exactly the way Paul described, so they would stand out, and could command respect and even expect submission to their authority. Paul was saying Christian women should not attire themselves like the acolytes of the cult of Artemis, just to get respect. Some people who may tend to view things too narrowly, have used this text as a pretext for saying Christian women should never wear any jewelry. While modesty and simplicity and frugality in attire is usually a good idea, that is not what the text is talking about.

 

The importance of taking all Scripture in proper context—including historical, cultural context, so we can consider the situation the writer was addressing—should be obvious to everyone. It is ironic that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is so frequently cited by some people as arguments against ordaining women for any office, considering how poorly those passages have been translated in most modern English versions.

 

Let us remember the sad lesson from history of the unnecessary division in the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther caused by his stubborn intransigence about the Eucharist—he insisted upon taking literally Jesus’ words, “This is my blood.” Thus he maintained the heresy that ordained priests had the power to “create the Creator,” by uttering a Latin phrase and then supposedly turning the bread and wine of Communion into the literal body and blood of Christ. Such misunderstanding of the authority of priests likely contributes to modern misunderstandings of the nature of ordination itself.

 

Even many Seventh-day Adventists carry with them the unconscious, emotional sense that ordination conveys some kind of special grace and super-authority. But in truth, ordination is no more than the duty the Church owes to God to submit to His authority as our true Head, and acknowledge publicly those whom God has called to whatever office He chooses to call them. The submission we all need to be concerned with is submission to the Headship of Christ.

 

Here is what Ellen G. White said about ordination:

 

"Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and THE CEREMONY OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ADDED NO NEW GRACE OR VIRTUAL QUALIFICATION. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God." Acts of the Apostles, p. 161 (emphasis supplied)

 

Notice that Sister White said ordination is a “recognition of one’s authority in that office.” It did not confer any new authority, or “new grace or virtual qualification.”

 

In reality, it is God Himself who ordains, just as He is the One who imparts spiritual gifts (which includes the gift of pastoring). The proper role of the church is to acknowledge those whom God has given evidence that He has already ordained and equipped for service, whether as pastor, or elder, or deacon.

 

Because it has become so common for us to refer to the ceremony of the laying on of hands as “ordination,” Ellen White also used the term that way too. But in truth, the word ordination was not invented until more than 200 years after the time of the Apostles. Ordination is not even a Greek word!

 

Dr. George R. Knight has noted: “One of the slipperiest words in Scripture is ‘ordination.’ The King James Version uses the word ‘ordain’ to translate nearly 30 different Greek and Hebrew words that have a wide range of meaning. And the same can be said for certain other translations. For example, let me go back to the last part of the passage I just read from the Revised Standard Version [Exodus 32:29]. Instead of ‘you have ordained yourselves,’ the New King James Version says ‘consecrate yourselves today to the Lord.’ The New International Version renders it as ‘you have been set apart to the Lord today’ and the New American Standard Bible reads ‘dedicate yourselves today to the Lord.’ Most words translated as ‘ordain’ in the King James Version are rendered in modern translations as ‘set apart,’ ‘consecrate,’ ‘decided,’ ‘chose,’ ‘appointed,’ and so on. Thus while 1 Timothy 2:7 in the King James Version reads, ‘I am ordained a preacher,’ all modern translations I examined translate it as I am ‘appointed a preacher.’ And whereas the King James Version on Titus 1:5 says ‘ordain elders in every city,’ the modern translations I checked say ‘appoint elders’ in every city. The New International Version and many other modern translations do not even use the word ‘ordain’ once in the New Testament." (Adventist Authority Wars, Kindle Locations 1503-1511 in e-book from Amazon.com.)

 

We must be wary of the influence of erroneous Papal tradition that has influenced even many Protestant translators. Catholics want to see the church as "ordaining" men so that magical power is given to the priest to enable him to say a magical phrase and then literally turn the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This contributes to the false belief that members can only be united to the church by being united to the priest, and the church can only be united to Christ by being united to the Pope.

 

Some who have studied history with an eye to human psychology, have suggested that the reason why women have been treated as second-class citizens for so long is because up until about 200 years ago, one in five women died in childbirth. This means that every man knew some woman who died in childbirth.

 

The significance of this, is that men might have been unable to reproduce the race, unless they viewed women as being somehow less than men, so the death of a woman was not as great a loss as the death of a man. Most men would be too aware that by having sexual relations with their mates, they might be killing them. So they could not afford to regard women as true equals.

 

If there is any truth to this theory, it is only in recent times that modern medical practice has made it possible for women dying in childbirth to be so rare it is hardly ever heard of, and so human society has begun to be able to institute reforms in the way women are treated. On August 18, 1920, the 19^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, which granted women the right to vote in America. Also other laws have been passed, solidifying the rights of women to own their own property, conduct their own business, and most recently, the right to equal pay for equal work.

 

The time has come for a further reform to be “Present Truth” for the Seventh-dayAdventistChurch. Women must be ordained by the laying on of hands, and must be accepted into any office the Lord chooses for them, including minister. It may not be often that women become pastors, but when the Lord does call a woman to this office, she should not be refused for the sake of human traditions whose time is passed.

 

The theological statement by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28 still needs to be fully embraced: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” If it makes a difference whether we are Jew or non Jew, slave or free, male or female, then only Jewish men should be ordained. In fact, only Jewish men could be saved. Because Jesus was a Jewish man.

 

Let no one say that advancing this needed reform is merely supported by “liberals” who don’t care what Scripture really teaches. Nor is it the same thing as going along with every perceived extreme of the “Women’s Liberation Movement,” or with “Gay Rights,” or even with evolution. Satan will always try to hijack every reform movement, just as he tries to hijack every denomination. That does not mean that some reform movements are not right and needful, nor does it mean that Satan yet has complete control over the churches. The time for a complete moral fall in these things is yet future.

 

If women’s ordination is, as I and many others contend, a matter of basic obedience to God, then we must look with great concern to Acts 5:32: “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” (emphasis supplied)

 

Refusing to acknowledge the authority of God to call whomever He chooses to whatever office He chooses, is insubordination—the very worst form of disobedience. So how can the church ever receive answers to its prayers for the Holy Spirit? How can the church ever be given the Latter Rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit? How can anyone in the church ever have a part in the finishing of the work? The Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God. Those who submit to His authority!

 

If it is widely accepted that a mere vote of any church body has the authority to override the authority of God to ordain anyone that He chooses, then that will delay the Latter Rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit; which in turn, means that will delay the Second Coming of Jesus.

 

END