The meeting had been scheduled at the Pacific Union Conference headquarters in Westlake Village, but that violated the bylaws, which required that constituency meetings be held at the La Sierra campus.

According to the story, 72 delegates attending what became an “informational meeting,” examined the proposed changes, “asked probing questions, and shared suggestions about a number of items in the proposed Bylaws document. Members of the Articles and Bylaws Committee attended the February 21 meeting to hear the constituents’ comments. They will meet to consider the feedback, and adjust the proposed changes where advisable.” But if the bylaw changes have been modified at all, no new version has been posted online.

Next, on March 15, LSU posted a press release titled “Is La Sierra University Leaving the Adventist Church? No!”

This raises the question: How many other Seventh-day Adventist colleges have to answer questions about whether they are leaving the church? What is it about La Sierra that leads people wonder whether it is leaving the church? The article states:

Several groups and individuals are using postings on independent websites to allege proposed changes in La Sierra University’s bylaws are an attempt to weaken or break the school’s historic ties with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Then LSU tries to argue that this is not true. But according to LSU, these changes to the board structure have been demanded by Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), and WASC has indeed stated that “an educational institution’s board and administration should preserve their independence from . . . external parties, such as related entities,” the term “related entities” including sponsoring denominations. The stated purpose of the bylaw changes is to satisfy WASC that the university is sufficiently autonomous from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. LSU can hardly argue both that the bylaw changes are necessary to satisfy secular accreditation, and that they do not weaken the church’s control over the University. That’s trying to have it both ways. If the bylaw changes address WASC’s concerns, then obviously they are intended to weaken the university’s ties to the church.

The March 15 posting has several numbered statements. The first states:

1. Throughout the university’s accreditation conversations and bylaws revision process, La Sierra University’s Articles and Bylaws Committee maintained the position that the university would remain distinctively Adventist. Governance concerns expressed by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), our regional accrediting body, prompted the bylaws discussion. But WASC’s concerns were focused on the University’s governance practices, not on its mission. During their two years of careful work to resolve WASC issues, committee members also ensured the bylaws remained in alignment with the University’s mission and values, developed and voted by the faculty, staff, and trustees.

 The real question is why does WASC have governance concerns about La Sierra? La Sierra’s Board of Trustees is structured exactly like every other union-affiliated Seventh-day Adventist college in North America. Why has no other secular accrediting body in North America expressed concerns about the board structure of an Adventist college?

WASC has taken the remarkable stance that, “Concerns can arise when the board chair is responsible to a related entity, such as a religious institution, . . .” But all SDA tertiary educational institutions have a union president or other church official as their ex officio board chair, who obviously is “responsible to a related . . .religious institution.” All union-affiliated colleges have the union president as their board chair. So WASC has just fired a shot across the bow of the entire tertiary educational apparatus of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. WASC is casting aspersion on all of our colleges’ governing boards. WASC is, in effect, demanding that the church cut loose its entire higher educational structure. If the LSU constituency caves in to this pressure from a secular accrediting authority, it jeopardizes the entire SDA tertiary educational establishment in North America.

The author of LSU’s press release makes a distinction between governance and mission, but if the mission of La Sierra is to be governed by the SDA Church, then changes to its governance will impair its mission. This board structure, used throughout North America, has been developed in order to ensure that the SDA Church retains control of its schools. Without structures in place to ensure church control, the church has no way of making certain that its schools continue to support and promote the mission of the church. To change the board structure is to undermine the ability of the church to ensure that La Sierra is faithful to its mission.

2. The proposed bylaws require the Board of Trustees to ensure the mission and major policies of the university are well aligned with the goals and objectives of the Adventist Church. The board oversees the strategic plan and its progress. Adventist mission is central to the function of the board.

The proposed bylaw changes transfer almost all governing power away from the Board of Trustees and vest it in the president of the university, so the board will no longer have the power to ensure anything. For example, all power to hire and fire is removed from the board and given to the president; the board will not even retain oversight in this area. So how can the board ensure that faculty hires are aligned with the goals and objectives of the church? If the mission and major policies of the university are not aligned with the goals and objectives of the Adventist Church, the board will have no power to do anything except fire the president and hope for better luck next time.

3. The revised bylaws make no change in the number or offices of the church leaders who serve the board on an ex officio basis. The board will continue to have among its members the Pacific Union Conference president, secretary, treasurer, vice president, director of education, and the presidents of the Southern and Southeastern California conferences and the Arizona Conference.

But the quorum rule is changed so that there is no quorum unless lay members outnumber ex officio members. And the Pacific Union Conference president can no longer serve as the president of La Sierra’s board of trustees as long as he continues to chair PUC’s board of trustees. Moreover, the chair changes from an ex officio to an elected position, which obviously weakens the power of the board chair relative to all other board members and the university president. Again, remember that these changes are designed to satisfy WASC that La Sierra has sufficient independence from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is the stated purpose of the changes to the structure of the Board of Trustees, so it is disingenuous, to say the least, to argue that they do not loosen the SDA Church’s control over the university.

4. La Sierra University’s comprehensive Spiritual Master Plan (entire document available at: http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=8122) makes the following clear statements about the university’s commitment to the church:

• La Sierra University is committed to the Seventh-day Adventist faith and life.
• La Sierra University embraces the biblical Sabbath as a gift of sacred time.
• La Sierra looks to the future with eagerness, anticipating the fulfillment of the Advent hope.

La Sierra University remains deeply committed to the Adventist philosophy of education. Our mission of seeking truth, knowing God, and serving others is daily experienced by our students and those privileged to accompany them on their educational journey. The university’s Spiritual Master Plan guides our work in providing invigorating classroom conversations, meaningful worship experiences, and transformative service opportunities,” says Randal Wisbey, president.

La Sierra claims to embrace the biblical Sabbath “as a gift of sacred time,” but the Sabbath is sacred because God hallowed it at the creation; it is more than just a gift of time, it is a memorial to God’s work of creation in a literal week. Adventism came into existence largely to call people back to worship on the day that God set aside at the creation. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11; Rev. 14:7) If mainstream science is correct in its theories about origins—life spontaneously self-assembled and self-vivified, and evolved from single-celled forms over the course of some six hundred million years, and humans evolved from an apelike ancestor some two million years ago—then the Adventist faith is utter nonsense. Yet La Sierra has been teaching this view of origins as truth for many years, and has resisted all efforts to reform this aspect of its curriculum. This casts grave doubt on the university’s commitment to the Adventist faith.

La Sierra points us to a “Spiritual Master Plan,” but having a plan for the future is no substitute for upholding plain Bible truth right now. Moreover, the plan raises more questions than it answers. It discusses a science-faith seminar, but previous efforts in this area were probably more corrosive to Adventist faith than the biology classes.

According to the “Spiritual Master Plan,” subjects that will be featured at campus-wide assemblies include “earth care, women’s issues, service, mission, social justice, Christian responsibility,” a litany of liberal enthusiasms.

The problem with any “Spiritual Master Plan” that La Sierra might devise is that it will be implemented by the extremely liberal religion faculty. That faculty was formed by Fritz Guy, who recently co-wrote a book arguing that the writer of Genesis intended to convey that the raqia [Heb. = expanse, firmament, sky] is actually an inverted metal dome:

Then there’s John Webster, who told the students in the seminar class that the literal (Historical-Grammatical) method, which is the approved method of Biblical interpretation is “not particularly helpful,” and it might be more helpful to view the opening chapters of Genesis not as how the world came into being, but how it was inaugurated to be God’s dwelling place. Then there’s Tricia Famisaran, who urges us to repent of our sins of heterosexism and patriarchy, and suggests that since Lady Gaga has determined that homosexuals were “born that way,” the rest of us should act accordingly:

In sum, a “spiritual plan” is only as good as the people who implement it. A fine-sounding plan cannot take the place of a dedicated and committed Board of Trustees having real governing power, who will put in place a dedicated and committed president and faculty.

Much of LSU’s official response to the bylaw change issue is aimed at trying to get the LSU constituency—which has an ethical obligation to inform itself, from any and all sources, regarding the nature, details, and effects of the bylaw changes it is being asked to vote for—to pay no attention to anyone other than the current LSU administration:

While the theories these critics present appear to be objective, they omit important information about the bylaws, the revision process, and recent actions by the university’s board, administration, and faculty. . . . Critical voices are often loud, and their accusatory tone attracts attention. Their self-assured manner suggests that they are speaking with authority. But be assured, there are other more credible voices to be heard.”

But the constituents can judge for themselves what is truth while considering several points of view. “In a multitude of counselors there is safety.” Prov. 11:14. It is always better to consider both sides of the story. “He that speaks first in his own cause seems just; until his neighbor comes and examines him.” Prov. 18:17. It should be clear that when Wisbey advocates these bylaw changes, he speaks in his own cause.

Moreover, LSU Constituent Members do not represent the current administration, nor do they exist to rubber-stamp the existing administration’s agenda. The constituency represents the entire Adventist community in Southern California and the Pacific Union, and its commission is to ensure that the University remains faithful to its mission and founding purpose. For LSU to discourage its constituent members from hearing all points of view is like the president discouraging your congressman from listening to your point of view on pending legislation.

Next, on April 5, LSU treated us to a brief history of its accreditation.

The point of this press release seems to be to claim that WASC first raised board structure/governance concerns in 1996, long before Wisbey became president (and, in fact, early in Larry Geraty’s tenure as president). We are told that the two main items WASC wanted addressed way back in 1996 were:

1. The number of trustees not employed by any entity of the SDA Church (deemed insufficient at the time), and

2. That the president of the Pacific Union Conference also served as chair of the Pacific Union College board. WASC recommended four steps to take in beginning to address this issue.

We are expected to infer from this information that WASC’s intrusion cannot have been solicited by Randal Wisbey, because WASC had these same concerns 11 years before Wisbey became president of La Sierra.

Now, let me see if I have this straight: WASC raises concerns about La Sierra’s board structure back in 1996, does nothing for fourteen (14) years, grants LSU accreditation for a full 8-year term in 2010, then says, “oh, by the way, fix your board structure like we said back in 1996.”

To whatever extent WASC raised a concern about board structure in 1996, it was obviously answered back then. The notion that WASC allowed a concern to fester, unaddressed, for 14 years is a non-starter. The concerns were addressed, and WASC was satisfied, back in 1996. Moreover, if the board structure were such a grave concern to WASC, would WASC have extended full accreditation to La Sierra in 2010—fourteen years after the concerns were first raised without them ever having been addressed? Bear in mind that LSU’s accreditation is valid until 2018, a full 22 years after the concerns were first raised.

The idea that there is continuity of concern between 1996 and 2010 is surreal. Obviously, the governance issue somehow got put back on the front burner after 14 years of being a non-issue. Why? Because (one strongly suspects) Randal Wisbey wants bylaw changes that he knows he cannot push through without a threat from the accreditors.

But is WASC being consistent in making these demands? There are three separate Brigham Young Universities, the main one in Provo, Utah, another in Idaho, and a third in Hawaii. All three are separate institutions; the Idaho and Hawaii schools are not branch campuses of the BYU in Utah. These three schools share one (1) board of trustees headed up by one (1) man, Thomas S. Monson, the current president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All of the board members are high officers in the Mormon Church, and most if not all are paid by the Mormon Church. There are no elected lay members on the board; all board members are there by virtue of their offices in the Mormon Church. In other words, they are all ex officios.

The Brigham Young University in Hawaii is within WASC’s territorial jurisdiction. Is WASC demanding that BYUH have a separate board? Is WASC demanding that Thomas Monson step down as board chair of BYUH because he also chairs the board for the Utah and Idaho schools? Is WASC demanding that the Mormon Church pack its unitary board with lay members who hold no high offices in the church? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. Why? Because WASC understands that it exists to ensure basic academic standards, not to dictate to religious denominations how they shall govern their educational establishments. In fact, in 2008, WASC reaffirmed BYUH’s accreditation for 10 years.

Finally, on April 12, LSU posted an article explaining the importance of accreditation.

But no one disputes the value of accreditation, and accreditation is not the issue here. La Sierra could retain its current board structure throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity without ever jeopardizing its secular accreditation. The problem is that Randal Wisbey wants to be his own boss, with no real possibility of any meaningful interference from the larger Seventh-day Adventist community. These bylaw changes are a huge step in that direction. WASC doesn’t really care about these changes; in the case of BYUH, WASC has not challenged a single, unitary board and board chair governing three separate Mormon institutions, consisting only of church ex officios, with no elected lay members.

The constituency of LSU must not allow itself to be stampeded by an empty, solicited accreditation threat into approving bylaw changes that should never be approved, and that place at risk the entire tertiary educational structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Pursuant to the California Supreme Court ruling that allows “pervasively sectarian” schools such as La Sierra University and Cal Baptist University to issue tax-free bonds, the issuing institution is required to sign a solemn covenant stating:

The Corporation covenants and agrees that no portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance or refinance any facility, place or building used or to be used for sectarian instruction or study or as a place for devotional activities or religious worship or in connection with any part of the programs of any school or department of divinity,

This restriction applies for the useful life of any structure financed or refinanced with bond proceeds.  Given the language of the covenant—which was repeated several times in the bond documents, and signed by La Sierra President Randal Wisbey and Vice President for Finance, David Geriguis—the public discussion naturally revolved around the secularization of specific buildings and structures financed by tax-free bond money, most notably the Thaine B. Price Science Complex.

But now a California court has ruled that participation in the tax-free bond program effectively secularizes even a private, sectarian university, converting it into a secular business establishment and severely limiting its right to uphold its own religious standards.

The story begins when Domainlor Javier Cabading, an immigrant from the Philippines, enrolled in the nursing program at Cal Baptist University, a private institution in Riverside, California, that is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  The 25 year old Cabading, who goes by the name “Dominique Javier,” is biologically male, but has always identified as female, and hence clicked the “female” box on Cal Baptist’s online application form.

In April, 2011, Cabading appeared on the MTV show “True Life” and revealed that “she” was actually a he.  “I’m a girl trapped in a guy’s body,” Cabading said on the show.  On August 30, 2011, Cabading was expelled from Cal Baptist for “committing or attempting to engage in fraud, or concealing identity,” and for presenting false or misleading information in university judicial processes.

California state law, specifically the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51), prohibits “business establishments” from discriminating based upon several categories—sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.  The act defines “sex” as including “a person’s gender identity and gender expression” and hence outlaws discrimination based upon gender identity.  On February 25 of this year, Cabading sued Cal Baptist claiming “she” was expelled because “she” identified and dressed as female, but was biologically male.  Cabading is claiming $500,000 in damages.

Cal Baptist demurred, arguing that the Unruh Act did not apply to Cal Baptist University because it is not a “business establishment,” but a private educational institution with a religious mission that integrally includes inculcating religious beliefs and values.  Citing a recent case in which a Lutheran high school expelled two female students for sexual impropriety–Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass’n (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 828—Cal Baptist asked Judge Matthew Perantoni to dismiss the Unruh Act claims.

Cabading’s attorney, Paul Southwick of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, argued that Cal Baptist University (“CBU”) had effectively admitted that it was in the secular education business in statements made in connection with issuing the tax-free bonds:

Moreover, as a participant in California Statewide Comm. Dev. Auth. v. All Persons Interested’s tax free bond financing program, CBU has obligated itself to demonstrate that, despite its inclusion of a religious viewpoint in otherwise secular classes, “it provides an education that is secular in substance.”  California Statewide Comm. Dev. Auth. v. All Persons Interested (2007) 40 Cal.4^th 788, 805 fn 9 (“CSCDA”).  When an educational institution provides a broad curriculum in secular subjects, “the bond program assists the religious school in providing educational opportunities to California residents, enhancing their employment prospects[.]” Id at 803.

Moreover, CBU joined an amicus brief [in the CSCDA case], promising the court that monies raised through the bonds would be spent exclusively on projects that advanced CSCDA’s secular goals and would “not be used for activities that the outside world would typically view as religious or sectarian.” . . . In so doing, CBU holds itself out as an institution whose primary service is to the state and the community, and not to its religious denomination.

Arguing that schools are public if their potential constituency is more public than private, Southwick stated:

The same is true of CBU.  However, it is even more public in that it is . . . a beneficiary of a public bond program through which it has raised over $100 million, and is seeking an additional $115 million, to construct educational facilities to be used exclusively in support of secular education.

On May 7^th Judge Perantoni sided with Cabading and Southwick, ruling that the lawsuit against Cal Baptist, including the Unruh Act claims, could go forward.

La Sierra University has participated in the same tax free bond program as Cal Baptist. La Sierra admits many non-Adventist students; by some reports, 40% of the student population is non-Adventist.  In its bond documents, La Sierra made the same admissions as Cal Baptist regarding the secular nature of its curriculum:  “Thus, La Sierra does the things most other universities do: all information and coursework used to teach secular subjects are neutral with respect to religion.”  If Cal Baptist loses this case, it will create a precedent that will certainly apply to La Sierra.

Some commentators have already noted that issuing the tax exempt bonds might interfere with La Sierra’s ability to uphold its own standards of conduct and deportment.  Michael Peabody, who operates the Religiousliberty.TV website, was way ahead of the curve on the issue.  In an article on the bond issue published in February (just before the Cabading lawsuit was filed), Peabody wrote:

Finally, when it comes to allowing student clubs on campus, La Sierra may . . . no longer legally prohibit recognition for a gay and lesbian club. This issue made news in November 2012 when a gay and lesbian club was denied recognition because, in the words of the campus spokesperson, the club “does not align with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on sexuality. La Sierra is a Seventh-day Adventist university, so we support the values of the SDA Church. That is why they were turned down.”

It does not appear that the bond has been used by any parties to expand their rights on campus, but the bond would seem to give many groups a right of legal action in the event that they feel discriminated against by the university because of their religious beliefs. From a religious liberty angle, religious institutions have long held the “right to discriminate” in order to protect their interests and religious missions, but what the California Supreme Court seems to be saying is that they also have the right to contract away some of these protections in return for tax-exempt bond funding.

From the other side of the ideological spectrum, T. Joe Willey, has also suggested that, because of the bond financing, La Sierra may not be able to prevent a homosexual student group from meeting on campus.  It is becoming ever clearer that La Sierra was likely wrong when it asserted, through counsel Kent Hansen, that:

The issuance of the bonds does not alter La Sierra’s rights of religious preference in employment and student admissions or Adventist standards reflected in the policies of the campus.

The truth is that none of us knew with certainty what legal effect issuing the bonds would have.  My own legal analysis turns out to have been less perspicacious than Michael Peabody’s, but even a year ago when ADvindicate first broke the tax-free bond story, I noted that the monetary savings were not worth the legal risks of issuing the bonds:

But rather than try to guess how much legal jeopardy La Sierra has placed itself in, the question you should be asking is why? Why would any Seventh-day Adventist institution voluntarily place itself in a position where it may not be able to teach exactly what it wants in exactly the way it wants? Why should we ever, in order to save 2% of interest, promise anyone that we won’t teach in a sectarian way, and promote our specific doctrine and worldview? Why would we ever promise that our classes will be “neutral with respect to religion”?

We now have a clearer picture of the problems La Sierra has blundered into by issuing the tax-exempt bonds.  The problems are worse than I would have guessed.

Lela and I went down separately from the rest of the team, as we needed to bring our three-month-old son, Josiah because he is still nursing. With Josiah so young, we prayed much before deciding to come, as the region does have some malaria risk, as well as a significant history of kidnapping. To minimize his exposure, we came down three days after everyone else and arrived the evening before the medical outreach was to begin.

Our travel itinerary included dropping off our three older children, Hadassah, Nathaniel and Moriah, with Lela’s parents who live in Phoenix, and who were kind enough to carry out a mission of their own by taking care of them while we were out of country. Then we traveled to Los Angeles where we caught our flight to Mexico City. Here a miracle occurred. We had to go through customs before catching our connecting flight to Tuxtla-Gutiérrez, the capital of Chiapas. If you have ever traveled with us, you known that we always plan ahead, and we bring anything we might need. On this trip, we especially wanted to be prepared to get our three-month-old jewel safely through a week in the mission field (stove, bottle/pump sterilizer, sani-wipes, Clorox wipes, mosquito netting, baby toys, stroller, car seat, bassinet, inflatable baby tub, medicine, thermometer, medications for any condition that might occur, blankets, changes of clothes, diapers, etc.) plus enough clean American food to feed us for a week, PLUS literature. We knew that we were going to be meeting with El Presidente de Ocozocoautla (the mayor of the town where the team carried out its medical mission), so, in addition to the magazines on health, the birth and life of Christ, and the Sabbath which were to be given out to all of the patients and family members and which were generously supplied by Ron Goss of Project Restore, we also brought two cases of full-text Spirit of Prophecy books, all in Spanish, of course, to be given El Presidente as well as the members of his cabinet and other administrators with whom the team interacted.

In Mexico City, we had to deplane, go through immigration, find our luggage, go through customs, re-check in and go back through security in time to board again. By the time we had all of our carry-on items plus our gate-checked items and made it down to customs, we found a line in front of us that snaked back and forth, filling a room about 25 by 25 meters. The time was 3:30 pm, and our connecting flight was set to depart at 4:45 pm, and on Aeromexico, airline personnel seem to like boarding early. This was only the first line where we would have to wait in in order to get through the process by 4:45, and from the looks of things, there was no way we were even going to make it through the first line by 4:45. We had been praying quite a lot before and during the trip, and we needed a miracle if we were going to make it to our destination to join the rest of the team and not get stuck in Mexico City.
Lela went over to talk to an official standing off to the side. He looked at us and then the line in front of us, and told her that she was not going to make her flight. Then, looking at Josiah he said, “But for the baby, follow me.” Walking past the enormous line full of people, one-by-one he moved the line barrier pylons to the side just enough to allow us to pass by, stroller and all, and delivered us to the immigration official who examined our passports. In the next warehouse-sized room, we had to find our luggage and get it to the customs agent at the far end of the building. Out of nowhere, two men with carts appeared and told us to come with them. Quickly they led us to the right area where we found the luggage from our plane. The men had not even asked for the name of our city of departure. Passing by all of the large, scary dogs sniffing for South-American contraband, they picked up our bags. Then a woman appeared who began talking to Lela. Lela told her why we were going to Chiapas with a medical team that was already at our destination, and she took us right to the customs official. Because we were bringing our own food, when I filled out the customs form, I had checked the first box which indicated that I was attempting to carry either food, dangerous chemicals or insects into the county. Despite this potential problem, a short conversation between this mystery woman and the customs official, and the official had signed off on our baggage, four suitcases and three suspicious-looking boxes and all, and the men were whisking us through some double doors out of customs.

Now we needed to get checked in for our next flight. Again, out of nowhere, a man appeared and told us to follow him. He asked no questions, but took us down a hall which seemed to be going the opposite direction that someone had indicated we needed to go, up an elevator and down the corridor to the ticket counter, past another giant line, and to the front. Dropping us off at the ticket counter, he gave some quick instructions to us as well as the ticket agent and was gone. Including immigration and customs, this all took about seven minutes, and it was a good thing, because when we got to our gate, passengers were already boarding, and the plane taxied away from the gate several minutes early. After finding our seats, we bowed our heads and thanked God for His blatant miracle in getting us safely on our flight, but as we were about to learn, this miracle was small compared to the work God is doing in the region we were to visit.

Once in Tuxtla-Gutiérrez, we were picked up at the airport by a retired Seventh-day Adventist pastor named Pastor Pedro. Fortunately, he had driven his pickup-truck. During the hour-and-a-half drive to Ocozocoautla, we had time to learn about the work God has been doing in Chiapas. The people of Chiapas are very poor, hence our mission trip to provide medical and surgical care that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. Many of the people are indigenous, descendants of the Maya civilization. The population of the state of Chiapas is just under five million and, to the praise of God, in some areas, as many as an incredible 42% are Seventh-day Adventists! In Tuxtla-Gutiérrez alone, there are over 300 churches and we later learned that they need 40-50 more! There are nowhere near enough pastors to go around, so most pastors shepherd between 20-30 churches each! Nonetheless, by God’s blessing, the growth continues.
Unbeknown to us, on Sabbath, one week before our arrival, Elder Ted Wilson had had the privilege of speaking at a special service celebrating and promoting religious freedom and liberty of conscience held in a soccer stadium attended by 25,000 people: 20,000 Seventh-day Adventist members plus “cinco mil” [5,000] more brothers and sisters who were baptized that day! Prior to coming to work in Chiapas just over 25 years ago, Pastor Pedro had worked as a pastor in California for 17 years. He said he came to Chiapas because the need for workers was so great. He also told us that 25 years ago, when he was working for the Chiapas Union, there were only 80,000 Seventh-day Adventists, and now, there are 218,000 members on the books with estimates as high as 300,000 in attendance on Sabbaths! Pastor Pedro said that the church is growing because of Bible studies, Daniel and Revelation seminars, and members sharing the three-angels’ messages with their neighbors. He explained the growth with the word, “laicos,” which refers to lay people working to spread God’s truth. Each church is participating to finish the work.

Every day we were in Ocozocoautla, our group was divided into a medical and a surgical team. Those on the medical team went to the clinic where hundreds of men, women and children came to be treated. Due to the poverty of the region, some suffer months or years with no relief from health conditions, so patients were very appreciative, and many traveled great distances to receive help. Many of the patients had brought their children with them, and these children were able to attend a special children’s program where they received coloring books about health which depicted the eight laws of health. They were artfully illustrated by Sarah Esslinger. Betty Gilbert, from Phoenix Arizona, who has dedicated her life to ministering to children through cradle roll, was unable to go on the trip, but beforehand she spent days making special, colorful take home items portraying the second coming and other Bible themes. These were gladly received and prized by the children in Chiapas. Meanwhile the surgical team went to the hospital in Ocozocoautla and performed hysterectomies, bladder suspensions, cholecystectomies, hernia repairs and other much needed surgical procedures. Pastor Eloy, chaplain for the trip, made sure that each patient received magazines containing precious truth. Eager to learn more, some patients asked for multiple different magazines or for extra copies for a friend. Some patients had unusual or advanced conditions that we do not often encounter in the United States such as a woman with a 6-pound fibroid uterus (usual weight is 2-3 ounces). She was very appreciative to have this taken out of her belly. Another patient had the unfortunate finding of cancer which had spread to different parts of her belly. In addition to optimal tumor debulking, she also received counseling and literature on what she can do with her diet and lifestyle to help her fight the cancer, as well as the wonderful news of a crucified and risen Savior.

The day before the team left, the mayor of Ocozocoautla gave a special thank you dinner for the team which he attended as well as his cabinet members. He gave his personal testimony on how God had given him victory over alcoholism, and he also declared that he believed that God had put him in office in order to help facilitate the care that his citizens were receiving from our team. Wonderful groundwork was laid for further cooperation between his office and our church in Chiapas, and the mayor expressed much gratitude for what the church is doing. With much appreciation, each official received a copy of El Ministerio de Curación [Ministry of Healing], and the local pastors were given a case of El Gran Conflicto for future distribution. Please pray that the important seeds of truth contained in these books will find fertile ground in the hearts of these men and women, and that God will bless and give the increase, and that the church will continue to grow in Chiapas (1 Corinthians 3:6).

Thinking back, now, about the trip, two things strike me most about the people of Chiapas, and one is how readily they received the literature that we brought. For instance, there were always quite a few people outside the hospital each day as we came and went, so we would pass out present truth magazines to them. Not once did anyone turn down a magazine, and when we came back out of the hospital, the people were always reading the magazines, and I never saw one magazine on the ground or in the trash. It occurs to me that we have the Bible and the other writings inspired by the Spirit of Prophecy, namely, the writings of Ellen White. Do we value these as much as the people of Chiapas treasured their magazines? Do we allow hours to pass watching television or doing frivolous surfing on the internet or social media when we could be spending that time reading and coming closer to God? Perhaps it is time to rethink how we spend our free time. The other lesson I took home was the importance of each of us working as God’s laicos—His lay workers—by actively seeking opportunities to share with our neighbors, friends and associates the Bible’s message of love and warning that God has given us as a people. And it may even be that these two lessons fit together, such that the more we treasure and spend time with God personally, the more we would have to share with those with whom God puts us in contact, so I’m making a commitment to God to spend more personal time with Him in the morning each day, so that I can be more useful to Him the rest of the day. Do you want to make that commitment too?

According to the Seventh Day Adventist Church´s belief in creation, as witnessed in the Bible, God has created mankind – man and woman – in His image and therefore equal.

Because of sin, God instituted a special priesthood reserved for men. This special priesthood with its sacrifices and functions found its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. There is no longer any special priesthood. Jesus Christ is our only true priest, the exalted high priest in the true temple in heaven. Now all have free access to God (Hebrews 4-5).

All of Christ’s followers – both men and women – were lifted up to be a “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, to declare His praises” (1 Peter 2:9).

This royal priesthood has a common purpose, namely to proclaim the gospel.

This ministry is based on the spiritual gifts which the Holy Spirit gives equally to men and women (1 Chor 12). Paul mentions some specific grace based ministries in the Church, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds (i.e. pastors), and teachers (Eph 4:7-16).

With background in this biblical understanding, the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Denmark will not distinguish between genders when appointing pastors, and wishes to see equality between genders in all areas of responsibility. As a result, the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Denmark will suspend the ordaining of any new pastors until the General Conference session in 2015.

Voted at the Danish Union session, May 12, 2013

Boards of trustees function as stewards of the institution and are given authority to govern within the context of Seventh-day Adventist identity, doctrine, and educational purpose. Board independence therefore must not be interpreted as freedom to disregard denominational interests, policies or goals for higher education. Nor is it the liberty to lead the institution in a direction that runs counter to what the Church intends through its educational institutions.

For Seventh-day Adventists, board independence functions within rather than outside of a prior commitment to the Church and its mission. Broadly stated, board independence is the constituency’s confidence and expectation that the board, relying upon its own processes and commitments to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and to quality education, will ensure that the operations of the institution serve the educational mission of the Church and provide practical benefit to the community and the world. Boards must earn and maintain the respect and trust of their constituencies by demonstrating accountability to denominational identity in education, to quality in student learning outcomes, to regulatory agencies and to the needs of society.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) has lately been hinting that even denominational schools must be independent from their sponsoring denominations. In a letter to Randal Wisbey, WASC President Ralph Wolff stated:

WASC Standards of Accreditation call for institutions affiliated with or supported by religious organizations to have “education as their primary purpose and [operate] as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.’ Institutions are expected to have a history free of ‘interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by … bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.” (July 5, 2011 letter from Ralph Wolff of WASC to Randal Wisbey)

The 2013 WASC policy manual contains a section titled “Policy on Independent Governing Boards,” WASC states, “A general principle of governance is that an educational institution’s board and administration should preserve their independence from donors, elected officials, and external parties, such as ‘related entities’ described above.” Elsewhere, it states that, “A related entity may be a . . . religious sponsor . . .” WASC is thus saying that a higher educational board must preserve its independence from its sponsoring denomination.

There seems to be conflict here. WASC contends that a higher education board must be autonomous and independent from the institution’s sponsoring denomination, but the General Conference policy on tertiary educational boards states that such boards must govern within the context of Seventh-day Adventist identity, doctrine, and educational purpose, and board independence must not be interpreted as freedom to disregard denominational interests, policies or goals for higher education.

WASC has complained about—and the proposed bylaw changes are designed to address—the fact that both Pacific Union College and La Sierra University are affiliated with the Pacific Union, and therefore Pacific Union president Ricardo Graham is ex officio chair of the board of both schools. WASC has even hinted that there is a conflict with having the president of an organizational unit of a church serve as chairman of a college board:

Concerns can arise when the board chair is responsible to a related entity, such as a religious institution, or serves as chair of more than one educational institution. The board chair has a special leadership role, for example, in setting agendas, making appointments, and leading discussions, and therefore can wield more influence than other board members. Whatever loyalties the board chair may have to other entities, the board chair must act in the best interests of the educational institution when acting as board chair. . . . Finally, a serious potential conflict exists if one person serves simultaneously as board chair of two institutions of higher education, which may be competing for students, faculty, and/or resources; therefore this practice is discouraged and will be subject to careful scrutiny by teams. (WASC “Policy on Independent Governing Boards,” emphasis added.)

The GC document deals directly with this issue, as follows:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes, with certain limitations, that a trustee may serve simultaneously on more than one board. General Conference policy outlines the following framework for persons serving on multiple boards: “Because of the common objectives embraced by the various organizational units and institutions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, membership held concurrently on more than one denominational committee or board does not of itself constitute a conflict of interest provided that all the other requirements of the policy are met. However, an officer, trustee, or director serving on an organization’s board is expected to act in the best interest of that organization and its role in denominational structure.

Thus, whatever WASC thinks about Ricardo Graham chairing two college boards, it does not violate General Conference policy.

It cannot be a coincidence that the GC released this document two weeks prior to the scheduled vote on proposed La Sierra bylaw changes. Clearly, the GC is acutely aware of the vote on May 23rd and is weighing in with a repudiation of WASC’s views on board autonomy. The church leaders in Silver Spring are awake at the switch, so to speak.

A confrontation between WASC and the Adventist Church has clear religious liberty implications. Secular accreditation authorities exist to ensure that educational institutions achieve a basic standard of educational and academic competence, so that the public is not defrauded and public financial aid to education is not diverted into fraudulent enterprises. Secular accreditors have no authority to decree that religiously-affiliated or pervasively sectarian schools must be autonomous from their denominations. WASC is now essentially arguing that that a denomination can found, but cannot actually govern, a tertiary educational institution. WASC’s aggressive position sets up a potential First Amendment Freedom of religion lawsuit.

WASC’s position vis-a-vis La Sierra and other Seventh-day Adventist is complicated by the fact that it has a former Adventist minister and a former Adventist college president on its staff. Richard Winn is the Executive Director of WASC. Winn is a former Adventist minister who left the church over doctrinal differences. At an Adventist Society of Religious Studies meeting in November, 2011, Winn argued that Adventist institutions such as our colleges need to accommodate “cultural Adventists,” i.e., “Adventists” who reject the church’s doctrines but still appreciate the sociological and sub-cultural aspects of Adventist life. He is now in a position to implement his stated ideology. Additionally, Richard Osborn is a Vice President of WASC; he was president of Pacific Union College between 2001 and April, 2009, when Osborn and the PUC board reportedly reached an amicable agreement that he step aside. Osborn’s current feelings toward Elder Graham and the Seventh-day Adventist Church are not known.

I have pointed out elsewhere that it is inconceivable that WASC would be taking its current intrusive stance without assurance from LSU insiders that no legal action will be taken against WASC. Randal Wisbey has obviously been complaining to WASC of interference from the larger Seventh-day Adventist church. Possibly, Wisbey is finding a sympathetic ear among former denominational employees now working at WASC. Whatever has happened, the end result has been that WASC has recommended changes to the structure of the board that will allow greater autonomy of the university from the SDA church. Because of the disastrous precedent it would set, however, the church can ill afford to allow these changes to be voted under pressure from secular accreditors.

Amid this technological boom, a question arises: What’s next in communication and IT in our church? In order to answer this question, first it is necessary to describe a framework in which communication and IT are positioned in our organization. Then, it will be easy to identify what has been done and what needs to be solved in the future. Imagine this framework as a four-wheel wagon. The two front wheels represent communication and the two rear wheels represent IT. Each wheel illustrates the following dimensions:

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

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

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

The only way we have ever been able to discern truth about any given subject is to immerse ourselves in the biblical understanding of it as written by God’s divinely inspired penmen, and then let the chips fall where they will. Through parallelism, poetic style, chiasmus, typology, divinely inspired ellipsis, and a multitude of other means, God has directed us to His truth through His masterpiece of human history called the Bible. Like being lost in a city or wilderness (or in studying the Bible), one must gain altitude to ascertain where one is at and where one is going. Overall perspective is key to understanding.

When I first became a Christian, and specifically an Adventist Christian, I was taught to study the Bible by subject, as Jesus did on the road to Emmaus with His disciples (New King James Version, Luke 24:27). By this method, I was informed, I could ascertain what the Bible taught on any subject consistently and clearly from cover to cover. Hence, with proper biblical hermeneutics from such study, I could understand what God’s truth was in any given subject area.

Climbing this mountain of perspective raises us out of the competing opinions of our earthly context and forces us to view God’s perspective via the entire history of mankind, from Genesis to Revelation. When we apply this method of study in the subject area of men’s and women’s roles or functions throughout the Bible, a very clear pattern emerges. We may not like that pattern; it may go against our personal, deeply held feelings or opinions; but none the less, the pattern is there.

When I came out of the counterculture of the ’60s and ’70s and became a Christian, though not rabid, I was nevertheless a believer in women’s equality with men, and not the crass ‘barefoot and pregnant’ foolishness. It seemed only fair that for equal work each should be paid equally, along with all the other attendant social trimmings that would equalize and level the playing field.

But as I read my Bible, I was forced to observe there was an astonishing amount of male chauvinism in its pages. Was this cultural, or was it God-ordained? If cultural, how could I know what else was cultural? And if more truth in the Bible was cultural, how was one to know what was absolute and what was relative? I found myself back in the dilemma of my secular life before Christ: I chose what was right and what was wrong! This clearly was untenable. And then a pattern began to emerge.

From the very beginning, God Himself inaugurated that pattern by creating man first, not woman, as Paul reiterated in the New Testament (I Cor.11:8-9 ). It had nothing to do with the value or rank God put upon men and women, but solely with God’s choice. But that choice had everything to do with a theology He was establishing. He was creating a typology that was to gloriously represent something astounding to the universe.

I am saddened when I read or hear such sentiments as, for instance, the roles of men and women are now different in New Testament times. That this Divine pattern — typology of Eden and throughout the Old Testament — is no longer valid or applicable. Do we really understand the implications of believing that? Are we really to believe that the divinely inspired Word of God was infiltrated by a cultural male chauvinistic perspective that, in the Bible, has obscured or well-nigh obliterated woman’s true role? And if we do, where do we stop invoking that influence? Just before we get to the Sabbath subject? Who decides? Us? We must biblically answer the question: does quoting Galatians 3:28 “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. . .” really trump the divine typology set forth through thousands of years of biblical history, starting in a perfect Eden with a perfect man and woman?

The entire biblical subject of the roles of men and women is very clear as we look at the facts written for our admonition. The aberrant bad and sinful behavior of men toward women aside, here are the facts: Man was created first; the dominion of Earth was to be overseen by the man (not until Satan overcame Adam was it usurped, Patriarchs & Prophets, p. 56-57; 68); the Second Adam was to be a male (Jesus); the man was the priest/ head of the family; the father was said to be responsible for the daughters (Num.30:3-4; 13); the first-born male was dedicated to God; when the Levites were chosen, it was the males that served in the Sanctuary; the Messiah was depicted as a male; the priests were to be males; the census counted only the males; predominately, only the males are recorded as dying; genealogies recorded males; Jesus chose twelve males to serve as apostles; only the men were counted in the miracle of the loaves and fishes; elders/pastors in churches were to be “husband(s) of one wife. . .” And on and on it goes.

It’s no wonder feminists have a problem with the Bible! Why all this supposed male dominion? Were women somehow inferior? Or second class? Not at all!

The entire biblical pattern is simply fulfilling the God-ordained typology Paul clarifies for us in Ephesians 5:22-33. And that is this: husbands/males represent Christ; wives/women represent the bride/church of Christ. Paul says it’s “a great mystery. . .” (vs. 32), and what a stunning one it is! When I do pre-marital counseling, I teach that every man is to represent Christ, and every woman is to represent the church. This is the Divinely inspired destiny of Mankind. Every husband and wife was destined to be a walking billboard, a living representation of Christ and His bride and all that that implies. Just think of the implications of this witness to the world if Christians would reflect this relationship.

Contrary to popular opinion, the lowest common denominator of our race is not a singular man nor is it a singular woman, which could justify the potential raising of woman over a man. The race is defined by God Himself as “male and female created He them” (Gen.1:27). Our individual access to salvation through Christ, whether we are male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free, in no way, shape, or form replaces or destroys this God-created reality. In short, the lowest common denominator of mankind is man AND woman, Adam AND Eve. And it is also true that whether a man or woman remains single by choice, by the scarring of distrust of the opposite sex, or by the calling of God, this God-ordained typology still remains intact because it is the very pattern that God Himself decided for us at creation.

Just as Satan so masterfully caused Israel of old to mess with the typologies of Jesus as the Rock and the Lamb, the typology of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and many others, so he does today. He knows when you change the type, the message from God is garbled and we are led away from the truth we should be reflecting. The questions we should be asking are not: “How can we get women to be accepted as full-fledged pastors or leaders?” but rather, “How can I, as a male, properly reflect Christ in my life in whatever my vocation is, based on the pattern for males I see in the Bible and Spirit of Prophesy?” And, “How can I, as a female, properly reflect the Bride of Christ motif, typology, in my life based on the pattern for females in the Bible and Spirit of Prophesy?”

By way of solidifying this typology in the creation account, isn’t it an amazing coincidence that just as Jesus “fell asleep” Friday, toward the end of the sixth day, so too Adam “fell asleep” toward the end of the sixth day. And isn’t it amazing that when Adam awoke from his sleep, his bride was there to greet him, brought forth from his side by the power of God. How interesting it is, that when Jesus awoke from His sleep, that by the power of God through the blood of cleansing and the water of life that flowed from Jesus’s side, the bride of Christ came forth.

In fact, He was greeted by Mary, who of all the disciples was a fit example of His fledgling church/bride. It was Mary who was first to the tomb. It was Mary who loved much because she knew she had been forgiven much. It was she who poured out her love and gratitude upon Him in the form of the oil and her tears for what He had done for her. It was Mary who fittingly represents the effectual working of that precious blood that flowed from His side to cleanse her of her sins; and the water that likewise flowed that gave her new life in Christ. Truly, Mary is a fitting representation of the Bride brought forth from His side.

This analogy of marriage with the church or God’s people is one that weaves its way all through the Old Testament. We read that “your Maker is your husband. . .” (Isa.54:5); “though I was a husband to them, says the Lord” (Jer.31:32); “Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me” (Jer 3:20); to say nothing of the whole Song Of Solomon, which is a beautiful allegory of Christ & His Bride. We see it in the NewTestament as well, where Jesus, who is called the Bridegroom in John 3:29, fittingly begins His ministry with His first miracle at a wedding feast (John 2:1-11); He is seen as the Bridegroom again in the parable of the ten virgins asleep; the Son whose Father invites all to a wedding feast; and Paul “betroths us to one Husband, even to Christ. . . .”

And finally, mirroring the many parallels that Genesis has with Revelation, (e.g.: creation – recreation; tree of life removed – tree of life restored; a prepared place, garden of Eden – a prepared place, New Jerusalem; mark of Cain – mark of the Beast; bride of Adam – bride of the Lamb; etc), we see the Bride/Church having “made herself ready. . .” in Rev. 19. She has by this time in the final events of Earth’s history, accomplished her task of being Christ’s helpmeet in the goal of being fruitful and multiplying, winning souls into the family, the kingdom of God.

What is fascinating is that, when God said, “Let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. . .” (Ex.25:8), He was really continuing the process of becoming one with His bride/church that Satan had circumvented by the introduction of sin. Then, when Jesus came, He reiterated the fact that He and the Father were one, and that He wanted His entire church to be one in Him and in the Father (John 17:22-23). This oneness harkens back to the promise of Gen. 2:24 pronounced upon a perfect Adam and Eve. The awesome destiny of mankind has always been restoration to this oneness that God promised in the typology of Adam and Eve’s marriage.

In the above typology, the only way it works is that the Husband performs His function in the relationship, and the Bride performs hers. God is the savior/provider Husband, and the Bride is the recipient/fruit bearer of His love. The Bride willingly submits to her Husband because she knows all that she is comes from Him (Eve coming from Adam’s side), and out of sheer joy and love she bears fruit to glorify that supreme truth. That’s why in I Cor. 11:1-9 Paul systematically shows us the relationships of Father to Son, Son to man, and man to woman in what is called the headship principle.

Why? Because the submission of the woman to man is the typology of the Bride/Church to the Husband/Christ. In fact, Paul seeks to encourage women by pointing out that Christ Himself has entered into this very typology with His Father, willingly submitting to Him for the purpose of saving mankind. Christ, who is God in verity, chooses to willingly submit, to step down from glory, to fulfill the function He and the Father planned that He should fulfill.

The incredibly high calling of women is such that they, of the all the human race, have been given the privilege and honor of emulating Christ in His salvific relationship with His Father! The “helpmeet” of Gen 2:18 that is described and functionally named (i.e., “helpmeet”) by God to be the forthcoming Eve, is a reflection of this relationship Christ willing stepped into: not the head, in charge, but one to help fulfill the overall purpose of mankind. This typology of Christ helping His Father accomplish Their task of saving mankind is an exact parallel to Eve with Adam. It is important to remember that it is not Adam that is called the “helpmeet,” it is Eve. Her function is defined by God Himself. This is the beauty of the truth Paul lays out for us in I Cor. 11:1-9.

While none of us would even remotely suggest that this willing submission on Christ’s part to His Father makes Him the lesser God or somehow inferior or second class, this is unfortunately what many are saying about modern day Eves if they should somehow be forced into this headship principle. What a sad day it would be for us if we should choose not to reflect what God has chosen for us to reflect! Here we see a parallel echo in Ellen White’s statement in Patriarchs & Prophets, p. 59:

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.

It is very clear from this statement that Sister White understood this concept that God Himself had appointed a function for man and woman from the very beginning. It was “their life duties in accordance with God’s plan. . . .” That function and typology we have been talking about is wonderfully consummated in the book of Revelation. While the entire Bible reveals the typology of Christ/Husband, Church/Bride in a variety of ways, Revelation brings it all together in a startling conclusion.

What we see is an amazing condescension by our very Creator to enter into the stream of time and space to become one of His creatures for the sake of redeeming them, and to never divorce Himself from that connection! Using the typology of marriage from the very beginning of His relationship with His creatures, He opens to all eyes the consummation of that type in the pages of Revelation. What was to be the purpose of that relationship, as viewed from the instructions given to Adam & Eve? Gen. 1:28 says, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

In Revelation we see the fruit of the married relationship of Christ with His Bride. The Church in Rev. 7:9-10 is “a vast multitude which no one could number. . .”; and they are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev.19:9). God’s command in Gen.1:28 is wonderfully fulfilled in the type of Rev.7:9-10, the fruit of the marriage of Christ & the Church. I have used adjectives earlier such as ‘stunning, amazing, incredible, awesome’ to describe this typological pattern & destiny. But these verses are where the superlatives should really fail us.

Again, echoing the promise to Adam & Eve that ‘..the two shall become one…’, E.G. White says this in Desire Of Ages, p. 25 :

By His life and His death, Christ has achieved even more than recovery from the ruin wrought through sin. It was Satan’s purpose to bring about an eternal separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never fallen. In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son. . .” (John 3:16). He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature.

This is the fulfilling of the antitype of marriage, the two shall become one! Adam & Eve represented this; the reality was always to point to Christ & His Bride!

And finally, the over-arching purpose of the marriage typology from Geneses to Revelation is seen in the graciously, magnanimous consummation of Rev. 21 & 22, where the control room of the Universe is moved from Heaven to Earth where God is to be eternally with the redeemed. Why? Here it is:

Thus it is that God desires to fulfill for us His purpose of grace. By the power of His love, through obedience, fallen man, a worm of the dust, is to be transformed, fitted to be a member of the heavenly family, a companion through eternal ages of God and Christ and the holy angels. Heaven will triumph, for the vacancies made by the fall of Satan and his host will be filled by the redeemed of the Lord. Manuscript 21, Feb. 16, 1900, “God’s Love Manifested (Upward Look, p. 61).

And another:

God created man for His own glory, that after test and trial the human family might become one with the heavenly family. It was God’s purpose to repopulate heaven with the human family, if they would show themselves obedient to His every word. Adam was to be tested, to see whether he would be obedient, as the loyal angels, or disobedient. Vol.1 Bible Commentary, p. 1082

This truth is the real Theology behind the theology! This plan should inform our discussions of ordination and the role of men and women in the Church. Cultural male chauvinism it is not. It is a divinely inspired plan that we would do well to emulate, because it’s the raison d’être for Mankind. It lifts up the woman to her God-given destiny. If only we would choose today to reflect this fantastic typology, engraved into our very biological and spiritual DNA. What a high calling is ours, whether male or female, to reflect what Adam was ordained to reflect, or what Eve was ordained to reflect. May God help us do just that.

The day of the meeting arrived, and I was running a few minutes behind, but hey – their watches could be off that much. Without even enough time to tie my shoes, I skidded the truck to a stop and galloped across the parking lot to the large steel entry door. Only three minutes late!

I opened the door, and two State Directors were standing there waiting. I noticed two things right away—both men were wearing brown leather oxfords that smelled almost new, and both sets of shoes were tied. I wished mine were. Here is what happened.

When I had stepped into the building, I shut the large heavy steel door behind me and it clamped tightly on my trailing shoestrings. As I went to step forward and shake the gentlemen’s hands, I discovered that nothing was moving from the ankles on down. My feet were stuck to the floor with all the power of a giant sequoia taproot. Thus I unceremoniously toppled like a falling pine tree into the room, ending with my face only three inches away from the gentlemen’s shoes. I hate that sort of thing.

Securely trapped, I asked if they would be uhh…kind-enough-to-open-the-door so I could uh….get up. They barely had enough strength to do this, weakened as they were from laughing. I couldn’t believe their insensitivity.

I have since told this story to many people and numerous audiences. They all love it—I think for three reasons. First is the mental image of the “Human Pine tree” and second, they love it because it didn’t happen to them. Finally, they appreciate the story because of our human capacity for humor. That brings me to the point of this article.

The Lord gifted each of us with a sense of humor and a capacity for joy. Coupled with proper timing, the ability to smile at the humor and unexpectedness of life is a real blessing. As Solomon said, “There is a time to weep and a time to laugh. . .” (Proverbs 3:4). Of course, there is a difference between a “merry heart which maketh good like a medicine,” and foolish jesting. The Bible speaks of this kind of difference. Two points.

“Maketh good like a medicine. . .” This tells us that there is a healing power in a cheerful heart. People who cultivate a measure of humor in their lives are generally healthier than those who have a grim outlook on life. A sense of humor can really help your marriage too. My wife of 30-years (we’re halfway there) and I have countless little quotes that we can pull out when times get tough, and we re-connect our hearts to the joy of humor. I bet you do too.

Now there is a serious side of life – very serious at times. I am not advocating for irreverence in this article–there’s plenty of that going on already. The call to be sober in these last days (1 Timothy 5:8; Titus 1:8; 2:2–6; 1 Peter 5:8) is a call to be discreet, alert, and filled with the Holy Spirit. The opposite of this guidance is to be profligate (there’s my big word for this month!). A profligate life is filled with excess (hedonism), spiritual illness, and general riotous living (drunkenness etc.). And most significantly, a profligate life is a life with no joy. The Profligate Son (you know who I mean) couldn’t find any in joy in the pigpen when the invoice for riotous living came due. He needed what many of us need—to go home. And be reconnected to joy.

God intends that each of us will experience joy in our lives. He doesn’t expect us to go around looking like we just ate a dill pickle. As a friend of mine once quipped, “If you love the Lord, let your face know it.” Joy comes from The Lord. Here are a few of the ways.

Trust. “But let all who trust in you be glad; let them ever sing for joy. Spread your protection over them, that those who love your name may rejoice in you” (Psalm 5:11). If I had to sum up the blessing of the Sabbath in a few words, I would say it this way: “The more I trust, the more I rest.” Rest brings energy, and divine rest brings the vitalizing power of divine joy. It is the love of Christ implanted in us. An energy-less life is usually a joyless life.

The joy of labor. True glory and joy are found in the simple things of life, including work. Man and woman, each working in their own sphere, will experience a measure of satisfaction. Labor brings its own reward, and sweet is the rest that is purchased by the fatigue of a well-spent day.

Get with God. “In Thy presence there is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11). People who don’t have time for God, or those who are looking for ways to tear down others and the church are demonstrating a joyless bitterness minus peace (Proverbs 14:10). The solution is to get with Him and resolve our bitterness. Joy will return!

Righteousness brings joy. “Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.” If righteousness brings joy then it follows that unrighteousness brings…what? Misery. And that should bring us to repentance.

Repentance brings joy (Psalm 51:8-12; Luke 15:7). We live in a time of many moral distractions, and a great many people seek constant change. Lacking peace within, they want to be part of something bigger than themselves – thus they can escape the self they hate. By changing everything around themselves, they seek to change their lives in the process. This is the hallmark of restless progressivism. When we go down this road, we are distancing ourselves from repentance, and thus distancing ourselves from joy. But self-focus is a double-edged sword. Self-righteousness can steal our joy away too (Galatians 4:15) so let’s be balanced. Two sides of the proverbial coin…

Joy can depart through idolatry (Joel 1-2; Hosea 9:1), disobedience/iniquity (Psalm 85:6; Ezekiel 24:25; Isaiah 24:8-11; Zeph 2:15; Deut. 28:63), and pride (James 4:8-10). Though joy has many enemies it has one great Friend. Some of the last words of Jesus are: “These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full” (John 15:11).

In summary, it’s not inappropriate to smile. In fact it’s a good thing! I have benefited from the sense of humor that I inherited from my father (or Heavenly Father). I hope you have too. And our lives have been enriched by the joy we find in countless fellow believers.

There is a myth that I would like to tackle right now: That conservative people are always dour and progressives always have more fun. Like other myths this one rests on a false collective concept, and it just ain’t so, brother. I see much joy and peace in the lives of people who take Jesus and His Word seriously. And progressives having more fun? Perhaps. Fun is an empty substitute for joy. To quote Fritz Ridenour: “Lots of Christians like to think that they are good enough to be saved, and bad enough to have fun.”

Here’s the surprise. It is possible to live a sober, discreet, and alert life and have joy at the same time. Our Lord Jesus was alert, sober and under tremendous trial in the closing scenes of His life. And part of what kept Him going was joy! (Hebrews 12:2). It can keep us going towards eternity. The thought of being with Jesus is a lot more exciting than working for the State of Ohio Department of Transportation. I’m hoping we don’t need shoes there.


PS. By the way, I didn’t get the job (can you really blame them?). However, I did get a healthy dose of not-taking myself-too-serious humor out of it, and the Lord blessed us in many other ways that year, not the least of which was “counting it all joy.”

Among those committed to the authority of Scripture, then, the issue really boils down to one thing: the extent of gender role distinctions. Does male spiritual leadership apply in the home only, or does it extend to the church as well? In seeking an answer, it might be helpful to survey the comparison between the home and the church throughout Scripture. If it can be shown that there is a close correlation between the home family and the church family, particularly in terms of leadership, it would make sense that gender role distinctions apply there as well.

The Family of Abraham

The Old Testament people of God, the Israelites, were themselves a family. They were descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (“the children of Israel”), and their unique identity was based on God’s covenant with Abraham. This covenant applied not just to Abraham, but to his entire family as well: “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7; all Scripture references are from the ESV).

God’s purpose in calling Abraham extended even beyond his family: “I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. . . . in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:2-3). Abraham was to have a family that reached out to other families—they were to be a church with an evangelistic mission.

Leadership in the Covenant Family

Because the church and the family were one in the same, Abraham was the spiritual leader of both. God said concerning him, “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen. 18:19). The patriarchal leadership of the covenant family continued with Isaac and Jacob (see, for example, Gen. 26:24-25; 35:1-7). Some could argue that the patriarchal leadership of God’s people at this time was merely de facto (that is, these patriarchs were the church leaders for the sole reason that their families were the church). It seems however, that God called a family to be his church precisely because he wanted to emphasize that a family is exactly what he wanted his church to be, including in the area of leadership. In other words, if He had wanted the leadership to be different, he would have organized the church differently.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when the covenant family grew larger after several generations and more spiritual leaders were needed, God chose an entirely male group—Aaron and his sons. These individuals were called to be priests, a role which included spiritual leadership. “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth” (Mal. 2:7). This entirely male priesthood even went against the culture of the time—many nations had priestesses.

The concept of a covenant family continued to be maintained in Israel, so that centuries later Paul could address his fellow-Israelites as, “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham” (Acts 13:26). The question he had to deal with, however, was who could be part of this family. Was it restricted to actual descendants of Abraham, or could Gentiles be a part of it as well? This concern pervades many of his epistles, particularly Romans and Galatians.

Who Is Part of the Family?

In Galatians Paul argues that both Jews and Gentiles can be part of the family of Abraham, because faith is what designates an individual as part of this family: “Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Similarly, at the end of the chapter he concludes, “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (verse 26). To be part of God’s family is to be part of Abraham’s family, and this becomes a reality in Jesus the Messiah through faith. The one in this position is identified with the Messiah: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (verse 27). It is in this context that Paul makes his famous declaration, “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” (verse 28).

Paul is not discussing ministry in this passage; he is not saying that now all positions in the church are automatically open to everyone. What he is talking about is who is part of God’s covenant family. His point is that ethnicity, social status, and gender are not barriers to membership within the family. It makes sense why being a Greek or a slave could be seen as a barrier, but what does gender have to do with the issue? N. T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, suggests a connection: “Perhaps this is part of the point of the ‘no male and female’ of Galatians 3:28: circumcision not only divides Jew from Greek, it also puts a wall between male and female, with only the male proudly bearing the covenant sign” (N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, 131-132). It seems, then, that Paul in his “neither male nor female” statement was hinting at elimination of the barrier of circumcision, which kept women from full participation in the covenant family.

Paul, therefore, saw the New Testament church, not as a totally new entity, but as a continuation of the covenant family of Abraham. He sums it up with the statement, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (verse 29). And at the close of the letter he refers to this single covenant family as “the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). Is it possible, then, that Galatians 3, rather than eliminating gender role distinctions, actually affirms their continuance? Peter understood Sarah’s submission to Abraham to be illustrative for husband-wife relations (1 Peter 3:6), but does this example from the Abrahamic family carry over to leadership within the church?

Oikos Leadership

This question is answered by another Pauline epistle which also emphasizes the motif of the church as a family. While Galatians explores this concept in a theological manner, 1 Timothy expounds on the practical implications of the concept. This focus can be seen from the very opening of the letter, where Paul addresses Timothy as “my true child in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2). The reality of the church as a family has implications for how its members relate to one another: “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father. Treat younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, younger women like sisters, in all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1-2). This practical emphasis leads to a sizable section regarding care for widows. The church was to act as a family for any widow who did not have family members capable of taking care of her (verse 3-16).

The family concept also practically affects the leadership of the church. A clear connection between leadership of the home family and leadership of the church family can be seen in Paul’s counsel to Timothy regarding the qualifications for an “overseer.” Two of these qualifications relate to family leadership: “An overseer must be . . . the husband of one wife. . . . He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4). For Paul, these requirements were not arbitrary. His reasoning is clear: “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (verse 5).

It seems evident that Paul viewed the spiritual leadership required of the overseer as similar to that of the husband and father. Someone who was not successful in providing leadership at home would not be successful in overseeing the church. This is because of the deep connection Paul believed existed between the home and the church, as can be seen in his setting “household [Greek oikos]” parallel to “God’s church” (verse 5). And by the end of the chapter he makes the connection even more explicit. He states that his purpose in writing is so that Timothy “may know how one ought to behave in the household [Greek oikos] of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth” (verse 15). Because the church is an oikos, leadership is the same as for the family oikos.

Conclusion

God’s ideal for his church has always been for it to resemble the family. The Old Testament church that God called Abraham to establish was his family. And the New Testament church is not something radically different. Instead, it is a continuation of Abraham’s family, and includes both Jews and Gentiles. Because the church is a household—an oikos—the leadership is to resemble that of the family.

In my early twenties I began dating a secular humanist whose world view clashed diametrically with mine, resulting in inevitable sharp talk as we attempted to reconcile our differences. I contended for my childhood views, realizing my utter inability to defend them in view of how out of touch they appeared with the issues of the day. I was consistently quoting Bible prophecy and this Ellen White. My boyfriend would reply, “Religion is irrelevant. Mankind will evolve into moral beings with more education. All we need is time. As for conspiracy theories and modern-day prophets, well, it’s obvious that is kooky.”

Fast forward to September 11, 2001, the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the financial collapse of 2008, the Greece Bailout of 2010, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011, the Philippines slammed by typhoon Bopha in 2012, and the recent Boston bombings. All the while, the Vatican sex scandals have been brewing, culminating in a complaint lodged with the International Criminal Court in September 2011, and then squeeze in the earthquakes in Australia, Haiti and Chile and recent school shootings.

I fail to see a moral evolution in the past decade, but rather, a progressive decadence. For every major event that has happened, I can think of a Spirit of Prophecy quote that rests in a book on a quiet shelf. Jesus Christ warns us through the words of Ellen White of a need to make a holistic transformation in our inner lives, our marriages, our parenting and our jobs and to warn those who are unwary to do the same. Lest the argument be advanced that Ellen White’s writings are not relevant to our times and should not be held so prominently in our core beliefs, we find the same words iterated in the book of Jeremiah on the cusp of Israel’s gruesome captivity. We’ve witnessed our message boldly stroked in global headlines of newspapers and magazines and highlighted in the daily news by those who are in complete ignorance of the messages of warning issued by a 19th century prophet.

How are Adventists occupying the time? What’s changing in our church? We’ve become embroiled in creation vs. evolution, women’s ordination, spiritual formation, homosexuality, and the list goes on. Tithe is down, disunity is up. Our church continues to shackle its very own in enormous debt, discouraging some from entering the mission field. But the most significant of all changes is we are changing our “spiritual interface” from the top down.

What does this mean? Back in the 1950s, our church had a brief dialogue with two evangelical men named Dr. Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse who had written a book called The Kingdom of the Cults. Guess who was in the cult category? Yup, us truly.  Dr. Barnhouse accused the SDA denomination of holding un-Christian views on the nature of Christ, the Sanctuary doctrine, righteousness by faith and of accepting Ellen G. White as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, thus putting us in the same class with cults like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, etc.

Instead of taking these charges as an opportunity to acquaint the evangelicals with the biblical basis for our beliefs, we quickly re-packaged our beliefs in a book called Questions on Doctrines (QOD).  The QOD was a attempt to reinvent Adventism so the church could come more in-line with Sunday denominations and de-emphasize our unique biblically-based message. Eventually we were accepted into the mainstream, although we still border on the fringe of being a cult, according to Martin. This started or maybe deepened the conservative/liberal split in our church, and as the decades rolled by, our schisms have become more pronounced. Why?  Because ideas lead to actions. What Christian ideology we are taught is what we carry out in our daily lives. The QOD subject is still a thorn in the unity of our church.

In 2007 the Adventist hierarchy had a new QOD panel at Andrews University to reassess if we were able to come together on those old topics: the sanctuary, Christ’s nature, or the Spirit of Prophecy. You can download the entire audio panel. It is tough listening and I am still slogging my way through many of the theological concepts discussed. My question, though, is why should we have cared what the Sunday churches thought of us?

My question is though, should our denomination allow other denominations to dictate our theology.  Who gives us our commission? The purpose of our movement was to give the three angels messages to every nation, tongue and people. Nehemiah’s commission was to rebuild the broken city and walls of Jerusalem, and in so doing, he was tempted to dialogue with neighboring religious brothers who did not agree with his methods.  What was his response? Remembering that the very reason Jerusalem was in ruins was because Israel had fraternized with the surrounding nations and become one with them, he sought the Lord  in prayer, worked day and night, and refused to dialogue with his neighbors.  See Nehemiah 4.

As a distinctive protestant religion, we have dialogued with the Sunday churches and we have become no more original than they. As our church stands now, I don’t see how it is relevant to the world. The church isn’t special anymore. Everything we do, everyone else does. And since we appear to be no more original than any other religion, I wonder about the relevancy of being a separate denomination and what we think we will accomplish by keeping this church alive in its present condition. Are we providing relevant answers to today’s concerns?  No! We have been given the answers and we are not speaking up! It isn’t like we have anything to lose, we don’t have a pre-eminent position among the other churches, and we aren’t a political force to be reckoned with.

What is the solution to our state? Fortunately, we don’t have to think up a response. We already have the script.  It is laid out for us in the book Great Controversy.  If we open up our mouths to repeat the script in the strongly worded language we have been counseled to speak, then we will be relevant. If we don’t, why do we exist?

Secretly, I have been laying all of my eggs into the kooky basket. By kooky, I mean accepting the messages of Ellen White, as inspired by Jesus Christ, without apologies. Secretly, I say, because I am scared to spread a message my life doesn’t reflect.  Or, my life may reflect it today, and not tomorrow.  Yet, as I survey the canvas of these past few years, I have decided there is never a more needed time to stand up for the original Adventist message, our relevant message, as given to the Adventist Church in the book Great Controversy.  It is time to put away our watered down Great Hope and pass out Great Controversy or Great Controversy-like DVDs (I am partial to Walter Veith’s Total Onslaught series, myself).  If we don’t, we will find ourselves swept away for a more relevant voice box, maybe even replaced by the more relevant “rocks” who will cry out.

I am the church, you are the church, what are we going to do about ourselves? Take to heart this passage from Luke 13: 6-9:

A man had a fig tree that was planted in his vineyard.  He came looking for fruit on it and found none.  He told the vineyard worker, “Listen, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any.  Cut it down? Why should it even waste the soil?  But he replied to him, “Sir, leave it this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.  Perhaps it will bear fruit next year, but if not, you can cut it down.

My friends, if we do not warn the world with the straight warnings of the Lord, one day we, like the Israelites of old, will be carried away by a gruesome captivity, with no hope.