This video continues the Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) interview by Pr. Jim Brackett of Pr. Larry Kirkpatrick. Part 1 was posted separately yesterday. This is part 2, and immediately follows part 1 to complete the full segment. Part 1 had concluded with a restatement of the longstanding Seventh-day Adventist principle of not judging Scripture with independent human reason, but letting Scripture judge our reason. The above video compares this with the NAD’s “Majority Report” proposal. NAD asks that the church make its authority an imaginary future point after the New Testament where God’s ideal will for male and female roles would reach fruition. Comparisons continue to the end of the segment.
Categories
1 Corinthians 1 Timothy Attitude Biblical Interpretation CAP authors Complimentarian Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Culturally driven Distinct roles Doctrine of Unity Ephesians Gender General Conference General Conference Session 2015 San Antonio Genesis Headship Hermeneutic of Suspicion Historical-Critical Method Historical-grammatical method Jim Brackett Krister Stendahl Larry Kirkpatrick Male-sex specific roles Methods of Bible Study 1986 NAD TOSC Report North American Division (NAD) Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com Postmodernism Principle-based Historical-cultural Method Redemptive hermeneutic Rio Document 1986 Seminary Seventh-day Adventist Church Submission The Welcome Table Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Trajectory theology William Webb Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
One reply on “New NAD WO hermeneutic, pt. 2”
I really appreciate the way this video discussion was done. Larry’s points are well-reasoned and logical. I sense that he is playing fair with the facts. Jim’s attitude and emphasis on humility is vitally important. If we want God to teach us, we have to be in “learning mode”. There is always the risk of being foolish enough to try and teach God.
The proposed new PBHC method is not what we will want. It is an attempt to adjust unpopular points of truth to fit our “superior” ideas. Anytime you do this, you are on a wrong and dangerous course. The objective of Bible study should be to correct our defective perception of truth, not to establish our current supposed ideal as truth.
I am not a die-hard opponent of women in ministry. The Great commission is for all of us, regardless of gender or age. The spiritual gifts are for all as well. But I don’t believe “authority” is one of the Spirit’s gifts. Any solution to the ordination question should preserve the biblical headship principles.
We need, instead of strife for position and authority, a great movement for the spreading of our message while time still lingers. If the Scriptures contain errors or cultural biases that prevent women from serving in some roles, we could perhaps be forgiven for not recognizing that. God can more than make it up to them in a few short years when Jesus comes. This would be far better that setting out on a journey of reinterpreting the Bible using new methods that put the error-prone judgment of human minds over the inspired word of prophets. The implications of this should frighten even the most progressive Adventist!
And finally, absent any direct guidance from God, let’s leave matters where the last prophet left them. Surely the Lord will do nothing without telling His prophets first.