On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, the Adventist Review published an article titled “Appeal made over Andrews statement on headship. On August 21, 2014 during a quiet summer session, the remaining present Seminary faculty published a seven page statement opposing male headship. The statement aroused immediate concern. Now a group of several theology professors, faculty, alumni, and others has responded with a carefully prepared document titled “An Open Appeal From Faculty, Alumni, Students, and Friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary: To Faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Regarding the Recent Seminary Statement on the Unique Headship of Christ in the Church.” While the August Seminary statement was unsigned, the new response document has 24 signatories.
The Adventist Review article is found at this link:
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/appeal-made-over-andrews-statement-on-headship
Link to Appeal to Seminary document: http://ordinationtruth.com/?attachment_id=2259. NOTE: Updated with minor corrections
Categories
Biblical Interpretation Breaking news C. Raymond Holmes Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Daniel Scarone Docjin Zivadinovic Dolores E. Slikkers Don Mackintosh Edwin E. Reynolds Eugene Prewitt George Reid Gerhard Pfandl Headship Ingo Sorke Jay Gallimore Jim Howard John W. Peters Karl Wilcox Kevin D. Paulson Laurel Damsteegt Leroy Moore Mario Veloso Michael Hasel Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com P.G. Damsteegt Phil Mills Robert Wilcox SDA Theological Seminary statement Seminary Seventh-day Adventist Church Stephen Bohr Steve Toscano Thomas R. Cusack Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
12 replies on “Appeal made over Andrews statement on headship”
Is it significant that only one Seminary professor signed this statement? It seems this appeal will fall on deaf ears.
Yes, it is significant. It could mean that all others are excluded from hiring consideration. It could also mean that some would fear for their jobs.
But one thing it doesn’t mean, that the reply’s conclusion or spirit is wrong because few current faculty were willing to publicly support it. God preserved the questions of the Pharisees in the Bible so we could recognize their thinking when we see it today: “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” John 7:48.
Paul noted, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” 1 Cor 1:26.
“With such weapons the advocates of truth in every age have been attacked. The same arguments are still urged against all who dare to present, in opposition to established errors, the plain and direct teachings of God’s word.” GC 148.3
I am amused at how, in the absence of actual evidence, rampant speculation and fear-mongering seems to suffice. What the signing of one professor seems to most clearly indicate is that this appeal is not at all representative of Andrews faculty (contrary to what the signatories might like us to believe).
Who said that this new appeal was representive of the current faculty of the seminary? It is an appeal to faculty who voted for the Headship statement in August to reconsider their aberrant unbiblical view about headship. Possibly they cannot bear the thought that if San Antonio favors biblical male headship/creation order, the Seminary will be obligated to teach the voted headship position of the church.
Larry, what if you are the one who will be obligated not to teach the male/headship creation order after San Antonio? Have you been preparing yourself for that possibility?
When you say “actual evidence,” Jim, are you including the conspicuous absence of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in the Seminary’s argumentation for no-headship theology, wherein the apostle Paul categorically links male-only teaching authority to God’s creation order in Genesis 1 and 2? True, “fear-mongering” is sometimes prevalent in the absence of sound biblical hermeneutics, which TOSC complementarians believe they have in the Rio Document’s historical-grammatical method.
Far more telling: Is it significant that two GC Sessions voted against Women’s Ordination? It seems these two decisions (maybe three if we include 1985’s stand) haven’t fallen on deaf ears for GC officers at Annual Council—the deafness of NAD institutional units notwithstanding.
Quite true, Rocco. The Seminary faculty does not speak for the worldwide Adventist body on this subject. Having recently attended the Seminary, it is truly astounding the extent to which the majority of professors there have encouraged very little discussion of this issue, preferring instead to maintain a nonstop propaganda drumbeat for interchangeable gender roles in ministry.
The world church will render the final say in this controversy. Let us pray they will adhere strictly to the Word of God in so doing.
Looks like it’s thumbs down to Damsteegt and friends.
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/statement-from-andrews-seminary-in-response-to-headship-appeal
“We, the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, respectfully reaffirm our original statement on the ‘Unique Headship of Christ in the Church’ which was the result of prayerful and responsible study of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, and was voted by an overwhelming majority of the faculty in a duly called meeting.”
Nevertheless, it gives us a chance to study all sides when folks take time to express themselves in this way. For that I am thankful.
I am a relatively new adventist. I just began to learn about this issue in the past couple of months. I watched Pastor Dwight Nelson, and pastor Stephen Bohr, back to back. Putting the argument and the bible details aside, first impression was, the former pastor was representing the world’s character and the latter was representing God’s character. The former was trying to vindicate culture while the latter God. As a former transgendered person I can see the danger of siding with cultural ideas. We should stick with the bible tradition and trust God. The devil is going to use this issue not only to divide, but utilize culture to make us null and void. Have we run out of men to hold these pastor and elder positions? God has used both men and women, by His leading, throughout the generations to accomplish His purpose. We better be absolutely sure we are representing God rightly before we change anything.
Wendell, if that is the case then you have succumbed a the great lie. The fundamentalist approach is actually the one that is driven by a male culture (Biblical and current). The latter is an affront to God on many levels and is a misuse of scripture. If one wants to understand the Bible, then you’ll need to broaden your horizons. I would encourage you to leave this church if you indeed find the fundamentalist position appealing because you will only know heartache and never really see God’s true nature in your surroundings. The only one dividing us on this is the person in the president’s chair. Please seek God more earnestly and you will find him beyond the blather of this site and others like it.