In August, the Seventh-day Adventist theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA, voted to officially adopt a special statement. That statement claimed that Jesus’ unique Headship role somehow meant that there could be no male-headship roles by local elders in the church. In the accompanying article, guest OrdinationTruth.com author Jordy Buinsman examines the argument that Christ as unique head of the church contradicts the male-headship-office of local elder.
Buisman writes as a Seventh-day Adventist youth from the Netherlands.
FIND IT HERE: Does Christ as Unique Head of the Church Contradict the Male-headship Office of Local Elder?
Categories
4 replies on “Does Christ as Unique Head of the Church Contradict the Male-headship Office of Local Elder?”
While I can agree with the points made in the document, almost entirely, there are some strawman arguments which should be exposed.
For instance, we certainly can concur with the unique headship of Christ in the church. But I have not read of any suggestion that Christ’s position of Head be transferred to any man on earth. But then to draw the conclusion that no one is appointed to direct the church is like saying Christ is the Unique and only head of the home, thus no human is to direct in the decisions that are made there. And Inspiration most definitely recognizes the appointment of men as the human “head” of the woman in the family. (I Cor. 11:3)
To explain away the order in the church with the argument of equality of all believers is to aid the enemy in his effort to bring in disorganization. Can it not be observed that order comes from God Himself in his very creation? Then in the theocracy of Israel, order was directed by God in how the tribes were organized with leaders.
It should be instructive and sobering to read how God viewed the attempt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram to usurp the human leadership in Israel by claiming that there was no need of Moses and Aaron to rule the people. (Numbers 16, 17)
If God is indeed the One who “invented” organization, then why not do it His way?
For clarification, my comments are directed to the document which can be found here:
http://www.andrews.edu/sem/unique_headship_of_christ_final.pdf
which Jordy Bruinsman is responding to in his article.
Agreed with Sister Cathy 100%. Further comment on the Andrews document. The summary (bottom line) the Affirmation and Denials is an attack on God’s organisational model both in structure and modus operandi. The attack of course is couched in expressions which seem to stand for God but in effect are opposed to His wisdom. The key principles in God’s organisational model are authority, hierarchy and delegation which gives rise to accountability. God is the ultimate authority and He gave this authority to Jesus (Mat 28). This authority is delegated in a stewardship concept to men and women in a structure that defines their roles.
As a created being, the devil can only work with what God has created. Thus he (the devil) applied his selfish wicked spirit to a framework borrowed from God and we have an institution like the papacy. By purporting to reject papal heresies, the affirmations and denials are actually repudiating the key elements of God’s design.
Affirmation #2 is essentially denying/refusing the hierarchical aspect in God’s design. Scripture is very clear on what it means to be the head of tens, fifties, thousands etc (Jethro’s model) and thus instead of rejecting God’s design let us affirm it and insist on applying the principles of unselfish love and humility – affirmation #3.
Affirmation #8 is doing the same – rejecting God’s design by lumping it together with obvious error. The end result of this is clear – set aside God’s creation and apply out own human ‘wisdom’ where we can propose WO without a standard to condemn the action. There is a way that seemeth right to man but the end thereof is death.
One last thing – on reading through the document, I was somehow reminded of the quotation from the book Early Writings – “Truth is straight, plain, clear, and stands out boldly in its own defence; but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form.”
Thank you for sharing that valuable insight! It is indeed true that many attack the truth not by attempting to refute it, but by associating it with the vices and perversions of man, discarding both at the same time. This method is dishonest, but practiced by (some of) those who oppose God’s created order of gender complementarity nonetheless.