Florida Conference Calls Doug Batchelor a "Polarizing Influence," Discourages Speaking Appointment

The niaveté of Cauley to think that he could send four emails about this into the cloud and that they’d remain private is arresting.


Intentional naiveté brings the issue to the forefront - unintentionally - of course…
Interestingly enough many conferences over step their judicious application and cause members more and more angst. Apparently local pastors have become inept at making speaker decisions. If Doug Batchelor should be removed according to some (off w his head!) then I pray I join him in the flames.


If the members of the Florida conference, and it is a HUGE number down there, are NOT happy with President Cauley’s assessment, they have the right and the means and methods to protest in various ways.
Spectrum should be watching to see what reaction occurs, and to report it here for our benefit.
One way is to Ignore, and invite Doug anyway.


My take on this.

  1. Not being in the various rooms when decisions were made, I’m only commenting on the basis of the article. The full facts might lead me to different conclusions.

  2. I’m not a support of Doug Batchelor and do support Women’s Ordination. But it’s a stretch for the FL Conf. to President to say DB is not in tune with the GC when in San Antonio, the GC President went out of his way to show support for DB and the vote on women’s ordination went the way it did. DB may represent the outside edge of that viewpoint, but people like him hold to 1 Tim. 2:12 as their guide and there is no place for women in leadership.

  3. To Mike Cauley - what were you thinking? If you wanted to this to remain private sending a memo is probably not the best way. At the very least, I’d have started with a private meeting with the church pastor (and that may have happened). Now you’ve put your local church in the position of either publicly having to submit to the will of the Conference, or defy the Conference - either of which will be divisive and hurtful for that local church. So unless there was a larger lesson in mind, expect the fallout to that church to be significant.


Pr. Cauley’s statement refers to Batchelor’s opposition to women taking ANY leadership role, including that of deaconess and elder. This is obviously an extreme position against the established practice of ordaining women as deacons and elders in the SDA church.

But as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Batchelor’s view on women as ridiculous and pseudo-theological as it may be, is “minor” considering the heresies of his Christology as a proponent of the sinful human nature of Christ and Last Generation Theology/perfectionism/salvation by works. All of this is supported by a strong proof-text hermeneutical method which can be traced all the way up to the GC.


the problem is Doug Bachelor is preaching Doug Bachelor not a Risen Savior.
he used to be on an early morning TV in Augusta. no longer I don’t know if was funding or what… I followed him for several months. Every word and gesture cried of ego. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing and he has very little. But he is even proud of that. Tom Z


The enemy must be delighted with what is going on. When the Lord’s army needs men, women, and children to proclaim His soon coming, we are name calling. I think the Florida conference is well within their right to advise who will build up, and who will tear down. Mr. Batchelor should preach the gospel and not get involved in divisive issues. He should build up, not tear down.


Sad to say, I’m afraid that Brother Mike Cauley is right. As much as the previous work of Doug Batchelor, in sharing the message of our denomination, should be appreciated, he seems to have misused his influence against the cause of God in regard to the proper treatment of the women in our midst (not to mention any of his other hobbyhorses) to the point where merely calling him a “polarizing influence” is kind. I hope that this disappointment will be the means of his recovery.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The article reports that a “recommendation” was made for a particular church to reconsider their invitation to Doug. The Florida Conference views itself as “discouraging” the invitation. This is far different from a situation in which the conference “becomes the decision maker”. The decision itself remains with the local church congregation.

On a similar note, the Pacific Union Conference and the Columbia Union Conference, etc. made decisions recently to ordain women even in light of pointed counsel from the General Conference discouraging them from doing so. In this instance as well, the General Conference was not “the decision maker” for the union conferences.


Amen. It is fanatism using the fear tactic to join the church rather than from loving God, thus distorting God’s character. His video Babylon, Beast, Bride is using sensationalism and have been deeply hurts when I lost all my Sunday female Christian friends due to the video. Also to those males I’ve been witnessing to ban me because of it. He used to be ok when he first started but is now using manipulation to convert which is not the way Jesus witness.


The saying, “A day late and a dollar short” comes to mind. Although, I’m not much of a Doug Batchelor follower, he has been abundantly clear for an extending period of time regarding issues such as Women’s Ordination. Consequently, it seems to me some might be tempted to dismiss Elder Cauley and the Florida Conference’s position as simply being reactionary to the vote at the General Conference session.
Unfortunately, this is not going to get Pastor Batchelor to change his position. However, I do believe it will lead to greater financial support for Amazing Facts and other similar minded ministries. Now they have a martyr for the cause.
This is but only the first in many more salvos to come in this unfortunate artificially manufactured non-theological crisis.


Please correct me if I am wrong, Wasn’t elder Ted Wilson re-elected General Conference President although he was against Women’s Ordination? I didn’t read all comments, but I think that if there is a big stink about Doug Batchelor, shouldn’t there have been discussions about the newly reappointed World Church President? Sounds like we have a bunch of Pharisees in the church. No offense intended.


The decision is a mine field, and, unfortunately, in the end will raise the profile of DB and instead of lessening his influence in the church, it will most likely broaden it.


In reading the exact statement from the Florida Conference, they feel that Pastor Batchelor is a divisive figure based on his previous (and very public) diatribes on women in ministry. Regardless of your opinion on the Ordination topic, women can be elders, Sabbath school leaders, and involved in many ministry areas of the church using the spiritual gifts God has blessed them with. Pastor Batchelor has stated otherwise many times in sermons and writings. After an early review of the topic by SDA theologians, well before San Antonio, Nicholas Miller felt compelled to ask Pastor Batchelor to scale back his rhetoric (ref. http://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2014/11/16/nicholas-miller-writes-open-letter-doug-batchelor-ordination). On his own Facebook page, Pastor Batchelor has stated that allowing women to be ordained is the same as accepting homosexual practices, and the two issues are inseparable, which is also not in harmony with General Conference statements on both subjects.

The greater issue here, as outlined very succintly by Pastor Geoff Patterson of the Forest Lake Church, is while the San Antonio women’s ordination vote did not change a single SDA policy, it has introduced factionalism into the Church (ref. https://vimeo.com/136101819). As stated in many places, including Spectrum, the Unions had final ordination authority prior to the GC vote in San Antonio, and the Unions continue to have final ordination authority after the vote. Nothing changed, but now we have people on both sides of the issue devolving into factions, and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is “against God” or is “rebellious” or “destroying church unity” and so forth. This is the true danger facing our church moving forward.

Personally, I feel like the Pastor Cauley and the Florida Conference were being good shepherds to one of their flocks and discouraging them from possibly getting drawn into a political faction with a known divisive speaker. But at no time did they forbid Pastor Batchelor from speaking, they merely communicated their concern (in private e-mails) to the local church. The church will still make the final decision as to whether to rescind their invitation to Pastor Batchelor or not.


So a person speaking that doesnt view WO as biblical is a polarizing influence but a Conference President who pushes WO is not? Was Bachelor coming for a WO symposium? Hardly. How pathetic that one area of disagreement is enough to discount everything else a person might preach about.
Unfortunately this really speaks to how much of a politician conference officers can be. Their arguments are far from well reasoned.


Only one area of disagreement is surely enough to discount everything else if it is:

Against EGW and her writings;
Against observing the seventh day as Sabbath and sacred;
Against belief in the Trinity;
Against tithing as a Fundamental Belief;
Against the IJ beginning in 1844 and ongoing;
Against a future Sunday Law.

There are more, but anyone preaching against only one of these should expect to be censured.

Bachelor has no biblical support for his position against women’s activity in the church. It disagrees with the NT where women had vital roles to play in planting and growing and caring for the church. He is clearly a misogynist in clerical garb.


I question the motives of any preacher who is employed as a pastor but spends a considerable amount of time in self promotion. He is a product, he sells product and he promotes both within the church. He treats the church is a captive audience for his product.

Everything old is new again. The Pope is highly visible right now in the media due to his refreshingly accepting attitudes. There is some money to be made by exploiting old fears, there is no doubt about it.


The notion of Jesus polarizing is accurate. The significant difference is that Jesus was uplifting the role and function of women - the exact opposite of Doug Batchelor. Our lesson this week highlights the polarising influence of Jesus on His own disciples when he steps outside the conventions of society and talks to the lady at the well. She goes on to become the most successful evangelist in the Gospel of John - her whole village is on fire for Jesus because of her testimony.

There is a deeper underlying concern that I suspect the Florida Conference is highlighting. The influence of a person. I have been taking Sabbath School lessons for over 30 years. Years ago people referenced their comments from Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy. Now the most common reference is "Doug Batchelor says . . " That to me is very unhealthy.

I don’t question the effectiveness of his ministry. I do question the focus of his ministry. And in that sense, I think the caution that Florida Conference has outlined as a suggestion to their local church is both balanced and timely.


The argument can be made that Elder Batchelor does not so much cause division as it is division that that causes Elder Batchelor. Trying to preempt Elder Batchelor from speaking in a Florida church looks to be something akin to the Elder Batchelor syndrome for Elder Cauley. The result is that Elder Batchelor’s acolytes will be empowered by this, while the rest of the Florida membership will not.

The only path to rectify this misjudgement by Elder Cauley is to acknowledge the mistake and offer personal support for having Elder Batchelor speak in Florida, preferably with a check for Elder Batchelor’s airfare as evidence of a change in personal conviction about method rather than result.