Southeastern California Conference Executive Committee Responds to Doug Batchelor


(system) #1

Today, the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, with a membership of about 68,000, in an area comprising Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties, released the following statement.

Members of the Southeastern California Conference Executive Committee voted on March 25 to adopt a document affirming the important, positive role of women in ministry. They took this action in response to a sermon preached by Doug Batchelor on February 6, 2010, at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist church in California.

Written in a spirit of Christian dialogue, the statement has been sent to Pastor Batchelor. A copy is posted here in the hope that it will be instructive and helpful for those considering the important issue of women in ministry.

Seven pages in length, with a discussion of 10 major relevant Bible texts, the statement includes sections entitled:

  • Failure to Show a Christian Spirit of Grace
  • Failure to Respect Colleagues and Church Authority
  • Failure to Use Responsible Principles of Biblical Interpretation
  • Failure to Hold to Strict Canons of Logic

Southeastern California Conference Responds to Doug Batchelor


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/2312

#2

This just shows who really is in “rebellion” to the church.


#3

from Manuscript of January 17, 1901, Ellen White defines ministers as both male and female.


(Kim Green) #4

I truly wonder where Brother Batchelor gets his information on feminists and how he can speak for them himself. Nonetheless, I doubt that he personally knows any feminists.


(k_Lutz) #5

See also Proverbs 1:5; 2 Peter 1:8
Trust The Process.


#6

He has no problem asserting things that we has no clue about. This is the reality for much of his theology. He gets the notions from his own human bias it appears.


(Kim Green) #7

It would appear that he can say anything that he wants and is fairly immune to most of the world outside of his small religious circle.


#8

Very true. I wish someone would hold him accountable.


(George Tichy) #9

But this is exactly their strategy, having an independent ministry so that nobody can touch their craziness. They even take money from people, but the Church have no jurisdiction on how the money is spent.

Therefore, they run a very convenient scheme, in which they are accountable to nobody and can preach their own doctrines and views while projecting a false image to the public pretending they are part of the Adventist group. They are actually a separate mini-sect sponsored by both Adventist people and the Adventist denomination as well.


#10

Perhaps it is a response to his own mother, who reportedly was an early feminist. Perhaps his reaction to feminism is more personal and cultural and NOT theological.


(Kim Green) #11

Good point- I have heard this before about this mother. Given some of what we know about the family I am sure that Brother Batchelor has his own set of issues about different topics (feminism is just one of many).


(Kim Green) #12

Great description, George. Religion and politics ARE strange (but compatible) bedfellows.


(Kim Green) #13

Some Adventist are looking for the “party” that best represents their own particular beliefs…there’s a whole slew of different Adventist groups that one can support. It seems to me that by the very nature of Adventism that there is a never ending quest for “perfection”. Batchelor is just one of many whose “message” appeals to a certain subset type of Adventist (anti-gay, WO, etc.)


#14

So, the solution is to discipline him under the terms of is pastoral appointment. His priority must be this appointment or else there is conflict of interest. It is untenable.


(Elmer Cupino) #15

According to psychoanalytic psychology, humanity’s movement to civilization requires repression of primitive desires. This unconscious drive, unless brought to consciousness through treatment, betrays each of us, which gives valence to the saying, “You can take the caveman out of the cave, but you cannot take the caveman out of the man.”

Repression of these primitive desires is possible with acquisition of a strong and strict superego. But it is also common knowledge that the superego can be weakened by medical conditions and psychological stress especially when “the self” is perceived to be threatened and attacked. And there is nothing more threatening to the literal fundamentalists than WO.

@GeorgeTichy @kennlutz @Alethia @harrpa @ageis7


(Kim Green) #16

Great slogan…lol


#17

The interesting question then is why is nothing more threatening? Why are women so threatening to these old white males? Why does it matter to them if God calls a women to lead? Why threatens them if those moved to recognize a women with a human construct (as ordination is) do so? The potential realistic answers are horrifying.


#18

Why?

  1. Women will “move in” and take their places, making the job market much tighter for them and their sons.
  2. The line between gender will become fuzzy and cause confusion.
  3. It will open the door wide to provide equal access to gays (and who knows who else?) to Adventist pulpits.
  4. Women in the congregation will get “ideas,” and cease submitting.
  5. Women pastors will dress like men with shirts and ties.
  6. Men were just made and created to be the leaders. Period.
  7. Women are scary. They have mood swings so can’t be trusted to act logically.
  8. A woman might become the General Conference President creating international havoc.
  9. Women would move right out of their kitchens and men might have to help more around the house.
  10. It demeans a man to have to report to a woman. Especially if he believes he should have gotten the job in the first place.
  11. Women, girls, and teens will become independent and not “need” men.
  12. An updated version of the Bible will have to be accepted with gender appropriate language and the hymnal might even need adaption.

Shall I go on?


(Elmer Cupino) #19

It takes an extremely self-confident person to go face-to-face with a “colleague and peer.” Particularly if the only validating profession you have is determining who ought to be saved or not.


(Tim Teichman) #20

Love your list. Here are my retorts:

We’re talking about the job marked for pastors, right? I think we’re safe.

Yea, you know my mom worked my whole childhood, managed the public health department in my county, was on the school board, and was a deacon. Somehow I never confused her for a man. Perhaps I’m extra perceptive.

That would be so cool.

Again, very cool.

Any why would they do that? And why would you frekin’ care? My pastor tries to avoid it whenever possible.

What a crock. Most people, men and women, are followers.

An this is an issue because our current set of pastors is so very logical? I have mood swings too and right now my mood is that the people that oppose WO are really irritating me since they have no platform at all to stand on except they’re literally good-old-boys that just don’t want change. Which isn’t a reason.

Yea, probably would cause a nuclear holocaust and the end of the world as we know it.

Uh huh. And if you think that is bad you’re a moron.

I don’t know what bubble you’re living in if this is your objection. Those in the real world report to women all the time. You do this in the case where she is the boss. It’s really not that complicated or much of a concern for, well, normal people.

Thank God for that! Girl Power Rules!

Oh, not the hymnal! It can never change. See #8 for the end of the world scenario.