Open letter to Doug Batchlor to stop opposing Women's Ordination

[Adventist Dissident]

While I have had participated in ministry in a various forms and discussed topics on forums I have rarely taken a stand publically on an issue. And I have never challenged a public figure like Doug Batchlor. Today I take a stand. I have done so in part because I see no one else advocating for a biblical position on women ordination. That is not to say that there are not others doing it just not seeing it. Some write big books other advocate for it. But I see have seen no one make the biblical case in a simple way. That is one of the reason I am writing this piece.
The other reason is Doug Batchlor. It is very difficult for me to Speak against Elder Batchlor I have great respect for him. He has had a positive impact on my life, I came to Christ as a direct result of his ministry, as I will detail later. So Why Now what has changed? It is Because of Doug’s own behavior that I come out to oppose him. I will give a list of reason why I oppose him. But before I do let me give a brief history of my relationship with Elder Batchlor.
I first heard of Elder Batchlor in 1987. I was living in Sebastopol, California, just north of San Francisco. My sister came home and was all excited about the meeting that was happening at our church. She was you have to come and hear this guy he is great. I told her to take a hike I was not interested, so she kept going to church by herself. A week or so later, after fight with my mother over weather the T.V. was too loud and weather I could Watch Monday Night Football. I decided to go to church. That is where I first encountered this bald headed hippy that lived in a cave and loved Jesus, Doug Batchlor. Over the course of the next few weeks I got to know the man and the other members of the team and heard what he had to say. It was during one of his meetings that I encountered Christ; I believe it was Weds October 28, 1987. This began my relationship with Christ. It took a team effort, John Lomacang and Brent and Step Brussett, Youth Ministers were part of the team. But credit goes to elder Batchlor as the Lead Evangelist in my conversion. If it were not for Doug I would not have come to Christ and I would not have sought a degree in ministry. So it is with great humility and great respect and caution that I come out and oppose Elder Batchlor.
Let me give list all of the reason I oppose you.
1. Your language is Inflammatory. Linking the Women’s Ordination Issue to Homosexuality and Trans-gender bathrooms is just propaganda plain and simple. It is Inflammatory and demaning. You are manipulating rhetoric for your own adjenda. If reason and persuasion fail, demonize your opponent. It can’t possibly be that those who oppose do so for solid biblical reasons.
2. You seem to be completely ignorant of the issues biblically and culturally surrounding this issue. This is not an issue of Post-modernism or cultural change. This issue has been around along time. At least 30 years as far as I remember it. This is an issue of interpretation.
3. You are being unfair. While you not giving equal time to people who support the issue to present there views. You are going to your supporters and brainwashing them. You are saying that your interpretation of the scripture is the only way to look at the issue and everyone else is an apostate. That is not true.
4. You are causing an unnecessary rift in the Church over this issue. The fact that the General Conference is coming up and a vote is being called for is the only reason you are stepping up your propaganda efforts.
5. You are oppressing the sisters in the faith. You are supporting denying sisters in Christ the right to have a say and have the rights and respect they deserve in the church. You are in effect denying the Holy Spirits work in the life of these sisters and denying God His rightful say in the Church. Jesus Forbids Lording power over others “Not so shall it be among you, He who would be the greatest (gender neutral statement) must be servant of all and He who would be chief among you must be slave of all” Service is the basis of power not gender.
6. You deny that those who support women ordination have a biblical support at all. People who support women's ordination from scripture do so mainly along 3 lines of reasoning. 1. Paul's view of priesthood. We are ALL Priests under Christ ALL includes women. 2. The Spiritual gifting. If a women is given the gift of ministry who am I to stand in God's way. Ordination is only a confirmation of the Call, it grants nothing to the ordained. 3. It is part of the original plan and the restoring of the right of women under Christ. Those are all solid biblical reason. You have never even addressed those.
7. Elder Batchlor you are wrong and you need to stop fighting women’s ordination. It is Biblical as I will show you.
Those how oppose women ordination as you do, do so on 4 lines. 1. The fall, Eve sinned and was subject to the curse. 2. Priesthood after the fall was only reserved to men. 3. Paul told women to submit to their Husband. 4. Paul told women not to teach and to be quiet church.
What you will not tell people is that 1. Priesthood was first established in the Garden with both Adam AND Eve were priests. Priesthood is about representation “Male AND Female are the Image of God.” Adam and Eve were both representative of God before the fall. That changed when sin entered the world. It was God original plan that both men and women together be his representatives on this planet. That is the original over riding plan. The same term given to describe the function priest in Israel are the same terms used to describe the function Adam and Eve. (See. Temple and the Chruch’s Mission By G.K. Beal)
2 Priesthood changed after the fall 2 times. After the fall and before Israel All Men were given the task of being a priest in there Homes, but they had to come before the Melchizedek (king-priest), See Abraham for example. After Israel only Jewish Males from the tribe of Levi, were allowed to be priest. What Doug is advocating is a new covenant that is open to men not women. Now All Males are priests. He is advocating for the post-fall, Pre-Israelite world, Not the New Covenant view.
3 Paul telling women to be submissive is an issue of Orderliness in the home NOT in church. It is also an issue of not offending the Social order. The Roman world was very patriarchal, Males had absolute rule over every thing. Paul did not want to create social chaos with the gospel; He knew things would change when people came to Christ that was revolutionary enough.
4. When Paul told women to be quite it church and not teach, it was not a permanent universal command. It was to a specific church under specific conditions. What were the conditions? 1. Chaos in the church and the perception of immorality. Women were not allowed in the ancient world to participate worship unless it was in a fertility (sex) cult Judaism forbad them to enter the temple and in some case to learn the Scripture. With the new era ushered in by Christ Women were allowed to participate, but this created some problems 1. Women did not have sufficient training to understand the scripture, so they need to learn first, so they were forbidden to teach until they learned, they were not forbidden to Learn. If Paul were continuing the old order, as Batchlor asserts, they would have been forbidden to learn as well. 2 Women in Religious setting were almost always seen as prostitutes. In Ephesus the city to which Paul Wrote most of his statement about the role of women, there was a cult where temple prostitutes were very prominent, this would have been a big problem for Paul when especially dealing with Jews converts who were very strict about sexual behavior, Look those Christian are immoral, see all those prostitutes in the church. That is the context of Paul statements about the role of women, not a one forbids outright, the ordination of women. That is why it is propaganda; Elder Batchlor either does not know or will not tell you. Christ has give women the Spirit just as much as men. It is not any persons place to tell God whom He can call. It is the church’s job to verify the calling.

Marshall Warren Ackerman

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

My issue is that, at this time in earths history, when we are to be coming together in faith to receive of the latter rain... united in our proclamation of the three angels messages, Satan is keeping everyone distracted with these side issues. If you take offence to my term "side issues", then you don't understand the bigger picture. The movements of the Papacy have been rapid in this last year and will continue to escalate with the SOON coming of the NSL... Please tell me what benefit it would be for women at this time to receive from man, credentials for attaining to the pulpit. Women have always been teachers and having a title does not change that.

Also, to address your open letter, your use of scripture to bolster your position is not as strong as you may think. You have used a lot of "this is what Paul meant" or "this was the condition of the time"... none of which is stated in the scriptures. You can't negate scripture with opinion, the first day keepers have been trying that for 150 years.

For further food for thought, have you ever wondered why Christ only called males to apostleship? Yes there were many women that were disciples of Christ. Jesus wasn't concerned with societal conditions when He had a truth to bear. Jesus would most certainly had women apostles if that was His plan. He is not double minded and would not contradict the sentence given to women after the fall, as long as sin exists in the world. People like to quote Paul an awful lot when trying to secure their positions just as Sunday keepers do, but it is Jesus that is to our example in all things not Paul. If you can give just one "thus sayeth the Lord" that shows that the original curse after the fall is not still in effect, that would be helpful. Unfortunately, it's not there.

I recommend to all that are being consumed by this issue, on both sides of this superfluous distraction, to see the times we are living in and get back to our commission as Adventists to warn the world of the mark of the beast, who it is and what we are to do to not receive of it. Do not let yourselves be deceived with this satanic delusion.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

"Therefore let No one Judge you concerning New Moons, Festivals or Sabbaths..... Which are a shadow of things to that have come" Col 2:16

If meaning is only dependent on the reader, and not the original receivers in it's cultural context and understanding, then do why do you still practice the Sabbath? No one is to Judge, scripture says? So why do you make a big deal about it. This is a question about Meaning not Sabbath to be clear. If you take it at face value then it is optional, unless you come up with some other meaning. The point being that meaning is subjective, it is personal, unless you put some requirements on it. Like Context and culture of the original recipient.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

now if meaning is not base on the original recievers then what do you make of Paul Statements "In Christ there is Neither Male nor Female , Slave or Free, Jew nor Greek." If the Holy spirit has been give someone then how do deny them the role God has assigned them.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Just as Sabbath was instituted by Christ at creation and then repeated in the 10 commandments, there must be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' to change it, correct?

In the same way, when Christ pronounced the curse upon women to be subject to men, there needs to be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' to annul this curse.... Jesus never gave that proclamation.

Using your logic of "In Christ there is Neither Male nor Female , Slave or Free, Jew nor Greek." to mean we can now do as we will, then Bruce Jenner is justified under this same logic.

 

[Ubuntu]

In the same way, when Christ pronounced the curse upon women to be subject to men, there needs to be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' to annul this curse.... Jesus never gave that proclamation.

It's possible to argue that a married woman should submit to her husband, but nowhere in Genesis 3 (or in the Bible) is it suggested that women in general should be subordinated men.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

First of all, it not possible to argue anything based on Genesis 3:16... if you read that passage and get anything other than what it plainly states, you are putting your word above God's.

Considering that the wife is to be subject to her husband, how does a woman minister lead a church? Only if she's single?? Otherwise, she is subject to her husband, remember? So the woman minister would have to defer to her husband... so who's head of the church.

Also, nobody wants to touch the fact that Jesus did not call any women to apostleship. Surely He would have made that statement in rebuke of mans misunderstanding of a womans role, if there was a misunderstanding.

It's amazing that Adventists are using the same Biblical twisting of scripture to bolster their belief just like the sunday keeper do... no 'thus sayeth the Lord' just a lot of interpretation of Paul's writings.

This distraction is going to lead to a lot of Adventists missing the coming crisis and being deceived.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Just as Sabbath was instituted by Christ at creation and then repeated in the 10 commandments, there must be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' to change it, correct?

In the same way, when Christ pronounced the curse upon women to be subject to men, there needs to be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' to annul this curse.... Jesus never gave that proclamation.

This is not a good response. 1. You did not address the text quoted. 2. You assume there was a sabbath at creation, scriptures never used the term in Genesis. 3. You assume that the Lord ship of Christ, does not mean that he could not have changed it. It also assumes that he could not have implemented the Lord's day as an addition to the Sabbath requirement.

Using your logic of "In Christ there is Neither Male nor Female , Slave or Free, Jew nor Greek." to mean we can now do as we will, then Bruce Jenner is justified under this same logic.

Not a good response. This show you are ignoring the text. The text says "In Christ...." Jenner is not in Christ. You have indirectly proven my point. People that are sloppy or lazy in there research jump to conclusion that are not merited or justified by the evidence.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

First of all, it not possible to argue anything based on Genesis 3:16... if you read that passage and get anything other than what it plainly states, you are putting your word above God's.

How you come to this is just dizzing to me.

Considering that the wife is to be subject to her husband, how does a woman minister lead a church? Only if she's single?? Otherwise, she is subject to her husband, remember? So the woman minister would have to defer to her husband... so who's head of the church.

how did you come to this conclusion. This is just illogical. You are assuming some things here. you need to slow down and take it step by step.

Also, nobody wants to touch the fact that Jesus did not call any women to apostleship. Surely He would have made that statement in rebuke of mans misunderstanding of a womans role, if there was a misunderstanding.

Mary? I don't see your conclusion, given that Christ designates the gifts based on the spirit. You are saying that some of the gift are not ment for women.

It's amazing that Adventists are using the same Biblical twisting of scripture to bolster their belief just like the sunday keeper do... no 'thus sayeth the Lord' just a lot of interpretation of Paul's writings.

I've noticed you have said this a number of time. All positions are interpretation. your are just as guilty of this as any one else. I e. the Sunday law, never specifically stated in scripture, built on assumption and interpretations. If those assumptions and Interpretations hold true then your conclusions is valid, if they are proven false then it is invalid. There is no Thus saith the Lord.

This distraction is going to lead to a lot of Adventists missing the coming crisis and being deceived.

so your real motivation is fear.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

I will try to keep my comments brief and to the point.

First, the issue of ordaining women as equal partners in Gospel ministry is not a side issue. It is a very important issue. It means a lot more than a title. It means recognizing those who God has called and equipped to lead, serve, and preach Jesus (which includes eschatology and the 3 angels message from Revelation). It means being seen for your calling and your skills and your inner character rather than just your physical appearance and physical attributes. It means empowering and multiplying the people who are called and qualified to preach to the world about Jesus. Is it not logical that when we recognize and encourage the gifts of all members of our congregations (instead of the current trend of encouraging only half and discouraging the other half) that our churches will be empowered to grow and better serve our communities around the world? And if we as a people believe that Jesus is coming soon and desires our participation in proclaiming Him to the world, than why are we so concerned about limiting the women in our congregations (thereby limiting the overall scope of His message)?

Second, this issue is one of biblical interpretation and theological consistency. Whatever is decided, this issue reveals the way in which each side views the Bible and how it should be read. Every message requires the hearer to interpret and apply what they hear.

Third, there were many female disciples and apostles and deacons in the early/NT Church. Jesus protected Mary's position of sitting among His male disciples - a posture and place which at that time was reserved for men. She was His disciple. She followed Him. She sat with and learned from Him. She was at the cross when He died and she was the first to whom He appeared after He had risen from death. She was the first to preach the power of His resurrection. Besides that example, there are references to other women following Jesus throughout the Gospels. Paul also mentions by name the female apostles and deacons, Junia, Phoebe, Pricilla, and others found in Romans who are mentioned but not by name. Paul speaks of these women as co-laborers for the Gospel in the same way he was. Junia was even imprisoned with Paul, which means she was doing the exact same work he was and they faced the same public charges.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I will try to keep my comments brief and to the point.

First, the issue of ordaining women as equal partners in Gospel ministry is not a side issue. It is a very important issue. It means a lot more than a title. It means recognizing those who God has called and equipped to lead, serve, and preach Jesus (which includes eschatology and the 3 angels message from Revelation). It means being seen for your calling and your skills and your inner character rather than just your physical appearance and physical attributes. It means empowering and multiplying the people who are called and qualified to preach to the world about Jesus. Is it not logical that when we recognize and encourage the gifts of all members of our congregations (instead of the current trend of encouraging only half and discouraging the other half) that our churches will be empowered to grow and better serve our communities around the world? And if we as a people believe that Jesus is coming soon and desires our participation in proclaiming Him to the world, than why are we so concerned about limiting the women in our congregations (thereby limiting the overall scope of His message)?

Second, this issue is one of biblical interpretation and theological consistency. Whatever is decided, this issue reveals the way in which each side views the Bible and how it should be read. Every message requires the hearer to interpret and apply what they hear.

Third, there were many female disciples and apostles and deacons in the early/NT Church. Jesus protected Mary's position of sitting among His male disciples - a posture and place which at that time was reserved for men. She was His disciple. She followed Him. She sat with and learned from Him. She was at the cross when He died and she was the first to whom He appeared after He had risen from death. She was the first to preach the power of His resurrection. Besides that example, there are references to other women following Jesus throughout the Gospels. Paul also mentions by name the female apostles and deacons, Junia, Phoebe, Pricilla, and others found in Romans who are mentioned but not by name. Paul speaks of these women as co-laborers for the Gospel in the same way he was. Junia was even imprisoned with Paul, which means she was doing the exact same work he was and they faced the same public charges.

WOW, some one who has there head on straight and understand's the issue and what is at stake. I was beginning to thing no one else saw the issue. Welcome.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

If you can give just one "thus sayeth the Lord" that shows that the original curse after the fall is not still in effect, that would be helpful. Unfortunately, it's not there.

As a friend, EastCoastRemnant, may I please point out a few problems with this particular point of reasoning? I promise I will try to speak kindly, but I do feel it important to speak to this point.

The original "curse" from Genesis reads as follows,
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16 KJV).

May I bring to your attention that God did not curse Eve/women. If you're going to take the text at face value in all seriousness it must be recognized that the text says, "Unto the woman he said, I will multiply your sorrow..." whereas in verse 14 when God was speaking to the serpent it says, "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:" (Genesis 3:14 KJV).

If one is going to make a case from wording one must be consistent in seeing that the serpent was in fact cursed but God was not nearly as strong in His language with Eve. Eve, according to what the text says, was not cursed. God told her the effects of the fall and prophesied the coming of the Messiah through her increased pain. There was hope for Eve, yet no hope for the cursed serpent. Also, even if this statement was a direct curse from God it pertains to pain and the process of reproduction within the human race. It does not say anything about leadership of any community.

If you say that the part where her husband will rule over her is that tie-in, please note that every effect of sin in this world is overturned through Jesus and by human efforts. In medicine (and Jesus' miracles of healing) pain is overturned to health. In resurrection, death is overturned to life. The concept of only one nation (Israel) being used and accepted by God is overturned to include all the nations and peoples of the earth. The first become last and the last become first. The entire Bible is full of God's work in overturning the effects of sin on this earth now and for eternity. So why stop with this issue? Why limit God's power to heal the world? To heal human relationships? To heal relationships between human beings and Himself? It's inconsistent reasoning.

It could also be argued that from the lack of a "thus sayeth the Lord" statement to categorically prohibit female leadership (along with the many examples of positive female leaders throughout Scripture) we could assume it is not God's prohibition.

Just some thoughts to consider. Please take them in a friendly manner, as that is how they are intended.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Do not let yourselves be deceived with this satanic delusion.

I would add a request that we not demonize our opposition in the discussion of this issue. Thank you.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

when Christ pronounced the curse upon women to be subject to men, there needs to be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' to annul this curse.... Jesus never gave that proclamation.

Additional note, even if it is to be understood as a curse on women (which I disagree that it is), it is not categorically describing a subjection of all women to all men. It says her husband shall rule over her.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Considering that the wife is to be subject to her husband, how does a woman minister lead a church? Only if she's single?? Otherwise, she is subject to her husband, remember? So the woman minister would have to defer to her husband... so who's head of the church.

I think there is a misunderstanding. Christ is head of the church. Christ is the only head of the church. All leaders, male or female, are subject to Him. Adventists believe in the priesthood of all believers, making no one greater or smaller than anyone else and all looking to Christ for direction.
As a side note: did you know that just about every male pastor I have ever heard speaks very highly in praise of his wife and how he defers to her for wisdom and strength? Why can't it go the other way too?

Also, nobody wants to touch the fact that Jesus did not call any women to apostleship. Surely He would have made that statement in rebuke of mans misunderstanding of a womans role, if there was a misunderstanding.

You know what makes me so excited? Jesus did rebuke of mans' misunderstanding of a woman's role! It's so exciting for me to see that Jesus loves women too and wants us to carry Him to the world too! Search the Gospels for Mary's name. It pops up several times. She sat at His feet (a male role), and when her sister complained that Mary wasn't in her proper place as a woman, Jesus said the place she had chosen would not be taken away from her. When her place was questioned again at a party at Simon's house (she anointed the Savior's bare feet with her bare hair in a room full of men) Jesus spoke in defense of her actions. And again when He appeared to her first and she got to carry the news of His resurrection first to the disciples... and they didn't believe her... that also rebuked mans' understandings that women were not trustworthy witnesses. Jesus trusted women witnesses. Why can't we?
btw, there was also the Samaritan Woman at the well, the woman who was healed after bleeding for 12 years, and the woman who persistently begged "as a dog from the master's table"... just to name a few more.

no 'thus sayeth the Lord' just a lot of interpretation of Paul's writings.

It's more than just Paul's writings. The issue is all over Scripture in both OT & NT. I can give you a list if you want one.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

WOW, some one who has there head on straight and understand's the issue and what is at stake. I was beginning to thing no one else saw the issue. Welcome.

Thank you for your complement. I've studied this issue A LOT over several years. It is very personal to me, but I try to be as objective as I can.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

JoJo, I will concede that the use of the word 'curse' is not appropriate for the mentioned text... just using terminology of what woman's suffering has been called in my past.

I would like to post an article when I am at home on submission that myself and the three females from our church have found very enlightening.

Thanx as always for your respectful attitude...

 

[JojotheBeloved]

JoJo, I will concede that the use of the word 'curse' is not appropriate for the mentioned text... just using terminology of what woman's suffering has been called in my past.

I would like to post an article when I am at home on submission that myself and the three females from our church have found very enlightening.

Thanx as always for your respectful attitude...

You're welcome. I always want to be respectful. If/when I may fail at that, please forgive me.

I can respect that the increased suffering of women has been termed "curse" by some. I have heard that used too. But I think it's inaccurate, and in this particular discussion it is a weak premise to hang an argument on.

I would be happy to read an article you found helpful. It may be helpful to me also. If you're open to it, maybe we can share materials for better understanding on both sides.

Side note: did you just say there are only 3 women in your church? How many men?

 

[Ubuntu]

Considering that the wife is to be subject to her husband, how does a woman minister lead a church? Only if she's single?? Otherwise, she is subject to her husband, remember? So the woman minister would have to defer to her husband... so who's head of the church.

The roles of man and woman in a marriage can be discussed, but for now let's go ahead and make the assumption that a wife is supposed to submit to her husband, that he is supposed to be the leader...

At work you have a boss who is your superior, and you're expected to submit to the authority of this person. But his (or her) authority is limited and doesn't extend to all the aspects of your life. Even if you recognize the authority of your boss this doesn't mean that the boss can tell you how you should treat your wife or what you should eat for dinner at home. In other words, human authority is never absolute. Likewise, the authority a man might have over his wife is limited to their home, it doesn't extend to other spheres.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Side note: did you just say there are only 3 women in your church? How many men?

Sadly, only myself... one of the women has 8yo twins that fellowship with us as well. Our church is mostly through Skype as one member lives in the States. We get together with the single mom family at least once a week and the kids come and spend Sabbath with us when she has to work (she's a VON caregiver).