This is the third of a three-part series of the first chapter of Michael G. Coleman’s insightful book on the women’s ordination issue in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This impelling first chapter is reprinted here with permission of the author and publisher. The book can be purchased here.
The Progressive Deconstructionist Movement
While some proponents of women’s ordination are sincerely focused on addressing that particular issue alone, there are other leaders in various echelons of the church for whom women’s ordination is only one component of a broader project.
Their project involves deconstructing historic/ traditional Adventism and reconstructing it into a new image that is more consistent with a social justice, ecumenical, charismatic, and progressive direction. This project espouses some things that seem very positive, such as “social justice.” Given the shameful discriminatory practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church toward some Blacks in the past—especially during the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and 1960s in the United States—racial equality and justice is something that our world church definitely needs to be passionate about. But the problem with the social justice platform of the progressive wing of Adventism is that it is more beholden to the philosophies and ideologies of contemporary society than it is to the authority of Scripture.
In order to be in alignment with contemporary sentiments and ideologies, many of our leaders are ready to undermine principles of hermeneutics that Adventist scholars and lay people have relied on for approximately 170 years. These leaders have chosen to espouse a cultural and relativistic interpretation of several biblical passages that deal with the primacy of male spiritual leadership in the home and the church. They have reduced the authority of Scripture to be able to accommodate a gender equality platform that ignores fundamental biblical principles concerning leadership that were established at Creation.
Shift From Scripture
As an example, during the intensives for my Doctor of Ministry program at Andrews University (2014–2017), I witnessed on different occasions more than one professor attempting to shift the class away from Adventism’s emphasis on discovering the truth through a diligent study of Scripture, proper hermeneutics, and reliance on the Holy Spirit. These professors subtly advocated subjective interpretations, cultural relativism, and an excessive dependence on the “Spirit” rather than on the Bible.
The progressive deconstructionist movement in Adventism seems to have its epicenter in the North American Division, and it has been this way for nearly fifty years. However, its ideology now reverberates loudly in most of the unions and divisions in Western Europe. In order for the progressive deconstructionists to gain support for women’s ordination, they have to weaken the authority of Scripture with claims that certain passages are culturally conditioned and that we need to lean more on the Spirit than on a literal interpretation of Scripture. However, these very claims have also opened the door for an accommodationist approach toward homosexuality and the LGBT community within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.
The accommodationist approach toward homosexuality emphasizes that the church needs to be more accepting, understanding, and gracious toward those with homosexual, bisexual, and transgender tendencies. They call on the church to provide support groups for the LGBT community and to not ostracize them from its fellowship. While I agree that the church should be more understanding and gracious toward people who are struggling with homosexual, bisexual, and transgender proclivities, the church is not called to be an accepting community of homosexual activity. Moreover, there is a world of difference between a person who is struggling with homosexual tendencies but is seeking divine deliverance and a gay person who is looking for acceptance from the church rather than conversion.
Subtexts of Homosexuality Accommodation
Two subtexts emanate from the accommodationist approach toward homosexuality.
The first subtext is that sensitivity towards gay and transgendered people means that we should not preach a sermon, make a remark, or write an essay against the sin of homosexuality because this could be very offensive to the LGBTQ community. According to this approach, pastors should not preach Paul’s powerfully convicting message in the first chapter of Romans, which explicitly states that the judgment of God will fall on unrepentant human beings who sexually cohabitate with another person of the same gender. Homosexuality is depicted as unnatural and vile in Romans 1. There are people who are tempted to engage in the gay lifestyle out of mere curiosity because it is in vogue; Paul’s message in Romans 1 might very well prevent them from going down such a path. However, the accommodationist approach does not offer “prevention” as an option. It merely offers a dubious acceptance.
The second subtext is that conversion or transformation is not a realistic option for the LGBTQ community and that we should, therefore, simply accept this community and be willing to let them serve as officers in the church as long as they do not publicly engage in homosexuality. One example of the practical impact of this subtext may be seen in the activities of Intercollegiate Adventist Gay-Straight Coalition (IAGC), an organization that has been created since 2012 to support members of the LGBTQ community within Seventh-day Adventist institutions of higher learning. Although IAGC is not an official entity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it has a presence on several Adventist campuses, including Andrews University, La Sierra University, Pacific Union College, Southern Adventist University, Union College, Walla Walla University, and Washington Adventist University.
Although Andrews University has had an official LGBT support group since October 2017, this support group is also affiliated with IAGC.1 One of my colleagues attended a meeting of the LGBTQ support group on the campus of Andrews University in early 2020. This meeting was advertised specifically as a forum to converse with parents of LGBTQ students. However, my colleague was surprised to discover that the leaders of this support group were intentionally advocating that LGBTQ orientations were a natural biological condition that LGBTQ members should accept rather than seek to be converted from. My colleague also reported that the leaders in this meeting told the audience not to offer prayer for transformation of the LGBTQ community, but, rather, that they should accept the members of that community. It is also noteworthy that, in its promotional media, IAGC does not mention, as one of its objectives, anything about conversion or transformation from a same-sex orientation.2
The rhetorical catalyst for the accommodationist view of homosexuality seems to have come from a conference held in January 2006 in Ontario, California, which was co-sponsored by the Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International Advisory Council and the Association of Adventist Forums. This conference resulted in a book that posited a revisionist view of homosexuality—one that is in stark contrast to the mainstream perspective of Seventh-day Adventists on the topic.
The book, published in 2008, is entitled Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives.3 Partly in response to the conference in California and the subsequent book, a new conference was held by a variety of Christian scholars and professionals at Andrews University in 2009. This conference sought to evaluate the merits of the new revisionist perspective of homosexuality and to discuss the implications of the standard Adventist position on the topic with respect to social developments and public policy. The participants of this conference provided strong biblical support for the historic Adventist position on homosexuality. They also discussed ways for the church to minister more effectively to the LGBT community. The papers and presentations of the 2009 conference at Andrews University formed the content for a solid and perspicacious book that was published in 2012, entitled Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church.4
An “Understanding”
In October 2015, the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University published a position paper entitled, “An Understanding of the Biblical View on Homosexual Practice and Pastoral Care: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Position Paper.” More than three-fourths of the paper supports the historic Adventist position on homosexuality. However, toward the end of the paper, there is a major departure from the standard Adventist perspective. The paper asserts that homosexual persons should be allowed to have membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church if that is what they desired even if they struggle with same-sex temptations. In addition, it asserts that gay and lesbian members should be permitted to serve as officers of the church if they will choose to remain abstinent from engaging in same-sex cohabitation.5
The apostle Paul clearly declared that God’s power transformed people who were formerly homosexuals into committed heterosexual members of the church in Corinth. Paul stated, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10:
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Then he emphasized in verse 11 that some of the current believers of the church in Corinth were once engaged in these immoral lifestyles but that they had since been cleansed, converted, and sanctified. Notice Paul’s words:
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God” (v. 11).
Divine transformation is not merely possible for homosexuals, adulterers, and idolaters—it is the only option for those who intend to inherit the kingdom of God.
The problem with the position paper from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University is that it blurs the line between the person who was once a homosexual but has been trans- formed by the power of God and the person who believes that he or she can be a Seventh-day Adventist Christian and yet have a same-sex orientation. A person who was formerly a homosexual and has been transformed is no longer a homosexual. The common notion in society that can be expressed as, “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” is not a biblical principle.
Moreover, if a person has been converted and he or she still genuinely struggles with feelings of same-sex attraction, this is no indication that the person is a homosexual; it is an indication that converted people still have to struggle with the carnal nature. Numerous passages of Scripture speak about the daily battle of believers to crucify the flesh and walk in the Spirit with the assurance that we can be successful through the power of Christ and the Spirit (see Matt. 5:27–30; Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–13; 1 Cor. 9:24–27; 2 Cor. 10:3–5; Gal. 2:20; 5:1–21; 6:7, 8; James 1:14, 15; Phil. 2:12, 13; 4:11–13; 1 Peter 4:1, 2). Thus, the conclusion of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary position paper is essentially a concession to the power of the flesh rather than of the Spirit.
What the NAD and its constituent unions, conferences, and institutions believe about homosexuality will impact how they allocate funds and deploy resources. For example, if the leadership of a particular conference or union believes that the LBGT community cannot be converted and that the church would be better off to not preach about the sin of homosexuality but to accept the LGBT community as a biological fait accompli, then it will not utilize or allocate funds to any kind of conversion program such as Coming Out Ministries or a conversion based support group; rather, it will focus its resources on programs that teach acceptance of the LGBT community. Moreover, employees who are not in support of a conference, union, or constituent institution’s accommodationist approach toward homosexuality will likely experience undue pressure to conform or be ostracized.
Erosion of Biblical Authority
The gradual erosion of biblical authority that has been unleashed by the progressive deconstructionist movement in Adventism is virtually aiding and abetting a state of affairs in which leaders and members do what they believe is right in their own eyes with little regard for the principles of Scripture and guidance from the writings of Ellen G. White.
For example, the practice of abortion on demand has been facilitated as a matter of routine in several Adventist hospitals in the United States within the past four decades. However, popular indignation from vocal Adventists, especially in 2018 and 2019, have aroused the leaders of the denomination to take steps to curtail this practice.6
Another example of the liberal pluralism unleashed by the progressive deconstructionists is that a growing segment of Adventists are imitating unbiblical practices derived from the Charismatic Movement, Eastern religions, and popular music in their worship services. Whooping accompanied by organ riffs, mindless meditation, prolonged and heavily rhythmic music with sustained loud sounding instruments, and a variety of frenzied outbursts are some of the elements that are now present in numerous Adventist worship services.
Some of the new churches that have recently been established in the NAD’s territory have been planted by leaders who are intentionally deconstructing Adventism and reconstructing new local churches according to progressive ideology. In some of these churches, the criteria for membership fall far below the standards that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has clearly explained in the church manual and in the book containing its fundamental beliefs, Seventh-day Adventists Believe.
I did not imagine in 1983, when as a teenager I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ and became a Seventh-day Adventist, that the “remnant” church would be so tempted to veer from its faithful adherence to the full authority of Scripture and the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation. I could not then foresee that numerous pastors and leaders would be so accommodative towards popular practices and ideologies that cannot be supported by Scripture. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is now at a crossroads as it prepares to convene the 61st General Conference Session. The actions voted at the San Antonio General Conference Session were grossly inadequate to stem the tidal wave that is now beating ferociously on the banks of this denomination. Unless bold decisive actions are soon taken, the denomination will follow the path of several mainline Protestant denominations that have bartered faithfulness to Scripture for favor with the world.
Results of Devaluing Scripture
Three decades ago, C. Raymond Holmes, former Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program and Professor of Worship and Preaching in the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, presciently cautioned the Seventh-day Adventist Church against devaluing the authority of Scripture in order to win support for women’s ordination. In his book, The Tip of an Iceberg, Holmes shared how, as a former pastor in the Lutheran Church in America, his denomination’s espousal of the skeptical historical-critical method of Bible interpretation led it to embrace women’s ordination in the 1970s; conversely, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s strong rejection of the historical-critical method influenced its rejection of women’s ordination.7
What is even more interesting is that all the liberal branches of the Lutheran denomination in America that embraced the historical-critical method and women’s ordination in the 1960s and 70s currently endorse homosexual clergy.
For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (now the largest body of Lutherans in the USA, which was formed in 1988 as the result of the merging of the three most liberal Lutheran branches in North America), began accepting gay clergy in 2009 and elected its first openly gay bishop in 2013. However, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is the second largest Lutheran body in the United States, still rejects the historical-critical method, women’s ordination, and homosexuality.
The progression from the adoption of a limited view of biblical authority to the ordination of women and then to approving same-sex marriage has also occurred within the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Churches. If we do not take decisive steps to “contend for the faith” by rejecting specious notions that undermine the authority of Scripture, such as the culturally conditioned argument, it is very probable that the Seventh-day Adventist Church will follow in a similar direction as these churches.
One glaring example of the downward slope of the progressive deconstructionist/accommodationist approach in Adventism is that Adventist Health System/West, a corporation of Seventh-day Adventist healthcare institutions on the west coast of the United States, has authorized and conducted gender transition services at its facilities. Physicians governed by Adventist Health System/West can provide hormone therapy to facilitate changes in gender, perform gender affirming surgery, and make referrals for gender reconstruction surgery. In other words, this large Seventh-day Adventist affiliated healthcare corporation is helping males to acquire hormones and physical alterations in order to function as females, and helping females to transition into what appear to be males. This information was exhibited on November 22, 2019 in a set of documents prepared by the California Attorney General office and Adventist Health System/ West, as Adventist Health System/West prepared to acquire Delano Regional Medical Center.8
After prayerful reflection on the most prudent and respectful way to address the concerns that I have highlighted above, I decided to change my intended open letter into a brief book that is designed to do the following four things: (1) provide a biblical study on the topic of women’s ordination, (2) show how the question of women’s ordination is related to other vitally important contemporary issues in the church, (3) recommend a possible solution to the dilemma that Adventism finds itself in, (4) tell my story.9
Michael G. Coleman’s book, Women’s Ordination, the San Antonio Compromise, and the Adventist Slide into the LGBTQ Morass, may be ordered at:
Guided by the principles of biblical interpretation that helped to found the Seventh-day Adventist Church, veteran New York pastor, Dr. Michael G. Coleman, finds in Scripture the basis for resolving the standoff that exists within Seventh-day Adventism over women’s ordination. He proposes a biblical solution to avoid the trend that has overtaken other Protestant churches. His response is a thoughtful, biblically faithful, and user-friendly resource. He encourages administrators, pastors, and laypersons to consider the evidence prayerfully and thoughtfully.
1 Alisa Williams, “Andrews University Approves Creation of Official LGBT Student Support Group,” Spectrum Magazine, Nov. 9, 2017, retrieved from https://1ref.us/1cm, accessed 8/20/20.
2 See the following: Eliel Cruz, “Seventh-day Adventist Students Sharing Stories,” retrieved from https://1ref.us/1cn, accessed 8/20/20; Richard Logan, “Southern Adventist University Student Now Leads LGBT Collegiate Coalition,” Spectrum Magazine, Oct. 23, 2014, retrieved from https://1ref. us/1co, accessed 8/20/20; Andy Roman, “The LGBT+ is Making More Inroads into the Seventh- day Adventist Educational Institutions,” Advent Messenger, Dec. 7, 2018, retrieved from https://1ref. us/1cp, accessed 8/20/20.
3 David Ferguson, Fritz Guy, David Larson, eds., Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives (Adventist Forum, 2008).
4 Roy E. Gane, Nicholas P. Miller, H. Peter Swanson, eds., Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling and Religious Liberty Issues (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2012).
5 “An Understanding of the Biblical View on Homosexual Practice and Pastoral Care: Seventh- day Adventist Theological Seminary Position Paper” (Berrien Springs, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, October 9, 2015), retrieved from https://1ref.us/1cq, accessed 8/20/20.
6 See George B. Gainer, “Abortion: history of Adventist guidelines,” Ministry, Aug. 1991, retrieved from https://1ref.us/1cr, accessed 8/20/20; Michael Peabody, “Amidst Growing Criticism Adventist Church Is Revisiting Abortion Position,” Spectrum, Sept 23, 2019, retrieved from https://1ref.us/1cs, accessed 8/20/20; Dylan Wagoner, “The Day I Found Out About Abortions in SDA Hospitals (Part 1),” fulcrum7.com, blogpost, Aug. 23, 2019, retrieved from https://1ref.us/1ct, accessed 8/20/20; “Statement on the Biblical View of Unborn Life and its Implications of Abortion,” General Conference, Oct. 2019, retrieved from https://1ref.us/1cu, accessed 8/20/20.
7 C. Raymond Holmes, The Tip of an Iceberg: Biblical Authority, Biblical Interpretation, and the Ordination of Women in Ministry (Wakefield, Michigan: Pointer Publications, 1994).
8 Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, State of California Department of Justice, letter to Mark Schieble, Nov 22, 2019, RE: “Proposed change in control and governance of Central California Foundation for Health,” https://1ref.us/1ja (accessed January 25, 2021). See also Andy Roman, “Adventist Health Allows its Physicians to Perform ‘Gender Transition’ Services at it Facilities.” Advent Messenger, December 26, 2020, https://1ref.us/1jb (accessed January 25, 2021).
9 See Michael G. Coleman, Women’s Ordination and the San Antonio Compromise (Calhoun, GA: TEACH Services, 2021). This series of articles have been taken from the first chapter of this book.