Dear church members and leaders,
I am a Seventh-day Adventist seminarian (Andrews), and I address this letter to you. Our church’s governance model is representative, and I believe that means the members have a right to know what is being taught to their future pastors and church leaders at the seminary. This letter is not being written out of a spirit of malice or ill will toward anyone, but rather out of Christian love and concern.
Our seminary teaches some things that I and some other seminarians find to be objectionable, and is not very forthcoming on these points. I do not write this letter to discourage you, but rather to inform and to encourage you to support biblical faithfulness in our church. I have not included the names of specific faculty, as the purpose of this letter is not to expose individuals, but to relay general information. This letter is an appeal to the seminary, to the leaders of our church, and ultimately, to the members of our church.
The future of our church is at stake, and all of us have a voice and a role to play. I pray that we will use it in support of biblical faithfulness in all of our church institutions.
Women’s ordination. This point is probably unsurprising to most of you. The seminary faculty and leadership do not exactly hide their views on this subject. The first thing I noticed as a seminarian was how wholly dedicated our seminary is to promoting women’s ordination. The subject is incorporated into many of the classes and chapel sermons in some fashion (even if it is not related to the topic of the class or sermon). Only one viewpoint is entertained (the pro-women’s ordination viewpoint). Those who oppose women’s ordination are painted in an overtly negative, unfavorable light. They are portrayed as the enemies of church unity. I have hardly witnessed such a raged, feverish, unholy spirit as that displayed against those who dare to oppose women’s ordination.
During one seminary chapel, the speaker called those who oppose women’s ordination “Satanic” and compared them to the chief priests who plotted to kill Jesus (to the loud shouts of approval by many women in the audience)! In a church history class, we were taught that the early church had women’s ordination, and opposition to women’s ordination was one of the Romish errors which crept in to the church (the professor placed it along with Sunday worship). He compared those who support women’s ordination to the Protestants removing paganism from the church. I have learned that people will look for anything to justify what they want to believe. I have even heard female students say that women’s ordination is okay because God told them it was—in a dream.
Women’s ordination is promoted as the antidote to disunity and lack of church growth (despite the fact that this has not proved to be the case in reality). The faculty here are working very hard toward undoing our church’s position on women’s ordination. Unfortunately, our seminary has become the training ground for theological feminism (and it affects other parts of our theology, including the Godhead). Many otherwise good men have simply given up on this issue (though there are still precious few who oppose it). It is vain to point out what Scripture says on the subject (as on others), for they will merely say, “that is your interpretation.” I have never heard so many Bible verses and Ellen White writings wrested from their context and used to say what they do not say. While our seminary’s leadership say publicly that they respect the voted positions of our church, the reality is quite different. Your future pastors are being taught that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has historically had women gospel ministers, and only very recently have Adventists opposed women’s ordination. Your future pastors are being taught that the Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts female gospel ministers, and that women’s ordination is the only biblical acceptable position.
Spiritual formation. I wish women’s ordination was the only objectionable thing taught at our seminary. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Spiritual formation and contemplative prayer are also taught in a required course for all seminarians. Spiritual formation has simply been renamed “Biblical spirituality.” In fact, one of the professors of that class stated (after jokingly asking if anyone was recording) that the purpose of the class is to teach spiritual formation to the seminarians. However, he said that they could not call it “spiritual formation” because that would make church members upset, so they named it “biblical spirituality.” Your future pastors are being taught spiritual formation and contemplative prayer at our seminary, and to promote those things to their church members.
Scriptural relativism. At our seminary, the faculty do not teach biblical inerrancy. In fact, the belief that Scripture is free of error is ridiculed. Critical ideas about the text have worked their way in (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the professor). Strange ideas (that are usually unsupported by a plain reading of Scripture) are “scholarly.” Scholars dwell so much upon one favored book that they miss context in the other books of Scripture. Unsurprisingly, rejection of biblical inerrancy and acceptance of women’s ordination are changing how Scripture is interpreted. There exists a degree of Scriptural relativism. The Spirit of Prophecy writings are not left untouched. They too are being reinterpreted to fit the new theological paradigm. Your future pastors are losing a high view of Scripture.
Required reading. The required textbooks in many of the classes also leave a lot to be desired. Before coming to seminary, I was naïve enough to think that our seminarians mainly studied the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy writings in preparation for pastoral ministry. I was wrong. We mainly study non-Adventist theologians and other non-Adventist writings. There are hardly any classes which include Scripture or Spirit of Prophecy writings as objects of required reading and study. We study more works by Adventist authors compared to Scripture or Spirit of Prophecy, but non-Adventist works still carry the most weight in our reading and study. If our members knew what their pastors were reading and studying in our seminary, I am sure many of them would not be pleased (and for good reason). I am embarrassed at what serves as reading and study material in our seminary. I am not saying that we should not read and study non-Adventist writings—that would be an extreme position. However, when the primary object of our reading and study is extra-biblical non-Adventist writings of poor biblical quality, it is no wonder when our theology becomes tainted. Your future pastors are mostly studying and reading the works of non-Adventist theologians and authors (much of which is at variance with Adventist beliefs) and encouraged to use them for sermon material after seminary.
Social justice. Social justice ideology is very much alive and well here. Many of the faculty and leadership of our seminary portray the United States is a very negative light. We are taught that the United States has always functioned as the beast power of Revelation 13. Comments are made about white students that would be considered inappropriate if directed at black students. I have seen professors apologize to the class for their “white guilt” and encourage the white students in the class to do the same. Another professor compared President Trump to Adolf Hitler and Adventists who voted for Trump to perpetrators of the Rwanda genocide! “Christian nationalism” (i.e., Christian conservatism and patriotism) is the enemy, and secularism is the answer. Your future pastors are being taught that the Bible commands them to support leftist social justice political movements and ideology.
Portrayal of church members. Church members (or “the laity”) are not usually portrayed in a very positive light. Before I write any more on this point, I want to point out a fundamental principle: in order for representative church governance to work, there has to be a level of trust between the leaders and the members they serve. Leaders must choose to be humble, to be servants, and to accept accountability from the membership they serve. Members must likewise be humble, accept accountability from leadership, and be willing to be helpful and supportive as necessary. If those walls are broken down, representative church governance will not work. Leadership will portray the membership in a negative light in order to justify centralizing more power in themselves. Membership will become frustrated with this and ignore the leadership or work to counteract it. Both sides have a role to play, but there has to be a level of trust and communication in order for the system to work properly. Ultimately, the membership is responsible for choosing the leadership and holding it accountable. The leadership is responsible for effectively and biblically governing our churches and institutions. No leader is entitled to his position or more important than the members he serves (in theory). Problems begin when the leadership decides that it is above criticism, or that it has a right to govern outside of biblical or membership accountability.
Unfortunately, our seminary fails to instill these principles into our future church leaders. I have witnessed a callous disdain for the membership. This is not only taught by faculty, but expressed by many of the students. I get it, some church members can be very difficult. Do not be that church member who gives their pastor unneeded grief. The problem, however, is not difficult church members. It is conservative congregations who oppose the new liberal theological paradigm that is being forced on them. That is what I hear faculty and future pastors of our church complain about. The leadership has decided that criticism is bad. After all, we are theologically trained, and the laity are not. As I heard one professor say, “we are up here (holds his hand up high), and they are down here (holds his hand down low).” The classes in our seminary actively encourage the future pastors to push change on their congregations, even (especially) if the congregation is opposed (again, I emphasize we are talking theological changes here, not the color of the carpet). Members, church boards, and elders who are critical of liberal theology are presented negatively as opponents of change. As for the pastors themselves, they are taught to always be compliant with conference leadership. Your future pastors are being taught that when membership tries to hold its leaders accountable, it is merely getting in the way, and that neither they nor the pastors should question or criticize conference leadership (unless that leadership is theologically conservative).
Disunity. Friends, these are trying times for our dear church indeed. There is very real division. Our seminary’s solution is to let the conferences and unions decide what works best for them (especially on women’s ordination). After all, we could all agree to be Adventists and simply adopt different theological positions. This is what the faculty and leadership of our seminary advocate for. The recent North Pacific Union Conference vote is just the tip of the iceberg. But would that bring true unity? A unity that would exist in name only? No, the real solution is a return to biblical faithfulness and truth. We desperately need biblical truth.
Friends, the faculty and leadership of our seminary are actively working to change our church from the inside out. They are the ones training your future pastors and church leaders. They are the ones primarily writing our church’s theology books and papers. The new Bible commentary (the Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary) is a good example. The academics of our denomination think they know best, and they are determined to change our church’s theology. They do not care what our church believes, what we vote, what church members say, or ultimately, what Scripture plainly teaches. They have an agenda to change our church and make it into their progressive image, and that is what they are training your pastors and church leaders to do. Friends, please pray for our church.
****
“Is the spirit of the Lord straitened? are these his doings? do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly?” (Micah 2:7).
