Archive for the ‘Good News for Adventists Magazines’ Category

THANK YOU DR FORD
Dear Des
My family and I were thrilled to see you again and attend the recent Conference at Albany, NZ. Thankyou so much for coming to Auckland and ministering the words of life to us.
Some of the questions Ritchie read out to you were mine, so let me thank you also for your helpful answers. Ritchie is doing an amazing job and so is GNU. Thank you for founding this international ministry and the way you have defined the good news over the fifty years I have known you. You are a faithful and loving witness to the Lord. I struggle to express how you have enriched my faith journey.
I bought a copy of In the Heart of Daniel and am really appreciating it. The Milton Hook biography is true, revealing and a most absorbing account of your life and of the struggles we all went through for so long. There’s a sense in which we can almost say, It’s our story too—if you don’t mind!
Des, you’re a friend forever. We are solid in our warm appreciation of you and your family, and wish you many blessings!
R. W.

Editorial Note: Before the first anniversary of its publication, almost all copies of Milton Hook’s biography of Dr Desmond Ford are already sold. Arthur Patrick offers this personal reflection for those who have read the book or may yet wish to do so.
The good ship Adventist set sail for the Eternal Harbour on 23 October 1844, under new colours with the temporary guidance of people like Methodist farmer Hiram Edson. Its early officers were a former man-of-the-sea, Joseph Bates, and a remarkable organiser-expediter, James White. Its principal mapmaker was the young Ellen Gould Harmon, now better known as Mrs James White. One hundred and sixty-five years is a short time, in terms of Christian history. We are understanding Adventist history better, especially since Richard Schwarz wrote the first overview of it produced by a trained historian in 1979; revised and updated under the title, Light Bearers, in 2000.
‘History Wars’ are often fought by secular historians; such conflicts can even happen in the arena of religious history. Some historians have so troubled Adventists, that we marginalised their work or decided they were dangerous heretics who must be reassigned or even sacked.1
Back in 1831, Samuel Taylor Coleridge whimsically stated, ‘If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us!’ Ellen White was far more positive when she said, ‘We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord hasled us, and his teaching in our past history.’
Coleridge also expressed a lament in the passage just referred to. He warned that when we ‘do’ history, ‘passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!’2 Are we mature enough in 2009 to put the lantern on the bow of the good ship Adventist? A test case could be Milton Hook’s biography of Desmond Ford published by Adventist Today Foundation (2008).
The potential quality of Dr Hook’s research is well illustrated by the doctoral thesis he wrote at Andrews University (1978). That work shows his thoroughness as well as his ability to walk on eggshells without breaking them.
But let’s turn our attention to the biography more closely. It takes many years to write a substantial history. Every major theme residing in the substratum of the Ford biography has engaged Hook’s thinking for decades.
Good sources are imperative for the writer of history. Dr Hook is a painstaking detective who has explored more sources about Ford’s life than any other researcher. Some of what he discloses is, therefore, qualitatively new. Some of it is startling. I found his text fresh, to the point that I didn’t want to put it down. Indeed, I completed the first reading of his four hundred pages in less than a day. However, one test of a good book is whether it makes us want to return to it for further reading and careful reflection. This biography has done that for me. It helps us relish history if its narrative is carried forward on waves of human interest
It helps us relish history if its narrative is carried forward on waves of human interest. Ford’s name is known quite widely in Adventism and beyond. Through his biography we can meet and greet him at depth, along with many others who offer a context within which to understand his life: his Mother, Gwen, Gill, his three children, examples of his friends and a few of his enemies. Some of these personalities leap to life from the pages, as in the case of Robert Parr. I wish I could write like Parr did, as quoted in the text!
To be memorable, history needs to address issues of significance. Here Hook’s book shines. The biggest single issue is how the followers of the One who is both grace and truth should treat each other. The Australian phase of the ‘trial’ of Desmond Ford is a powerful case example of how not to implement Christian principles or Australian law.
The issues of significance are also theological. A wide range of related disciplines cry out for attention: Near Eastern Studies, especially Jewish history, literature, and even more specifically, Old Testament prophecy and apocalyptic. Exegesis of Leviticus and Daniel; New Testament Studies—especially the Olivet Sermon of Jesus; 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews and Revelation and issues in the longer history of Christianity. The Reformation in relation to Romans and Galatians; Adventist history and thought and much more. Dr Hook is able to walk briskly through this vast terrain as he narrates Dr Ford’s long struggle to put the pieces of the Adventist jigsaw together coherently.
So to summarise: Effective history must evidence deep reflection with careful and wise use of sources, including special care with oral history. Biography, if it is to be read, needs human interest. If a book is to last, it must address issues of significance. But I have only mentioned some of the book’s features that merit thorough exploration and analysis. I will list only two more criteria in this connection.
If the subject matter includes tensions, the author must be able to deal with these appropriately. Note how I apply a Paul Johnson quote in an article, ‘Recent Tensions in Seventh-day Adventism.’3 Tension can help us toward more effective understanding, if we relate to it maturely.
Finally, good history requires a sense of balance. I’ve written other reviews of the book that are out in the public sphere. I sent one of them to Dr John Knight of the University of Queensland, an academic who may have examined more doctoral theses on Adventism than any other Australian scholar. Dr Knight sent me back a telling piece on world hunger. Yes, with all our weighty ideas and deep discussions, let’s remember we live in a world that desperately needs Good News. Jesus would, I think, still say to us, ‘Give ye them to eat.’ Sometimes physical nourishment, always the Gospel of grace culminating in the message of Hebrews: ‘Let us the approach the throne of grace with confidence,’ Hebrews 4:16.
The bottom line is that the Hook book on Ford is not only a good read, its good history and much more. It has the potential to help us put the lantern of history on the bow of the good ship Adventist.
—Arthur Patrick, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Avondale College.

Endnotes:
1. See ‘Historians of Adventism: Their Agony, Ecstasy and Potential,’ sdanet.org/atissue.
2. See my paper, ‘Twenty-five Years After Glacier View: Using the Lantern of History, Anticipating a Brighter Future,’ Adventist Today website.
3. See the Avondale College webpage for higher degree students or GOOGLE ‘Contextualising Recent Tensions in Seventh-day Adventism.’

In recent years I have observed friends of mine agonising over their roles as women in Christian leadership. I empathised with some who felt subtly rejected by male colleagues. I laughed and cried with some at the ridiculous situations they found themselves in. I debated theological issues with others as they grappled with whether ordination or eldership were legitimate for them, and I shared the anger of some at the sheer injustice of it all.
But at the same time, I reflected on my own relatively smooth passage as a woman in various leadership and teaching roles in church, mission and Bible college spheres. I can honestly and gratefully say that I have felt accepted as a person and encouraged to exercise my ministry in the settings I’ve been involved in.
I say this at the outset to indicate that I am not coming to this topic from a position of personal frustration or anger. As a matter of fact, I have been somewhat pushed into the arena of debate by the friends described above and by students, who have asked me what my ‘position’ is on the role of women in Christian leadership and ministry.
I believe that women are free to be, and to do, everything for which God has called and equipped them. And it is my observation that God has equipped and called women to a wide variety of roles, including those of pastor, elder, teacher and leader.
Having stated my conclusion in my introduction, let me now outline the principles which have guided my thinking! I trust that even if your conclusion is different from mine, you will read on and consider these guiding principles for yourself. In my opinion, not one of these principles should be taken in isolation to ‘prove a point’ but the whole picture should be allowed to emerge.

Creation
First of all then, some principles relating to creation. Genesis 1:26-28 makes it clear that God’s original creative intention was that man and woman be equally bearers of his image and jointly responsible for the tasks given them, ‘… in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them and God said to them …’
The Genesis 2 account of creation goes on to describe male and female roles as complementary. This is not a ‘unisex’ view which denies difference. Nor is it a hierarchical view which implies dominance. The words in Genesis 2:18, ‘1 will make a helper fit for him’, have, I think, often been misunderstood. The word translated helper is the same word often used in Scripture to describe God our helper (Psa. 46:1-2)—obviously not a description of inferiority. The word fit for has the meaning of corresponding to.
The picture then is of uniqueness, yet complementarity. If this is indeed God’s intention for men and women, it seems to me we have spurned God’s wise intention where we have only one sex (male or female) involved in positions of decision-making and leadership. Do we presume to know better than the Creator how the fullness of his image may best be conveyed?
Another principle arising out of the creation narratives occurs in the story of the fall. Here, in Genesis 3:16, we have the first reference to dominance of the male over the female: ‘… your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.’ A moment’s thought about the context of this verse should be sufficient to make clear that this is not a statement of what should be, but a sad pronouncement of one of the consequences of disobedience and sin. Yet I have heard this verse quoted as justification for the submission of women to men!
Surely our aim is not to perpetuate the results of the fall, but to restore humanity to God’s creative intention.

Christ
Secondly, let us consider some principles arising from the life and ministry of Christ. It is well attested in the Gospels that Jesus accepted the partnership and ministry of women at all stages of his life. Let us not overlook the fact that God sent his Son into the world through the body and trustful obedience of a woman (Luke 1:38). Throughout his ministry, Jesus welcomed the companionship and support of women who travelled with him along with the other disciples (Luke 8:1-3).
At the time of his crucifixion there were faithful women who ministered to him (Matt. 27:55) and watched at the tomb (Matt. 2:61), and it is surely no coincidence that the supreme message of Christianity, ‘He is risen!’ was entrusted to women for proclamation to the disciples (Matt. 28:6-7). The women, after all, were the first to see the risen Lord and believe (Matt. 28:9). Jesus, of course, not only accepted ministry from women, he also ministered to them. In fact, Jesus, as a Jewish male, was extremely radical in his approach to women. Even his closest disciples found his attitude and actions hard to understand (John 4:27).
The Gospels are full of evidence that Jesus saw women as people to be respected and related to without any hint of condescension or superiority. He cut across many Jewish cultural and religious practices by talking theology with a Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42), singling out a woman for healing on the Sabbath, (Luke 13:10-17) touching and talking to an ‘unclean woman’ (Mark 5:25-34), compassionately responding to the deepest needs of a woman the Jewish law would have condemned to death (John 8:1-11) and holding up as an example the love and faith of a despised prostitute (Luke 7:36-50).
In several of these incidents Jesus also spoke strong words of rebuke to men who objected to his radical stance. Twentieth Century women are not the first to have encountered strong opposition from men seeking to preserve what they see as ‘the truth’. Jesus, who said, ‘I am the truth’, must surely be our supreme example in these matters.

Culture
A third heading under which to consider biblical principles regarding women is culture. Although cultural factors have already been alluded to in Jesus’ behaviour, it is in the writings of Paul that this issue is most evident.
Unlike some, who struggle with Paul’s apparent narrowness on the issue of women in leadership, I regard Paul as a progressive thinker for his time. His statement in Galatians 3:28 must have sounded outrageous to Jewish ears. Every Jewish male was taught to thank God in all sincerity that he was not ‘a Gentile, a slave or a woman’. Against that background, imagine the impact of Paul’s assertion: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’
Historically, the outworking of this statement is in its third phase I believe. The barriers between Jew and Gentile were being broken down in Paul’s own time, as Christianity’s true message of equality before God took hold. The abolition of slavery took nineteen centuries longer to be realised on any major scale, and again, Christians were active in pointing out God’s love and justice for all. I suggest that we are now in the period of history where the truth of oneness in Christ for male and female is dawning on society—both secular and Christian.
As was true in the two previous phases, Christians align themselves with both sides of the debate. With hindsight, those in earlier centuries who were reluctant to accept the radical changes called for by the concept of oneness in Christ for Jew and Gentile, slave and free, now seem very misguided. Are we able to see the attitudes of our own era as clearly, I wonder?
Paul, it seems, practised what he preached. He not only stated the equal status of men and women as a Christian principle, he also worked alongside women and referred to them as fellow workers (Phil. 4:3; Rom. 16:3), deacons (Rom. 16:1) and possibly in one case, as an apostle (Rom. 16:7: The Greek form of the name Junias may be feminine, though no case can, or should, be made on this basis alone.).
He clearly approved of women praying and prophesying in public worship, or else he would not have found it necessary to give instructions as to how they should be attired while doing so (1 Cor. 11:5; see also Acts 21:9).
Progressive as Paul was in his thinking and in his behaviour, he was sensitive to his culture and suggested certain restraints appropriate to particular settings. For example, uneducated women who were desiring to learn, were not to disrupt worship services by chattering or asking questions during the service (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11).
Nor were Christian women to take their new-found freedom to extremes and offend others by ignoring seemly dress (1 Cor. 11:6) or by overstepping the bounds of courtesy and commonsense in arrogantly seizing authority, for which they were not yet equipped (1 Tim. 2:12. Note that the word translated authority implies inappropriate domination. It is not the general New Testament word for authority.).
I am aware that, in the previous paragraph or two, I have expressed my interpretation of some of the thorniest biblical passages regarding the role of women. There is insufficient space here to elaborate all the reasons leading to these conclusions. Readers will have to do their own homework!

Controversy
In relation to these much debated passages, however, there is an important principle regarding controversy.
It is this: Most of the controversy over the role of women in leadership is confined to three passages, all of which have been briefly referred to above (1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:33-35; 1 Tim. 2:8-15). In each of these passages there are particular difficulties of interpretations recognised by biblical scholars. We should surely be cautious about building a case on three problem passages. At the same time, however, it should be said that these very passages do, in fact, repay careful study in the light of the culture and language of the day. (For helpful discussions of these passages I recommend two books: Woman Be Free, by Patricia Gundry; Women at the Crossroads, by Kari Torjsen Malcolm.)

Consistency
In any controversial issue it is important that the principle of consistency be maintained. First of all, this applies to consistent application of the principles of biblical interpretation. Let me give two examples.
The principle of understanding words in the original language-e.g., 1 Cor. 14:34: ‘The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate.’ The Greek word be subordinate has the sense of self-control, rather than submission to others. (This may be middle voice [submit on your own behalf] or passive [be submitted]. The sense is ‘submit yourself’). It is the same word used in verse 32 of the self-control required of those who prophesy.
The principle of balancing Scripture with Scripture: Paul does say strong words to insubordinate (uncontrolled) women who wield authority inappropriately. But he has equally strong words to say to men who display the same characteristics, ‘For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach’ (Titus 1:10-11).
Consistency touches Christian practice as well as biblical interpretation. For example, how consistent are we in our encouragement of all believers to find and exercise their spiritual gifts? Are those who would restrict the ministry of women in danger of teaching, that all gifts are given by the Spirit who ‘apportions to each one individually as he wills’ (1 Cor. 12:11), and then preventing women exercising their gifts if they happen to be gifts of preaching, teaching or leading?
Then again, how consistent is it to refuse women the right to lead or teach in our Western churches and then send them to do the very same things ‘on the mission field’? Or how about those (men or women) who will not accept spiritual teaching from a woman speaking in person, but will read books or listen to tapes in which the same teaching is given by women?
The principle of consistency deserves more careful attention than it has yet been given in discussions regarding the role of women in ministry.

Character
Ultimately, women and men who seek to understand and communicate Christian perspectives on the ministry of women, will be credible only if their lives demonstrate the final principle—that of Christ like character.
There are differences of opinion. There are difficulties of interpretation. There are varying, yet strongly held convictions. Can we not, in the midst of these, treat each other with the respect, patience and love, which were so characteristic of Christ?
—Sheila Pritchard, who served on the staff of the New Zealand Bible College (now Laidlaw College) in Auckland, gave us permission to reproduce her article which appeared in the College’s magazine, The Reaper.

What would the status of women be in the Western world today had God not entered the world in the flesh of his Son Jesus Christ?
One way to answer this question is to look at the low status women still have in Islamic countries. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, women are not even permitted to drive automobiles, and in the Koran a man is commanded to beat his wives physically if they are disobedient (Sura 4:34).
When one looks back in history before and at the time of Christ, women, similar to Islamic countries today, also had very little freedom and dignity. They were seen as evil, inferior, unclean, unequal and kept silent. Numerous statements in ancient literature attest to this biased cultural perception. I shall cite only a few examples.
Women as Evil
Reflecting Greek culture, Homer (Eighth Century B.C.) wrote, ‘One cannot trust women’ (The Odyssey). The Greek playwright Euripides (d. 406 B.C.) said, ‘Women were the best devisers of evil’ (Medea). Tacitus the First Century Roman, pictured women as dominating and cruel (Annals). Among the Hebrews, Jesus, son of Sirach, (Second Century B.C.) stated, ‘From a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die’ (Ecclesiastus).

Women as Inferior
The Greek physician, Hippocrates, (d. 377 B.C.) argued, ‘The female is less perfect than the male.’ Aristotle, (d. 322 B.C.) the philosopher, asserted, ‘The female is as it were a deformed male’ (Generation of Animals). Because woman was seen as inferior, Roman culture placed her under the law of patria potestas and manus, which gave man total control over his daughters and wife. During the rabbinic or oral law era (ca. 400 B.C – c.a. 200 A.D.), the Hebrew wife was obligated to wash her husband’s face, hands, and feet (Kethuboth). A Hebrew prayer declared, ‘Blessed [art Thou] who did not make me a woman’ (Menahot).

Women as Unclean
The belief that women are unclean was present in virtually all cultures, for instance, among the Hindus of India, the Caribs of British Guiana, many North American Indian tribes, Eskimos, and others. And it was also a common perception among the Greco-Romans and the Hebrews. Women’s perceived uncleanness was the result of their monthly menses, which led to their being deprived of many freedoms and privileges. The Hebrew Talmud, for instance, has an entire book titled Niddah that largely deals woman’s menstrual uncleanness.

Women as Unequal
Compared to men, ancient cultures gave very unequal treatment to women. Married men were commonly permitted to have extra-marital-sexual relations, but not so for married women. This double standard was lamented by a Greek wife in one of Euripides’ plays. She said, ‘If a man grows tired of the company at home, he can go out and find a cure for tediousness. We wives are forced to look to one man only’ (Medea). The Roman law Lex Julia issued by Caesar Augustus (d. A.D. 14) stated that a wife had no right to bring charges against her husband when he committed adultery. However, a wife who committed adultery was punishable under patriapotestas, often resulting in her execution. Similarly, among the Hebrews adultery was defined in terms of woman’s marital status, not a man’s.
Women’s unequal treatment was also evident in not having the right to speak in public. The rabbinic oral said it was ‘shameful’ to hear a woman’s voice in public (Berakhoth). Homer had Telemachus rebuke his mother Penelope for speaking in public. He told her, ‘speech is only for men’ (The Odyssey). The Greek playwright Sophocles (d. 406 B.C.) wrote, ‘O woman, silence is an adornment to women’ (Ajax). In 215 B.C. the Roman men were upset when women gathered in the Roman Forum to ask that the Oppian Law be repealed. In response, Cato said, ‘Could you not have asked your husbands the same thing at home?’ (Livy, The Founding of the City).

Jesus Gave Dignity and Freedom to Women
One could cite many more examples of how women in the ancient world were denied freedom and dignity. This was the world that Jesus entered. And how did he respond? His interaction with women shows he rejected the ancient-prejudicial beliefs regarding women.
When a woman with an issue of blood touched his garment, he was not shocked; nor did think he had now become unclean. Instead, he told her, ‘Your faith has made you well’ (Mark 5:34). He honoured women when he taught them theology. He told Martha, ‘I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me shall never die’ (John 11:25-26). He taught Mary in the Mary-Martha account (Luke 10), and he also taught theology to the Samaritan woman (John 4:9-29). As a result of this incident, his disciples ‘marvelled that he talked with a woman.’ They knew Jesus had clearly violated the rabbinic oral law, which said, ‘Let the words of the Law be burned rather than committed to a woman . . .’ (Sotah), and Hebrew men in Jesus’ day were also taught, ‘One is not as much as to greet a woman’ (Berakhoth).
All three Synoptic Gospels mention that women followed Jesus. Such behaviour ran counter to the ancient practices concerning women, but Jesus did not chide them for their behaviour. And just after Jesus rose from the dead, he told the women who had come to the open tomb, to go and tell his disciples he had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:10). John’s Gospel tells us that Peter and John also came to the open tomb. So why did Jesus not tell them to go and tell the other disciples? Why did he choose the women to tell his male disciples? The answer is not hard to see, especially when one remembers that he so often came to the defence of the deprived and oppressed. In choosing the women to tell the disciples, he in effect, brought to mind his own words spoken on another occasion, ‘But many who are first will be last, and the last first’ (Matthew 19:30).
Jesus also rejected the ancient idea that adultery was determined by a woman’s marital status, when he said that whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery (Matthew 5:28). The marital status of a woman was irrelevant. Sex outside of marriage violated God’s will, not a man’s property—his wife.

Christianity Implements Jesus’ View of Women
As apostolic Christianity spread, it gave women freedom and dignity unknown to the ancient world. It did this not only by baptizing and admitting women to the Lord’s Supper—equal to men—but it also gave them leadership roles. St. Paul notes that Apphia ‘our sister’ was a leader in a house-church in Colossae (Philemon 2). In Laodicea there was Nympha who had ‘a church in her house’ (Colossians 4:15), and in Ephesus, Priscilla was one of Paul’s fellow workers (Romans 16:3). Phoebe was a key female leader in the Church in Cenchreae, where she was a deacon (not deaconess) and a leading officer (Romans 16:1-2). Paul also said Euodia and Syntyche ‘laboured with him in the gospel . . . and the rest of my fellow workers’ (Philippians 4:2-3).
Christ’s influence had numerous effects that benefited women. Unlike the pagan Greco-Romans, the early Christians valued baby girls as much as boys. St. Paul commanded husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25). Women obtained bridal freedom by being able to accept or reject male suitors. In A.D. 374, the Emperor Valentinian I (a Christian) repealed the old patria potestas law that gave the husband the power of life or death over his wife and family. And in time, even the veiling of women ceased. In India, the British in 1829 influenced by Christian values, outlawed suttee (widow burning), and in China, with the efforts of Christian missionaries, the cruel practice of binding the feet of young girls was outlawed in 1912.
With these revolutionary changes for women, one is reminded of one scholar’s poignant words, ‘The birth of Jesus was the turning in the history of women.’ Another has noted, ‘Whatever else our Lord did, he immeasurably exalted womanhood.’ Yet neither Christ nor the early Christians ever preached a political revolution. Rather, it was Christ’s example that his followers reflected in their relationships with women, establishing their dignity, freedom, and rights to a level previously unknown in any culture.
To be sure, given the sinful nature of human beings there were times that some erring Christians ignored, or even violated, the standards Christ and his apostles accorded women. But in time the freedom and dignity Christ bestowed on women continued to unfold in the Western world. Thus, one can unequivocally state, that women have attained the greatest amount of freedom and dignity where Christianity has had the greatest presence, and they have attained the least freedom and dignity where Christianity has had little or no presence. Soli Deo Gloria.
—Printed with permission of ASSIST News Services.

It is hard to find a good wife, because she is worth more than rubies. Her husband trusts her completely. With her, he has everything he needs. She does him good and not harm for as long as she lives. She looks for wool and flax and likes to work with her hands. She is like a trader’s ship, bringing food from far away. She gets up while it is still dark and prepares food for her family and feeds her servant girls. She inspects a field and buys it. With money she earned, she plants a vineyard. She does her work with energy, and her arms are strong. She knows that what she makes is good. Her lamp burns late into the night. She makes thread with her hands and weaves her own cloth. She welcomes the poor and helps the needy. She does not worry about her family when it snows, because they all have fine clothes to keep them warm. She makes coverings for herself; her clothes are made of linen and other expensive material. Her husband is known at the city meetings, where he makes decisions as one of the leaders of the land. She makes linen clothes and sells them and provides belts to the merchants. She is strong and is respected by the people. She looks forward to the future with joy. She speaks wise words and teaches others to be kind. She watches over her family and never wastes her time. Her children speak well of her. Her husband also praises her saying, ‘There are many fine women, but you are better than all of them.’ Charm can fool you, and beauty can trick you, but a woman who respects the Lord should be praised. Give her the reward she has earned; she should be praised in public for what she has done.

The way men have treated women throughout history is nothing to boast about. The gospel is our only hope.
The Bible’s first prophecy (which foretells future conditions in a fallen world), says that women will be subject to unceasing sorrow and oppression (Gen 3:16).
In a sinful world, both sexes must endure pain and sorrow. But the prophecy says that because of cruelty born in men’s hearts due to the Fall, women would suffer the most.
Will Durant said, ‘It was a man’s world, legally, socially and morally.’1 Though he was speaking about England in the late Eighteenth Century, his statement is true of all time, and everywhere. It is said that man’s, greatest sin is ‘his inhumanity to man.’ Surely, man’s inhumanity to woman is his greatest sin.2

The Gospel brings progress
Because of the Christian gospel there have been slow but sure changes in the way society regards and treats women. Some progress has been made. The New Testament is revolutionary, but just: ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28 NRSV).
Paul’s statement does not deny the scriptural teaching that women and men, though equal, are distinct in nature and gifts. Sexual apparatus is not the only difference between the sexes. Much of the charm, beauty, joy and danger of life exists because the hormonal nature of women is so different and richer than that of men.
Scripture is not opposed to the teachings of modem feminism when those teachings strive for what is right—equality. But Scripture opposes those teachings which seek to deny sexual differences.

First example
Let me give you two examples of how women are treated. They serve as illustrations of how women have suffered throughout history.
A front-page headline in the Dallas, Morning News said: ‘Ritual Slaying Exemplifies Cultural Chasm in Mideast’. In a village on the West Bank, a thirty-six-year-old woman, unmarried, was found to be pregnant. Her father choked her to death (she chose this over beheading). The father announced this death to the three hundred villagers.‘ I have washed this stain from my family,’ he said. The men shook his hand and congratulated him.
Contrary to Islamic law, the corpse was not washed or shrouded. No one said prayers over her. She was dumped into an unmarked grave. All her possessions were burned, along with all pictures of her. She ceased to exist.

Second example
Robert Hughes offers some insight into the ‘romantic’ prelude to Australian aboriginal matrimony in the Nineteenth Century:
In the obtaining of a female partner the first step they take, romantic as it may seem, is to fix on some female of a tribe at enmity with their own …. The monster then stupefies her with blows, which he inflicts with his club, on her head, back, neck and indeed every part of her body, then snatching up one of her arms, he drags her, streaming with blood from her wounds, through the woods, over stones, rocks, hills and logs, with all the violence and determination of a savage, till he reaches his tribe.3
Hughes continues, ‘The unalterable fact of their tribal life was that women had no rights at all and could choose nothing … both before and after [marriage], she was merely a root-grubbing, shell-gathering chattel.4

An invisible History
It is almost impossible for us in the Twenty-first Century to imagine how bad the life situation for women has been throughout history. It is not the simplest thing to even gain information on this topic.
Not too long ago, I worked in a library containing thousands upon thousands of books. I was staggered to discover, as I reviewed works of history and sociology, how rarely this topic is included. Traditionally, most books have been written by men, so this issue is not a favourite theme. There are, of course, glorious exceptions.
Most people are familiar with Helen Keller. Many are unaware that in her childhood it was practically unknown for women to attend college. One biography says, ‘For the first time in the history of the world, women had been admitted to Oxford as equals to men, only a very short time before Helen’s birth. Not until 1894 had Radcliffe College in Cambridge, America, been open for girls.’5
This inequality in education was also true of most other areas of existence, including the right to live, to own property, to separate from a husband and to vote.
How many contemporary young women are aware that only in this century has the right to vote become commonplace for women? Were it not for the news media, many would not know that in nations such as Saudi Arabia, women are not permitted to drive, or appear in public without a veil. And all this in the Twenty-first Century!

Marriage and Sex
Often the worst unfairness is in sexual relationships and marriage. Adam Smith wrote: ‘In every society where the distinction of ranks has once been completely established, there have always been two different schemes or systems of morality at the same time; one of which may be called the strict or austere, the other the liberal, or, if you will, the loose system. The former is generally admired and revered by the common people, the latter . . . more esteemed and adopted by what are called people of fashion.’
These two systems usually find their chief exemplification in the opposite sexes. Durant says of the Nineteenth Century, ‘The double standard flourished. A thousand bordellos served tumescent men, but those men branded female unchastity as a crime, which only death could atone.’6
Of the Eighteenth Century Durant says, ‘In Boswell’s own circle it was taken as quite ordinary that men should occasionally go to a prostitute. In the aristocracy—even in the Royal Family—adultery was widespread. The Duke of Grafton, while chief minister, lived openly with Nancy Parsons, and took her to the opera in the face of the Queen. Divorce was rare; it could not be obtained except by an act of Parliament, and as this cost ‘several thousand pounds’, it was the luxury of the rich; only one hundred and thirty-two such grants were recorded in the years 1670-1800.’7

Divorce
From Old Testament times to modern times, as a rule, only men had the right to divorce. Only in this century, after five millennia of supposed civilization, has there been a widespread change in this inequity. Divorce is a calamity. Yet it is an amputation that at times, sadly, must be performed to avoid death.
Often, conscientious persons foolishly fulfil one duty at the cost of sacrificing another. Is it true a wife has a duty to remain at the side of her husband, even if he constantly menaces her very existence? God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). God hates murder even more. If a wife has to divorce her husband to save her own life, so be it.
Many husbands have so abused their wives that divorce is but a gentle reprimand compared to what they deserve. My male ego was shattered and my ideals were affronted when I was studying background on certain Nineteenth Century English characters. I read it was perfectly legal, then, for a man to regularly beat his wife. However, the stick he used was to be no thicker than two fingers combined.

Home and family
Where God does not dwell in the heart, the devil does. The heart, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Not one of us is free in the absolute sense. We serve either one supernatural master or the other.
Either our Maker and Redeemer have been brought within our heart, or we have no control over the natural, tumultuous passions of unregenerated being. Too often anger, cruelty, and lust rule the life that doesn’t know God, though the specific passions depend on our individual personality.
Remember, only in our own day has domestic rape been recognised as a crime; yet it has been an almost universal practice for millennia. Man has, throughout history, used his superior force selfishly to wreak his animal lust upon his spouse, regardless of her desires in the matter. It is a great wonder to me that more men have not been poisoned by their spouses.
The condition of home and family is the best reflector of the state of society. One reason we can give for civilisation’s rapid deterioration is the breakdown of home and family. Multiplied divorce, parallel domestic problems, adolescent suicide and drug addiction, all rip at the fabric of society.

Polygamy
History gives other illustrations of the difference between men and women. Wherever a culture has not professed Christianity, polygamy has prevailed. Harems in some cultures were perfectly legitimate. How many cultures do you know where a woman kept a string of men as sexual partners? Women are usually more inclined to monogamy. Men by nature before conversion seem to be polygamous, whether they practice polygamy or not.

War
War is another example. How many great wars have been triggered by the devices of women? How many new wars would begin if the final decision was made by women?
It is appropriate, while thinking of war, to ask about the result of masses of men living together (in the military) without the ameliorating influence of mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters. Those who have lived in military units know the answer well. The tendency to moral deterioration usually prevails.
We like to think that only the enemy is guilty of torture and rape during war. The conclusive facts of history testify otherwise. And what is true of men in wartime, is in general true of men in peacetime society. Males need the softening influence of the other sex.

Superiority
Male pride has inadequate grounds for its pretensions of superiority. In heaven’s view, physical forcefulness ranks very low. High moral calibre is best reflected in kindness, unselfishness and genuine religiosity. Measured by this standard, woman is often supreme in society. The New Testament witnesses that not one woman spoke against Christ. Women have always vastly outnumbered men in following Christ.
Male claims to natural superiority are frequently false. The masculine boast of superior vitality does not match the death statistics. In the United States, the average widow outlives her spouse by nearly twenty years.

Christ our pattern
Has this article stooped to the folly of suggesting the female of the species is comprised of angels in human form? No. Women too are fallen creatures. They were made the highest and can fall the lowest. Lilies fester worse than weeds.
This article is a reminder: the signs of a fallen world and fallen human nature are cruelty, oppression, greed and inequity. These signs have been seen through all history in the relationship between the sexes. Only in Christ can the situation be put right.
• It is impossible for a truly Christian man to remain unmoved by the injustices done to women throughout all of human history.
• The Christian man’s ideals will transcend those of secular chivalry.
• He will think of the divine love that invented sex, and thus provided for matrimony and motherhood.
Christ, who numbered many women among his disciples, in his last agonies remembered and provided for his mother. In his resurrected glory he tarried on earth to minister to a weeping Mary.
Here, as in all else, Christ is a worthy pattern for all his followers.

Endnotes:
1. Will Durant, Rousseau and Revolution, p. 730.
2. I am speaking of other than the source of all sin: our neglect of God. To neglect God, who has given us life, abilities, and all good things, is truly the greatest sin.
3. Robert Hughes, Fatal Shore, p.15.
4. Ibid. p. 16.
5. GW and Anne Tibble, Helen Keller, p. 66.
6. Will Durant, Rousseau and Revolution, p. 731.
7. Ibid, 731-32.

Adam, in Paradise, was introduced to three levels of relationship. The first level was man with the animals (Gen. 2:19-20). This is a relationship in which man is master and the animals are the servants. The second level was man with woman (Gen. 2:18, 21-25). This is a relationship in which man and woman are equal. While Adam was created first, woman was created best—she was the crowning act of God’s creation. The third level was man and woman with God. This is a relationship in which God is Lord and people are his servants.
But the echoes of Eden’s gates slamming shut had hardly died away when ‘Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah’ (Gen. 4:19). Thus began the downhill slide for the female gender. And, apart from a few brief enlightened periods in history, it has remained that way ever since.
Not too long ago in Great Britain there were gentlemen’s clubs that were the exclusive domain of males. And there were sports that women were not permitted to participate in. A game invented in Scotland was ruled ‘Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden’, and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.
During the First World War, women in New Zealand were hired by banks for the first time, but they were not permitted to serve customers. It wasn’t until the Second World War that they were allowed to act as tellers—but only because there was a shortage of male staff. We view such things with superior bemusement today, overlooking the fact that women still do not have equal status with men and we continue to justify why they shouldn’t.
At the Indianapolis General Conference Session (1990) I heard Conference Presidents pleading for the right to ordain women in ministry, as Ellen White had been ordained. They had senior women pastors who could not conduct baptisms because they were not ordained, yet their ordained male assistants could, and these women leaders were receiving a smaller salary than their male assistants for the same reason.
Unfortunately, the majority vote of the conservative nations, encouraged by the General Conference President, Neale Wilson, went against equal status for women in the Western Church. With the passing of time, however, this unfortunate decision was skirted by the Church in the West by implementing a quasi-ordination called ‘commissioning.’
It has been argued by conservative Christians that because Jesus had only male disciples, our ministers should only be males. However, if this argument were valid, a case could also be made for the fact that ministers in the church should only be Jews, because Jesus did not choose any Gentiles to serve as his disciples. Jesus chose only men as his witnesses, simply because women at that time had no credibility with the public.
Jesus did, however, elevate women. There were, in his team of helpers, Mary (called Magdalene); Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna and many others. These women were helping to support Jesus and his disciples out of their own means (Luke 8:2-3).
Also, when Jesus rose from the dead, the first person he appeared to wasn’t Peter, James or John, but Mary Magdalene. It is highly significant that Christ should choose the voice of a woman to herald the beginning of the new age—even though the rest of the disciples, conditioned as they were by their culture, refused to give any credence to her words.
In Christ’s eyes, at least, the New Age should be a place where women are given the respect they deserve, for, in his kingdom the gifts of the Spirit are not gender specific.

—Ritchie Way

CHARISMATIC OR PENTECOSTAL
Dear Ritchie
Re. your editorial and comments on ‘Charismatics’ in the March 2008 Good News for Adventists about which I rang, but you were away (in Mel-bourne I think).
I was in the Leadership of the Charismatic movement, most particularly in the U.C.A. of Southern NSW & Victoria, so I know something about Charis-matics. Yes, we made our mistakes, but what part of the Church is error-free? None that I know of.
If, in your editorial, you were referring to A.O.G., C.R.C. and Apostolic, then these are Pentecostal, not ‘Charismatic.’ Christian Outreach Centres, while claiming to be Charismatic, have caused the mainstream movement a lot of problems. The Revivalists and C.C.C. are ‘neo-Pentecostals’ but both are aberrations and have also created a lot of problems.
By the way, the Charismatic movement is finished.
Yours in Christ
G. B.

Dear G.
Thank you for your letter. It is appreciated, but would leave a lot of readers, who are not familiar with your terminology, quite confused. Most evangelical Christians would not know the difference between Pentecostal Christians and Charismatic Christians and it is for that reason that I used the more common term, Charismatic, to cover the whole ‘Spirit-filled’ movement. I hope my attempt to simplify did not complicate the issue.
Ritchie.

HOW LONG IS A DAY?
Dear Ritchie
I refer to your answer to M. & G.S. in the June Good News for Adventists ‘Mailbox.’
You state there that the word ‘day’ in Genesis 2:4 is the same word that is used in Genesis 1:5. What you did not mention, however, is that the word day (yom) in Genesis 2:4 has a preposition which it does not have in Genesis 1:5. This preposition requires the Hebrew word yom to be translated ‘when.’ Another example of this use is Numbers 7:10 & 84.
Brown, Driver, and Briggs say in their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ‘Rather than translating [the Hebrew] in Genesis 2:4 as ‘in the day of’ a more concise English equivalent would be to render it as ‘when’” as the NIV does.
I read in Exodus 20 that God wrote, with his own finger, ‘Six days you shall labour and do your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God … for is six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.’
Those words are just too plain and so straight forward I must disagree with your conclusion, ‘his work of creation cannot be limited to just seven literal days.’
Christian greetings
R. D.

[This letter has been abridged].
Dear R
You insist that when the Hebrew word for day (yom) has a preposition it must be translated ‘when.’ This preposition does not require yom to be translated ‘when’, it merely permits it to be translated ‘when.’
The word ‘when’ is a dynamic translation of the word, while ‘in the day’ is a formal translation. Some formal translations that choose the word ‘day’ are the King James Version (AV); Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, the Amplified Bible, and the New American Standard Bible.
Abundant blessings
Ritchie.

THE ESSENTIAL GOSPEL
Hi Richie
In the mail section of the December 2007 Good News for Adventists, I read a letter from a man who was invited to an Adventist church after a period of absence and still did not feel very comfortable there. I thought I might add to your excellent advice after having a similar experience myself. We tried the Seventh Day Baptist Church but soon found that congregation to be very legalistic, although the break from Ellen White was wonderful. We went back to the SDA Church and the SDA congregation was very welcoming and friendly, though we were decidedly uncomfortable with the lack of gospel in the sermons.
We then decided to try the Baptist Church where the gospel is proclaimed every week. Our family is very impressed and feels very much at home there. Like any church we are not perfect, but the fact that we admit this to each other is a long way from hiding from the truth and claiming to be a perfect church.
I sometimes wonder if it is because the gospel is not given priority in SDA churches, that you find more sour faces there than in churches where people understand the gospel.
Kind regards
J.

Hi J
Thankfully, many of our ministers and leaders are beginning to give the gospel priority in their ministry. We should uphold these men and women in prayer.
Blessings
Ritchie.