The Doctrine Of Creation

Endtime Issues No. 23

21 July 1999

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.

Professor of Theology, Andrews University

Dear Members of the Endtime Issues Forum:

The last newsletter on "The Crisis of Faith in Western Europe" generated an

unusual number of responses. Overall the comments were very positive. Few of you
expressed your disagreement on the very last section of the newsletter dealing with
Francis Schaeffer's comments on "Feminist Subversion." I quoted Schaeffer's comments
on the attempt of the feminist movement to promote "equality without distinction," because
this pervasive ideology is the driving force behind the women's ordination movement
outside and inside the SDA church. I will come back to this issue at the end of this
newsletter.

Let me assure you that I welcome your comments, whether they are
complimentary or critical. The fact that some of you commented on the very last section of
the lengthy newsletter, tells me that you read it all. For me it is encouraging to know that
many of you take time to read the whole newsletter.

This newsletter is devoted to the very theme of our current Sabbath School
Lesson, namely, the Doctrine of Creation. In many ways this is one of the most important
endtime issue that deserves our attention. The challenge of evolutionism to the Biblical
view of a divine creation of all the human and subhuman forms of life, is undoubtedly one
of the major causes of the crisis of faith that we discussed in the previous newsletter.

In this newsletter our focus will be on the importance and implications of the
doctrine of creation for our present life and future destiny. For Adventist the doctrine of
creation has enormous importance because it is clearly linked to the doctrine of the
Sabbath. If one falls the other falls as well. This helps us to understand why the Evil
One has made a determined effort to attack the doctrine of creation, because ultimately
such effort can undermine the doctrine of the Sabbath.

I trust that this Bible study will prove helpful especially to the many subscribers
who teach the SS lesson. I will not be able to post regular comments on the theme of the
Sabbath School during the next few months, because of my extensive traveling in North
America and overseas. Thus, I hope that this newsletter may provide some helpful
comments on the doctrine of creation.

Last Sabbath, July 17, we had an excellent SABBATH ENRICHMENT

SEMINAR at the Frederick SDA Church-one of the most magnificent churches in which I
have ever preached. The 7.5 million dollars church complex was built only a couple of
years ago and it provides ample facilities for the various ministries and activities. The
church was packed with visitors from the various area churches. A reason for the intense
interest was undoubtedly the recent attacks against the Sabbath by people like Dr.
Richard Frederick, former pastor of the Damascus SDA Church.

A good number people attended because they had learned about the seminar from
the announcement I posted in the last newsletter. This made me aware of the importance
to continue to post regularly a brief announcement of the forthcoming seminars.

AN AMAZING EXPERIENCE

In previous newsletters I have shared some encouraging experiences of the

rediscovery of the Sabbath by pastors of different denominations. Many of you have

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 1 of 11

expressed your appreciation for these update reports. This time I would like to relate an
experience that sounds almost too nice to be true.

A Belgian Benedictine monk, Ferdinand Poswick, Director of the Center for Biblical
Information at the Abbey of Maredsous in Belgium, ordered a copy of my dissertation
FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, when it first came out from the Pontifical Gregorian
University Press in 1977. Being impressed by documents and arguments which indicate
the continuity, validity, and value of the Sabbath for the Christian life today, Poswick
decided to contact me during his trip to America in 1982. He never anticipated meeting me
in Dallas at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.

At the Dallas meeting, Poswick shared with me his great desire to translate and
publish FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY into French if I would give him permission. He
felt that the book could contribute to the recovery of the biblical values of the Sabbath for
today. I was delighted to grant him permission, forfeiting royalties in view of the cost of
translation.

Poswick supervised the translation done by another Benedictine monk, Dominique

Sebire, who worked for almost two years on this project, producing a superb French
translation. The French title of the book is DU SABBAT AU DIMANCHE. Poswick and
Sebire did all of this as a labor of love, without receiving a cent of compensation from
anyone. They were inspired by the desire to help Christians rediscover the blessings of
the biblical Sabbath for today. They verbalize this desire in the Foreword which I do my
best here to translate from French into English.

"Did Jesus of Nazareth abolish the Sabbath? Paul, who was often accused by
his own Jewish brethren of many transgressions-was he ever accused of
Sabbathbreaking? Why then did Christians stop observing the Sabbath beginning from
the fourth century? Was it perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Jews and to
facilitate their integration in the rhythms and customs of the Constantinian empire?

"Doesn't Sabbathkeeping remain a very visible sign of the break that occurred
between carnal Israel and those who claim to be spiritual Israel? At any rate, should we
not prefer the sincere and truthful celebration of the Sabbath unto God to the pharisaism
of a paganized Sunday? [Isn't this a daring statement to make by Benedictine monks?]

"Some Christians, the Seventh-day Adventists, often considered as marginal

among the mainline denominations, do observe the Sabbath. One of their theologians
wished to verify the historical sources dealing with the change from the observance of the
Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. . .[biographical information about me follows]. For
the reflection of Christians we present this research that the author has adapted for the
American edition of his dissertation.

"May this thorough study stimulate biblical, patristic, and liturgical research,
challenging everyone to return to the sources, improve the methodology of research, and
reexamine afresh a truth [that is, the Sabbath truth] which the author presents with the
conviction of someone who has found in the celebration of the Sabbath a spiritual
enrichment which gives a special quality to his faith in the Resurrection and Return of
Christ."

Words fail to express my heartfelt appreciation to these dedicated Benedictine

monks, not only for giving unstintingly their time and skills to this project, but also for daring
to challenge Christians to "reexamine afresh" the values of the Sabbath which can bring
spiritual enrichment to our Christian life today. It is hard for me to believe that they
succeeded in having the French edition of my dissertation DU SABBAT AU DIMANCHE
published and distributed through Catholic bookstores. I can only thank God for making
this happen.

DU SABBAT AU DIMANCHE has been reprinted in America but is currently sold

out. I have only ONE personal copy left, so please do not ask me to part with it. In view

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 2 of 11

of the constant demand for this book from French speaking churches and countries, we are
planning to reprint it in the near future.

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION:

General Comments On Sabbath School Quarterly

The topic of the Sabbath School Quarterly, "God's Creation," is timely and
relevant to our Christian life. Perhaps no other Biblical doctrine has come under such fierce
attack during this past century as the doctrine of creation. For many creation is a myth and
evolution is a scientific fact. A medical doctor called me this afternoon to inform me that he
left the Adventist church largely because his "scientific" studies on the origin of the
universe have led him to reject his belief in a literal six days creation and the Sabbath. A
brother whom I had known in Rome, Italy, many years ago while studying at the Pontifical
Gregorian University, told me few days ago during my visit to Rome, that he no longer an
Adventist because his son, who is currently studying geology at Tubingen, Germany,
has persuaded him that the creation story is a myth which is irreconcilable with the
"scientific" findings of evolution. Incidentally, this brother attended all my presentations in !
Rome and has given me the email address of his son, whom he wants me to contact.

Conflict with Modern Science

The two examples cited represent the countless number of Christians who reject
the Biblical teaching of divine creation because they are unable to reconcile it with modern
scientific theories of origin. Current prevailing theories assume that it took millions of years
for the surface layers of the earth to be formed and for life to originate "spontaneously,"
evolving from simple, one-celled "ancestors."

To reconcile the various evolutionary theories with the creation account, some
well-meaning theologians interpret the creation week as meaning not six literal days, but
rather six ages of geologic time. Others prefer to view the creation week primarily as a
time during which God's creative activities and goodness were revealed to man.
Obviously these interpretations do away with the creation-Sabbath, simply because
they imply that God did not actually rest and sanctify a literal seventh-day.

The problem with scientific logic is that it refuses to be informed by divine

revelation. When a person insists on believing only what can be demonstrated in a
laboratory, he chooses to trace his roots DOWNWARD from biological specimens rather
than UPWARD from the image of God. Ultimately, this leads a person to believe in nothing
else but himself. The tragic consequence of such a philosophy is that it empties life and
human history of ultimate meaning, leaving both life and history with no divine beginning
or destiny. Life is reduced to a biological cycle which by chance alone determines its own
beginning and end. Thus the ultimate reality is not God but matter, which historically has
been viewed as eternal and evil.

The creation story with its Sabbath-memorial challenges this nihilism, urging each
generation, whether burdened with scientific facts or with mythological fantasies, to
acknowledge that this world is a creation and a gift of God entrusted to man, whose life is
meaningful because it is rooted in God.

Is it really necessary to be able to explain the creation week in the light of modern
scientific theories in order to accept the Sabbath as a creation ordinance? Has modern
science the know-how and the instruments to test and explain how long it takes to
"create" a solar system such as ours with its multiforms of life? We seem to forget that
science can observe and measure only the ongoing processes of CONSERVATION and
DISINTEGRATION.

In fact, modern science by assuming that these ongoing processes have always
functioned in the past essentially as in the present (uniformitarianism) excludes the
possibility of a divine fiat (spoken-into-existence) process. Thus, ultimately the problem
is not how to reconcile the creation-week with modern theories of origin, but how to

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 3 of 11

conciliate the Biblical teaching of a divine creation with the prevailing "scientific" theory of
spontaneous generation. Is it possible to harmonize the two? Obviously not, since the
two views rest on entirely different premises. The latter accepts only natural causes while
the former acknowledges God as the Supernatural Cause: "By faith we understand that
the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things
which do not appear" (Heb. 11:3).

If we accept by faith that God created this world, then why should we disbelieve
what He has revealed to us about the time He took to accomplish it? Someone could
object that the notion of God creating and resting according to the limitations of a seven-
day human week militates against His very eternal and omnipotent nature. It is evident
that Almighty God did not need geological ages nor literal days to create our world but only
the will to call it into existence (Ps. 33 :6).

But does not the fact that in His revelation God tells us that He chose a human
week rather than a divine time-schedule to create our world point to another equally
important quality of His divine nature: love? Is not God's willingness to enter into the
limitations of human time at creation a reflection of His concern to give a divine example or
perspective to the work-and-rest week of His creatures? Is not this also a prefiguration of
God's willingness to enter, if the need should arise, into human flesh in order to become
"Emmanuel," "God with us"?

To question the divine creation of our world in order to harmonize the creation-week
with modern theories of origins, means to reject not only the message of Genesis 1:1-2 :3,
but also its commentary given in the Fourth Commandment, which speaks of six literal
days of creation and one literal day of rest, sanctified by God when this world was
created (Ex. 20:11).

Importance of the Doctrine of Creation

The belief in divine creation is fundamental to the Christian faith. This is reflected
in the very opening statement of the Bible says: "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth," and in the first article of the so-called Apostles' Creed which
affirms: "I believe in one God the Father, all-sovereign, creator of heaven and earth."
Why is the belief in a divine creation fundamental for the Christian faith? Let us consider
three major reasons which I have outlined in the syllabus of my Bible doctrine class.
(Aren't you lucky that you do not need to recall them for a quiz? Please laugh!)

(1) Belief in Creation is the Basis of True Worship

To worship means to acknowledge and praise the worthiness of God. Would God
be worthy of praise if He had not originally created this world and all its creatures
perfectly? Could a person find reasons to praise a company that produced and sold him a
car full of mechanical defects? In the same way it would be hard to find reasons to praise
God if His original workmanship had not been perfect or if He had not been directly
responsible for our existence.

(2) Belief in Creation is the Basis for Belief in Redemption

Our belief in a divine creation determines our belief in redemption and final
restoration. The Biblical doctrine of redemption depends on the notion that God's perfect
creation was marred by human rebellion. To restore His creation to its original perfection
God implemented His eternal plan of redemption, which includes the incarnation and the
atoning sacrifice of His Son.

If originally God had not created this world and all its creatures in a perfect way,
why would He be concerned to redeem and restore this world to an original perfection that
never existed? If God was not personally responsible for our past perfect origin, why
should He take responsibility for our present salvation and ultimate restoration?

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 4 of 11

 The point I am trying to make is that Christians can hardly accept God's plan of
redemption for their lives and this world without first accepting the divine perfect creation of
this world. The reason is simple. Redemption presupposes a restoration to God's original
perfect creation. A person who believes that life began, not by divine CHOICE, but by
CHANCE in an imperfect way, can hardly believe that God so loved the world that He
gave His only begotten Son to restore the human and sub-human creation to an original
perfection that never existed. What all of this means is that to accept the theory of
evolution, ultimately means to reject not only creation but also redemption. It means to be
left without hope for our present life and future destiny.

(3) Belief in Creation Determines the Vision of Ultimate Restoration

The doctrine of the First Things, known in theology as etiology, determines the
doctrine of the Last Things, known as eschatology. This means that if God's original
creation was "very good," we have reason to believe that our life in the New Earth will not
differ substantially from God's original creation. If God created humans as physical,
heterosexual beings and declared it "very good" (Gen 1:31), we have reasons to believe
that what was good at the beginning will also be good at the End.

The failure to recognize this simple truth has fostered a misconception of the world
to come as a spiritual retreat center somewhere up in space, where glorified souls will
spend eternity in everlasting adoration and contemplation. If the new world Christ will
establish at His Coming is a place beautiful but unreal, a place where the solid joys of this
present life must be exchanged for a vague and ethereal existence of adoration and
contemplation, then it is not surprising that some dread the thought of Christ's Return. To
them the Second Advent means the end of their hopes for the thrills and excitements they
feel this present life has to offer.

The vision of a vague, ethereal paradise has been inspired more by Greek
philosophy than by Biblical teaching of an original perfect, physical creation. For the
Greeks the material components of this world were evil and consequently not worthy of
survival. The aim was to reach the spiritual realm where souls liberated from the prison-
house of a material body enjoy eternal bliss.

Both the Old and New Testaments reject this dualism between the material and
the spiritual. In the Old Testament the final salvation inaugurated by the Coming of the
Lord is not an ESCAPE from but a TRANSFORMATION and RESTORATION of this
world to its original perfect creation. The "new heavens and a new earth" (Is 65:17) are
not a remote and inconsequential world somewhere off in space; rather they are the
present heaven and earth renewed to their original perfection. "The wilderness becomes
a fruitful field" (Is 32:15) and "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb" (Is 11:6).

The Old Testament opens with the sevenfold proclamation that God's original
creation was "very good." The seventh day was divinely established as a memorial to
the perfection and goodness of God's creation. This vision of the peace, harmony,
material prosperity, and delight of the primordial Sabbath-Adam's First Day after his
creation-functions in Old Testament times as the paradigm of the Last Days, a common
designation for the world to come.

The New Testament vision of God's new world is basically the same as that of
the Old Testament. The New Testament authors do not speak of an ethereal heaven
where glorified souls will spend eternity wearing white robes, singing, plucking harps,
praying, chasing clouds, and drinking milk of ambrosia, but rather they speak of this planet
being purified, transformed, and perfected at and through the Coming of the Lord (2 Pet
3:11-13; Rom 8:19-25; Rev 21:1).

Paul speaks in Romans 8 about this present human and subhuman creation which
eagerly longs to be liberated "from its bondage to decay" (Rom 8:19-23). As in the Old
Testament, this new world into which we enter at the Coming of the Lord is not another

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 5 of 11

world, but it is this earth and this heaven, restored to their original perfect creation (Rev
21:1-4).

It is regrettable that this fundamentally earthly view of God's new world portrayed
in the Scripture has largely been lost and replaced in popular piety with an ethereal,
spiritualized concept of heaven. The latter has made well-meaning persons indifferent if
not resentful toward the Second Advent, since they mistakenly view such an event as
the end of their real life on this earth. An understanding of the Biblical doctrine of creation
provides a much needed corrective to the prevailing misconceptions of the world to come.

The Literal Days of Creation

Historically the days of creation have been understood as literal days. With the
coming of the new sciences of geology and paleontology which speak of the enormous
age of the earth, theologians have attempted to interpret the days of creation as geological
ages. Such an attempt ignores six major Biblical indications of the literal days of creation.

1. In the Old Testament "Day-YOM (Hebrew)" when accompanied by a numeral

number always means a 24 hours day.

2. The last three days which were controlled by the sun as described by the SAME
TERMS as the first three days.

3. The very wording indicates shortness of time. The tense use in Hebrews is a
vigorous imperative: "Become light and light became."

4. Each day has an evening and morning.

5. The green plants could hardly have survived the dark part of the third day, if that
consisted of long ages.

6. The commandment to keep the Sabbath as a memorial day of the creation-Sabbath

(Ex 20:11), presupposes a literal original Sabbath of 24 hours.

The Work of the Creation Week

A Definite Design. The work of the creation week reveals a definite design, with
each day preparing the work for the next. The whole culmination with the creation of man
and the celebration of the Sabbath as the completion and celebration of God's creation.

A Remarkable Symmetry. The work of the creation week reveals also a

remarkable symmetry between the accomplishments of days 1, 2, 3, and those of days 4,
5, 6. During the first three days God created spaces and during the next three days He
created inhabitants for those spaces. This can be illustrated with the following diagram:

Day 1: Separation of light from darkness = Day 4: Creation of lightbearers

Day 2: Separation of waters & creation of expanse = Day 5: creation of fowls & fishes

Day 3: Separation of water from dry land = Day 6: Creation of animals & man

DAY 7: CELEBRATION OF COMPLETION OF CREATION

The Seventh Day. The creation was "finished" on the seventh day with the rest
of God and the blessing and sanctification of the day. It is important to note that in the
creation story the function of the rest of God is cosmological and not anthropological, that
is to say, it is designed to express God's satisfaction over His complete and perfect
creation, and not to give a chance to Adam and Eve to relax.

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 6 of 11

 This point is indicated by the verb "SHABAT-rested" used in Genesis 2:2-3,
which means cessation and NOT relaxation. Literally translated Genesis 2:2 reads" "On
the seventh day God STOPPED." The anthropological function of God's rest is present
in Exodus 20:11 where the verb used is "NUAH-relaxed." The difference between the
rest of God in Genesis 2:2-3 and that in Exodus 20:11, is not evident in English Bibles,
because the two Hebrew verbs SHABAT and NUAH are translated in the same term
"rested." But in Hebrews the rest of God is Genesis 2:2-3 is a rest of cessation, to testify
in a dramatic way that creation was complete and perfect, while in Exodus 20:11, is a rest
of relaxation to serve as a model for mankind to rest on the seventh day.

Evolution Cannot Replace Creation

Spontaneous generation is impossible. The claim of evolution that life

originated spontaneously from inorganic matter runs contrary to reason. Even allowing for
billion of years, it is impossible to perceive how spontaneous generation could occur.
Matter and energy cannot have evolved out of nothing. Personal, rational beings cannot
have evolved from impersonal forces or objects, especially when one considers the
complex design of the human body. The doctrine of creation remains an imperative to
understand the beginning of this world with its multiforms of life.

Evolution contradicts Biblical teachings. The evolutionary theory clearly

contradicts the biblical teachings of a personal God who created both human and
subhuman species after their own kind. The Bible pictures humans as beginning perfect
and then deteriorating as a result of the influence of sin. By contrast, evolution depicts
humans as evolving from a brute, primitive condition to the present condition of civilized,
rational existence. If it were true humans beings are evolving biologically and rationally,
how can we explain the senseless wars of the twentieth century that have destroyed
more human lives and property than all the wars of human history combined?

Traditional evolution is being discredited today. The foundational pillars of

evolution such as natural selection, survival of the fittest, transmission of acquired
characteristics, have been largely discredited by new theories such as the "big bung"
theory. The latter maintains that the conditions conducive to the origin of life came together
suddenly as a result of a cosmic explosion. This theory may be closer to the Biblical
account of creation, but remains inadequate, because it fails to explain how our complex
cosmos could derive from chaos, personal-rational beings from impersonal-irrational matter.

Implications of the Doctrine of Creation

This world is good. Creation teaches us that this world is good, because God
created it good: "God saw . . . it was very good" (Gen 1:31). The presence of evil does
not negate the essential goodness of this world and our right to enjoy it. The Christian
faith is not a world-denying faith, but a world-affirming faith, because it believes that God
created this world perfectly, has redeemed it completely, and will restore it ultimately.

Physical life is good. The reason is that God made it good. Gender distinctions
are good because God made them "very good" (Gen 1:31). Delighting in the goodness of
God's creation is appropriate, because it is designed to satisfy not only our basic needs
but also to provide pleasure. God has filled this world with things that are not only useful
but also beautiful. The hues of the
flowers, the plumage of the birds, the fur of the animals, the beauty of the human body
with its lovely cheeks, dainty lips, and sparkling eyes-these things are of the nature of
ornaments, because they are superadded to what would be merely useful. God could
have designed all the
fruits and vegetables to be green, but He chose for them to exist in a variety of colors so
that they would give us not only food but also beauty. I am surely glad that tomatoes are
red so that I can enjoy a nice red tomato sauce on the pasta or pizza. I doubt that most
people would find a green tomato sauce equally appetizing.

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 7 of 11

 Intellectual life is good. Modern science originated in the Western world when
people began to believe that the present world is worth investigating, because it is the
good and orderly creation of God. The ancient Greeks and Eastern Religion saw little
value in exploring the visible world, because they believed that the real world was to be
found above and beyond the empirical world. Unfortunately this mentality infiltrated
Christian thought to the point that during the first fifteen centuries Christian thinkers were
more interested to debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, rather
than exploring the mysteries of the cosmos around them and within them.

Technological progress is legitimate, because it fulfills the will of the creator

who said: "Fill the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth" (Gen
1:28-29). Discovering the secrets of the world above, around, and within us, means to be
doing the will of God. For a Christian who believes is a Creator-God, originator and giver
of every good thing (Jam 1:17), the benefits of science and technology are an indication of
the work of God through the work of man.

The history of this world has meaning, because God is working out in history
His creative purpose for the beginning and end of this world. The Sabbath as the
memorial of God's perfect creation, offers to the believers the constant assurance that this
life has meaning and hope, because it is rooted in God from creation to eternity.

Social concern is legitimate. The Christian concern over poverty, ignorance,

disease, inequality, war is legitimate, because the Christian is working with God to restore
this world to its original perfection.

Idolatry is wrong. Creation teaches that nothing is to be worshipped in this

world as God, because everything was created by God. Idolatry is the commitment of
oneself to something other than God. Faith in a Creator condemns idolatry and liberates
us from the danger of worshipping creatures or human creations, rather than the Creator.

Conclusion. The doctrine of creation is foundational to the Christian faith in general

and to the Seventh-day Adventist faith in particular. To belief that this earth with its
multiforms of life originated not by CHANCE, but by the CHOICE of a living, loving
Creator, means to recognize His power to redeem us, to judges us, and ultimately to
restore us to the creational perfection memorialized by the Sabbath. The Sabbath is
closely linked to creation because through this day the Lord invites us to renew our faith in
Him as our perfect Creator and complete Redeemer, and ultimate Restorer.

A CLARIFICATION ABOUT WOMEN'S MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH

Several members of our newsletters, have contacted me to express their

disagreement over my position on the role of women in the church to which I alluded in the
final paragraphs of the last newsletter. I welcome your constructive criticism, but I do not
appreciate the warnings I received to stay out of the women's ordination issues, because
this may destroy any positive contribution my ministry is making to the Adventist church.

Frankly I feel that such a warning is uncalled for, because as Bible believing
Christians we have a right and a responsibility to examine the issues we face today in
the light of Biblical teachings. It is a known fact that the push for women's ordination is
one of the critical issues facing the Christian world today. It affects not only the Christian
churches in general, but also the Adventist church in particular.

In view of our Adventist commitment to the normative authority of Scripture, we

have a solemn obligation to study and discuss together what the Bible teaches on the
role of women in the church. It is unfortunate that an open, frank, calm, and respectful
discussion of this sensitive subject has not been possible in recent years.

About 10 years ago the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference
asked 20 scholars, representing equally the pro and con views of women's ordination, to

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 8 of 11

prepare papers on various aspects of this subject. I was assigned the topic of
"Headship and Submission" on which I worked for three solid months producing a 40
page paper. Unfortunately none of the 20 papers were read or discussed. Instead at a
special meeting held at Cahutta Springs, the General Conference President decided to
push for a political solution, by allowing for the ordination of women as local elders but not
as pastors. Such a compromise solution has proven to be unacceptable to all parties,
engendering endless controversies.

I have no desire to open the discussion in this context. Those of you who are
interested in my research are welcomed to request a copy of my book WOMEN IN THE
CHURCH: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH. We
would be glad to mail you a copy. Incidentally numerous theological seminaries have
adopted the book and the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church has translated it in Chinese
for their seminary in Taiwan. You are welcome also to request my lengthy review (150K)
of the pivotal chapter of WOMEN IN MINISTRY, a symposium produced by pro-
ordinationists, mostly teachers from the SDA Theological Seminary. You will find that a
thoughtful reading of this paper will help you to understand what are the real issues that
we are facing today.

The only thing I would like to clarify in these final remarks is the prevailing
misconception that those of us who, for Biblical reasons, cannot support the ordination of
women to the male headship role of elder or pastor, are against the ministry of women in
the church. A dear sister wrote to me a passionate message, urging me to understand that
women can fulfill a vital ministry in our churches today in view of the many broken homes,
single parents, abused children.

Such an appeal was totally unnecessary, because I fully concur that if ever there
was a time when the ministry of women was needed, such time is today as we face
unparalleled marital, family, and social problems. Women who have been trained
theologically and in counseling skills can provide a vital healing ministries to our churches,
homes, and community.

Let there be no doubt that the issues is not ministry. On this point we are all in full
agreement. If you read my book WOMEN IN THE CHURCH you will find that I am
pleading for a larger ministry of women in the church. Furthermore, women who are
engaged in full-time church ministry should be paid on the same basis like men. Financial
discriminations should be eliminated.

The issue is not ordination either, because for Adventists ordination is not a
sacramental rite like in the Catholic church. For Catholics ordination invests a priest with
almost "magic" powers to perform, among other things, the miracle of transubstantiation.
For Adventist ordination is simply a commissioning to serve the church in a certain
capacity. This means that women who serve the church in various ministries of
counseling, visitation, Bible studies, preaching, music, education, etc, should be
commissioned like men with the laying on of hand.

On this point we have a clear guidance from Ellen White who wrote: "Women
who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be
appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor.
They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands" (REVIEW &
HERALD, July 9, 1895).

The Real Issue

What is the real issue then? Simply stated the real issue is role distinctions. God
has created men to serve as fathers and women as mothers. These distinctive and
complimentary roles apply to the home and to the church because the church is an
extended family, often referred to as "the household of God." It is as simple as that.

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 9 of 11

 The issue then, is not, Should women minister in the church? On this point, as
mentioned earlier, we are all in full agreement. Rather the issue is, Should women be
ordained to serve in the headship role of elders or pastors in order to minister in the
church? The answer of Scripture, according to my investigation, is abundantly clear.
Both in the Old and New Testaments women were precluded to serve as priests, elders,
or pastors, not because they are inferior or less capable than men, but because these
offices entail the headship role of a spiritual father and not the supportive role of a spiritual
mother.

This does not mean that the church does not need spiritual mothers. The contrary
is true. As a home without a mother lacks that tender, loving care that only mothers can
give, so a church without spiritual mothers lacks that warmth, care, and compassion that
spiritual mothers can best give. Summing up, my understanding of the Biblical teaching is
that men and women are equally called by God to minister in the home and in the church,
but in different and yet complementary roles.

The application of the Biblical principle of role distinction entails that women be
commissioned to serve the church in different and yet complimentary roles. As we make a
distinction between the office of a male deacon and that of a female deaconess, so the
church should distinguish between the office of a male elder and a female "elderess" or
"shepherdess." In other words, men should be ordained to serve as spiritual fathers and
women as spiritual mothers.

Feminists strongly reject such a distinction, viewing it as discrimination. They

clamor for the elimination of role distinctions and for the ordination of women to serve in the
male-headship role. We noted in the last newsletter that Francis Schaeffer warns that
"equality without distinction is destructive to both men and women because it does not
take into account their true identity and their distinctives as well as the commonalties that
are bound in what it means to be a man and a woman."

It is hard for me to understand why some Adventists are bent on eliminating role
distinctions in the church. In some countries like Italy, they go as far as calling women by
the masculine name "ANZIANO," which means, "MALE ELDER." The feminine name
would be "ANZIANA." In Latin languages like Italian the ending vowel differentiate the
masculine from the feminine. For example, MARIO is masculine and MARIA is feminine.

Why do they call women "MALE ELDER," though it is a grammatical absurdity?

Simply because they want to make the point that the woman has been ordained to serve
in the male headship role. Feminists are determined to eliminate the Biblical role
distinctions in the home and in the church. In my view the dangers of the elimination of role
distinctions are both theological and practical.

Theologically, the role interchangeability model encourages the blurring or

elimination of the creational role distinctions God assigned to men and women. This trend
should be of special concern to Seventh-day Adventists who are deeply committed to
uphold the integrity of the doctrine and order of creation, as we have studied in this
newsletter.

Contrary to some churches which interpret the creation story as a mythological or

allegorical expression of an evolutionary process which extended over millions of years,
the Seventy-day Adventist Church accepts as factual the account of the six days of
creation. The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is viewed as a perpetual
memorial to the perfection of God's original creation.

If Seventh-day Adventists were to adopt the role interchangeability model which

is contrary to the creational roles assigned to men and women, I believe this would
gradually erode confidence in the validity of the doctrine of creation and of the Sabbath
commandment itself.

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 10 of 11

 Practically, the blurring or elimination of the creational role distinctions between
men and women accelerates the rate of divorce, the breakdown of the family, and the
acceptance of lesbianism or homosexuality as a legitimate optional life-style. It is
noteworthy that some of the denominations which decided years ago to ordain women,
are now ordaining homosexuals and lesbians. Ellen White warns against the danger of
seeking a "sphere" different from that assigned by God at creation.

Referring to Eve Ellen White writes: "She was perfectly happy in her Eden home by her
husband's side; but like restless modern Eves, she was flattered that there was a higher
sphere than that which God had assigned her. But in attempting to climb higher than her
original position, she fell far below it. This will most assuredly be the result with the Eves
of the present generation if they neglect to cheerfully take up their daily duties in
accordance with God's plan. . . .
A neglect on the part of woman to follow God's plan in her creation, an effort to
reach for important positions which He has not qualified her to fill, leaves vacant the
position that she could fill to acceptance. In getting out of her sphere, she loses true
womanly dignity and nobility" (3 Testimonies 483-484).

Summing up, my study of the relevant biblical texts shows that both male-female
equality and role distinctions, properly defined, are part of God's creation design for the
harmonious functioning of humanity. God created the man and the woman perfectly equal
in their moral worth and spiritual status, but clearly distinct in their biological and functional
roles. Simply stated, in the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and
woman, God created man to function in the servant headship role of husband/father, and
women in the submissive role of wife/mother. These distinctive roles apply equally to the
home and to the church, because from a biblical perspective the church is an extended
spiritual family, often referred to as "the household of God" (Ph 2:19; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet
4:17; Gal 6:10).

A REMINDER: If you have found this newsletter informative, be sure to tell your friends
that they also can receive it free of charge. As a result of your promotional efforts, over
6500 persons have already subscribed to this newsletter.

Contact Information

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.

Professor of Theology and Church History
Andrews University
4990 Appian Way, Berrien Springs, MI 49103
Phone (616) 471-2915 Fax (616) 471-4013
E-mail: sbacchiocchi@qtm.net or sbacchiocchi@csi.com
Web site: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com

Endtime Issues No. 23 Page 11 of 11