!" $%&" !%%&!' ()$* (!+,'-./ !',*"0/ 1-,2&"-1/ !

"2 ()0&"21
$( -3& 1&4&"-352!. !24&"-01- -3&$'$60+!' 1&*0"!).

-$ (!+,'-. $( -3& 1&4&"-352!. !24&"-01- -3&$'$60+!' 1&*0"!).
)&6!)20"6 -3& )&+&"- 1&*0"!). 1-!-&*&"- $" -3&
,"07,& 3&!2130% $( +3)01- 0" -3& +3,)+3
%89:;<=9
0n August 21, 2u14 the Seventh-uay Auventist Theological Seminaiy voteu to appiove a
statement that affiimeu anu explaineu in uetail "that Chiist is the only Beau of the Chuich
(Eph 1:22; S:2S; Col 1:18)." The next uay the online euition of the !"#$%&'(& *$#'$+ publisheu
an aiticle about the Seminaiy statement anu concluueu that the faculty hopeu the Anuiews
statement woulu help enu some uivisions among chuich membeis anu woulu "piove to be
a unifying influence in the chuich."

The aiticle hau a link to the actual uocument which iesulteu in this statement becoming
wiuely known. The ieactions to the uocument have been mixeu, with some appioving,
otheis uisappioving, anu still otheis expiessing uoubts. Insteau of unifying chuich
membeis it seems that the uocument has biought confusion in iegaiu to the Biblical view
of Chiist's heauship anu its implications foi leaueiship unuei Chiist in the chuich.

This appeal offeis the views anu concein of some cuiient anu ietiieu seminaiy faculty,
seminaiy alumni, stuuents, anu fiienus who uisappiove of vaiious aspects of the statement
on the unique heauship of Chiist. It uiges the faculty to ieconsiuei theii statement anu
aujust it so that it consiueis the full biblical counsel on this subject anu be in haimony with
the vital Piotestant anu Auventist piinciple of "the Bible anu the Bible only."
%8><=9;:?@A :8BC;9D?E
The iecent Seminaiy statement points out that uou's moial goveinment is baseu on love. In
the gieat contioveisy between Chiist anu Satan, this goveinment of love is most cleaily
contiasteu with the oppiessive contiol that has manifesteu itself especially in the
uevelopment of the histoiic antichiist, the vast stiuctuie of chuich goveinment seen in the
Roman Catholic Chuich. We fully agiee about the uangei of this unbiblical heauship mouel
of the papacyin which the heauship of Chiist is ieplaceu with that of the pope as the vicai
of Chiist, the Son of uouanu its apostolic succession.
Bowevei, we neeu to be caieful not to pioject this uistoiteu Catholic mouel onto the
Seventh-uay Auventist Chuich. Although in some iegions of the woilu the Auventist
leaueiship may uemonstiate a ceitain authoiitaiianism, this is not the seivant leaueiship
mouel that has been taught in anu by the chuich anu is piacticeu in many aieas. We fully
agiee that Chiist's heauship is absolute. Bowevei, the aiguments in the Seminaiy uocument
to suppoit Bis heauship iole aie at times pioblematic, giving iise to seiious
misunueistanuings anu confusion.
While we concui that Chiist's heauship is absolute, foi eveiy knee shall bow to Bim as King
of kings anu Loiu of loius (Rom 14:1u-11; Phil 2:1u-11), we see the neeu to iecognize that
Sciiptuie is cleai that Chiist has uelegateu leaueiship iesponsibility foi Bis chuich to
ministeis anu elueis as unueishepheius in Bis steau with Bis authoiity. We question the


2
following aiguments the Seminaiy statement uses to suppoit the iuea that the heauship of
Chiist is non-tiansfeiable.
1. The Seminaiy statement aigues that the inteipeisonal ielationship within the Tiinity is
not a mouel foi a goveinmental stiuctuie foi human leaueiship within the Chuich (p. 4).
Reply: 0n the contiaiy, the Bible points to this ielationship in salvation histoiy within the
Tiinity as a guiue foi the chuich, even in its leaueiship. }esus ueclaieu that the ielationship
between Bis followeis shoulu iesemble the ielationship existing between the Bimself anu
the Fathei (}ohn 17:21-2S). In a similai way, in 1 Coiithians 11:S Paul paiallels the
ielationship male believeis have to Chiist with the ielationship that Chiist has to the
Fathei, employing the concept of heauship within the uouheau anu between men anu
women in the chuich: "But I want you to know that the heau of eveiy man is Chiist, the
heau of woman '( man, anu the heau of Chiist '( uou" (NK}v).
1

Beie the Bible teaches that heauship anu submission aie piinciples of heaven belonging to
the uouheau, anu that on eaith human beings have been cieateu to ieflect these piinciples
because they beai the image of uou. This issue of heauship has impoitant implications foi
the chuich. In this passage Paul iefeis to the piinciple of heauship to auuiess a pioblem
iegaiuing the way that men anu women woiship in the chuich (1 Coi 11:4, S, 16). Be is not
auuiessing ielations between husbanus anu wives in the home as we finu in Eph S. In both
contexts, Paul bases his instiuctions on the pie-Fall ciicumstances of uen 2 (see 1 Coi 11:8-
9; Eph S:S1), not the cultuial noims of Coiinth oi of the uieco-Roman woilu. In 1
Coiinthians 11, the heauship of Chiist anu that of uou the Fathei foim the pattein foi the
heauship of the man-woman ielationship in the chuich, just as Chiist's heauship in ielation
to the chuich foims the pattein foi the heauship of husbanu to wife in the home in
Ephesians S:2S-24. Since the context of 1 Coiinthians 11 is cleaily the chuich anu not the
home, this passage is significant foi oui unueistanuing of genuei ielationships in the
chuich.
2. The Seminaiy statement aigues that neithei the Sciiptuies noi the wiitings of Ellen u.
White enuoise any tiansfei of the iole of heau in the home to ioles within the Chuich bouy
(p. 4).
Reply: The Bible uses the pattein of leaueiship in the home as a mouel anu qualifiei foi
chuich leaueiship. When we use the Piotestant anu Auventist piinciples of Biblical
inteipietation foi foimulating uoctiine by compaiing Sciiptuie with Sciiptuie, we uiscovei
that theie is an intimate connection between leaueiship in the home anu leaueiship in the
chuich (see esp. 1 Tim S:S, 1S). Towaiu the enu of his life, Paul manuates the necessaiy
qualifications foi male elueis, who aie to be the leaueis of the chuich, to oveisee its
opeiations. In two sepaiate instances he points out that one of the ciucial qualifications foi
this iole is that the chuich neeus successful, pioven leaueiship in the home fiist (1 Tim S: 4,
S; Titus 1:6). 0nly those who uemonstiate successful leaueiship of theii homes woulu
qualify foi the office of oveiseeiministei to seive the chuich in loving leaueiship. The
home is the smallest unit of the chuich, anu a gouly, loving fathei in the family inuicates
eligibility foi being a gouly leauei in the chuich. Accoiuing to Paul, being the spiiitual heau
of the home (Eph S:2S) is inueeu the key that ueteimines if one is suitable foi spiiitual
leaueiship in the chuich because the chuich is a collection of families who come togethei
foi woiship on a weekly basis.


3
Ellen u. White also makes this point that shepheius who fail at home will fail as
shepheiusministeis of the chuich: "Be who is engageu in the woik of the gospel ministiy
must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a fathei he shoulu impiove the
talents uou has given him foi the puipose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly
family, as that in the woik of the ministiy, he shoulu make use of his uou-given poweis to
win souls foi the chuich." She continueu, "As the piiest in the home, anu as the ambassauoi
of Chiist in the chuich, he shoulu exemplify in his life the chaiactei of Chiist. Be must be
faithful in watching foi souls as one that must give an account. . . . Be who fails to be a
faithful, uisceining shepheiu in the home, will suiely fail of being a faithful shepheiu of the
flock of uou in the chuich.6NR 49" (PaN 88, 89).
S. The Seminaiy statement aigues that heauship in the Chuich is unique to Chiist anu is
non-tiansfeiable (p. 4).

Reply: As we have seen above, though the heauship of Chiist is inueeu unique (i.e., special),
unique heie uoes not mean singulai, oi only. }esus cleaily calls some people to leaueiship
in the chuich. What, then, uoes the statement mean by "non-tiansfeiable" heauship.
Ceitainly we all agiee that the iole of Chiist as the only meuiatoi between uou anu humans
is non-tiansfeiable. The question that ieally neeus to be answeieu though is this, "In what
way uoes Chiist iule oi leau the chuich." The Bible shows that in the opeiation of the
chuich, Chiist as the uieat Shepheiu, uelegates some authoiity to Bis unueishepheius who
meet specific biblical qualifications. Some examples of such leaueis unuei Chiist aie Noses,
}oshua, Baviu, the Twelve Apostles, Paul, Bainabas, Timothy, Titus, anu the elueis
appointeu by these leaueis in eveiy newly establisheu chuich. These elueis weie
unueishepheius. The apostle Petei cautioneu these them, "Shepheiu the flock of uou which
is among you, seiving as oveiseeis, not by compulsion but willingly, not foi uishonest gain
but eageily; noi as being loius ovei those entiusteu to you, but being examples to the flock;
anu when the ,-'$. Shepheiu appeais, you will ieceive the ciown of gloiy that uoes not
faue away" (1 Pet S:2-4, emphasis supplieu; AA S2S, S26).

The ielationship between Chiist anu the elueisoveiseeis is that of the Chief Shepheiu to
the unueishepheius. These leaueis ieceive theii authoiity fiom Chiist unuei whose
authoiity they function in accoiuance with Bis woiu. Chiist uelegates leaueiship authoiity
in the chuich to these officeis. Ellen White shows the ielationship between Chiist anu Bis
oiuaineu leaueiship as follows, "The gieat Beau of the chuich supeiintenus Bis woik
thiough the instiumentality of men oiuaineu to act as Bis iepiesentatives" (AA S6u).
Elsewheie she states, "Chiist iemains the tiue ministei of Bis chuich, but Be uelegates Bis
powei to Bis unuei-shepheius, to Bis chosen ministeis, who have the tieasuie of Bis giace
in eaithen vessels. uou supeiintenus the affaiis of Bis seivants, anu they aie placeu in Bis
woik by uivine appointment" (ST, Apiil 7, 189u). This uoes not usuip the unique iole of
Chiist as the only meuiatoi between uou anu humans (1 Tim 2:S), which Paul makes cleai
befoie setting foith instiuctions on chuich woiship anu chuich leaueiship (1 Tim 2:8-
S:1S).

In the Seminaiy statement, the heauship of Chiist in ielation to the heaushipleaueiship of
the New Testament offices is not caiefully piesenteu. Chiist's heauship is piesenteu in such
a way as to uownplay any authoiity ministeis may have as Bis chosen iepiesentatives. But,
as Ellen White points out, Paul iuentifies these (along with himself) as Chiist's ambassauois


4
(see 2 Coi S:2u): "Since Bis ascension, Chiist the gieat Beau of the chuich, has caiiieu
foiwaiu Bis woik in the woilu by chosen ambassauois, thiough whom Be speaks to the
chiluien of men, anu ministeis to theii neeus. The position of those who have been calleu of
uou to laboi in woiu anu uoctiine foi the upbuiluing of Bis chuich, is one of giave
iesponsibility. In Chiist's steau they aie to beseech men anu women to be ieconcileu to
uou" (uW 1S). Ambassauois caiiy the same authoiity as the peison they iepiesent. To
oveilook the New Testament eviuence foi this authoiity (e.g., 1 Coi 9:18; 2 Coi 1u:8, 1S-14;
1S:1u; 1 Tim S:17; Titus 2:1S; Beb 1S:17; see also AA S6u) leaus to incoiiect conclusions.

In the New Testament Chiist's uelegateu authoiity was not centeieu in any one peison. The
apostles uiu not appoint a single leauei foi the chuich, but a pluiality of leaueis as they
"appointeu elueis in eveiy chuich" (Acts 14:2S). Alieauy in the 18Sus, Auventists iealizeu
the neeu foi cieuentialeu ministeis (see EW 97-1u4). By 186S in the face of uiveigent
peisonalities anu fanatics, they senseu the neeu foi even moie "gospel oiuei," anu gave
authoiity to an electeu leauei. In no way was this "piesiuent" to iesemble the antichiist
powei, yet they iealizeu that the chuich, foi oiganizational anu functional ieasons neeueu
soliu leaueiship.

In time Auventists have accepteu the concept that the highest authoiity on eaith is not
vesteu in inuiviuuals oi small committees but in the voice of the ueneial Confeience
session when all the uelegates thioughout the woilu aie assembleu. Yet this uoes not uo
away with leaueiship authoiity in the local chuiches at vaiious levels of chuich
oiganization. Elueis have spiiitual teaching authoiity as oveiseeis, accoiuing to the New
Testament (1 Tim 2:12; S:2; 4:11; Titus 2:1S; Beb 1S:7, 17, 24).
4. The Seminaiy statement aigues that no inspiieu wiitei teaches the heauship of man ovei
woman at Cieation. It contenus that befoie the fall, uou establisheu an egalitaiian iueal of
full equality without hieiaichy between male anu female, anu that the Bible consistently
calls us back to this iueal (p. S).
Reply: The Seminaiy statement neglects veiy impoitant aspects in this uiscussion of genuei
ielationships. Theie aie cleai inuications in both the Bible anu the wiitings of Ellen White
that Auam hau a leaueiship iole befoie the entiance of sin, one that continueu aftei the Fall,
because both aie cieateu in the image of uou. This view is in haimony with the plain
teaching of the apostle Paul with iegaiu to the equal value of men anu women as heiis of
salvation (ual S:26-29). Bowevei, the expiession "in the image of uou" invites us to iecall
that at Cieation Chiist, as the Son of uou, hau alieauy taken a position that incluueu
functional uiffeiences fiom uou the Fathei. Be was committeu to the function of the Lamb
of uou that was to take away the sins of the woilu in the futuie by Bis ueath on the Cioss (1
Pet 1:2u; Rev 1S:8). Functional uiffeiences weie also ieflecteu in uou's oiiginal uesign of
the ielationships between male anu female as the iest of the Cieation stoiy ieveals.
In uenesis 2 the Bible shows the uiffeient functions of Auam in ielation to Eve. Again theie
is equality of natuie anu essence because Eve was cieateu fiom Auam's iib, inuicating that
she was to stanu by hei husbanu's siue as an equalnot to be infeiioi oi supeiioi (PP 46).
Yet the chaptei uesciibes the functional uiffeiences of the couple by showing the piioiity of
man being foimeu fiom the uust (uen 2:7); how uou put the man in the gaiuen anu gave
instiuctions to him "to tenu anu keep it" (2:1S); how uou gave the commanu conceining
what he coulu eat (2:16) anu the waining about the foibiuuen tiee (2:17). Then uou


5
biought the animals anu biius to Auam anu gave him the iesponsibility of naming them
(2:19). Finally, uou cieateu a woman fiom Auam's iib anu "biought hei to the man" (2:21,
22), giving to Auam the piivilege of also naming his companion (2:2S). Fuithei, uou
inuicates that, in the maiiiage ielationship, the man is to take the initiative by leaving his
family anu being joineu to his wife (uen 2:24; Natt 19:4-6). At this time Eve consiueis
Auam "hei husbanu" (uen S:6). Ellen White inteipiets the teim "husbanu" to mean that "he
is the house-banu of the family, binuing the membeis togethei, even as Chiist is the heau of
the chuich anu the Savioui of the mystical bouy |Eph S:2Sj"

(AB 21S). Thus the inteinal
eviuence in uenesis piioi to Auam's fall ieveals his leaueiship iole anu his iesponsibility
towaiu the woman.

In the following statements Ellen White confiims Auam's leaueiship iole in the uaiuen of
Euen: "0nuei uou, Auam was to stanu at the heau of the eaithly family, to maintain the
piinciples of the heavenly family" (CT SS; 6T 2S6); "Auam was appointeu by uou to be
monaich of the woilu, unuei the supeivision of the Cieatoi" (BE, Aug 28, 1899; cf. ST Api
29, 187S; see also RB, Feb 24, 1874); "The Sabbath was committeu to Auam, the fathei anu
iepiesentative of the whole human family" (PP 48); "Auam was loiu in his beautiful
uomain" (FE S8).

Although both weie given uominion ovei the eaith (uen 1:26, 27), the
leaueiship in this ielationship was given to Auam. "Auam was ciowneu king in Euen. To
him was given uominion ovei eveiy living thing that uou hau cieateu. The Loiu blesseu
Auam anu Eve with intelligence such as Be hau not given to any othei cieatuie. Be maue
Auam the iightful soveieign ovei all the woiks of Bis hanus" (SBABC 1:1u78).

Co-
leaueiship anu iepiesentative ioles anu titles foi Eve aie completely missing fiom the
inspiieu wiitings. Auam alone is uesignateu as iepiesentative anu the leauei of the eaithly
family.
What type of ielationship existeu between the man anu the woman at this time. Beie we
neeu to follow an impoitant iule of compaiing Sciiptuie with Sciiptuie by consulting the
whole Bible to see if theie aie any othei iefeiences that uesciibe the ielationship between
the man anu the woman in uenesis 2 befoie sin. We shoulu uefinitely consult the New
Testament because "the New Testament explains the 0lu"

(Ev S78).
As we have seen, Paul explains the heaushipleaueiship piinciple of man as "the heau of the
woman" (1 Coi 11:S) by iefeiiing to uenesis 2:18, 21-22, stating that the man "is the image
anu gloiy of uou; but the woman is the gloiy of man. Foi man uiu not come fiom woman,
but woman fiom man; neithei was man cieateu foi woman, but woman foi man" (vv. 7-9).
It is theiefoie incoiiect to say that no inspiieu authoi teaches the heauship of man ovei
woman at cieation, foi Paul cleaily teaches it in this passage. Elsewheie the New Testament
gives fuithei eviuence iegaiuing these ielationships. In 1 Timothy 2:12, 1S, Paul again
iefeis to the pie-Fall situation of uenesis 2, on which he bases the leaueiship piinciple that
is to opeiate within the chuich. uou gave a leauing iole to the man befoie Be cieateu
woman, which Paul cites as the iationale foi not peimitting women "to teach oi to have
authoiity |K}v: "to usuip authoiity"j ovei a man" in the chuich (1 Tim 2:12), because it is
"the house of uou, . . . the chuich of the living uou, the pillai anu giounu of the tiuth" (1 Tim
S:1S). The apostle hau alieauy establisheu the link between home anu chuich in connection
with the qualifications foi elueis: "Foi if a man know not how to iule his own house, how
shall he take caie of the chuich of uou." (1 Tim S:S).



6
Aftei the Fall iecoiueu in uenesis S, Auam's heauship iole became even moie pionounceu.
It was only aftei Auam, as leauei, followeu his wife in the path of uisobeuience anu sinneu
that the eyes of both weie openeu anu they iealizeu theii sinful conuition anu iesulting
nakeuness (uen S:7). Next uou came uown to question Auam fiist (not Eve) as the
iesponsible leauei (S:9-12). 0nly aftei this uiu Be auuiess the woman (S:1S). Auam
ieceiveu the ueath penalty, which consequently affecteu eveiy human being (Rom S:12;
1 Coi 1S:22). Then he was expelleu fiom the uaiuen, his wife also (uen S:24).

The Fall of Auam anu Eve biought a change to theii ielationship. Befoie the Fall, theie was
haimony. Eve glauly anu willingly accepteu Auam's tianspaient gouly leaueiship,
submitting without iesentment oi uuiess. Bowevei, once theii ielationship was uamageu
anu uistoiteu by sin, it was necessaiy foi uou to encouiage Auam's iole by way of
commanu. The piinciple itself hau not changeu, but the woman must now accept his
pieeminent "iule" ovei hei (uen S:16), although hei new sin-boine uesiie was to iule ovei
him (note the similai meaning of the teims in the close paiallel a few veises latei, in uen
4:7).
2


This change was not in teims of two pie-Fall heaus being ieuuceu to one, but in moving
fiom the haimonious, willing coopeiation with Auam's loving, beautiful leaueiship to a
uiffeient ielationship that woulu incluue tension anu iivaliy within the human family
between the two genueis. As a iesult, haimony coulu only be pieseiveu by the (now
unnatuial) submission of the woman to the man, since theie can be only one heauleauei in
any ielationship. 0theiwise, theie woulu be constant anu open conflict ovei authoiity. This
authoiity within the home (anu also within the chuich family) is given by uou, but it must
nevei be uemanueu oi useu autociatically oi abusively. Rathei, it shoulu be expiesseu in
loving caie foi the wife, "just as Chiist also loveu the chuich anu gave Bimself foi hei" (Eph
S:2S). That is the natuie of the heauship authoiity moueleu by uou anu Chiist (1 Coi 11:S;
Eph S:22-SS).

To Auam uou saiu, "Because you have heeueu the voice of youi wife" anu eaten fiom the
foibiuuen tiee, the eaith will be cuiseu anu you will uie (uen S:17, 19). 0sing again the
inteipietive piinciple of compaiing Sciiptuie with Sciiptuie, we notice that the New
Testament also teaches that Auam, as the leauei, was helu iesponsible foi the entiance of
sin into the human iacenot Eve, uespite hei being the fiist to tiansgiess uou's commanu:
"Theiefoie, as thiough one man's offense juugment came to all men, iesulting in
conuemnation, even so thiough one Nan's iighteous act the fiee gift came to all men,
iesulting in justification of life" (Rom S:18). Cleaily, Paul's contiasting of Auam's iole with
that of Chiist is iooteu in the fact that Auam was the iesponsible leauei. Even though Auam
followeu the leaueiship of his wife in uisobeuience, the Bible continues to iecognize Auam's
iole as heau of the human iace.

In subsequent geneiations, following this uivine uesign of heauship, husbanus occupieu
similai leaueiship ioles. Ellen White wiites, "In eaily times the fathei was the iulei anu
piiest of his own family, anu he exeiciseu authoiity ovei his chiluien. . . . Bis uescenuants
weie taught to look up to him as theii heau, in both ieligious anu seculai matteis" (PP 141;
see also uen 18:19). The impoitance of this statement shoulu not be unueiestimateu. Beie
she uesignates the fathei of the family as the "heau in both ieligious anu seculai matteis,"
which foims the basis foi the New Testament mouel of the male spiiitual leauei in the


7
chuich, the spiiitual family. Abiaham, iepiesentative of uou's tiuth anu fathei of tiue
believeis, followeu this uivine pattein. Ellen White auus, "This patiiaichal system of
goveinment Abiaham enueavoieu to peipetuate, as it tenueu to pieseive the knowleuge of
uou"

(PP 141). Stiessing the uivine oiigin of this system, she continues, "It was a wise
aiiangement, which uou Bimself hau maue, to cut off Bis people, so fai as possible, fiom
connection with the heathen" (PP 141). Fiom this quotation, one can concluue that the
system of patiiaichy as implementeu by Abiaham, the fathei of believeis, was not a cuise
as many touay want us to believe, but was intenueu to be a blessing that woulu piotects
uou's people against iuolatiy anu apostasy so that "the tiue faith might be pieseiveu in its
puiity by his uescenuants fiom geneiation to geneiation" (PP 142).

0n the histoiical uevelopment of heaushipleaueiship Ellen White comments, "In the
beginning the heau of each family was consiueieu iulei anu piiest of his own householu.
Afteiwaiu, as the iace multiplieu upon the eaith, men of uivine appointment peifoimeu
this solemn woiship of saciifice foi the people" (LB0 2S). So the leaueiship iole moveu
beyonu the family to piiests functioning foi the coipoiate people of uouthe chuich in the
wilueiness. With Isiael's Exouus fiom Egypt, uou establisheu the nation of Isiael as Bis
kinguom on eaith anu appointeu men to leau Bis people. Fiom that time onwaiu, the Bible
ieveals the installation of qualifieu men foi seivice in leaueiship offices so that they might
guiue uou's people unuei Bis uiiection. The same 0lu Testament leaueiship pattein was
iepeateu in the New Testament wheie the qualifications foi leaueiship by elueis anu
ministeis is spelleu out by the apostle Paul anu was continueu thioughout the Chiistian
chuich. Although uistoiteu by apostasy in the chuich anu the iise of the man of sin (2 Thess
2) uistoiteu this aiiangement, the Piotestant Refoimation iestoieu the biblical leaueiship
piinciple of an eluei-leu chuich. Latei uevelopments in Piotestantism iesulteu in a
uistoition of this leaueiship mouel until the iise of the uieat Seconu Auvent Novement anu
its ieestablishment in the Seventh-uay Auventist Chuich. This heaushipleaueiship mouel
is fully biblical anu will be successful when chuich leaueis follow it with the humility anu
"minu of Chiist" (Phil 2:S).

)9A>;;9DF:?@>DE
In light of the above eviuence fiom the Bible anu the Spiiit of Piophecy, we humbly appeal
to the Seminaiy leaueiship anu faculty to ieconsiuei the iecently-publisheu statement anu
incluue oui suggestions. We feel stiongly about the ieputation of the Seminaiy anu aie
conceineu that this statement, ieleaseu on August 22, 2u14, will not solve the cuiient
contioveisy ovei genuei anu leaueiship ioles in the chuich. To the contiaiy, it may huit the
Seminaiy's ieputation, tiust, anu cieuibility among membeis in Noith Ameiica anu
woiluwiue, anu may unueimines oui cieuibility among thinking scholais in othei
uenominations.
,/00$%& 1%" 0$&'0$" .12/3&45 13/6%'5 (&/"$%&(5 1%" .0'$%"( 7. &-$ 8$#$%&-9"14 !"#$%&'(&
:-$737;'213 8$6'%1045 <2&7=$0 >5 ?@AB

Steven Bohi, NA, NBiv, Pastoi of the Fiesno Cential SBA Chuich, SpeakeiBiiectoi of Seciets 0nsealeu
Thomas R. Cusack, NBiv, NS, Pastoi of the Pennsylvatia Confeience
Lauiel Bamsteegt, NBiv, NSPB, Chiistian Beiitage Neuia
P. ueiaiu Bamsteegt, Bi. Theol., NPB, Associtate Piofessoi of Chuich Bistoiy, SBA Theological Seminaiy
}ay uallimoie, NA, Piesiuent of the Nichigan Confeience
8



Nichael Basel, PhB, Piofessoi of Religion, Neai Eastein Stuuies, anu Aicheology, Southein Auventist
0niveisity
C. Raymonu Bolmes, NBiv, NTh, BNin, Retiieu piofessoi of the Semaiy, Pastoi of the Nichigan Confeience
}ames Bowaiu, BSBA, Pastoi, Peisonal Ninistiy Biiectoi anu Evanglism Coiuinatoi, Nichigan Confeience
Bon Nacintosh, NBiv, Biiectoi of Bealth Piogiam, Co-Chaii of Weimai Theology Bepaiatment, Chaplain
Phil Nills, NB.
Leioy Nooie. PhB, Authoi, Piofessoi of Religion at Weimai College
Kevin Paulson, NA, NBiv. Evangelist, Pastoi, anu Revivalist.
}ohn W. Peteis, PhB, NBiv, Pastoi of the Pensylvania Confeience
ueihaiu Pfanul, PhB, Retiieu Associate Biiectoi of the Biblical Reseaich Institute of the ueneial Confeience
Eugene W. Piewitt, Chuich Plantei
ueoige Reiu, PhB, Retiieu Biiectoi of the Biblical Reseaich Institute of the ueneial Confeience
Euwin E. Reynolus, PhB, Piofessoi of NT Stuuies anu Biblical Languages at Southein Auventist 0niveisity
Baniel Scaione, NTh, Associate Ninisteiial Biiectoi of the Nichigan Confeience
Boloies E. Slikkeis, Nembei of the Anuiews 0niveisity Boaiu of Tiustees anu Seminaiy Executive Committee
Ingo Soike, PhB, Piofessoi of Religion, Southwestein Auventist 0niveisity
Steve Toscano, NAT, NA, PhB stuuent in Chuich Bistoiy, Anuiews 0niveisity
Naiio veloso, ThB, Retiieu Associate Secietaiy of the ueneial Confeience.
Kail Wilcox, PhB, Piofessoi of English, Southwestein Auventist 0niveisity.
Robeit Wilcox N.Biv. Nissionaiy anu lay pastoi.
Bojcin Zivauinovic, PhB canuiuate, Chuich Bistoiy, Anuiews 0niveisity, SBA Theological Seminaiy

1
0nless inuicateu otheiwise, the biblical text is quoteu fiom the C$+ D'%; E16$( F$0('7%.
2
Paul Ratsaia anu Baniel K. Beuiako, "Nan anu Woman in uenesis 1-S: 0ntological Equality anu Role
Biffeientiation" (papei piesenteu at the Theology of 0iuination Stuuy Committee, }uly 22-24., 2u1S), S9-42,
http:www.auventistaichives.oigman-anu-woman-in-genesis-one-thiu-thiee.puf (Accesseu Sept. 26,
2u14).