That old serpent, biblical exegesis, slithered out of the backyard again, and exposed its hissing self for all the world to see. What am I talking about, you ask? Read on.

On February 6, 2010 the most visible Adventist pastor and evangelist in North America—a man whose ministry is televised by 3ABN and the Hope Channel—preached a sermon titled “Women Pastors: A Biblical Perspective.” His conclusion? The Bible does not permit women to serve as congregational leaders. That is a man’s role, biblically. There is no other conclusion to draw, he went on, for “God’s Word is God’s Word.”

That would seem to end any further discussion, wouldn’t it? Of course this side of a “debate” within Christianity has been heard for over a hundred years—or since women started to flex their leadership muscles in the early 20th century. The debate reached a crescendo during the “women’s rights” movement of the 60’s and 70’s in the United States.

In the Adventist denomination, the debate has had interesting twists and turns, as the General Conference refuses to allow women in ministry to be “ordained,” yet allows them to be “commissioned,” with all the rights and privileges of their ordained male counterparts. Since 1990 a few SDA congregations have decided to stop playing this “game,” and have held ordination services for their female pastors.

And so the debate continues. As I have said many times over the years, EVERY debate in Christian history has, at its core, been a debate over how to interpret Scripture. Shall we interpret it LITERALLY (in which case our evangelist friend is most certainly correct in his conclusions)? Or shall we interpret it CONTEXTUALLY?

The manner in which you interpret the Bible, the tools you use, the rationale you adhere to, is all part of what scholars call biblical EXEGESIS. The evangelist went on in his sermon: “We (men & women) are gifted differently and God has said there should be a difference.” He’s right. The literalist knows what God has “said” because he/she takes the Bible at face value (“God said it, I believe it, that settles it”).

Of course, biblical literalism is a two-edged sword. To use that method of exegesis allows one to justify a myriad of “obvious” conclusions. The early Latter-day Saints had the strongest biblical rationale for “plural marriage” (polygamy). In the Bible, only an “elder” must be the husband of one wife. Every other man can have multiple wives. The fact that women cannot have multiple husbands points to the patriarchal nature of the biblical texts. The literalist takes the writings from a patriarchal context and imposes them on a modern society.

I don’t mind this evangelist holding and preaching his convictions. But as we celebrate the recent PBS special, “The Adventists,” in which our denomination received the most complimentary press perhaps in its history, it’s too bad that this literalistic position on women leaders is trumpeted for all to see by our “champion” evangelist. His sermons are lionized on Adventist television, and his ministry is highly publicized in the Review, our denominational paper.

Is THIS the face of Adventism we want to project? Hopefully an official response will balance out the evangelists’ rigidity.

Have you made your New Year’s resolutions yet? I’ll admit that I haven’t—because I never do. For the 57th consecutive year I will make no resolutions or promises about my behavior for the year to come. I just can’t bring myself to do it.

Here’s my philosophy on this: When you want to change your behavior, begin right away—whether it’s April, September, or January. In other words, DO IT NOW. Why wait until January 1? Makes no sense to me. Or as the apostle Paul wrote (in a different context, of course), “NOW is the acceptable time.”

The wonderful thing about being human is the ability to make decisions and do whatever one wants to do. Want to lose 10 pounds? Start today. Want to start an exercise program? Put those sneakers on right now? Want to climb Yosemite’s Half-Dome this summer? Start hiking small hills to get in shape. Want to travel to Hawaii this year? Start saving your money.

Nobody and nothing is stopping you from accomplishing your goals. Go for it! If you don’t succeed in doing what you intended to do—start over! When Genesis says that we human beings are “in God’s image,” this is what that means to me: the human ability to think and to do.

So here comes 2010. I pray that it is a year of great accomplishments for you. And if it isn’t, I pray that you don’t give up on your dreams. God has given us wonderful brains and incredible abilities. Let’s make the most of them and bless the lives of others in the process. May you have a happy and productive New Year.

Dateline: La Sierra University. As I type I am sitting at the epicenter of THE great controversy in Adventism today. I recall that in the 60’s the controversy centered around music—particularly The Wedgewood Trio (and later, The Heritage Singers). In the 80’s it was Desmond Ford, Ellen White’s Literary Borrowing, and the Investigative Judgment Doctrine. In the 90’s the great debate was whether the church should Ordain Women in the ministry. And today the controversy centers around the Creation/Evolution debate, and specifically whether evolution should continue to be a part of the biology curriculum at La Sierra University.

Science has, of course, always been in creative tension with faith and Christianity. Or we might say that there has been a long-standing WAR between science and religion. Many in the scientific community have long been skeptical that religion has an agenda that is anti-science. Many in the religious community have long been skeptical that science has an agenda that is anti-religious.

Religious liberals, to be fair, have never had a problem with science, even when it runs contrary to biblical orthodoxy. But religious conservatives are uneasy when a scientific viewpoint appears to contradict something in the bible. Is life on earth 6-10 thousand years old? Or is that life much, much older? Is the young-earth creation view a non-negotiable issue?

The issue for conservatives in the church is one of life and death! If we allow that the scientific community is predominantly right, that “creation” occurred some 14 billion years ago, and that Genesis 1 simply cannot be taken literally from a scientific viewpoint, then conservatives fear that all faith will eventually be lost, that God will disappear from the scene, and that all morality will eventually be jettisoned from the culture. Furthermore, for Adventists, the fear is that the Sabbath will lose its specialness if Genesis 1 is interpreted metaphorically, and therefore Adventism will be rendered impotent.

Is this necessarily the case? Does our faith depend on biblical literalism? There are many in Adventism who want to see our universities purged of evolutionary biologists. These conservatives don’t want evolution taught in any way, shape or form in Adventist institutions. Are you worried that your child might learn of Darwin and his theories?

I have a suggestion. I’m sure it’s been considered before. Why can’t evolutionary biology be taught in biology classes for what it is—the current “science” on the whole issue of existence? And why can’t 6-day creationism be taught in religion classes for what IT is—the historic “faith” of the biblical literalist. Each viewpoint is “true” based on each sides’ presuppositions. I want my children to learn what the science is on the subject, AND what the faith-position is. Does this not seem reasonable? Certainly our institutions of higher-learning shouldn’t be considered institutions of lower-learning! Or are we afraid that our young people will leave the church if they learn the current science?

It’s HOT here at the epicenter. There are rumors of possible “loyalty oaths” and “witch-hunts” in the future. Some feel that the purity of the church is at stake. I say “humbug” to all the hysteria. And I’m reminded of a couple of startling Ellen White statements: “There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error.” “If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it!” (Counsels to Writers & Editors, pages 35 & 44).