WOMEN’S ORDINATION
Why all the fuss?
by Richard Marin
Why is the question of whether women should be ordained to the gospel ministry such a hot issue? Could it be important enough to divide God’s church? It is not just a side issue to distract the church from her real mission. Beneath the surface lies a debate that affects every aspect of Christian life and doctrine.
The issue is not whether women are equal to men nor if women are as smart, or as gifted, or as justified before God as men. Neither is it a matter of fine-tuning our definition of the word “ordination”. Much less is there an argument as to whether women are to have a ministry. Rather the question is “What is God’s will concerning the ordination of women to the ministry?” But the importance of that question is paled by the greater question that lies beneath it, the question of how we are to go about answering the question.
The “How” is More Important than the “What”
Does the General Conference decision tell us the Lord’s will? By what method should the church settle the debate? The Gender Inclusiveness Commission of the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has well captured the heart of the matter when in its opening paragraph on What Are the Positive Aspects of Ordaining Women? it envisions “a community created and perpetuated by Christian process”. The debate over the right process is what threatens to divide the church today. By what process are we to go about answering the ordination question? The Bible, you say. But, how are we to approach the Bible? Must the church hold to “the notion of Scriptural literalism” or is “progressive revelation” what keeps us in the present truth?
Both sides now agree that how we approach the Bible is the dividing issue. When Adventism settles this issue her pathway will be marked. Then 1) Ford’s new view of the antichrist in Bible prophecy; 2) Paxton’s challenge as to whether we are heirs of the Reformation “sola fide”; and 3) the Questions on Doctrine debate over the nature of Christ all have a basis for being settled. Before us is a row of dominoes –each one close enough to the next so that what we do with the first will impact all the rest. The way we handle the first domino on “how to understand the Bible” will affect the outcome of the women’s ordination question and all the other vital questions in the row.
What is the “Christian process” that will clearly settle the question of women’s ordination? The sides are now drawn. Two clearly opposing ideas of how to approach the Bible are being set forth. The position a person takes on this hermeneutical question will determine their answer on the ordination question.
“How do you Read?”
Some among us feel that “the prevailing consensus of Adventist theologians and Biblical scholars in North America” should decide the issue. In his review of the book titled Searching the Scriptures, Dr. Fritz Guy recommends serious use of the Scriptures, “careful study of the text, and patient listening to the whole Word of God”. For him this requires acceptance of “the essential distinction between exegesis and interpretation”. Elder Larry Christoffel, et. al., in their response to the same book add adjectives: “the essential distinction between textual exegesis and theological interpretation”. Their language is a little more understandable when further down on page one they write: “Competent interpreters of the Bible have distinguished between the essential message of the Bible and the human medium that conveys that precious truth”. They want us to distinguish between the message and the text of Scripture. Pastor David VanDenburgh expresses this same distinction in his open letter to General Conference delegates. He insists on the need to distinguish between “the words of scripture” and “the meaning of the Word of God”. In a more recent manuscript, Raymond F. Cottrell, summarizes the churches predicament in these words:
“Unless we as Seventh-day Adventists resolve this divisive difference in biblical hermeneutics, it has the potential of leading to two Adventist churches –one for open-minded people who base their conclusions on Bible principles, and one for closed-minded people who feel more secure with an immature, literalistic reading of the Bible.”
All of these writers emphasize the need to distinguish between “the written words” of Scripture and “the message” of Scripture. The idea of distinguishing between “the message” and “the text” may be the key to proper Christian process. Many Adventist laymen barely read the words of Scripture let alone understand their theological meaning. What better time than the present to select a committee of scholars who will interpret for us the meaning of the Word of God. A literal reading of the text of Titus 1:5-6 (“…ordain elders…if any be …the husband of one wife”) and 1 Tim 3:2 (“A bishop then must be …the husband of one wife”) could certainly leave many laymen with the impression that the role of elder or bishop was only for men. Maybe the time has come for the establishment of an authoritative teaching office (the consensus of scholars and theologians) to interpret the Bible for us? Without such the laity might never arrive at the idea that women should be ordained to the ministry.
Such an interpreting body has seemed to work well for centuries in the Roman Catholic Church. Most theological divisions in that church can be quelled by the authoritative voice of its teaching office (magesterium). Could Adventists learn a thing or two from Rome?
A recent Protestant-Catholic debate shows how Rome suggests we approach the Bible. Note how William Marshner (Catholic) in debating the idea of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as a rule of faith and practice) expressed the same principle as that set forth by Christoffel, Cottrell, Guy, and VanDenburgh:
Rod Rosenbladt (Protestant): “The [Catholic] church tells me that the church is the servant of the Word; when in fact, what it looks like so often is it acts like [a] prince over It…” ….
William Marshner (Catholic): “…. Is the church a “prince over the Scripture” or a “servant of the Scripture”? That’s a good conundrum –or it seems to be. In fact it is no conundrum at all, because it turns upon an ambiguity. When you say ‘the Scripture’ do you mean ‘the message’ or do you mean ‘the text’. The message is what the Scriptures are intended by God to mean. The message is Scripture rightly interpreted. To that message the church is a servant. The text is something else. The text needs to be interpreted … Sola Scriptura itself … is not in the Book.
“Please tell me which it is… that is profitable; which it is that thoroughly equips a person unto all good works. What is it that does that? Is it the Scripture correctly interpreted? Is it the message that does that? Or is it the text? Surely it is the message that is a light unto our feet. Surely it is the message of God –the true speaking of God– what He really wants us to understand. That’s what equips the saints. Please tell me how it is that simple statement about an entity, (which is the message) proves the sufficiency of the text … to interpret itself, to give you that correct understanding….”
The comments made by the Roman Catholic team might be summarized as follows: “One must distinguish between the words of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture. Rome has always had a ruling magesterium to explain the meaning of Scripture whereas you Protestants each go your own way and have no unity”
Were We Fair with Paxton?
In 1977 Anglican priest, Geoffrey Paxton, called for Seventh-day Adventists to examine their claim to being heirs of the Protestant Reformation. After a number of speaking appointments at large Adventist centers across North America overflow crowds packed the Loma Linda University Church and accompanying halls to hear him defend his book, The Shaking of Adventism, before a panel of Adventist theologians. His central thrust was: “If you Adventists are continuing the Protestant Reformation you must stand with its clear statement on justification by faith alone”. When the dust began to settle the denomination published a critique of The Shaking of Adventism suggesting that sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) rather than sola fide (justification by faith alone) is our claim to being an extension of the Protestant Reformation.
Should we now dump sola Scriptura and opt for the Roman Catholic approach to the Bible? If the words of the Bible do not say what God is trying to say do we need to appoint an inspired interpreter who can tell us what God wanted to say through the apostles and prophets, but could not?
Before we scrap our Protestant heritage let us review what that heritage is. Any funeral certainly deserves an obituary.
What did the Reformers mean?
When the Protestant Reformers used the slogan sola Scriptura what did they mean? This latin war cry meant that the Bible and the Bible only was their rule for determining doctrine and lifestyle. Here is how they understood this principle which was so crucial in their separation from Rome:
Human wisdom was seen to be the great enemy of sola Scriptura. Sinful man rejects sola Scriptura. This rejection is expressed in four ways: individually, corporately, mystically, and scholastically. In order to maintain the Bible’s authority over man the Reformers outlined their position by explaining that the Bible was 1) necessary, 2) authoritative, 3) sufficient, and 4) essentially clear.
The necessity of Scripture meant that it was not in man by nature to direct his steps (Jer 10:23). He was in darkness as to how to be saved and how to live a life pleasing to God. Man needed the Bible; he could not figure out God’s truth on his own. “Necessity” was opposed to rationalism –independent, reasoning man.
The authority of Scripture meant that It was to rule over man –even corporate man. Peter called it “a more sure word” (2 Pet 1:19). Paul shows its authority by saying it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). When in conflict, the Bible is to be obeyed rather than obeying administrators, committees, or conferences. “Authority” excludes the idea that collective man, ruling man, councils, churches, or popes have the right to overrule what the Bible says.
The sufficiency of Scripture meant that nothing else was needed in order to understand salvation and Christian living. Paul said it could “thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:17). There is no need of other sources. Mysticism suggests that the Bible is not enough; that some additional revelation is needed in order to understand God’s will. Charismatic experiences, dreams, visions, encounters, or ecstacies are touted as the way to understand God’s word for a particular generation or culture. “Sufficiency” excludes the need for additional revelation in order to understand God’s truth.
The essential clarity of Scripture meant that the most humble lay person could understand from its pages how to be saved and how to perform works pleasing to God (“able to make thee wise unto salvation… profitable… for instruction in righteousness” 2 Tim 3:15-16). Many believe that the Bible is hard to understand and that much education is needed in order to grasp its message. The Reformers taught that although there were passages that even the greatest Bible scholars could not explain, the messages of salvation and sanctification were clear in the words of the text. “Essential clarity” teaches that a person does not need a university education in order to grasp God’s truth nor does he need a scholar or group of them to reinterpret the Bible for him.
Scholars may help laymen understand. Visions may supply the lack of careful reading. Councils may guide the individual or the church in paths of righteousness. Human reason may aid in Bible study. But all of these must be subject to the text of Scripture; for they are not infallible. Whenever human reason, church councils, visionaries, or scholars tried to occupy a place above the Bible our Protestant forefathers upheld the Bible and the Bible only as the rule of faith and practice. Thus they placed man in all his facets (individual, corporate, mystical, and scholastic) below the words of Scripture.
Are second thoughts about a funeral for our Protestant heritage in order? What are we going to replace this heritage with –a small group of self-designated scholars who would develop a doctrinal consensus on which we would stand through the final crisis? Why couldn’t that small group be the Vatican itself? Would there be a final crisis if it was?
When you think of it, haven’t the same “Adventist” scholars who are proposing a “scholarly consensus” already decided that the one distinctive of Adventism, its sanctuary doctrine, does not conform to the message of Daniel, Hebrews, or Revelation. Were Seventh-day Adventists just a temporary measure on God’s part until He could develop a magesterium that would bring us back to Rome? or are the words of Scripture sufficient?
What about Infidels, Heretics, and Pharisees?
You ask, “What about all the infidels, heretics, and Pharisees who read the words of Scripture and entirely miss the plan of salvation and the principles of loving obedience? Don’t they prove that Scripture alone is not enough?” Yes, they do!
Just as each of the other reformation slogans teaches a truth that must be connected to its companion truths so it is with sola Scriptura. We should remember that sola fide must be faith alone in Jesus alone (solo Christo) or else one might think faith in anything would bring salvation. Solo Christo would save no one if God’s grace (sola gratia) had not given heaven’s Best to be born a man. Sola gratia can only be understood in the light of Scripture (sola Scriptura). And sola Scriptura is only words unless accompanied by a divinely appointed interpreter who can make the true meaning clear to the mind. That office was not bestowed on any man or woman; not on any body of people; not on any rank of people; not on any visionary. It was committed to the third person of the Godhead –the Holy Spirit. That Person is “given to all them that believe (sola fide)” Rom 8:9. Infidels, heretics, and Pharisees don’t believe in the only Son of God as their Savior from sin. They don’t have the resident Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. They read the words but they don’t understand them unless the Holy Spirit enlightens their minds. Only we who believe are equipped to rightly divide the Word of truth.
Observe how the apostle John shows that believers do not need an exterior “teaching office”:
“…ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it… These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” 1 John 2:20-27.
The words of the new covenant shine out in this context: “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord.” Jer 31:34. Since Pentecost a teaching magesterium in the church is outdated. The Comforter has come.
The divinely appointed Interpreter is God Himself. He will not lead God’s people contrary to how He taught them in former ages or in different cultures. In the world He convicts all men of sin, and righteousness, and judgment. But believers He guides into all truth (John 14-16). He is the Holy Spirit who moved holy men of God to record God’s thoughts for us. Since these thoughts are recorded in the language of men, and by imperfect men at that, we are not to regard the words as perfect even though the Bible is infallible.
When the Spirit of God guides believers into all truth He uses primarily one means –“the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph 6:17). In other words the Spirit-filled person is guided in his understanding of God’s Word by having the Holy Spirit bring to his mind other words in the passage or other portions of the Book that help him understand the part he is reading. This concept may be reduced into the phrase: “the Bible is its own interpreter”. No human being or collection of them has been called to interpret the Bible (2 Pet 1:20). That is God’s work. To humans has been given the privilege to read, understand, explain, and apply Scripture (Neh 8:8; Dan 9:13,23; 2 Tim 4:1-3). Christ’s command to us is to teach and to preach not to interpret the Word. The Holy Spirit is its Interpreter. In this way the Bible becomes an unerring guide to eternal life and godliness. When its study is accompanied with the Holy Spirit’s presence God’s message will be understood –His will will be made clear.
You may ask, then why are there so many divisions in Christianity?
Even Christians Don’t See Eye to Eye
Real Christians understand that salvation is a gift from God in Christ and that holiness is the way to serve God. They may not see eye to eye on every doctrine or every practice because they are not perfect and still have truths to learn. The sinfulness of our natures and the dullness of our minds hinders us from understanding all that heaven has revealed. But the direction of the Christian is into the unity of the faith. The Christian’s desire is to understand God better and to more perfectly do His will. This is true not only of the individual but of the church body that is committed to Christ. The foundation of Christ’s church is the apostles and the prophets (Eph 2:20). On this Word He builds His church and though Satan’s armies try to tear away that foundation by clever means, Christ is pledged to defend that Word for it is His also.
If only Spirit-filled people have the resident Bible Interpreter, then how can we recognize them or be sure that we are one of them? In Matthew 7:15-24 Jesus gave the test: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house upon a rock” (Matt 7:24 NIV). Notice the attitude believers have toward the words of Christ. One of the disciples asked: “Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words.” John 14:22-26.
How a person relates to the words of Scripture reveals whether he has the Holy Spirit. Throughout the Bible the close connection between being filled with the Spirit and being filled with the Word is repeated (Cf. Eph 5:18-19 & Col 3:16; Acts 2:4, 11; 6:5-10; Lk 1:67-79).
Is reading the words really that important?
Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Words
Think of the way Jesus viewed the words of Scripture. When the Pharisees questioned the actions of His disciples in the corn field Jesus’ response shows what He expected their approach to Scripture to be: “Have ye not read what David did… Or have ye not read in the law…” (Matt 12:3-5). Apparently he expected them to read the text.
When asked if the grounds for divorce were limited He answered “Have ye not read…” (Matt 19:4).
His response to men upset by children crying in the temple was: “Yea; have ye never read…” (Matt 21:16).
When His authority was questioned Jesus answered by telling a parable and concluded with these words: “And have ye not read this scripture…” (Mk 12:10).
A lawyer asked Him about getting saved. In return Jesus said: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” Lk 10:26. The lawyer’s answer was a direct quote from the ten commandments (the text, the words, the written medium). And Jesus said: “Thou hast answered right….”
In answer to the Sadducees’ inquiry about how many husbands one woman could have in heaven, He said: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God… have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying…” (Matt 22:29-31). Apparently He believed that what Moses wrote down in the wilderness was not just Moses writing to the wandering Israelites; nor just God speaking to the people of Moses’ day; nor just God speaking in a way that could be reinterpreted to speak to later generations; but it was God speaking to the people of Christ’s day. So Jesus said: “that which was spoken to you by God”. This is true, for Christ continues by quoting from the words of Exodus.
When last-day events are dealt with on the Mount of Olives we are clearly told to read Daniel in order to understand the antichrist and his timing. We are not told: “If by that time you have developed the apostelesmatic principle you will be able to recognize the man of sin.” Charismatic gifts or higher education aren’t the prerequisite. It says, “whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt 24:15). Apparently understanding comes from reading.
A great Catholic once observed: “It is a mark of heretics that they always quote Scripture.” Will those wrestling with issues in Adventism today make it a sin to read a verse and suggest that it means what it says? Is it a mark of stale traditionalism and bigoted chauvinism to defend your position with the words of Scripture?
Not only did Christ show that Pharisees, Sadducees, church-goers, disciples, and lawyers could have their questions answered by reading the Bible but He even quoted verses to the Devil when tempted in the wilderness. The Bible also records at least ten other occasions when Christ used the phrase “It is written”.
There are people who dismiss Christ’s example of making the words of Scripture primary. Under the guise of glorifying Christ they propose that His personal sayings are to take precedence over the rest of Scripture. Jesus didn’t see it that way. When His time on earth was almost done and He had just been raised from the dead He met two disciples troubled by recent events. Although He could have revealed Himself to them and said “I say unto you”, His response to their confusion was: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken…. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 24:25-27. Rather than saying, “I say unto you”, He said, “Moses says unto you and the prophets say unto you”. Shortly afterwards, with the eleven disciples in Jerusalem, His approach was the same: “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written….” Lk 24:45, 46.
Jesus’ attitude toward Scripture was that people should have their questions answered and their way made plain by reading its words. This rule he applied to all classes of society. Will we submit to the Word in deciding women’s ordination?
Will the Real Priests Please Stand
It seems strange that proponents of women’s ordination would emphasize the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers to support their position, while at the same time proposing that all believers cannot be priests when it comes to understanding the Bible. They talk of “universal priesthood” when favoring the ordination of women while advocating “limited priesthood” when opposing the idea that lay people could correctly understand Scripture. Will we be robbed of the priesthood of all believers by those carrying a banner on which these very words are inscribed? Must we surrender this Protestant principle also and encourage our church to set up an interpreting magesterium to tell us what God wants us to do?
If the tool the Spirit uses to open up the text is the Bible itself then a proper understanding of Scripture has never been dependant upon the science of archeology, nor the availability of more ancient manuscripts, nor a knowledge of the history of antiquity, nor a proficiency in biblical languages. If the Bible is available and readable by lay people as well as scholars then we need no scholarly Bible-interpreting body.
While the proponents of women’s ordination want us to distinguish between the “words” of the Bible and the “message” of the Bible, the real effect is to divorce the two. If, as they suggest, the message and the words don’t agree are we to cut loose from the “It is written” mooring and anchor in the mud of scholarly consensus? Would we be any better off with our Bibles chained to scholars than with them chained to cathedral walls? Isn’t our brightest hope for the unity Christ desired found in the union of Spirit-filled believers based on the study of God’s Word?
What are We to Do?
If what we have said is true (and the more noble will search the Scriptures to see whether it is [Acts 17:11]), what should we do in the present crisis? Will our church be “a community… perpetuated by Christian process”?
What is the proper process? Should the laity begin a witch hunt of scholars in order to purge the church of its problems? Do biblically illiterate administrators need to be dethroned? Is waiting for the shaking our only hope? Where do grass roots Adventists fit into the “process”. Spirit-filled administrators, scholars, and laity are all on an equal basis as concerns understanding the Bible. All believers are equipped to take part in the process. We needn’t revive the Inquisition in order to settle the women’s ordination crisis.
The answers may not be easy for a drowsy church. In past generations God’s remedies have generally not come in the form of band-aids. When palmerworms, cankerworms, caterpillars, and locusts had destroyed the land in Joel’s day God didn’t propose fly-swatters. He went to the very heart of the problem and told Israel that the only remedy was to gather at His sanctuary for judgment day. Everything points to a similar solution in our crisis. Here are some things we can do:
First, we need to examine ourselves to see if we are not the cause of the problem. Do we accept or reject a doctrine because we are told all the scholars see it a certain way? Do we prefer pastors who entertain us rather than ones that force us to go to the Bible because they have? Do we elect Sabbath School leaders who will tell us the same things we have always heard rather than those that expect us to stretch our minds in comprehending truth. Is our choice of fellow church members those who don’t read the Bible or talk to us about what it says. If so, doesn’t Scripture refer to us when it says: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Tim 4:3 NIV.
God has not sent us heresies in order to discourage us. When lesser means fail he permits their entrance in order to awaken us. In addition to their alarm-clock function there is another reason God permits heresies. He says: “…there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor 11:19). In order to come to a unity of the faith the real heretics must be unveiled so that the true teachers of God’s Word are recognized. God is beginning to remove the smoke screen that has for so long clouded the issues. He has promised: “Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven… that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb 13:26-27). Let’s look first into our own attitude toward the Scriptures –for heretical parasites only grow on trees that produce the right kind of sap.
Next, let’s confess that we are strangers to God’s Word and repent and return to a careful reading of the Bible. This will bring a refreshing of God’s Spirit to guide us into all truth. A dissatisfaction with those that try to teach us God’s will apart from Scripture may force our teachers to study the Bible also before they speak. A reformed laity may produce a reformed clergy.
Every time God’s people have prayed, believing His Word, He has heard from heaven. He delights to purify His bride, the church, if she will but ask. If things aren’t right at the head of the work do you think God is unable to grant the petition of His people to correct injustice and selfish management?
As in Joel’s time so today, 1) self examination, 2) repentance, and 3) prayer are not enough. Malachi says, “they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.” Mal 3:16. There is an urgent need for believers in Jesus to gather together to exchange ideas from the Bible. Ephesians 3:18 says comprehension comes with “all the saints”. Sabbath School, camp meetings, Adventist Forums, and Bible conferences were designed for just such a purpose and are effective to that end when they do not deteriorate into a one-sided lecture format.
1) Examining ourselves, 2) repenting of our failures, 3) praying for God’s purifying work, and 4) assembling ourselves together to study God’s Word will not be sufficient to meet our crisis. When the prophet Joel saw the heretical inroads to take place in our day he was also shown that there was only one ultimate solution —the blotting out of sins. We live in the time of the judgment of the living. The prophets call us to gather to the heavenly sanctuary. Joel wrote: “Gather the people.” Joel 2:16. Zephaniah captured the same thought with these word: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired.” Zeph 2:1. The writer of Hebrews says: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” Heb 10:25. Only in the Most Holy Place where Jesus intercedes for us is there hope of a final answer. If we as a people do not gather through informed faith to the judgment our sins will never be blotted out of heaven’s record, we will receive no latter rain, the church will not come to the unity of the faith, and Christ will not “appear the second time without sin unto salvation”. May God give us eyes to see Jesus where he is; and minds to understand the significance of what He is doing there; and boldness to enter in trusting in His broken body, His spilled blood, and His final mediation. “Who knoweth if He will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God?” Joel 2:14.
Our crisis will not be settled by a consensus statement, nor by political intrigue, nor by a grass roots rebellion.
“[We] are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. [We have come to the appointed day of judgment.] See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.” Heb 11:22-25.
Yes “women’s ordination” is a domino issue. Beneath it lie two approaches to the Bible. Each approach regards the other as heresy. God is using this issue to awaken His people to His Word and how to understand it. Many will refuse to be awakened. Many will take the easy way, accepting the position of those they respect. But some will unite, not just to talk together, not just to come to an understanding of God’s Word, but they will unite in “following the Lamb whithersoever He goeth”. As they see Him where He is, the cloud that has obscured certain key issues will be lifted. They will understand not only His plan for pastoral ministry but also His plan of salvation. They will identify not only His role in the final crisis but also the role of the antichrist. They will understand not only the nature of Christ in the incarnation but the nature of His Church in the final generation. They will not only understand His Word but they will be the ones that join in the loud cry of the third angel. The dominoes will all come into place.
