Why James Rafferty Left Light Bearers
Slawomir Gromadzki
The parting of ways between James Rafferty and Light Bearers Ministry surprised many in the independent Seventh-day Adventist community because Rafferty had spent decades building the organization alongside Ty Gibson. Over the years, the ministry developed a very specific focus on righteousness by faith, but as time went on, the core leadership began to drift apart on how to apply these beliefs to modern cultural issues.
While the official transition was framed around Rafferty moving into localized discipleship and medical missionary work, independent reviews of the situation show that a growing theological divide regarding church authority, lifestyle standards, and cultural adaptation made the separation inevitable.
The primary issue that brought these internal tensions to a head was the intense denominational debate over women’s ordination. Ty Gibson and his co-director David Asscherick began steering Light Bearers toward what they called a moderate or third option. They released a video arguing that instead of a global church policy that completely bans or completely mandates the practice, individual local churches should have the autonomy to decide for themselves. Their argument was that if a local congregation determines that ordaining women will help them reach their specific secular culture more effectively, they should be free to do so without top-down interference.
To support this local option framework, the remaining Light Bearers leadership introduced a specific way of reading scripture that looked at divine ideals versus emergency exceptions. David Asscherick compared the situation to the Old Testament story of King David eating the tabernacle showbread. Even though the law technically stated that only priests could eat that bread, God permitted the exception because of a crisis.
Through this lens, the progressive side of the argument claims that while a male-led structure might be the original ideal, the modern urgency of finishing the gospel work justifies using alternative methods to meet cultural needs. They also argue that the New Testament contains sweeping principles of equality in Christ that matter more than specific cultural restrictions found in ancient texts.
James Rafferty and his conservative allies viewed this approach to scripture as a dangerous compromise that opened the door to cultural relativism. The argument against women’s ordination is built on the belief that the Bible establishes a permanent order for spiritual leadership that transcends human culture. Traditionalists argue that both the Old Testament priesthood and the New Testament model of church elders intentionally restrict structural leadership to men based on creation principles rather than temporary cultural settings. They strongly rejected the idea that a local church can decide to bypass these commands just because the surrounding society values gender equality differently.
Opponents of the Light Bearers position quickly pointed out that the argument regarding the tabernacle showbread was being misused to justify an ongoing change in church policy. Conservative theologians published extensive video responses and audio critiques arguing that an emergency exception in scripture is completely different from establishing a permanent, unauthorized policy that alters the biblical structure of the church. From Rafferty’s perspective, replacing a plain command of scripture with a flexible human interpretation was a step toward secular psychology and worldly philosophy.
This clash over church leadership was actually part of a much larger disagreement regarding how the ministry should relate to the world. For several years, the leadership team had been clashing over issues like lifestyle choices and music standards. While Gibson and Asscherick argued for a nuanced approach to culture, describing the world of art and music as having many complex shades and colors, traditionalists like Rafferty maintained a strict standard that clearly separated the sacred from the secular. When the ministry officially adopted a stance that accommodated the regional ordination of women, the theological foundation that Rafferty stood on was compromised.
While the arguments presented by Ty Gibson and David Asscherick regarding women’s ordination offer a practical and compassionate way forward for modern ministry, a differing understanding of this administrative issue should never have caused a division in leadership. These speakers should have continued their vital ministry together, united by their shared understanding of the fully restored gospel that was so powerfully promoted by Jack Sequeira. The message of universal legal justification and our complete corporate security in Christ is the single most important subject in the world. This everlasting gospel is the absolute foundation of the three angels’ messages, making the debate over women’s ordination a nonessential issue that should never have broken the unity of such a powerful ministry.