Doctrines, Teachings & Policies

[Gregory Matthews]

In the discussion of issues related to the role of women in pastoral care and their ordination, much has been said about church doctrines, teachings, policies and more.

Dr. Calvin B. Rock published a seminal article on this in the November 28, 1991 edition of the Adventist Review, page 20. You may find that article at the following URL.

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19911128-V168-48__C.pdf#view=fit

Using a mixture of my words and those of Dr. Rock, I will summarize his thinking as follows:

1) Doctrines: These are authoritative theological beliefs that have been voted in a formal General Conference session and may only be changed by that process. Some doctrines are tests of fellowship.

2)Standards are rules that guide us in the application of doctrines.

3) Teachings have never been so voted but are generally believed. They are not tests of fellowship. Two examples are vegetarianism and membership in secret organizations.

4) Policies consist of operating rules.

General Conference policy is voted at a General Conference and is expected to apply world wide.

Division policy adjusts and/or modifies GC policy to apply in the specific area of the Division.

Institutional policy guides schools, hospitals, etc.

5) Guidelines suggest how policies should be applied.

If you look closely at this, you will note that Divisions may adjust or modify GC policy. In the same sense, so also may Unions and local Conferences, although Dr. Rock did not directly say so.

As my statements above are a mixture of Dr. Rock's words and mine which was done to sum up what he said, it would be well for all to go to the actual article and read it as Dr. Rock wrote it.

[Ron Lambert]

I would have to enter an emphatic caveat to the idea of seeking unity by following majority rule in the denomination. Truth is not a democracy, and the Church as the Body of Christ is not a democracy. The ONLY unity that is worth anything is unity based on following Christ, the Head of the church. Submitting to the majority of the denomination in place of following the will of Christ communicated through the Holy Spirit, amounts to creature-worship, in the hour when humanity is called to worship the Creator. Even the Church is part of the creature. If we accord to the Church greater authority than Christ, then we are in danger of receiving the Mark of the Beast, because creature-worship is the worship of the beast.

 

I have noticed a disturbing tendency in those who are part of the Anti-Women's Ordination Movement in Adventism: the tendency to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy as irrelevant. Many of the people who speak against women's ordination deliberately distance themselves from the writings of Ellen G. White, saying things like "I want to go by the Word of God." While I agree that the Bible is above Ellen G. White, I still must note that those who speak against women's ordination only set aside the Spirit of Prophecy when they are talking about women's ordination; most of them still freely quote from her when they are speaking about any other subject.

 

This movement to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy seems to have begun with the 1973-1978 class action lawsuit of Silver Vs. Pacific Press, inwhich the church leadership and their attorneys spent five years arguing in court that they should not have to obey the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they were a church. During this court case, the church leadership avoided saying anything about Ellen G. White's writings, because in fact she said a number of things that directly contradicted their position. The fact is that Sister White wrote that women in all denominational institutions should be paid the same as men for doing the same work, and this inspired, divine instruction was ignored and disobeyed for over 100 years.

 

Now we see that those who are opposed to women's ordination are also trying to get people to set aside Sister White's writings. Why? Because she said things like the following:

 

“There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God. Husband and wife may unite in this work, and when it is possible, they should. The way is open for consecrated women. But the enemy would be pleased to have the women whom God could use to help hundreds, binding up their time and strength on one helpless little mortal, that requires constant care and attention.” (Daughters of God, p. 202; 5MR 325, 326 I would leave to their own fate anyone who would quibble about whether a person called by God to the gospel ministry should not be ordained merely because that person is a woman.

 

Notice that Sister White does not say that all women, or even many women, should labor in the gospel ministry. She does not say it is wrong for all women, or even most women, to have their time taken up by child-rearing. But she plainly tells us that there are some women who can and should be free to labor in the gospel ministry, unencumbered by children. God can use such women. It is only the enemy who is pleased to see such women denied the office and work God Himself has qualified them for. It is no wonder that those trying to hold on to the conservative tradition of denying ordination to women, wish to avoid having to deal with such clear and explicit statements by the woman they OTHERWISE accept as a divinely-inspired prophet.

 

Some of those who try to maintain that the Bible does not support the ordaining of women would do well to look at Romans 16:1, where Paul said:

 

"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea...." That is how it is translated in the KJV and NKJV. But if you check the original Greek, you will find that the word translated "servant" is not doulos, but rather is diakonos. Diakonos is the Greek word from which we get the English word, "deacon." The NRSV is honest about this, and translates it correctly: "I commend to you our sister Phoe'be, a deacon of the church at Cen'chreae...." Paul uses doulos or oiketes to refer to common servants or slaves. He only uses diakonos when referring to the ordained officer of a church, either a deacon or a minister. In Ephesians 3:7 Paul refers to himself as a "minister according to the gift of the grace of God." The word there translated as minister is diakonos.

 

So whether Phoebe was a deacon (there was no separate Greek word for deaconess) or a minister, Acts 6 tells us that deacons were ordained by the laying on of hands in the New Testament Church, so Phoebe was ordained, and Paul commended her.

 

Some people seize upon those Bible texts where the masculine is used to refer to deacons or other church officers, such as 1 Tim. 3:11. But there are other texts like James 1:5-8, which says "he" and "him" and "that man," yet nobody doubts that it applies to women too.

 

In 1 Testimonies 577, 578, Ellen G. White related a very disturbing dream, which appears to be a prophetic dream that one day, some church leaders would march on her house like a Catholic procession, and declare her and her works "proscribed." Many of us in the past thought it would be liberals in our church who would fulfill this prophecy. But it now appears that it is conservatives who are fulfilling this prophecy. The Anti-Women's Ordination Movment in Adventism is nurturing a covert anti-Spirit of Prophecy movement, because in truth, opposing the ordination of women is not compatible with the Spirit of Prophecy. And in addition, all efforts to support opposition to women's ordination by the Bible is based on poor scholarship and wresting of Scripture.

 

I do not write these things to accuse anyone. I am trying to warn everyone of what they really might become ensared with if they go along with the Anti-Women's Ordination Movement.

[Tom Wetmore]

EGW is an inconvenient fact for those opposed to WO.

Ron, in addition to the designation by Paul of Phoebe as diakonos, he also identifies her as prostatis. That Greek word quite clearly means one who is a leader. In its masculine form it is consistently used to identify those who rule or govern. And in its verb form it consistently means to rule or govern. Paul even goes so far as to say he regarded her as a leader of himself.

I would also note that Phoebe, a woman as a deacon would have had met the qualifications outlined by Paul. Tha included the criteria much trumpeted by those opposed to WO - "husband of one wife". This throws serious doubt on that clause as being a gender specifc phrase. A better interpretation of the Greek "one woman man" is that it was an idiom that simply meant monogamy.

[Ron Lambert]

You are right, Tom--in Romans 16:2 Paul also describes Phoebe as a "succourer." The Greek word there, as you said, is prostatis. Thayers Bible Dictionary says for prostatis:

 

1) a woman set over others

2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

 

So she was in charge! 

[Tom Wetmore]

It is interesting that our Adventist Church founders were aware of this understanding about Phoebe having republished an article about this in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (now the Adventist Review). The Editor, Uriah Smith at the time as I recall, noted that it gave support for the sisters in ministry in the Adventist Church. The article proposed the idea that those two verses about Phoebe suggest that Paul had appointed her to be the leader of the Church in Rome, the first bishop of Rome, actually using the word first "pope" of Rome. ( Understand that the article was republished from another source and not authored by an Adventist.)

The whole of those two verses really do support the idea that Paul was introducing Phoebe to the believers in Rome to be their pastor. He gives her a very strong recommendation to them of her qualifications, a highly regarded saintly woman that had been the diakonos and prostatis in Cenchrea. He specifically directs the believers in Rome to follow her directions, hardly what one would say of a mere servant sent to them.

For me, Phoebe stands as the most compelling Bibical evidence for the ordination of women.

[Kevin H]

Phoebe is indeed compelling! But equally compelling is how as a married couple it's Aquilla and Priscilla however as a ministerial team it is Priscilla and Aquilla. And even more compelling is understanding the debate in first century Judaism about the ordination of women and Jesus allowing Mary to sit at his feet and what this implied in it's culture.

 

Now most of those who oppose women's ordination tend to also be influenced by views represented by a fair number of our pastors in the past but especially Elders Washburn and Wilkinson. These and others of this camp received some sharp letters from Mrs. White and Willie White on how they liked to use massive quotes Mrs. White, she and Willie saw them as not understanding her message but used her words to spread their message.

 

While I don't know how Washburn responded, I know that several from the camp tended to see Mrs. White as having apostatized and getting her messages from Willie or W. W. Prescott rather than from God and that they needed to pick and use the messages from the time she was faithful and got messages from God. Wilkinson would compare Willie with the sons of Samuel (which by the way appears to have been more politically exaggeration than fact on their spiritual life as they lived among the northern tribes and their father was a great leader in the Moses Priesthood, but they aligned themselves to the south and the Aaronite priesthood). This was from the faction who argued against Jones and Wagner. 

 

Of course as the years went by their followers pushed the blame farther into our history and have made saints of All of Mrs. White, Jones, Wagner, Willie and Prescott saying that they were actually believing what this version believes. Now according to Dr. Maxwell, when Wilkinson saw that his views caused his children to not only want nothing to do with the church but wanted nothing to do with God, he recanted near his death. However his views are very popular among a number of Adventists. And while they like Mrs. White, they only like her filtered through those like Washburn and Wilkinson rather than her directly.

[Ron Lambert]

Crucial to this whole discussion is a right appreciation of what ordination by the laying on of hands really means. Ellen G. White wrote: “Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and THE CEREMONY OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ADDED NO NEW GRACE OR VIRTUAL QUALIFICATION. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God.” Acts of the Apostles, p. 161 (emphasis supplied)

 

Thus ordination is a DUTY and OBLIGATION of the Church, which it OWES to God in obedience to His leading. Therefore, refusing to ordain anyone whom God has called to any office of HIS choosing, is direct disobedience to God and defiance of His authority. And as Acts 5:32 states, the Holy Spirit is only given to those who obey God. Therefore it is a valid conclusion that no one who opposes women’s ordination can ever receive the Latter Rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They will not be a part of finishing the work. They will be counted among the five foolish virgins of Jesus’ parable, for they have not been walking with the Holy Spirit by allowing Him to convict them of all their sins—including their disregard of Galatians 3:28—and therefore do not have the ‘extra oil with their lamps.’ They will be among those who are ‘shaken out’ when the time of ‘the Shaking’ comes. Sinners will always try to contend that their cherished sins are unimportant. But is our position on women's ordination really unimportant?

 

I have also noticed that among those who oppose women's ordination in our church, there is an accompanying covert movement to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy as something to be disregarded. Most of them quote Sister White very seldom if at all when they discuss this subject. Although some still freely quote her on other subjects, this may change as the movement expands and manifests its true spirit more fully. Why do opponents of women's ordination avoid the Spirit of Prophecy? It is because there are statements like these, which are impossible for them to deal with:

 

“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” (6T p. 322; RH January 15, 1901)

 

“There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God.”—Evangelism 472; Manuscript 43a, 1898.

 

 

 

[Johann]

- - -

 

I have also noticed that among those who oppose women's ordination in our church, there is an accompanying covert movement to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy as something to be disregarded. Most of them quote Sister White very seldom if at all when they discuss this subject. Although some still freely quote her on other subjects, this may change as the movement expands and manifests its true spirit more fully. Why do opponents of women's ordination avoid the Spirit of Prophecy? It is because there are statements like these, which are impossible for them to deal with:

 

“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” (6T p. 322; RH January 15, 1901)

 

“There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God.”—Evangelism 472; Manuscript 43a, 1898.

 

 

This is a serious observation. To me it is becoming more and more obvious that our arch anemy is using this opposition to the ordination of women as en entering wedge to dismiss the authority  of the Spirit of Prophecy.