Opposition to Women's Ordination is doomed (or Lives?)

[BobRyan]

It appears that the opposition to Women's ordination as Pastors is doomed.

The GC voted in 1984 and in 1995 to approve women elders.

That is going unchallenged by key conservative leaders in the current debate over women pastors. So no push to get the GC to "undo the 1984 or 1995 vote" means that there can be no successful argument against women pastors based on Bible texts about "elders".

I don't see any way around that.

This means that the only ground left that still holds up - is the grounds of "unity" arguing that making a move that does not have unified support is a bad idea. And of course that is a good argument. The problem is that the opponents to WO seem to freely admit that they cannot rely on that one alone to make the case.

And that is the problem - that argument alone merely carries the ball down the field until such time as less "disturbance" arises culturally to the idea of WO when it comes to pastors - given that we already have approval for women elders and no change in that policy is being given serious consideration.

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not know what/who you call a key conservative leader. But, there are some who would wish to revoke the permission to ordain women elders.

[thx4mercy]

"They" probably figure it's way too late to try and change anything with the women elders.

So the ones trying to follow the Bible are considered conservative?

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

So the ones trying to follow the Bible are considered conservative?

That seemed to be at least a point of agreement among those on the Theology of Ordination Study Committee - neither POV, for or against WO, conservative or progressive, could claim or be characterized as following, or not, the Bible more so or less so than those in disagreement.

Likewise, that sort of observation does not help the discussion, nor advance either POV effectively. It only serves to side-track and demonize those who disagree and ultimately is a thinly disguised ad hominem tactic.

So stop it.

[BobRyan]

I do not know what/who you call a key conservative leader. But, there are some who would wish to revoke the permission to ordain women elders.

Wishing to reverse the 1995 vote - is not the same thing as actively campaigning against women's ordination which is what is happening now. In other words - there is no movement building to bring a motion to the floor in 2015 session to have the 1995 vote overturned.

And without that - all the arguments about "not qualified to be an elder" are DOA - because the denomination has already decided that issue 20 years ago. So either bring it back up and try to re-fight that point - or move to another one.

So far the "undo women elder's vote" in 1995 has not come up.

I agree with you that there are probably a number of people who would like to do that - but I suspect they know there is no future in such a proposal. And that being the case - they are in a compromised position if re-arguing that already-settled GC issue is their primary strategy.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually it has come up. The straw vote in TOSC on the proposed ways forward showed a third would favor that. At least one Division's leadership has called for it. It would be an empty "restriction" or "reversal" for them and many areas of the world where there is opposition to ordaining female pastors since they don't even have women local elders anyway.

What it would do is increase the level of divisiveness by effectively restricting those areas that do allow and have women local elders and female pastors already, where it is working and proving it is a blessing. The proof is in the fruit. It would be a waste and a shame to cut down all the fruit trees that are bearing fruit, just because folk on the other side of the world don't care for that kind of fruit tree.

[BobRyan]

Tom Wetmore said:

Actually it has come up. The straw vote in TOSC on the proposed ways forward showed a third would favor that. At least one Division's leadership has called for it. It would be an empty "restriction" or "reversal" for them and many areas of the world where there is opposition to ordaining female pastors since they don't even have women local elders anyway.

What it would do is increase the level of divisiveness by effectively restricting those areas that do allow and have women local elders and female pastors already, where it is working and proving it is a blessing. The proof is in the fruit. It would be a waste and a shame to cut down all the fruit trees that are bearing fruit, just because folk on the other side of the world don't care for that kind of fruit tree.

They all had a vote in 1984 and 1995 and they passed it by some sort of margin. Why do we think they would do any different now? If anything the issue of women elders would have more acceptance now than before 0 given 20 - 30 years elapsed time

in Christ,

Bob

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob, the question is not whether anything would be different.

Here is what you said that began this aspect of the discussion:

Quote:

The GC voted in 1984 and in 1995 to approve women elders.

That is going unchallenged by key conservative leaders in the current debate over women pastors. So no push to get the GC to "undo the 1984 or 1995 vote" means that there can be no successful argument against women pastors based on Bible texts about "elders".

You were quite specific: 1) No conservative leader. 2) No push to undo. 3)No successful argument against women pastors.

Tom and I have commented on # 1 & 2 above. We have suggested that you are wrong on 1 & 2.

Perhaps you are playing with words. Depending on how you define "key conservative leader" you may be wrong. Women elders has been challenged.

You may not be aware of any push to get woman elders revoked. That issue is clearly in the background. Those who advocate this clearly realize that is will only succeed if they are successful in their attempt to deny ordination to women. They are waiting to see what happens with that surface issue.

[Kevin H]

If the Anti-women's ordination group ends up winning out; does that mean that we have to remove the Old Testament verses about the blue thread in the garments and remove the story of Mary and Martha?

[BobRyan]

Women elders has been challenged.

You may not be aware of any push to get woman elders revoked. That issue is clearly in the background. Those who advocate this clearly realize that is will only succeed if they are successful in their attempt to deny ordination to women. They are waiting to see what happens with that surface issue.

I am not saying that nobody out there objects to women elders. I am saying that the GC voted on this 30 years ago and having them vote again on it (given a 30 year laps of time) is not likely to have less support for women elders overall - but more support (given the fact that people in some churches have had women elders almost that entire time) even though there will continue to be some who do not agree with that view -- which is understandable.

You seem to be saying that the decision to continue to not vote in favor of women as pastors (a decision we have already had pretty much all along at the level of the GC) - would open up some sort of door to undo the women elders vote.

How in the world can a decision to keep doing what we are already doing by not sanctioning women pastors "open up a door" to undoing the 1984 vote? Since that "door has been open for the entire 30 year period" since 1984 where we have not sanctioned women pastors for that entire 30 year period?

I don't follow that logic.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is the problem, Bob. Other than the local elders votes there really has been no definitive vote other than the one in 1881 regarding the propriety of ordaining women to the gospel ministry, i.e., pastoral ministry. The votes in the 90's merely said no to the Divisions going forward on their own to decide within their own territory. While many opinions for and against have been expressed the vote of the GC in session in our lifetimes hasn't voted up or down the fundamental issue of whether women can be ordained. Even the local elder issue was decided by the Annual Council and not the GC in Session. The problem with regard to WO is that the decision has only been to kick the can down the road, but not to pick it up and take care of it once and for all. In other words, no decision for now.

If it is a real vote it up or down once and for all and the anti-WO contingency wins, the reasons for banning WO for gospel ministry apply just as readily to the role of local elders. If at Session a real majority say no, not ever, the likelihood of those same people, a majority of whom may also oppose local women elders, may feel the momentum of their POV and not stop there. You have to also realize that the demographics of the church have changed significantly since those Annual Council votes on local elders. Few have adopted the idea and sentiment is perhaps more strong now than then. And the GC leadership at that time was predominantly from NAD, Europe and Australia, and not from other areas now most opposed.

On the other hand, I think it at least possible that WO may move forward if what seems to be the dominant view coming out of TOSC prevails, by a narrow majority, that it is time to at least let those Divisions/Unions that are ready and find WO acceptable within their territory to move forward and decide for themselves. This seems to be not only the dominant view of TOSC but of a majority of the Divisions themselves, based on their individual reports. If so, the local elder issue is a non-issue since it is already in effect and is very much in practice what is being requested for WO of pastors. Contrary to the doomsday predictions of disunity and fracturing of the church, the idea of ordaining local women elders in territories where it is acceptable has caused hardly a ripple of discontent or division with those areas where it is not. In fact the actual functioning of women pastors in those same areas hasn't either.

If the "decision" this time around is to just repeat kicking the can down the road, as so many fear, then the probability IMHO is that the division in the church will be just as likely as if the vote is a decided vote of no, not ever. And I think that a decision to allow WO where acceptable is least likely to create disunity based on what I have already noted. But most firmly, I do not think that either way a split will occur. I think the cries about unity is a red herring anyway, more intent on scaring folk to not decide the matter or just plain old fear-mongering.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

as long as people keep debating the issue, keep having committees to debate the issue, keep writing columns in magazines about it, keep writing books about it, keep having sermons and workshops about it, instead of letting all pastors, men and women, do the job they want to do of preaching the Good News (which has absolutely NOTHING to do with WO), the better Satan likes it. It keeps the focus off the work of God.

[BobRyan]

Here is the problem, Bob. Other than the local elders votes there really has been no definitive vote other than the one in 1881 regarding the propriety of ordaining women to the gospel ministry, i.e., pastoral ministry. The votes in the 90's merely said no to the Divisions going forward on their own to decide within their own territory. While many opinions for and against have been expressed the vote of the GC in session in our lifetimes hasn't voted up or down the fundamental issue of whether women can be ordained. Even the local elder issue was decided by the Annual Council and not the GC in Session. The problem with regard to WO is that the decision has only been to kick the can down the road, but not to pick it up and take care of it once and for all. In other words, no decision for now.

And the other problem for this thread is that I missread that 1995 GC vote.

====================================

http://advindicate.com/articles/2131.

I think I read this wrong. It is saying that the motion was voted down. They voted down the motion.

My mistake. I thought they approved it - and that is why I posted the title of this thread.

====================================================

995 GC Session Vote on Divisional Autonomy In 1995 at Utrecht, the GC session voted to keep the world church united, thus denying the North American Division’s [NAD’s] request to ordain women pastors in its territory. In brief, again as Rodríguez has so aptly stated: “It has simply voted against leaving the decision up to each world division.” (“Can We Talk?” Adventist Review, October 2010).

Here is the actual complete voted statement (which, it must be noted, once again does not provide any biblical passages or specific scriptural principles denying the request regarding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry). Notice that the focus once more was clearly related to the matter of whether or not the global Adventist Church would allow for any individual division to go its own way, or to remain united on this matter (i.e., the issue was unity, not Scripture per se):

voted statement:

The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policy. In addition, where circumstances do not deem it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committee takes specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions. [The vote was – In favor of divisional autonomy: 673. Opposed: 1,481].

[hch]

It appears that the opposition to Women's ordination as Pastors is doomed.

The GC voted in 1984 and in 1995 to approve women elders.

That is going unchallenged by key conservative leaders in the current debate over women pastors. So no push to get the GC to "undo the 1984 or 1995 vote" means that there can be no successful argument against women pastors based on Bible texts about "elders".

I don't see any way around that.

This means that the only ground left that still holds up - is the grounds of "unity" arguing that making a move that does not have unified support is a bad idea. And of course that is a good argument. The problem is that the opponents to WO seem to freely admit that they cannot rely on that one alone to make the case.

And that is the problem - that argument alone merely carries the ball down the field until such time as less "disturbance" arises culturally to the idea of WO when it comes to pastors - given that we already have approval for women elders and no change in that policy is being given serious consideration.

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

 

Woman's ordination is probably doomed.

 

The positions # 1, 2, & 3 as stated in the article "Adventists Urged to Study Women’s Ordination for Themselves"

are bewildering.

 

Romans 16:1 states "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a deacon [margin] of the church which is at Cenchrea:"

 

A deacon is not an elder, but is a minister. Thus for #1 to conclude "the Adventist Church has no biblical basis to ordain women" ignores the fact that a woman was ordained in Scripture.

 

Aand Ellen White was listed among the ordained Ministers in California near the end of her ministry. And to think that we do not have "the Urim and the Thummim" to guide us and to ignore the example set by God's prophetess is illogical. Would Ellen White allow herself to be listed among the ordained Ministers in the California Conference of SDA's if it were not appropriate to ordain women? By her example, she has rightly divided the word of God and settled a matter with which the brethren needlessly struggle.

 

In the Old Testament men priests symbolized a coming Messiah. But Jesus has fulfilled the law. So what is the need for gender distinctions in the priesthood in this dispensation?

 

This issue looks so much like the circumcision schism that rocked the early church. Both parties had their positions staked out and it served to divide the Church. In the end the view that seemed the least likely (to those who believed in the perpetuity of circumcision based on God's command to Abraham that was to endure forever) prevailed.

 

The good news is that God will ordain the man or woman of His choosing to do the work that ordains and He will give the Holy Spirit to them to do His will. And He is going to wrap it up soon!

 

Christian regards