Women in Ministry

[Nan]

Just a question related to the list of words for elders etc - how would the Greek describe a mixed group of male and female elders?

I am not asking to be provocative, I really do not know and in English to my knowledge collective nouns do not always differentiate with mixed gender.

[John317]

Just a question related to the list of words for elders etc - how would the Greek describe a mixed group of male and female elders?

It would say male elders and female elders. The ending of the adjective, as well as the definite article if it takes one, indicates whether it is referring to males or to females.

For instance, if speaking both of older men and of older women, who are subjects of the sentence, it would say,

hoi presbuteroi kai hai presbuterai

By the way, if it were to say, hoi presbuteroi kai presbuterai, it would signify that someone was both a male and female elder, which, you may be certain, occurs nowhere in the entire NT. This rule has great importance at verses such as Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1, as well as at Matt. 28: 19 and John 20: 28.

At Eph. 4: 11 this same rule shows that a single believer has both the gift of pastoring and teaching.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

Since you don't want people putting words in your mouth or telling you what to say, please refrain from doing it to others.

Since I didn't ... I will say the same to you .... Since you don't want people putting words in your mouth or telling you what to say, please refrain from doing it to others.

If you have an issue with me John317 ... please address it in a PM or this thead will have to be once again shut down.

But since you have repeatedly refused to follow the instructions of our Lord in Matt. 18 ... this does not surprise me.

[John317]

JOHN3:17---Since you don't want people putting words in your mouth or telling you what to say, please refrain from doing it to others.

Quote:

Since I didn't ... I will say the same to you .... Since you don't want people putting words in your mouth or telling you what to say, please refrain from doing it to others.

Kindly explain to me, then, what you you were doing when you said, "And by the way ... with your bias on this topic ... it would seem strange for you to say that you don't know if you support women to be pastors. Why not just come out and say NO?"

Quote:

If you have an issue with me John317 ... please address it in a PM or this thead will have to be once again shut down.

But since you have repeatedly refused to follow the instructions of our Lord in Matt. 18 ... this does not surprise me.

I'm not here to argue with you. Simply stay on the subject, make no personal attacks, and don't tell other people what to say.

You've denied doing it, but the proof is right here before our eyes. I clearly stated my position on the issue-- that I lean toward opposition to WO but that I've not fully made up my mind-- yet you have said here that I should just say "NO." If that is not trying to put words in other people's mouths, then please explain exactly what it is.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Below are all of the NT verses containing the verb, diakoneo, Strong's #1247, meaning to be a servant, attendant, domestic; to serve, minister, wait upon.

1) Matt. 4: 11-- RSV, NASB, angels "ministered"

2) Matt. 8: 15-- RSV, Peter's mother-in-law "served" Jesus; NASB, "wait on."

3) Matt. 20: 28-- RSV, not to be "served but to serve"

4) Matt. 25: 44-- RSV, "minister to you."

5) Matt. 27: 55-- RSV, "ministering."

6) Mark 1: 13-- RSV, "ministered;" NIV "attended."

7) Mark 1: 31-- RSV, "served;" NIV, "to wait on."

8) Mark 10: 45-- RSV, NIV, not to be "served but to serve."

9) Mark 15: 41-- RSV, "ministered;" NIV, "cared for his needs."

10) Luke 4: 39, RSV, to serve; NIV, to wait on.

11) Luke 8: 3-- RSV, "provided for;" NIV, "helping to support."

12) Luke 10: 40-- RSV, "to serve;" NIV, "to do the work."

13) Luke 12: 37-- RSV, NIV, "serve"

14) Luke 17: 8-- RSV, "serve;" NIV, "wait on."

15) Luke 22: 26-- RSV, NIV, "serves."

16) Luke 22: 27-- RSV, NIV, "serves...serves."

17) John 12: 2-- RSV, NIV, Martha "served."

18) John 12: 26-- RSV, NIV, "serves... serves"

19) Acts 6: 2-- RSV, "to serve tables;" NIV, "to wait on tables." Jerusalem Bible, "so as to give out food;" TEV, "to handle finances." (This is in reference to the first deacons in the NT church.)

20) Acts 19: 22-- RSV, NIV, "helpers;" Robert Young Literal, "those ministering." Masculine participle.

21) Romans 15: 25-- RSV, "aid;" NIV, "in the service of" of the saints; RYL, "ministering to."

22) 2 Cor. 3: 3-- RSV, "delivered;" NIV, "ministry;" NRSV, "prepared;" RYL, "Ministered."

23) 2 Cor. 8: 19-- RSV, "carrying on;" NIV, "administer;" NRSV, "administering;" RYL, "ministered."

24) 2 Cor. 8: 20-- RSV, "administering;" NIV, "administer."

25) 1 Tim. 3: 10-- RSV, NIV, "Let them serve [as deacons];" RYL, "let them minister."

26) 2 Tim. 1: 18-- RSV, "service;" NIV, "helped;" RYL, "minister."

27) Philemon 13-- RSV, "serve;" NIV, "helping;" NASB, "minister."

28) Hebrews 6: 10-- RSV, "serving... still do;" NIV, "helped... continuing to help." NASB, "ministered... still ministering."

29) 1 Peter 1: 12-- RSV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, "serving." Literally, "ministering."

30) 1 Peter 4: 10-- RSV, "employ it for;" NRSV,NIV, "serve;" NASB, "employ it in serving."

31) 1 Peter 4: 11-- RSV, "renders service;" NASB, NIV, "serves; "RYL, "minister."

[John317]

http://drpipim.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=46

The Campaign for Women’s Ordination—Part 2

THE ROLE OF CHURCH LEADERS & SCHOLARS

[This article is excerpted and adapted from the author’s book Must We Be Silent?]

By

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD

Director, Public Campus Ministries, Michigan Conference

Introduction

In Part 1, we called attention to the unfortunate tendency by advocates of women’s ordination to trivialize discussions on the subject, by relegating the issue to one’s cultural preference, rather than to one’s fidelity to Scripture. In this second part of our discussion, we shall look at a carefully laid-out political strategy by church leaders in North America to domesticate the unbiblical practice of ordaining women as elders or pastors.

The Politics of Women’s Ordination

In C. Mervyn Maxwell’s article “How Money Got Us Into Trouble,” he followed the money trail, showing how the desire to enjoy U.S.A. IRS income tax advantages got our church into the theological trouble of women’s ordination.[1] In addition to the desire to enjoy United States tax law benefits to ministers, another major factor in the campaign for women’s ordination has been pressure from a relatively small but influential group that has been pushing for women’s ordination during the past thirty or more years.

In response to their pressure, church leaders at the 1975 Spring Council meeting approved the Biblically compromising practice of ordaining women as local elders in the North American Division if “the greatest discretion and caution” were exercised. Later, they succeeded in persuading church leaders at the Fall 1984 Annual Council meeting to reaffirm and expand the 1975 decision, voting to “advise each division that it is free to make provisions as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local elders.”

Thus, even though the 1975 provision departed from the New Testament model of church leadership that assigns to men, not women, the headship roles of elder or pastor, and even though the world church had not formally approved of the provision at a General Conference session, in 1984 the ordination of women as elders was extended from North America to the world field. [2] Emboldened by their success in influencing church leaders to allow “women elders,” pro-ordination advocates then proceeded to urge the world church in General Conference session to ordain women as pastors, at least in divisions favorable to it. However, at the General Conference sessions both in 1990 (Indianapolis) and 1995 (Utrecht), the representatives of the world church overwhelmingly rejected the pleas to ordain women into the Gospel ministry. The votes were 1,173 to 377 (in 1990) and 1,481 to 673 (in 1995). [3]

In spite of these decisions, proponents of women’s ordination determined upon an all-out campaign, including unilateral ordinations in some influential North American churches and institutions. At the same time that these rebellious ordinations were taking place, advocates were also employing a tactic that had served their cause well in the past—namely, working through church leaders to legislate the un-Biblical practice.

Without doubt, the most subtle, and yet most ambitious, effort by pro-ordinationists to overturn the worldwide decision is the proposal contained in the North American Division’s document “President’s Commission on Women in Ministry—Report.” The document was voted during the October 7-10, 1997 year-end meeting of the North American church leaders. [4] If fully implemented, it will allow women to occupy the highest headship positions of church leadership, including local church pastor, conference president, union president, division president, and even General Conference president.

A Well-Orchestrated Strategy

I summarize below the major strategy that is outlined in the North American Division’s document (“President’s Commission on Women in Ministry—Report”), offering possible reasons behind some of its provisions. Readers familiar with what is going on will recognize that advocates are already energetically implementing these strategies in church publications, print and video media, schools, local churches, conferences, and unions.

1. To make “women pastors” a common fixture in the church, conferences are encouraged “to hire more women in pastoral positions”; they are also requested “to set realistic goals to increase the number of women in pastoral ministry in their field [sic] during the next three years [culminating in the year 2000—the year of the Toronto General Conference session]”;

2. To enlist young people and their parents and teachers in the pro-ordination campaign, Adventist colleges and universities in North America are encouraged “to recruit young women who sense a call to pastoral ministry to pursue ministerial studies”;

3. To get people used to the concept of women serving in the same roles as men, “the NAD edition of the Adventist Review and other general church papers [are to] be asked to publish profiles of women serving in pastoral ministry several times a year”;

4. To ensure that church members become accustomed to seeing “women pastors,” the latter must be given “multiple exposures . . . in congregations throughout the NAD,” including the “use of print and video media” and “indirect portrayals of women with men in creative approaches to pastoral ministry”;

5. To legislate or make official the ordination of women in the Seventh-day Adventist Church without risking another General Conference session defeat, the document encourages the world church “to modify the language” in relevant sections of the current Church Manual and North American Division Working Policy so that wherever the words “ordain” or “ordination” occur they will be replaced by “ordain/commission” or “ordination/commissioning”; this modification makes “commissioning” the functional equivalent of “ordination”;

6. To implement modifications suggested in the Church Manual and North American Division Working Policy, unions and local conferences are encouraged “to promptly conduct commissioning services for those women who are eligible”;

7. To skillfully quiet opposition to women’s ordination/“commissioning” at both the local and higher levels of the church, “the Ministerial Association and/or any appropriate structure” should appoint “an ‘ombudsman’—a person with insight in the system and denominational policies who can provide feedback and guidance when women in ministry encounter conflict with employing organizations, as well as provide mediation if necessary”;

8. To ensure that pro-ordination views are constantly carried in materials produced by the church, “more of the advocacy for women in ministry [should] be channeled through the union papers and other media of mass distribution”; “preparation and dissemination of educational materials in multiple media designed to raise awareness about women in pastoral ministry and the role of women in the church” should be carried out;

9. To silence or censor views opposing women’s ordination, “the Church Resources Consortium [should] monitor and audit all NAD-produced and endorsed materials for compliance with a gender-inclusive model for ministry”;

10. To make dissenting church members feel as though they are out of harmony with the Bible or the official Seventh-day Adventist position, “the division president [should] issue a clear call to the church for gender-inclusiveness at all levels of the church—boards, committees, pastoral assignments, etc.”;

11. To ensure the eventual possibility for all conference, union, or division pastors to be guided by a “woman pastor,” the North American Division is urged to “move with a sense of urgency to include a woman with ministerial background as ministerial secretary or an associate ministerial secretary”;

12. To give Biblical and historical justification for the women’s ordination agenda, there should be “(i) multiple articles in denominational periodicals” and “(ii) a hermeneutics conference by the NAD and/or the GC” to “clarify” the church’s understanding of Biblical interpretation towards the “goals for gender inclusiveness in church organization.”

Actually, most of these strategies had been in operation for many years prior to the voting of the document. Advocates had employed them as they had worked through church leaders in their campaign for ordaining women as elders. But now, for the first time, the document puts these strategies clearly into print.

Of the twelve strategies listed above, the last one seems to be the most daunting. This is because an overwhelming majority of Seventh-day Adventists in North America and other parts of the world are theological conservatives—Bible-believers. As such they will strongly oppose the pro-ordination campaign, unless advocates are able to come up with ways to interpret the Bible (hermeneutics) to justify the ordaining of women as elders or pastors. This is one reason why some North American leaders approached the Seminary, urging it to “do something about Utrecht.” The result of this push from the North American church leaders was the 1998 book Women In Ministry[5] —a work that has been adequately refuted as theologically and historically deficient. [6]

As a result of the above well-choreographed strategies, today:

• pro-ordination church leaders are hiring more “women pastors,” attempting to issue common or unisex ordination credentials to them, and using their office and influence to promote women’s ordination;

• pro-ordination church scholars are trying to indoctrinate Adventist students and seminarians on our Adventist campuses to embrace and promote women’s ordination;

• pro-ordination church editors and publishers are giving publicity to women’s ordination in subtle and not-so-subtle ways;

• pro-ordination church pastors are pushing “women elders” on local churches.

The “Scholarly” Campaign for Women’s Ordination

The initial request for the Seminary book Women in Ministry came from “several union presidents of the North American Division” who, before and during the 1995 Utrecht General Conference session, had urged the North American Division President that there be “no turning back” in their campaign for women’s ordination. [7] When their petition was rejected by the world body at Utrecht, certain leaders in the North American Division began calling for “a clarification of the Adventist theology of ordination, culminating in the ordination of women,” and for steps that would lead to “clear understanding and member education regarding valid Adventist hermeneutical principles [of Biblical interpretation].” [8]

Notice that the call for “a clarification of Adventist theology of ordination” was really a quest for a scholarly work that would “culminate in the ordination of women.” The meaning of “valid Adventist hermeneutical principles” was later made explicit at the October 1995 Year-end Meeting of the North American Division leaders to be an approach to Scripture that would ultimately justify their belief in the Biblical correctness of women’s ordination.

At that October 1995 Year-end Meeting in Battle Creek, just three months after the Utrecht vote, the North American leadership announced that a commission was being appointed to recommend ways to “expand the role of women in ministry,” recognize and deploy the gifts God has given to women, and “affirm women in pastoral and other spiritual ministries.” [9] In their Statement of Commitment to Women in Gospel Ministry, adopted on October 13, 1995, the union presidents of North America also reaffirmed their belief “in the Biblical rightness of women’s ordination” and pledged their support for a clarification of the church’s theology of ordination. [10]

This brief background leads one to conclude that the initial request to the Seminary faculty by “several” of these union presidents for a clarification of the Adventist theology of ordination and for a clear understanding regarding valid Adventist hermeneutical principles, was a search for a scholarly work that would justify the ordination of women. Some three months before the Seminary appointed its Ad Hoc Committee in January 1996 to study issues related to hermeneutics and ordination, some of the North American Division leaders were already convinced of the “Biblical rightness of women’s ordination.”

Why was there a need for the Seminary to clarify the church’s principles for interpreting the Bible when the church already had done so—in the “Methods of Bible Study” document, approved by the church’s worldwide leaders in 1986 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil? [11] And why was there a need to clarify the church’s theology of ordination, when the church already had articulated its position in the 1988 volume Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . : A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (pp. 142-150) [12] and our Minister’s Manual (pp. 75-79 [1992 edition]; pp. 83-86 [1997 edition])? [13]

The answer seems obvious. It wasn’t because the church had no valid hermeneutical principles for interpreting the Bible, nor a sound theology of ordination. It already had these. Instead, some of the pro-ordination leaders wanted a theological validation of their stance on ordination. This was the only way they could justify earlier church policy revisions and Church Manual alterations in response to problems resulting from the North American Division’s desire to enjoy United States income tax benefits. [14]

Thus, in the production of the Seminary book Women in Ministry, the interests of pro-ordination leaders and that of pro-ordination scholars kissed each other. Or as the book’s editor later explained, the North American Division leadership, feeling “let down” at Utrecht, wanted the Seminary to “do something about it [the Utrecht vote].” [15]

The conclusion is inescapable. After several years of unsuccessful attempts at legislating the ideology of women’s ordination, the proponents decided that the time had come to try another strategy: the proclamation of the theology of women’s ordination. Using one of the leading and most influential church institutions, the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, some of the North American Division leaders sought to shift their strategy of women’s ordination from ideology to theology. The Seminary book Women in Ministry is the result of this strategy.

The Seminary volume was an attempt to justify theologically the ideology of women’s ordination, not a quest for an open-minded investigation into what the Bible has to say on a divisive and controversial issue in the church. The Seminary committee’s “dialogue” did not include Andrews University scholars opposed to women’s ordination, some of whom, through their earlier published works, had demonstrated a grasp of the crucial issues in the debate. [16] Though twenty authors collaborated to produce the book, the Seminary Ad Hoc Committee allowed no other viewpoints in the book except those favoring women’s ordination. [17]

Although dissenting scholarly views were not represented in the committee, readers are informed that during its two years of regular meetings, “sensitivity to the positions of others, both for and against women’s ordination was evident.” [18] Lamentably, this is typical of the manner in which the issue has been discussed even in official church publications. [19]

Is it not ironic—and unfortunate—that the views of scholars upholding the long-established Seventh-day Adventist convictions on this question are not always welcome today in church publications and even in the book originating from the Seminary? Whose interest is served when, on unresolved theological issues, opposing views are excluded even when those views are still embraced by the overwhelming majority of the church through official action?

If indeed the intent of the Seminary book is to provide theological reasons to overturn the worldwide decision at Utrecht, some major questions arise: Is it ever right for the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary to allow its prestige and resources to be hijacked for some ideological agenda rejected by the church? If, for instance, a General Conference session votes against homosexuality, can a group of pro-gay theologians in a church institution use the name and resources of the institution to advance their homosexual agenda?

This question is not about the Biblical rightness of women’s ordination, homosexuality, or any other issue. My point here is simply about the responsibility of the church’s leading theological institution to the community of faith at large. What kind of precedent do we set when the Seminary begins to cave in to ideological pressure or “appeals” from some quarters of church leadership?

Women in Ministry would have escaped justifiable criticisms that the Seminary’s name and resources are being (mis)used to promote the ideological agenda of women’s ordination, if it had allowed for opposing views. Since the authors “do not claim to speak for others, either at the Seminary or in church administration,” [20] would it not have been better for the pro-ordination scholars of the Seminary to have published and financed their private views independently (as other scholars both for and against ordination had previously done), instead of using the Seminary’s prestige and resources to gain credibility for their one-sided view?

The Seminary book would also have gained much credibility and, as Prove All Things: A Response to “Women in Ministry” (2000) has convincingly shown, the book would have avoided some of its theological and historical shortcomings if it had allowed for challenges by opposing views. But as we have mentioned earlier, the pro-ordination book was not a quest for an open-minded investigation into what the Bible has to say on the issue. It was a determined attempt to “do something about Utrecht.” This explains why advocates continue to promote the book even though is has been shown to be based on erroneous or questionable reinterpretations of Scripture and Adventist history. [21]

Despite the fact that ordaining women as elders and pastors goes contrary to the teaching of the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, the example of the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers, and the decision at two recent General Conference sessions (Indianapolis, 1990, and Utrecht, 1995), advocates continue to push for the practice. As a result of the combined efforts of pro-ordination church leaders and scholars, the latest buzzwords in the campaign for women’s ordination are “women leaders,” “women in leadership,” “women clergy,” and “women empowerment.”

The recent establishment of a “Center for Women Clergy” at the Andrews University Theological Seminary is one more effort to make “women clergy” and “women pastors” theologically acceptable. [22] The church needs to train and mentor more women at the Seminary for the work of ministry. But whether we are aware of it or not, confusing “women in ministry” with “women pastors” or “women clergy” is part of an ongoing campaign to domesticate the liberal-feminist agenda in the church.

In part 3 of this article, we shall show how the liberal-feminist agenda is being carefully pursued.

Endnotes

[1] See C. Mervyn Maxwell’s “How Money Got Us Into Trouble,” in this present volume.

[2] Refer to the minutes of the General Conference Spring Meeting (April 1975) and the General Conference Annual Council (October 1984). Even in the full text of the Annual Council action of 1984—the compromising action that served as a catalyst for those pushing women’s ordination—one will find the cautious measures that church leaders built into their action. Guidelines 3d and 3e are very insightful in this respect. Here is the full text of 272-84GN, the 1984 Annual Council Action:

WOMEN (LOCAL CHURCH) ELDERS—ELECTION AND ORDINATION

VOTED,

1. To reaffirm the Spring Meeting action on the General Conference Committee of 1975 Role of Women in the Church (GCC 75-153).

2. To advise each division that it is free to make provision as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local church elders.

3. To suggest that the following guidelines be used in the selection and ordination of women as local church elders:

a. The concept should be carefully examined, discussed, and properly accepted at the local church level.

b. If a church contemplates such an action, the entire matter should be discussed and approved by the conference committee after the conference administration has sought counsel from the union leadership. The negotiation between the church and the conference should occur in advance of the final decision and vote by the local church.

c. The action to elect and ordain a woman as a local church elder must not be taken unless a clear consensus exists that the ministry of a woman elder is desirable and even essential to the spiritual well-being of the local church family. It should also be the consensus of the church that a woman elder will be respected as a spiritual leader and soulwinner. The church should also express its belief that there are dimensions of spiritual service and counsel which cannot be properly fulfilled by a male elder.

d. A clear majority of the voting members of the local church must be in favor of the action. The matter should be considered at a specially called church business meeting. Every church member should be given the opportunity to vote on this issue rather than only the few who might be present at a regular meeting where routine items of business are on the agenda. Although preliminary study could be given to this question by the church board, any final action should be taken by the church in a business meeting.

e. Whatever the decision of the church, it should result in unifying the members and not be the source of divisiveness or alienation. The body of Christ, the church, must not be tarnished in any way. In this important issue, as in all things, the name of our Lord and Saviour must be exalted.

[3] One church historian summarizes the discussions at the 1990 and 1995 GC sessions thus: “Delegates to the [1990] world gathering spent nearly twelve hours during three days arguing their opinions about two ordination proposals. The first would permit ordination of women to the Gospel ministry without specifically mentioning women, the second would revise the Church Manual to allow both licensed and commissioned ministers who have been ordained as local elders to conduct marriages with the approval of their division committee. Opponents of ordination of women to the Gospel ministry defeated the first motion by a three to one margin. The second one passed by a three to two margin.

“Although the voting pattern defied neatly drawn lines, it was apparent that the North American Division found itself in the minority. Before the 1995 General Conference in Utrecht, Netherlands, the NAD prepared a proposal that would leave the decision to ordain women to the Gospel ministry in the hands of the world divisions, which meant that women’s ordination would become a policy of the divisions rather than the General Conference. The practical result would allow divisions to permit ordination of women to the Gospel ministry similarly as they permitted licensed or commissioned ministers to baptize or conduct weddings. The proposal would allow enough flexibility at the division level to accommodate differences in policy according to regional social expectations.

“This proposal prompted a short but animated exchange on the floor with arguments falling into three categories. First was the pragmatic view of the North American Division which again argued that because the church could not agree on a theology of ordination the question was essentially a matter of equality between men and women. The second was theological, diametrically opposed to the equality argument, holding that indeed, ordination of women was contrary to Biblical teaching. The third was conclusive—adoption of the North American Division proposal would jeopardize church unity. Many repeated the arguments heard five years earlier. Others saw the proposal as an attempt by the North American Division to sidestep the vote at Indianapolis. In the end, the two negative arguments carried the day and the NAD motion lost—again, by a three to one margin. Few Adventists had changed their minds since Indianapolis.” See Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 2000), pp. 467, 468.

[4] The full document can be found as appendix D of Prove All Things. It is also available on the Web site of ADVENTISTS AFFIRM: http://www.adventistsaffirm.org.

[5] See n. 21, below.

[6] Nancy Vyhmeister, ed., Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1998). The response to the Seminary book has been provided by Mercedes Dyer, Prove All Things: A Response to “Women in Ministry” (Berrien Springs, Mich.: ADVENTISTS AFFIRM, 2000). See also my Must We Be Silent? pp. 125-297.

[7] See, for example, Alfred C. McClure, “NAD’s President Speaks on Women’s Ordination: Why Should Ordination be Gender Inclusive?” Adventist Review [North American Division edition], February 1995, pp. 14, 15; cf. Gary Patterson, “Let Divisions Decide When to Ordain Women,” Spectrum 24/2 (April 1995) :36-42. For responses to the above view, see the articles by Ethel R. Nelson, “‘No Turning Back’ on Ordination?” and C. Mervyn Maxwell, “Response to NAD President’s Request to Annual Council” in Adventists Affirm 9/1 (Spring 1995) :42-46, 30-37, 67; cf. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Searching the Scriptures: Women’s Ordination and the Call to Biblical Fidelity (Berrien Springs, Mich.: ADVENTISTS AFFIRM, 1995), pp. 9-14, 88-90.

[8] After the rejection of the North American Division’s petition at Utrecht, the Pacific Union Conference, one of the largest North American union conferences, took an action they considered to be a road map to eventually ordaining women. Among other things, the union executive committee passed a resolution calling upon the General Conference, through the North American Division, to initiate a process that leads to: (A) “a clarification of the Adventist theology of ordination, culminating in the ordination of women”; and ( “action steps that lead to a clear understanding and member education regarding valid Adventist hermeneutical principles.” The executive committee of the Pacific Union also released a document affirming the group’s commitment to the goal of women’s ordination and to working towards the day when it will be realized. See “Pacific Union Executive Committee Maps Course for Women,” Pacific Union Recorder, October 2, 1995, pp. 3, 11, emphasis mine.

[9] See the introduction to “President’s Commission on Women in Ministry—Report” reproduced in ADVENTISTS AFFIRM 12/3 (Fall 1998) :13 and in Prove All Things, p. 399.

[10] “A Statement of Commitment to Women in Gospel Ministry from the North American Division Union Presidents,” October 13, 1995, emphasis mine. Two years after the North American Division President’s commission was appointed, its report was formally accepted on October 9, 1997. Among the specific recommendations for “gender inclusiveness in church organization” is an “urgent need to study and clarify the church’s understanding and application of Biblical hermeneutics. This should take the form of: (i) multiple articles in denominational periodicals; (ii) a hermeneutics conference sponsored by the NAD and/or the GC.” See Article XII of the Report of the “President’s Commission on Women in Ministry.” The entire document is worth reading, if one is to capture the scope of the strategies to achieve a gender-inclusive ministry (see Prove All Things, pp. 399-404).

[11] At the 1986 Annual Council meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, church leaders representing all the world fields of the Seventh-day Adventist Church approved the report of the General Conference’s “Methods of Bible Study Committee” as representative of the church’s hermeneutical position. This document was published in the Adventist Review, January 22, 1987, pp. 18-20, and reproduced as appendix C in my Receiving the Word, pp. 355-362. Generally, loyal Adventists embrace the 1986 “Methods of Bible Study” document as reflecting Adventism’s historic principles of interpretation. For a discussion of how Adventist scholars have reacted to the “Methods of Bible Study” document, see my Receiving the Word, pp. 75-99. For more on the history of Adventist Bible interpretation, see C. Mervyn Maxwell, “A Brief History of Adventist Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 4/2 (1993) :209-226; Don F. Neufeld, “Biblical Interpretation in the Advent Movement,” in Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon Hyde (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1974), pp. 109-15; George Reid, “Another Look at Adventist Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 2/1 (1991) :69-76.

[12] Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . : A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988), esp. pp. 142-150. Produced by some 194 Seventh-day Adventist thought leaders around the world, this “carefully researched” volume is to be received “as representative of . . . [what] Seventh-day Adventists around the globe cherish and proclaim,” and as furnishing “reliable information on the beliefs of our [seventh-day Adventist] church” (ibid., pp. vii, iv, v).

[13] Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook (Silver Spring, Md.: Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1997), pp. 83-86. The “Ordination Statement” in the Minister’s Handbook sets forth Adventists’ understanding of the nature, significance, qualifications, and the responsibility of ordination. A note attached to the “Statement of Ordination” reads: “This section reproduces the statement on ministerial ordination prepared by the General Conference Ministerial Association and the GC Biblical Research Institute. The statement received broad input from the world field and went through numerous revisions. It purposely omits the gender issue in ministerial ordination, seeking rather to lay down basic principles by which all ministerial ordination issues can be measured” (ibid., p. 83 [1997 edition]).

[14] For more on the relationship between the issues of income tax benefits and ordination, see [C. Mervyn Maxwell, ed.] “A Very Surprising (and Interesting) History,” ADVENTISTS AFFIRM 12/3 (Fall 1998) :18-23, appearing on pp. 225-230 of Prove All Things; cf. Receiving the Word, pp. 125, 126; p. 140, nn. 43, 44.

[15] The editor of the liberal magazine Adventist Today summarizes the circumstances leading to the production of the Seminary book, as narrated by Nancy Vyhmeister, chair of the Seminary Ad Hoc Committee and editor of the book, at the October 1998 meeting of the pro-ordination group, Association of Adventist Women, held in Loma Linda, California. On the circumstances leading to the feeling of being “let down,” Vyhmeister mentioned that in the wake of the Utrecht defeat of the North American Division petition for women’s ordination, people from opposite ends of the ordination spectrum blamed or praised the Seminary for sending two representatives with opposing viewpoints. She, however, explained that the two professors who spoke at Utrecht (Raoul Dederen and P. Gerard Damsteegt) did not speak for the Seminary: “Those people were invited by ‘someone else,’ and they agreed to speak long before the seminary knew anything about it.” When, therefore, less than a month after Utrecht “several” North American leaders met with the Seminary faculty and told them, “you let us down [at Utrecht]; you’re against women’s ordination,” reports the editor of Adventist Today, “every representative of the Seminary who was attending the meeting insisted that they were not against women’s ordination. In fact, Nancy said, about 90% of the Seminary faculty favor women’s ordination.” What follows is significant: “‘Then do something about it,’ one union president said. Dr. [Werner] Vyhmeister, dean of the Seminary and Nancy’s husband, agreed and said that the Dean’s Council would decide what to do. The outcome of that decision was a fifteen-person committee which [was] formed to study the subject of hermeneutics and ordination” (see Colleen Moore Tinker, “Seminary States Position in Women in Ministry,” Adventist Today, November-December, 1998, pp. 24, 10, emphasis mine). “Doing something about Utrecht” is what the Seminary book is all about, rather than being a quest for an open-minded investigation of what the Bible actually teaches on the subject of women in ministry. Some North American leaders wanted the scholars at the Seminary to speak with one voice in favor of women’s ordination.

[16] See, for example, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Women in the Church: A Biblical Study on the Role of Women in the Church (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Biblical Perspectives, 1987); C. Raymond Holmes, The Tip of an Iceberg: Biblical Authority, Biblical Interpretation, and the Ordination of Women in Ministry (Berrien Springs, Mich.: ADVENTISTS AFFIRM, and Wakefield, Mich.: Pointer Publications, 1994); Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Searching the Scriptures: Women’s Ordination and the Call to Biblical Fidelity (Berrien Springs, Mich.: ADVENTISTS AFFIRM, 1995). At the time they published their works, Samuele Bacchiocchi was a professor of church history and theology in the religion department of Andrews University; C. Raymond Holmes was the director of the doctor of ministry program and professor of worship and preaching at the Theological Seminary; and Samuel Koranteng-Pipim was a PhD candidate in systematic theology at the Theological Seminary, having served there as a contract teacher in theology and ethics (see also next note).

[17] Of the 20 authors who collaborated to produce the book, one was the Seminary professor who presented the pro-ordination view at Utrecht (Raoul Dederen); but the other Seminary faculty member who presented the opposing view at Utrecht was excluded (P. Gerard Damsteegt, the principal author of the church’s Seventh-day Adventists Believe). Women in Ministry contains an article by an associate professor in the religion department at Andrews University (Keith Mattingly); but a well-known professor in the same department who had published an opposing view (Women in the Church) was left out (Samuele Bacchiocchi). Though not part of the initial committee of 15, other Seminary scholars, including a retired faculty member, were allowed to publish their views in the book (George Knight, Denis Fortin, and Daniel Augsburger); but another equally competent retired faculty member who had earlier challenged women’s ordination (in his The Tip of an Iceberg) was not invited to contribute a chapter (C. Raymond Holmes). Two Seminary students’ works appear in the book (Michael Bernoi and Alicia Worley); but not a single Seminary student opposing women’s ordination was included (at that time Samuel Koranteng-Pipim was a doctoral candidate and had authored the book Searching the Scriptures). It is clear that the Seminary Ad Hoc Committee decided that no other viewpoints should be known in the book except those favoring women’s ordination. The pro-ordination bias of the committee is also evidenced by the manner in which some cite the works and authors of non-ordination publications (see especially Randal Wisbey, “SDA Women in Ministry, 1970-1998,” Women in Ministry, pp. 241, 245, 254, n. 31).

[18] Vyhmeister, “Prologue,” p. 2.

[19] Space limitations will not permit me to document how, prior to Utrecht, official church publications presented mainly pro-ordination views in their pages. But one of the authors of Women in Ministry, despite his pro-ordination bias in chronicling the history of Seventh-day Adventist discussions of the issue, has correctly noted that prior to the 1995 Utrecht General Conference session, “the Adventist Review and Ministry published articles dealing with ordination in which the editors took pro-ordination stands” (Randal R. Wisbey, “SDA Women in Ministry: 1970-1998,” in Women in Ministry, p. 246). For a recent attempt by editors of a church publication to discredit the works of those attempting to uphold the church’s official position, see the editorial comment preceding the article by P. Gerard Damsteegt, “Scripture Faces Current Issues,” Ministry, April 1999, p. 23. For a possible explanation of the pro-ordination bias in church publications, see Articles X and XII in the “[North American Division] President’s Commission on Women in Ministry—Report,” reproduced on pp. 403, 404 of Prove All Things.

[20] Vyhmeister, “Prologue” in Women in Ministry, p. 5.

[21] See, for example, chapters 43, 45, 47, and 49 of my Must We Be Silent?. My detailed response to Women in Ministry is contained in Must We Be Silent? pp. 125-289. Women in Ministry has recently been translated into Spanish, in an apparent effort to change the views of conservative Adventists in South America and other Spanish-speaking regions of the world.

[22] Wendi Rogers, “Center for Women Clergy at Andrews University Provides Support, Mentorship,” Adventist News Network, accessed March 21, 2005, at http://news.adventist.org/data/2004/10/1101845365/index.html.en.

[John317]

WOMEN'S ORDINATION REQUEST REJECTED AT SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTIST WORLD SESSION

Adventist News Network

Released by: Ray Dabrowski

Phone: +31-30-955-324 (June 29-July 8) or +301-680-6300

Written by: Max Torkelsen II, Rick Kajiura, Ray Dabrowski

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 5, 1995

Utrecht, The Netherlands... Casting what is essentially a vote against

the ordination of women for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, delegates

to the 56th World Congress of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted

not to allow world divisions of the Church to ordain individuals

without regard to gender.

Fewer than one-third of the delegates voted in favor of the request

from the North American Division of the Church which asked that

divisions, not the Church as a whole, be allowed to make the decision

on ordination. Of the 2,154 votes cast, 1,481 voted against the

request, 673 voted for.

The discussion of this issue produced the most spirited debate thus

far with those "against" the motion showing, at least superficially,

more passion than those "for" the issue. As the delegates assembled at

2 p.m. in expectation of the agenda item more than the average amount

of time was spent in prayer. In addition to the invocation there were

prayers before each formal statement and a prayer by Robert S.

Folkenberg, world president of the Church, immediately preceding the

vote. His prayer urged a spirit of "unity in Christ" regardless of the

outcome.

The afternoon proceedings began with a short history of the women's

ordination issue in the Adventist Church presented by chairman Calvin

Rock, a general vice president of the Church. Rock revealed that the

General Conference Session of 1881 voted that "females may with perfect

propriety be set apart for ministry" by ordination, although that

action was never implemented.

In more recent times the first request for women's ordination came

from Finland in 1968. As recently as 1990 the Church in general

session defeated the proposal by a more than two-thirds majority.

In a presentation before the discussion, Alfred C. McClure, president

of the Church in North America, appealed to delegates to suspend the

views they brought with them, and that they prayerfully seek ways to

help address the dilemma that the North American Church faces. He said,

"We believe that gender inclusive ordination, while perhaps not

appropriate in some places will be helpful in North America. There is a

generation of bright and devout young people coming on the scene

tomorrow's leaders, I would submit the majority of whom believe it is

right, and who will be seriously disillusioned by a negative vote today

from their Church."

In the first of two presentations, Dr. P. Gerard Damsteegt, associate

professor of theology, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,

presented the theological case "against" the women's ordination. While

affirming women's "equality of nature and worth before God" he

suggested that women are "different in functional roles." He suggested

that the Bible does not allow "spiritual headship" of women either in

the family or in the Church.

Dr. Damsteegt suggested that those who are "for" female ordination are

departing from the traditional Adventist method of Scriptural

interpretation. He explained that this proposal conflicts with three

basic Bible doctrines, namely; the doctrine of the Church, the doctrine

of Holy Scripture, and the doctrine of the unity of the Church.

Dr. Raoul Dederen, professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology from

Andrews University Theological Seminary and former dean, presented the

case "for" the ordination of women. He stated, "The Scripture does not

speak to the issue of the ordination of women." He addressed several

of the same biblical passages referred to by Damsteegt, but offered a

different interpretation considering the cultural setting in which the

counsel was given. He pointed out that if an "elder" must be the

"husband of one wife" and "rule his family after him" then single men,

widowers, and married men with no children would not be eligible for

ordination. However, the Church does not apply the Scripture in this

way, he said.

Minutes before the vote was taken by secret ballot, Robert S.

Folkenberg, president of the world Church, appealed for the delegates

to "submit our cherished opinions to the word of God and His spirit.

Consider the pain of your brother and sister as more important than

your own."

As debate opened, there was a rush to the two microphones on the

floor. One-hundred and twenty persons lined up to speak for or against

the motion. Passionate speaches, mostly from the delegates representing

Central and South America as well as Africa and Asia, appealed for the

motion to be defeated. Statements for the right of gender inclusive

ordination not to be defeated, came mostly from North American and

European delegates. Deborah Harris from the North American Division

was the first woman to speak to the issue in the proceedings. She

suggested that "when God calls you he ordains you" and suggested that

women do not need to "wait for the recognition." She said "we don't ask

for praise, but we ask for justice. Fairness and equal opportunity is

the issue."

Delegate de Alomia, from the South American Division was the only

female to speak "against" the issue. She testified, "I have never felt

enslaved" in my extensive work for the Church. "I do not require a

title, the prize I receive will be in heaven," she said. De Alomia

continued, "I work gladly for God without any credit or license. Why

divide ourselves now merely for an earthly rite."

Vicki Ballou of the North Pacific Union in North America reminded

delegates that "defenders of the holocaust and slavery used the Bible

to defend their positions." She pointed out that many people in the

United States question "whether the church can really reflect the

character of Christ when it treats women unfairly."

Ted N. C. Wilson, president of the Euro-Asia Division emphatically

declared that this is a "potentially divisive issue" making "widespread

factionalism possible." He urged delegates to prayerfully vote "no" on

the issue.

Following the announcement of the results of the vote, McClure said:

"We have done our best to present the proposal as we felt was right. We

believe that it is something [ordination of women] that would be very

helpful in North America. However, the world Church has spoken. And we

believe in the unity of the world Church. We must stay together, and

we support the decision of the Church."

The women's ordination issue is not new to the Seventh-day Adventist

Church. It has been addressed at the 1881 General Conference Session.

In more recent times, a study was initiated in 1971 and the 1975

General Conference Session in Vienna, Austria, discussed the issue. In

l984, the Annual Council, the yearly business meeting of the Church,

authorized the ordination of women elders, but at the 1990 General

Conference Session in Indianapolis, United States, a motion to ordain

women to ministry was not approved. The vote then was 1,173 in favor of

the recommendation "not to approve ordination of women to the gospel

ministry," against 377 votes.

As a worldwide Christian Church, Seventh-day Adventists are present

mostly outside North America. The 8.5 million-member denomination has

less that 10 percent of membership in the United States and Canada.

-end-

[Stan]

So can this ever be brought before the world Church again?

[John317]

So can this ever be brought before the world Church again?

Yes, and it no doubt will be. But before it's brought up again for a vote, there needs to be much more study of the Bible about this question. My own belief is that the issue must be resolved theologically.

There could be danger in bringing it up before there's evidence that the church has made any change in its viewpoint on this issue. It seems to me that it would be pointless to bring it up every time the GC meets only for the request to be roundly defeated.

Some are saying that the Bible offers no guidance about whether women should be pastors. It seems to me that we need to study it closely and see if it does, and if so, we should be willing to do what it says even if it's not a popular view. On the other hand, if the Bible doesn't offer guidance on this question, it's essential that the world church come to an agreement on that viewpoint and then come a united decision on the ordination of women pastors so that the church is doing the same thing throughout the world.

[melvin mccarty]

The subject has been studied and studied and the voting decisions are clearly not on theological grounds or "conservative" against "liberal" but it is the cultural no-no's in the parts of the world church with the largest membership that will always carry the vote.

mel

[John317]

The subject has been studied and studied...

Have these studies shown that the Bible offers clear guidance on the issue? Or is the Bible silent on it?

Quote:

and the voting decisions are clearly not on theological grounds or "conservative" against "liberal" but it is the cultural no-no's in the parts of the world church with the largest membership that will always carry the vote. mel

The largest SDA membership throughout the world who vote against it say that their opposition is based on the Bible. If this is true, then the church's thought-leaders need to show a good, Bible-based reason for being in favor of it and to give solid arguments showing that a vote in favor of it does not contradict the NT.

I'm not persuaded that it has to do only with culture, because I know North Americans and Europeans who are opposed to having women pastors. For instance, Doug Batchelor and Dr. P. Gerard Damsteegt, to name only two. They are opposed to it on Bible grounds, not cultural. I haven't completely made up my mind one way or the other, but I am leaning toward opposition to it, and that is due to what I find in the Bible.

I'm hearing some SDA who say that we shouldn't be concerned with what the Bible teaches on this subject. I find that astonishing. Others say the Bible doesn't address the issue at all.

But how can we say the Bible doesn't address the issue when 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35 says, "As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says," (See NIV) and when 1 Tim. 2: 11-14 says, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression"?

How do you understand these verses? Specifically, how do you harmonize them in your mind with a belief that women ought to be pastors of local congregations?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Tom Wetmore]

John, it has been studied, researched and written about at length from all sides. The clear majority of Adventist Biblical scholars/theologians support women in ministry and find no Biblical impediment to their ordination to full gospel/pastoral ministry. It is not more study that is necessary so much as recognition of reality - women are in fact fully and successfully functioning in every ministerial capacity and winning souls to the kingdom. And that final phrase is THE clearest and indisputable evidence of the call to ministry leading to the human confirmation that we like to call ordination.

I find that the only voices out there saying we need to study it further are the progress obstructionists simply opposed to women in ministry.

With regard to your own proclaimed fence sitting on the issue, Redwood was correct. Your biased underwear is showing. Everything you post is against women in ministry. At every point where there is any ambiguity about the interpretation of a passage of Scripture, or multiple possible meanings of a Greek word everything you post is slanted against women in ministry. You seem to studiously avoid consideration of alternatives that may differ with that perspective. John, it is time to simple stop offering the pretense of being open-minded on the issue, because by all the evidence from you posts here on CA you really are not, IMHO.

Tom

[Woody]

Quote:

. To advise each division that it is free to make provision as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local church elders.

I appreciate you posting this. When I did ... you did not appear to accept it. You continued to state that the church had not voted to approve women as ordained elders or pastors.

Now ... we can see that it is true. Will you now acknowledge it?

[Woody]

Quote:

Yes, and it no doubt will be. But before it's brought up again for a vote, there needs to be much more study of the Bible about this question.

Yes, I agree and that has been done. 140 years of study by this church would seem like it would qualify as "more study".

Honestly at this point ... the Biblical aspects of this are clear. Some will ignore the clear Biblical directives. But the Bible remains clear. Those who ignore this will continue to say " we need more study". That is just PC language.

And by the way ... giving my opinion that you are clearly on the Anti Ordination crowd is not putting words in you mouth. It is simply stating an opinion that is obvious to many here not just me. But again it would appear that you want to stifle opinion. This is old hat from you. And if in the future you want to make a personal scene about other members ... do it with a PM please. This forum is a place to discuss the issues. I would hope we could keep on track with that. It is certainly my goal.

[Woody]

Quote:

John, it is time to simple stop offering the pretense of being open-minded on the issue, because by all the evidence from you posts here on CA you really are not, IMHO.

I agree with you Tom. But according to John317 ... this is called putting words in his mouth. I don't follow ... but he makes a big stink about it publicly so he must feel that he has been discovered and is defensive... or is that offensive.

And he seems to want it known in public.

[Stan]

Redwood & John 317

...

Please keep 'the battle' between each other private.

[Woody]

I'm with you Stan. Thanks.

[John317]

J... It is not more study that is necessary so much as recognition of reality - women are in fact fully and successfully functioning in every ministerial capacity and winning souls to the kingdom. And that final phrase is THE clearest and indisputable evidence of the call to ministry leading to the human confirmation that we like to call ordination.....

The same argument is made about accepting gay priests and pastors. It is said that we have only to look at the ministry of gay pastors to see that God has called them to the ministry. Those gay ministers are also equally convinced that God called them to it. But anyone's "call" must be tested by the words of God in the Bible. That is why it is essential that the church make its decision in this matter based on the teachings of the Bible.

If the Bible is clearly in favor of women being pastors, why would you choose to try to use 1 Tim 5: 2 as support of it?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

There is much support for women pastors. It is throughout the Bible. No one text is needed. That is why this supposed "gay" think is just a farce.

I would challenge you to do a survey and find out how many SDAs support an active gay person being a pastor. I would bet it is less than one percent. So, why bring it up. It makes no sense and is not applicable.

[John317]

The following are all of the NT verses in which the noun diakonos occurs, #Strong's #1249, the ordinary word for "servant" when not used in the context of church officers.

At Romans 16: 1, a key verse for the question of women's role in the church, it is most often translated as either "deaconess" or "servant." The New American Bible (Catholic), usually a very dependable translation, reads, "minister." Robert Young's Literal here reads, "ministrant."

The question is, does its use in Rom. 16: 1 show that there were women pastors in the NT church? That is, was Phoebe a pastor of a Corinthian congregation?

1) Matthew 20: 26-- RSV, NIV, "servant."

2) Matthew 22: 13-- RSV, NIV, "attendants."

3) Matthew 23: 11-- RSV, NIV, "servant."

4) Mark 9: 35-- RSV, NIV, "servant."

5) John 2: 5-- RSV, NIV, "servants." (Regarding waiters, one who serves food and drink.)

6) John 2: 9-- RSV, NIV, "servants."

7) John 12: 26-- RSV, NIV, "servant."

8) Romans 13: 4-- (of government) RSV, NIV, "servant."

9) Romans 15: 8-- (of Christ) RSV, NIV, "servant."

10) Romans 16: 1-- (of Phoebe) RSV, Amplified, "deaconess;" NIV, NKJV, NASB, "servant;" New American Bible, REB, Darby, "minister."

Both Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon and the Lexicon by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich conclude that here the word diakonos has reference to deaconess.

11) 1 Cor. 3: 5-- (of Paul and Apollos) RSV, NIV, "servants."

12) 2 Cor. 3: 6-- (of Paul and Timothy) RSV, NIV, "servants."

13) 2 Cor. 6: 4-- (of Paul and Timothy) RSV, NIV, "servants."

14) 2 Cor. 11: 15-- (of Satan's followers) RSV, NIV, "servants."

15) 2 Cor. 11: 23-- (of Jewish Christians) RSV, NIV, "servants."

16) Gal. 2: 17-- (of Christ), RSV, "agent;" NRSV, "servant;" NIV, "one who promotes;" KJV, "minister."

17) Eph. 3: 7-- (of Paul) RSV, "a minister;" NIV, "a servant."

18) Eph. 6: 21-- (Of Tychicus) RSV, "minister;" NIV, "servant;" NEB, "helper."

19) Phil. 1: 1-- (Ones to whom the letter, Philippians, is addressed), RSV, NIV, "deacons;" TEV, "helpers."

20) Col. 1: 7-- (of Epaphras), RSV, NIV, "minister;" NEB, TEV, "worker;" Jerusalem Bible, "deputy."

21) Col. 1: 23-- (of Paul), RSV, "minister;" NIV, "servant."

22) Col. 1: 25-- (of Paul), RSV, "minister;" NIV, "servant."

23) Col. 4: 7-- (of Tychicus), RSV, NIV, ASV, "minister;" NASB, "servant."

24) 1 Thess. 3: 2-- (of Timothy) RSV, "servant;" ASV, "minister;" (if reading is diakonos, based on Majority Text and Sinaiaticus; virtually all Greek manuscripts, including the most ancient, give this reading);

--- NIV, "fellow-worker;" NRSV, "co-worker;" (if reading is sunergon, based on manuscript D, a fifth century manuscript, and on #33, a 9th century manuscript. The Critical Text has sunergon, and therefore NIV, NASB, and NRSV all give that reading.)

25) 1 Tim. 3: 8-- (of men chosen to be deacons) RSV, NIV, "deacons;" TEV, "church-helpers."

26) 1 Tim. 3: 12-- RSV, NASB, "deacons;" NIV, "a deacon;" the Greek is plural.

26) 1 Tim. 4: 6-- RSV, "minister;" NIV, NRSV, "servant."

Next we'll look at 10 other words in the NT that are sometimes translated as "minister." We will see that none of them have reference to women as pastors of the church.

After that, we'll look at all the words translated as "bishop," or "overseer," "pastor," "leader," "governor," etc. It will be seen that none of these, either, have reference to women as bishops, overseers, elders or pastors in the church.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

There is much support for women pastors. It is throughout the Bible. No one text is needed. That is why this supposed "gay" think is just a farce.

I would challenge you to do a survey and find out how many SDAs support an active gay person being a pastor. I would bet it is less than one percent. So, why bring it up. It makes no sense and is not applicable.

There is a gay group in Riverside, CA that is attempting to become recognized as an SDA congregation. I know there have been other gay SDAs trying to make changes in the way SDAs view homosexuality. See below:

1976: SDA Kinship International, a gay-positive organization was founded. It is completely independent of the SDA church and has over 1000 members: gays, lesbians, their parents, friends and supporters. They believe that:

God loves and accepts gays and lesbians as they are

The Bible does not "condemn, or even mention homosexuality as a sexual orientation"

Founder Ellen White's writings do not "parallel any of the Bible Texts which are often used to condemn homosexuals."

an adult's sexual orientation is unchangeable.

1980: Kinship's first annual camp meeting was held in Arizona. Two SDA pastors and three seminary professors attended as official delegates of the SDA General Conference. The two pastors concluded that God's will for gays and lesbians cannot be understood from a simplistic reading of English translations of the Bible. The delegates subsequently recommended to General Conference executives and officials from SDA periodicals that:

The Biblical Research Institute conduct a special study of homosexuality,

The church publish balanced articles on the subject, and that

SDA schools include homosexual information in their sex-ed programs.

These and six other proposals were approved.

1991: The General Conference of the SDA church brought a lawsuit against Kinship over trademark infringement. They tried to prevent Kinship from using the words "Seventh-day Adventist" in their organization's name. The church lost.

------------

About SDA Kinship

Like other conservative Christian churches, the SDA Church believes that homosexuality is immoral. This creates a conflict for gay SDAs, says Kinship, whose members often feel hurt and betrayed by their church's rejection yet value the SDA beliefs and their history with the church.

Because of their church's stance, Kinship has a long road ahead in helping it better understand its gay members and the scientific and theological issues surrounding homosexuality. Kinship provides a safe and supportive space for members who need us for various reasons. We have members who are very interested in creating change within our church and others who feel too hurt by their church's rejection to remain very connected.

Noel - Australian Co-ordinator

SDA Kinship International can trace its roots to the early 1970s when a group of gay Adventists living in the Los Angeles area placed a classified notice in The Advocate, a national gay news magazine, in an attempt to connect with others. They received nearly 40 responses, and by 1975 they joined together with other small groups meeting in California.

At the same time, another group had been meeting in New York since 1974. The groups on opposite sides of the country joined together to form Kinship and held the first annual membership meeting in 1980 in Arizona. Today, Kinship has a membership of more than 1,000 in 20 different countries, including Australia, which has a presence since 1981. Kinship is made up of current and former members of the SDA Church and heterosexual supporters.

-------

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

I am sure there are many gays who would support gay pastors. I am sure there are many former members of the Church that would also. But I doubt that many current members would support a suggestion like this.

[Taylor]

I'd still say that despite the sad facts listed above...the average SDA doesn't support the gay lifestyle. Things aren't going to get any better before Jesus comes back..I am sure it is going to get worse. I am just grateful, John that God saved you from that lifestyle and gave you a new meaning in life.

[Guest charis]

[Tom Wetmore]

John, John, John... and why do you only focus your argument against women in ministry on only one text that I or anyone else has cited in favor? (This is a rhetorical repartee, so you really don't need to answer it...) :R And in case you don't quite get the reason for it, I find it hard to take disingenuous questions too seriously. But nonetheless...

While you happily use bits and pieces, here a little, there a little, to support your opposition, the case for women in ministry just as surely depends on cumulative evidence from a variety of sources. Stated simply, 1 Timothy 5:2 is only one piece of the whole puzzle and not the strongest and most persuasive. But then I am sure you really already knew all that despite your question... :R

And in similar fashion the souls won to Christ proof of the calling is not the only evidence or qualification required for an Adventist pastor to be ordained. And I am also quite sure you already knew that too... :R

Also of primary importance in qualification for ministry is moral fitness and "a life of consistent exemplary Christian conduct." And considering that in the interests of safeguarding the integrity and moral standing of the ministry, ministers are subject to disciplinary loss of their credentials for moral failure, including "sexual perversions", I think it safe to say that moral/sexual purity remains firmly a part of the basis for ordination qualification. And yet again, since I am quite sure you already knew that, that is the basis for me considering your whole post to be disingenuously argumentative and why I just gave myself a headache from rolling my eyes...

And until you can persuade me that being female is a moral failing or a sexual perversion the whole "the gays will be next" argument remains a diabolically devised and originated inflammatory red herring argument invented to purposely derail the whole issue by those stubbornly opposed to women in ministry. Nothing more, nothing less...

Tom