History of Women Elders and Pastors

[Woody]

Recent History of Women Elders and Pastors

1972: First woman ordained as local elder.

Josephine Benton ordained as local church elder, Brotherhood Church, Washington, D.C., by Potomac Conference and Columbia Union Conference presidents, W. G. Quigley and Cree Sandefur, respectively.

1975, March: Spring Meeting—Annual Council

adopts policy permitting the ordination of deaconesses and women elders.

Spring Meeting approves women’s ordination as deaconesses. Also permits women to be ordained as elders if "the greatest discretion and caution" is exercised. Urges women to become Bible workers, or even assistant pastors, but notes that the church will grant them only a missionary license, thus ending 100 years of granting women ministerial licenses. (Emphasis added).

1976: European woman becomes sole pastor.

Margarete Prange becomes pastor of the Galsenkirchen, Bottrop, Gladbeck, and Dorsten churches in East Germany

Responding to a request by James Londis and Kit Watts, NAD president Neal C. Wilson secures permission for Sligo Church to reproduce 13 papers which have been unanimously endorsed by the GC’ s Biblical Research Institute, and which find no theological obstacle to ordaining women.

1979, October: Annual Council votes internships for women pastors, Bible instructors.

AC provides special internship allotments for Bible Instructors and

Associates in Pastoral Care to be distributed by the North American Division

(NAD) beginning in 1980

1984, October: Annual Council.

Women elders’ ordination policy reaffirmed.

Annual Council reaffirms 1975 Spring Meeting decision that women may be ordained as local elders. Votes 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 church elders." Thus the provision is extended from NAD to the world field.

1985, June 6.

Four deaconesses are ordained in the Geneva, Switzerland, church. The action comes as a culmination of a nine-month study and hearing speakers G. Steveny, J. C. Verrechia, V. Haenni, E. Zuber, and F. Hugh. The Swiss/French conference president asks the senior pastor in Geneva to stop the ordination of women, believing that the Euro-African Division has not authorized ordination of women to any post and will not until the world church comes to an agreement.

1986, January 16: Deaconess’ ordination attested among early Adventists.

Adventist Review publishes evidence that W. C. White ordained deaconesses at the Ashfield church in Sydney, Australia, on January 6, 1900. This transcends objections raised on ordaining deaconesses at 1985 GC session

1986, February 8: Hispanic women ordained as elders in NAD.

Robert H. Carter, president of the Lake Union Conference, ordains three women elders at the Spanish church in Berrien Springs, Michigan: Marcia Gomez, Antonia Elenes, and Vita Marquez. The church business meeting had already voted overwhelmingly in favor of their ordination by 250-4.

1986, October 25.

The Newbold College Church in England ordains its first women elders:

Aulikki Nahkola and Cynthia Bent.

1986, December: NAD Bible teachers support women’s ordination.

Roger Dudley of Andrews University reports that 83% of Adventist Bible teachers in North America support women’s ordination. Dudley surveyed the religion faculties of 11 NAD colleges and the SDA Theological Seminary. The number of questionnaires returned is 94 out of 131.

1986: Yvonne Oster becomes church pastor in Lintioping, Sweden, 1986-1989.

1986, December 20: Women pastors resume baptizing in NAD.

Pastor Margaret Hempe baptizes two candidates in the University Church, Loma Linda, CA, at the request of the pastoral staff and more than 100 members of the University Church board

1987, May 21: PMC votes for women elders.

Members of Pioneer Memorial Church (Andrews University) vote to elect and ordain women elders by a 62.5% majority. Prior to the vote, members had received a 12-page document containing two position papers, for and against.

Senior pastor Dwight Nelson reverses his prior stand against women’s ordination

Roder Dudley puglishes date in the Adventist Review showing that 46% of NAD pastors favor ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Age is a factor. The majority of those under age 50 favor it, and the majority of those over 50 oppose it.

1987, August: Adventist Bible teachers in world church support women’s ordination.

Roger Dudley reports in Ministry Magazine on a study of religion teachers throughout the Seventh-day Adventist world church. Overall, 69% agreed that it was appropriate for women who have demonstrated their calling to ministry to be ordained as gospel ministers.

1987, October 7-9: NAD sponsors first gathering of women in ministry.

Of approximately 40 women in ministry in NAD, 23 attend the first meeting for SDA female chaplains and pastors coordinated by Bob Dale, assistant to NAD President Charles E. Bradford.

1988, May 10, 11: NAD calls for end to discriminatory practices.

NAD leaders call for an end to discriminatory policies affecting Adventist women in ministry. During the meeting in Loma Linda, California, they vote unanimously their objection to the current discrepancies in how the church treats men and women who have the same training and qualifications.

1988, May.

The Potomac Conference echoes the NAD stand and votes to cease discriminating against women in ministry and permit them, along with unordained males, to baptize and marry in the local church.

1988, October: Study finds that nearly 1,000 women elders serve in NAD.

The Institute of Church Ministry (at Andrews University) presents its survey reporting on the status of women elders. Researchers Carole Kilcher and Gan-Theow Ng find there are 960 ordained women elders serving the 3,036 churches alongside 14,495 male elders. Seventy-eight percent of those churches having women elders felt they strengthened the church. The survey also revealed that women function as elders in churches of every size and racial and cultural background.

1988: Chinese woman pastor performs baptisms.

Mrs. Hui Ying Zhou is reported to have baptized at least 200 persons in Wuxi, China. She attracts up to 1,000 to Sabbath services.

1989, January 29: Gender Inclusiveness Task Force organized.

Delegates to the Southeastern California Conference’s (SECC) special constituency meeting establish a 12-member task force "to plan and implement a broad spectrum of programs and materials on gender inclusiveness in family and church." The action also states that it is the will of SECC to ordain women in ministry as soon as possible.

1989, March 14.

Seventh-day Adventist Healthcare Chaplains Association meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, calls the church "into a full recognition, by ordination, of the ministry of women."

1989, April 30: Ohio Conference wants to ordain woman.

The Ohio Conference executive committee endorses Pastor Leslie Bumgardner as a candidate for ordination.

1989, May 4: Columbia Union endorses woman for ordination.

The Columbia Union Conference executive committee endorses Pastor Leslie Bumgardner as a candidate for full ordination no earlier than August of 1990 on the basis that it is "morally right and theologically correct.

"

1989, May 21: SECC calls for women’s ordination.

The Southeastern California Conference constituents pass a resolution (279-179) mandating that local qualified women pastors be considered for ordination no sooner than August 1990.

1989, June 7.

The Pacific Union Conference executive committee votes a resolution urging the General Conference "to eliminate gender as a consideration for ordination to the gospel ministry." They add that "we endorse the ordination of qualified women to the gospel ministry in divisions, unions, and conferences where deemed helpful and appropriate."

1989, mid-June: NAD union presidents endorse women’s ordination.

AD union presidents vote unanimously to send an endorsement of women’s ordination to the Commission on the Role of Women meeting in Cohutta Springs, Georgia, "in those divisions where it would be deemed helpful and appropriate."

1989, mid-June: NAD Officers resolution.

By secret ballot, NAD officers endorse a resolution similar to the one passed by the Pacific Union Conference by a vote of 5-1.

1989, June: First black woman becomes sole pastor of a church.

Hyveth Williams, previously associate pastor at Sligo Church, becomes senior pastor of the Boston Temple, Boston, Massachusetts.

1989, July 12-18: Cohutta Springs, Georgia.

Commission on the Role of Women in the Church—III.

Votes no ordination for women; some pastoral privileges.

Commission members vote 56-11 in favor of a controversial two-pronged recommendation brought to them by the division presidents and GC officers present.

Recommends:

(a) Women not be ordained to gospel ministry, and

( that divisions may authorize qualified women in ministry to perform baptisms and marriages.

1989, September 28: Women leaders support women’s ordination.

A summary of Karen Flower’s international survey of Adventist women in leadership is published in the Adventist Review. Sixty-five percent of the women surveyed feel that the associate pastor of a local church should be ordained, and 74% feel it would be appropriate for women to serve in this capacity

1989, October: Annual Council.

Delegates vote 187-97 in favor of accepting the two-pronged recommendation from the Commission on the Role of Women in the Church, which met in Cohutta Springs—rejecting women’s ordination, but permitting qualified women to baptize and perform marriages (See above.)

1990, June: AAW documents women in ministry.

The Adventist Woman, vol. 9. No. 3-4, documents the education, training, and public ministry of 62 women from 12 different countries, and includes photographs of them

1990, July 5-14: GC Session in Indianapolis. Delegates deny ordination for women.

Women may perform baptisms and marriages in some divisions.

By a vote of 776 to 494 the delegates choose to update the Church Manual to reflect the policy adopted at the 1989 Annual Council, which permits women to perform marriages in divisions which so authorize.

1990: V. Norskov Olsen publishes study of ordination.

Olsen’s book, Myth and Truth: Church, Priesthood and Ordination, a scholarly study, supports ordination of women.

1991. Australian women publish research report.

Four women: Jennifer Knight, Pamela Clifford, Merolyn Coombs, and Linette Lock, conduct research to study women’s perceptions of the SDA Church in Australia and New Zealand, and publish a 125-page report, The Adventist Women in the Secular World: Her Ministry and Her Church. Report pleads for change.

1992: SECC wants ordination plan.

Constituents ask executive committee to devise a plan for ordaining women within its jurisdiction and to conduct all future ordinations of men and women uniformly.

1993: NAD leaders call for ordination.

At a January meeting, 88% of the NAD ministerial directors attending, along with the senior pastors of college churches, ask NAD to authorize and promote women’s ordination on a regional basis.

1994, September 22: Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee (NAD) votes statement in support of women’s ordination.

1994, October: AAW publishes second list of women in ministry.

Photos and stories of 90 women in ministry make up the October! November issue (Vol. 13, No. 5) of the Adventist Woman. Included are women from Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, the Baltic Union, Russia, Norway, Finland, and the U.S.

1995, April: Pro-ordination book is published.

TEAM Press publishes The Welcome Table.’ Setting a Place for Ordained Women, in which 14 prominent Adventist authors and scholars support ordination of women.

[olger]

Far from being "so passionate in defense of 'women preachers,'” the Adventist pioneers seem uninterested in that specific aspect of the matter. They are concerned with the right of all women to participate in the services of the church, to testify for the Lord, and to have an active part in the work of saving souls.

Given our author’s interest in determining the pioneer’s views on women as pastors, it is unfortunate that he has overlooked a significant Signs of the Times editorial in 1878 that addresses the issue explicitly. J.H. Waggoner (likely a cousin), the magazine’s resident editor and the author of a treatise on church organization and order, is the author of the unsigned editorial, “Women’s Place in the Gospel.” After defending, as others had done, the right of women to speak in meeting, Waggoner specifically addressed whether Scripture allowed women to serve as pastors or elders. He wrote, “The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. 'For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church' (Ephesians 5:23). Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here [1 Timothy 2:12] prohibited.”

All the best,

oG

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Good post Olger,

very sound,

Norman

[Taylor]

Ok John I'll try to address the issues. I am not good at the "quote thing" so bear with me....

John said: What do you base your view on, that they voted as they did for fear of splitting the church? Did you see this said by the General Conference itself or by those who voted against ordination?

Taylor says: Yes that is how I understand it. Some voted in strong favor of it and some voted in strong opposition to it. The church decided not to make an issue out of it because both sides were completely convinced that they were voting on their competely understanding of the Word of God. There were people on both sides that were equally dedicated to the Lord on this issue. Unfortunately, there were also people on both sides that had angry, non-christian words to say to their "opposition". So, in order to not "split the church" on this issue, the church decided to not let every division just decide for themselves, rather, they decided to not rock the boat further.

John says: Under the present conditions, the General Conference having voted against ordination of women, how can I say I support it if I ordain women to be church pastors? Isn't taking that action undercutting the General Conference's decision?

Taylor says: Agreed therefore most people haven't gone against the GC's decision on ordination whether they agree personally with it or not.

John says: However, whether or not we ordain women to be pastors or elders is important, because it says that the person has authority to represent the church. For instance, I haven't been given that authority, and therefore what I say is simply my personal opinion. When a pastor or church elder acts or speaks, it is not simply his personal opinion; he speaks for the church.

Taylor says: No I don't see it this way. Pastor "represent" the church all the time who are not ordained. They are fully recognized as the pastor of that church or the youth leader of that church but they are not yet ordained. I also don't think that everything a pastor says, whether odained or not, necesarily comes with the blessing of the church or God. People are human, and being ordained doesn't change their natural fallibility. There are equally sincere and God-fearing pastors who are ordained as well as those who aren't ordained.

John says: I'm trying to get the church's position straight. Hasn't the General Conference voted against making women pastors and elders?

Taylor says: Now you've heard what I've been trying to say. The GC does not have a position against women pastors or elders. They do have a position on ordination of Pastors. But there are many hired as pastors who are female and those conferences or unions or divisions are not going against the GC's policies or decisions.

[Taylor]

Far from being "so passionate in defense of 'women preachers,'” the Adventist pioneers seem uninterested in that specific aspect of the matter. They are concerned with the right of all women to participate in the services of the church, to testify for the Lord, and to have an active part in the work of saving souls.

Given our author’s interest in determining the pioneer’s views on women as pastors, it is unfortunate that he has overlooked a significant Signs of the Times editorial in 1878 that addresses the issue explicitly. J.H. Waggoner (likely a cousin), the magazine’s resident editor and the author of a treatise on church organization and order, is the author of the unsigned editorial, “Women’s Place in the Gospel.” After defending, as others had done, the right of women to speak in meeting, Waggoner specifically addressed whether Scripture allowed women to serve as pastors or elders. He wrote, “The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. 'For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church' (Ephesians 5:23). Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here [1 Timothy 2:12] prohibited.”

All the best,

oG

'

There is also ample evidence that has been presented on the other side. You don't agree with the other side or their evidence and that is ok. No one is throwing out anyone. However, after careful study they are just as convinced you are of following the Lord and His Word. We are not to set up ourselves as judges, that is true, but we are to study His Word and it is clear to both sides. That is why it is a good thing that the Lord is the judge and not man.

Have a wonderful Sabbath! Take care!

[Tom Wetmore]

Good post Olger,

very sound,

Norman

Norman, I am not surprised that you might consider it to be a good post. :R But a post is not "very sound" other than making a lot of noise if it totally ignores the facts and evidence contrary to its stated position. As Taylor noted, there is ample evidence that what Gerry asserts is simply untrue.

The fact of the matter is that the article quoted by Gerry expresses one side of the debate from that era of the Adventist Church. As I have also posted, there were articles in those days vigorously advocating exactly the opposite position regarding the place of women in the gospel ministry. And there is official church record that it was discussed a number of times in business meeting of the Church. But such evidence, including clear statements from EGW and clear Scriptural evidence are routinely passed over and ignored by those opposed to women in ministry.

All of that clearly refutes Gerry fallacious assertion that "the Adventist pioneers seem uninterested in that specific aspect of the matter." My point is that one cannot with genuine intellectual honesty make such assertions or applaud them if one has not actually done their homework thoroughly, or if as is so readily evident here,one totally ignores the contrary evidence already presented on this forum repeatedly by others who have thoroughly done their homework.

Tom

[olger]

Oh c'mon Tom. You know it was great .

I don't guess that there is anything I could speak on the subject that would meet your approval. I know where you stand. And you know my conviction on the subject. We could both accept that.

best wishes,

oG

[Tom Wetmore]

Thanks Redwood for posting the record of recent history showing the progress leading to the current position of the Church. As Taylor has noted, and as has been repeatedly posted on other topics, it clearly shows that the Church is not against women in ministry ranging from deaconesses to full pastoral ministry and leadership, locally and at the highest level of the church.

It is clear that the vast majority of Church leadership, and its theologians, support women in ministry. And those of us who have worked "shoulder to shoulder" along side women in ministry see what God has ordained. The only impediment to progressing beyond this point is to recognize what God has done in calling women to pastoral ministry. Such recognition is what we call ordination.

Tom

[olger]

In 1951, all but one of the teachers holding academic positions in New Testament studies in the Swedish universities issued a statement in response to the efforts of the Swedish government to introduce the ordination of women into the Church of Sweden, a state church. The statement is as follows:

We, the undersigned, professors and lecturers in the field of New Testament exegesis at our two universities, hereby declare as our definite opinion, based on careful investigation, that ordination of women would be incompatible with New Testament thought and would constitute disobedience to the Holy Scriptures. Both Jesus' choice of apostles and Paul's words concerning the position of women in the congregation have significance of principle, and are independent of circumstances and opinions conditioned by any particular time in history. The current proposal that women should be admitted to priesthood in the Church of Sweden must therefore be said to meet with grave exegetical obstacles.

Fifty years later, it would be difficult to find one professor holding an academic position in exegesis at a university in Sweden who would endorse this statement. What changed?

For some, the reason for their change has been a change in their view of the applicability of scripture.

But many writers today would dispute the exegetical results embodied in the statement. No significant new evidence has been found to warrant such a reversal. The only explanation for it is that the climate of opinion has changed, influencing exegetes to come up with opinions that are acceptable nowadays.

Either the Swedish exegetes in 1951 were determined by extra-exegetical factors, or the current exegetes are so determined.

The investigations in this book would indicate that the problem in this case lies more with the current exegetes. Thirty-five years ago, Christian feminist exegesis would have been dismissed out of hand by competent scholars.

Now it has influenced many of them and can be found in the most respectable journals. Social historians 200 years from now will probably find this a good example of how scholarship can be influenced by political ideology and propaganda in the midst of a movement of social change.

In summary, the exegetical position taken by the world church in two GC sessions is a basically uncontroversial one in its overall outlines.

What is troubling is the determination by "some" to press ahead with this issue despite a formal expression of will by the General Conference in two sessions. To defy the world church and institute what seems like oncoming congregationalism is an ominous and strange move.

Only Christian feminist exegesis would dispute this assertion, and the thrust of the book Women In Ministry is not, for the most part sound in its underlying principles and approach.

It is the climate of opinion that has changed, dear ones. Not the Bible. Dr. Leslie Hardinge told me in Philly (in late 1995) that the Bible was against women's ordination and it wasn't the kind of book that changed. He's right of course.

George Vandeman told me (in phone conversation) that the spirit the opposed the 1990 GC decision not to ordain women as pastors, convinced him that the decision was the correct one.

Climates change all the time, that's why we need to anchor our faith in the word of God lest we lose our footing as the Remnant.

Lord bless,

oG

[Neil D]

Ok, I have read thru this....I can only come to one conclusion....

Olger, YOU are a stubborn man...and one who does not let outside influence affect you....If you were a guard in a bank, I would want you to guard anything that is valuable of mine...

Red, good job on the recent history of ordination/eldership of women...nice history

Tom, thanks for the sound logic...What would we do without your sound logic ?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN 3:17-- Hasn't the General Conference voted against making women pastors and elders?

Quote:

TAYLOR-- The GC does not have a position against women pastors or elders. They do have a position on ordination of Pastors. But there are many hired as pastors who are female and those conferences or unions or divisions are not going against the GC's policies or decisions.

In your understanding, what is the reason the SDA church in General Conference is opposed to the ordination of women pastors but is not opposed to women being unordained pastors? Do you believe that the only reason is fear of splitting the church? If so, what do you believe it is about the ordination of women that might cause the church to be split? Why do you think people are willing to accept a woman pastor who is unordained but not one who is ordained?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

I can't pretend to understand both sides of every issue throughly. There are some that truely believe that the Bible prohibits women from ever being in any leadership because she would be "over a man" so she can't be in any position of authority. Then there are those who do not think this but think it only applies to pastoring..that a woman can't be a pastor. Then there are people who think one can be a pastor as a woman but not ordained.

I believe that the primary reason that women's ordination isn't currently a decision by the GC is simply becuase it is such a divisive issue. There are equally godly and sincere and well studied people on both sides of the fence and neither can understand the other becuase "it is so clear". So yes it would have a tendancy to "split the church" at this time if the GC voted for women's ordination. But the GC has no problem or injuction against women being pastors. I am sure, eventually, women will be ordained. But again, as I said, it doesn't really matter in the long run of things, what matters is that people are obdiente to the calling God has placed on their lives whether young or old male or female.

[Tom Wetmore]

Adding on to what Taylor has said, the reason that ordination of women is so likely to split the church is a very poor understanding of what ordination really is all about. It is very clear, as Redwood has posted, the current history of actions by the church, its leaders and its theologians, the church has most clearly affirmed women in ministry and leadership and has enabled and empowered women to full pastoral function, just short of the formal act of ceremonial ordination. If we had a better comprehension of what ordination is all about and what the NT equivalent really meant I believe that even that last barrier would be removed.

But it becomes very hard to have a rational discussion of the topic of ordination, apart from women's ordination, without it turning into an inflamed rant about women, the role of women as deacons, elders pastors, leaders, even wives and whether or not women must be silent, etc. - all issues which have already been largely settled by the Church. As we see so vividly here on CA, whenever the topic of ordination is raised, there are those firmly, and as Neil suggested, stubbornly, opposed to women being involved in any one, or all, of those roles that seek vigorously to reopen the debated back to long before it was fully resolved by the Church.

There are those who seek vigorously to erase all the progress that has already been made and even to take us back to an era long since past. That is not even being conservative which would, by defintion, oppose progress. That is being regressive. It is an attempt to undo progress.

Tom

[John317]

For me the bottom line is what the Bible teaches about the subject; and since I believe Ellen White was a true prophet of God, I also have a great interest in what she wrote on the subject.

That's an extremely important part of the history which we need to examine thoroughly. The Christian church in the past has made many egregious errors because of societal pressures.

If our church makes the changes on this issue due to political/societal influences rather than due to the study and application of God's Word, it will also cave in to the greater pressures that will be applied by homosexuals who will want the same rights accorded to them. The same arguments used to defend women's right to be ordained pastors in the church can be, and are, used to defend similar rights of homosexuals. The history of other churches that have accepted women as priests and clergy shows that this is the pattern.

As a church that accepts the Bible as its only rule of faith and doctrine, it seems to me that we need to move very deliberately and carefully on these issues, making sure through both Bible study and prayer that we are in accord with the Holy Spirit's guidance, and that we're not moving on these issues because of any other reason.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

I don't think it helps for either side of the issue to typify the other as anything but good, sincere Christians trying to do the best for their church that they know how. One of the big problems, as I see it, is when people start calling other people names and making accusations of the opposing side for being "opposed to progress," or "regressive," for its "inflamed ranting," or for being unable to have a rational discussion.

What one side sees as progress, the other side sees as not Biblically sound, and what one side sees as a rant, the other side sees as Biblical analysis.

Here is a link to one viewpoint of the subject. Below I've also given Doug Batchelor's viewpoint. Please study them and let me know where you believe the weakness of their arguments lie:

(1) http://drpipim.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=46

(2) Doug Batchelor:

I picked up a recent Newsweek magazine to examine its cover. The title on the July 17, 1995, issue read: "Bisexuality. Not straight. Not gay. A new sexual identity emerges." "That does it," I thought to myself. "The devil is attacking every basic truth of nature and Scripture."" It is bad enough for homosexuality to be portrayed by society as a healthy, normal alternate lifestyle; but now the appeal is to lure those who have a natural attraction to the opposite sex into experimenting with the same sex. The article seemed to hint, "Maybe you're a bisexual and you will never know unless you try it!"-as though bisexuals were a more noble breed of humans because they are not limited to one gender or the other but have relations with anybody regardless of gender.

Sadly, if one should dare to speak up (even within some Christian churches!) and say that this is an unnatural deviation of God's design, they take a risk of being scornfully looked upon as unloving, unaccepting, and intolerant. There is a not-so-hidden agenda in the media to normalize sexual perversion.

Jesus said that before His return, conditions in the world at large would resemble conditions in Sodom. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30.

The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit, where a basic truth must be clear-that men are fathers and women are mothers. Men and women are equal as humans but entirely unique as creatures. They are not only distinct genders sexually, but almost every aspect of their natures is different. Men should never try to be women, and women should never try to be men. These differences should be evident, maintained, and yes, even emphasized in everything from the way we walk and talk to the way we work and dress.

God tells us how He feels when gender lines are ignored. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deuteronomy 22:5.

When distinct male and female roles are blurred, children are in danger of growing up confused about whether they are a boy or a girl or an it! Is there any wonder that homosexuality is now rampant in societies that promote unisex thinking?

Now I want you to know that I am not a male chauvinist. I wash dishes, change diapers, and make beds. In the 1970s my beautiful mother was one of the leaders of the women's lib movement (now called the feminist movement) in North America. She wrote a whole album of songs dedicated to women's rights and was very articulate and outspoken. I firmly believe with mom that men and women should get equal pay for equal work. But I must add that she left the movement because, in her words, "About half the women there are angry lesbians who want to be men." Today this same, but more refined, feminist movement is pushing its agenda into churches with a frightening degree of success. I expect these things from the world, but I am worried when they seep into the body of Christ disguised as "improvements."

With the desire to reach the world with the message of salvation, some Christians have tried to increase their influence in the world by adopting popular philosophy. But we should never substitute politically correct but Biblically inaccurate social philosophy as our guide in the place of God's Word. In an attempt to reverse the injustice against women during the recent ages, we have allowed the feminist movement to push us beyond voting rights and equal pay for equal work into the arena of unisex thinking, which seeks to erase any Biblical distinction between men and women aside from the obvious physical differences. When an organization seeks to correct some wrong policy, there is always a tendency to overcorrect. I fear this is the case today, where a valid need for more women's ministries has been translated by some into a need for women to be ordained as pastors and elders.

Perhaps I should hasten to say that I believe the blame does not lie with the liberal feminist movement in the world, but with the lazy or indifferent men in the churches who are failing to fulfill their roles as strong, loving servant-leaders. As a result, women are naturally stepping into the vacuum left by the absence of strong male leadership. As most people know, the word "husband" means "house-band." Men are to be the head of the household and bind their families together in love.

A remarkable Christian woman and author named E. G. White once wrote: "The greatest want of the world is the want of men-men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall." 1

This short article is not designed to be an exhaustive study on the subject of women's ordination; neither will it deal with every single argument and rationalization regarding the ordination of women as pastors or elders. Rather, it is a simple presentation of "thus saith the Lord" which should always be our guide in determining the truth on any issue.

Let's begin with Creation. God made creatures in the order of their value and complexity. First, the base elements of earth, water, and air; then vegetation, light, and time divisions; then birds and fish; then cattle and land creatures; then man and, as a crowning act, woman.

The first woman came out of man, and every other human came out of woman. Women are the most beautiful and complex creatures on the planet. They tend to live longer than men, and use more of their brains in concert. Yet, because of sin, God had to establish a system of authority to maintain harmony in the family and church. Generally speaking, men think in terms of absolutes and are more task oriented. Women think more in terms of relationships. Their emotions are more influenced by internal feelings and cycles, while men are more affected by external, environmental changes. The March 27, 1995, cover article of Newsweek, entitled, "Why Men and Women Think Differently," demonstrates through new technology that men and women use their brains in completely unique ways. Perhaps because God's truth is an unchanging absolute, and for other reasons, the Lord in His wisdom established that men should be the servant-leaders and priests in the home and in the church.

God did not create men and women in the same way. God made man out of dust, and He made woman out of man. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21, 22.

God named man, whereas man named woman. "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Genesis 3:20; 2:23.

Sin came into our world as a result of man neglecting and woman disregarding the husband's leadership role. "She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." Genesis 3:6. "And the man said, The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Genesis 3:12.

"The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side." 2

God established that husbands should be the servant-leaders of the home. "Unto the woman he said, … thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16. Now, we must not rush past this verse. Some have argued that the passages regarding man's leadership role reflect the biases of a male-dominant culture. but notice that the command in Genesis 3:16 came directly from God-not from Peter, John, or Paul. It has also been said, "We can't take these Scriptures regarding male leadership seriously because they were based on eastern traditions and don't apply today. After all, there were laws regarding slavery and polygamy in Bible times." True, but God never commanded people to have slaves or multiple wives. Rather, as Jesus said, it was because of "the hardness of your heart he [Moses] wrote you this precept." Mark 10:5.

Biblically, a husband could overrule the vow of the wife, but the wife could not overrule the oath of her husband. "Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void." Numbers 30:13.

The Bible is clear that salvation was purchased by Jesus for all of the children of Adam and Eve, regardless of race or gender or age. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, … male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

But this Scripture from Paul was never intended to mean, as some have hinted, that once you walk through the doors of the church you leave your sexual identity outside. It does not mean that men cease to be men and women cease to be women, or that we all become "unisex in Jesus." In fact, Paul goes to great lengths to say just the opposite. Read 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

The fact that men and women have equal rights to salvation does not mean there is no submission to leadership in the home or in church. Jesus and the Father are equal, yet Jesus chose to submit to the authority of the Father in this world. "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3.

In America, "equal rights" does not negate the authority or leadership of the mayor, governor, or police. Likewise, equality in salvation does not negate the God-established patriarchal system of male leadership in the home and church. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right." Ephesians 6:1. "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Timothy 3:5.

I also hear some say that because there are more women in the church than men, leadership roles should be evenly divided according to percentages. Using this line of reasoning, it would follow that in a family with three children, the children would be entitled to the largest share of leadership since they outnumber the mother and father! On the contrary, fathers do not receive their authority by popular vote, but rather from the Word of God.

God tells us that women should not rule over men. "I suffer [permit] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man." 1 Timothy 2:12. The only times when women ruled over God's people were when men were too fearful and weak to lead (as in the case of Deborah and Barak) or in times of apostasy (Jezebel and Athaliah). "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12.

God's Word equates the authority of man over woman with the authority of Christ over man. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Christian wives should willingly acknowledge the headship of their husbands. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5:23, 24. "Teach the young women to be … discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." Titus 2:4, 5. "Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1 Peter 3:6.

Marriage is not a dictatorship, but a partnership where the husband fills the role as a senior partner. Husbands are to be servant-leaders in the home in the same way Jesus came to love, serve, and lead His church. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." Ephesians 5:25.

It is very important to note that God's plan for male leadership is in no way an open license for tyranny. Unfortunately, there have been some sick men who have used these clear passages regarding the authority of husbands as an excuse for abuse. God does not expect a wife to remain in a house with a man who is physically abusing her or the children. Neither is a wife ever obligated to submit to a cruel husband's oppression. God will judge those cowardly men as He did Nabal (1 Samuel 25:38).

Elders were to be husbands (men). "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…." 1 Timothy 3:2. "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife…." Titus 1:6. (Note: The terms for bishops and elders were interchangeable.) A recent magazine article points out the fact that the bible gives a long list of requirements for an ordained elder. "[Paul] did not say that just any man could be a bishop, even as in the Old Testament not just any son of Aaron could be a priest. The office has always been limited. The Christian leader Paul spoke of must be 'blameless' and married, 'vigilant, sober, of good behavior,' etc. There is a long list of requirements that eventually eliminates almost all men and leaves only a very few eligible."3 Women aren't the only ones who are ineligible; so are most of the men.

Every Christian is called to minister in some capacity, but not in every capacity. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Ephesians 4:11, 12.

Even though the Lord has chosen many women to serve as prophets through the ages, He never once hinted that a woman should be ordained as a pastor or priest. Women can minister as prophets, teachers, or even evangelists, but not as priests. Pastors and elders are the closest New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament priests. They lead in Holy Communion, which is the New Testament equivalent of offering a sacrifice. This was a role that was consistently performed by a man. While many priests were prophets, no women prophets were priests.

At the heart of this issue are at least three very subtle dangers: <0l>

Loss of confidence in the clear statements of Scripture. It undermines the authority of Scripture to say, "You can't take Bible statements about the relationship between men and women as inspired because they were influenced by a male-dominant culture." Christians who sweep aside plain statements of Scripture as outdated traditions or local customs are building on a fatal foundation of shifting sand. Soon every other Bible truth will be in danger of sliding away. They will soon say that the Lord's Supper, baptism, and marriage were all ancient traditions that no longer apply.

Blurring sexual distinctions undermines the family and normalizes homosexuality. The more we attack the unique biblical roles of men and women as sexist traditions, the more we promote unisex thinking, the more confused our children become about their own sexual identity, and eventually all of society erodes. It remains a fact that every Protestant denomination that now openly ordains gays and lesbians as priests or pastors began by first ordaining women to these positions.

Unisex thinking promotes the theory of evolution and undermines Creation. That's right, the existence of male and female differences is a tremendous problem for evolutionists to explain. Evolution teaches that life began by single cells reproducing, without the need for male and female. To multiply, each cell would simply split in two. If that theory were true, there would be no need for two separate genders that could not reproduce except by an act of love and cooperation. The more the evolutionists can downplay the differences between male and female as some "minor mutation in the plumbing," the more believable is their nonsense. But the Bible accounts for a separate creation for man and woman, unique creatures of the same species.

Finally, there is not a single example of a woman being ordained as a priest, apostle, pastor, or elder in Scripture. Jesus was following His own Word by ordaining only men. Of course, some will argue that He was merely conforming to popular customs and traditions of the day. But this is a dishonest smokescreen of feminists. The truth is that, in Christ's time, most of the pagan religions had women priests. God's people were the exception.

The notion that Jesus confined Himself to following the traditions of His day is completely opposite of His teaching. Jesus said, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3. Indeed, Jesus died because His teaching flew in the face of popular traditions. Jesus laid down His life in defense of truth irrespective of passing trends or popular customs. We should always be willing to do the same."

[olger]

Ok, I have read thru this....I can only come to one conclusion....

Olger, YOU are a stubborn man...and one who does not let outside influence affect you....If you were a guard in a bank, I would want you to guard anything that is valuable of mine...

Heh.. Some people call that German stubborness. I call it "carefulness" (Gerhard Hasel gave me that one) .

Y'all have a good day, Neil.

olguard

[John317]

I propose that we have a rational discussion of the New Testament evidence on the issue of women's role in the church. Let's look at every text having to do with the government of the church, especially as it relates to diakonos, diakonia, diakoneo, sunergon, episkopon, antilempheis, presbuteros, etc.

I believe that the issue is theological and not cultural. It can only be settled by a study of Scripture.

What does the Bible teach?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Neil D]

Quote:

I propose that we have a rational discussion of the New Testament evidence on the issue of women's role in the church.

First off, there is already a thread on women's minstry, which overlaps the issue of the woman role in church...

second, on a more realistic point, you want a rational discussion...on a Adventist board....Tall order in and of itself.

3rd, this is a issue that is bound to have repercussions within the forum...are you sure you don't just want to turn up the heat in here and state that slavery is alive and well and sanctioned within the SDA church? Either way, the kitchen is gonna get hot! and I ain't gonna stay in here...I'm still repairing my asbestos underwear from the last time I said something contenious....

I will wager that I will come to your house and meet with you within 6 months IF you can keep it civil, rational, and unheated. Deal?

[John317]

Quote:

I propose that we have a rational discussion of the New Testament evidence on the issue of women's role in the church.

First off, there is already a thread on women's minstry, which overlaps the issue of the woman role in church...

second, on a more realistic point, you want a rational discussion...on a Adventist board....Tall order in and of itself.

Yes, I was looking at some of those things on the Women's Ministry thread, and there is some good info there. I was away for about a week, so I need to go back and check out some of those posts to see where we are in terms of Biblical analysis.

I know what you mean about the "tall order," but I think it can be done here. I just stay on subject no matter what. I can guarantee you that I myself will keep civil, rational, and totally unheated. Deal!

I live in Southern California, not far from Loma Linda, and I love discussing all aspects of the Bible. But I also enjoy studying and discussing literature, history, social sciences, philosophy, etc. Come any time!

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Tom Wetmore]

I propose that we have a rational discussion of the New Testament evidence on the issue of women's role in the church. Let's look at every text having to do with the government of the church, especially as it relates to diakonos, diakonia, diakoneo, sunergon, episkopon, antilempheis, presbuteros, etc.

I believe that the issue is theological and not cultural. It can only be settled by a study of Scripture.

What does the Bible teach?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

I propose that as a start that you could go back and read what I posted on these very points regarding those very same NT Greek words...

Been there, done that, already...

Tom

[there buster]

The ordination of SDA pastors has very little connection to the 'laying on of hands' in the NT.

Here it is essentially the purview of the various conference presidents. In my own conference, the preference has been for laymen with no academic training in ministry, preferably former contractors.

At one time, several years ago, if I -- with only 12 seminary hours-- was in a room with all of the pastors in the conference, I had more seminary hours than all of them combined!

Thankfully, that has changed. But the point is this: since our 'ordination' was invented by the early SDA church as means of distinguishing between those who were authorized by the church, and thus accurately reflected our doctrines, it has only notional relationship to the very different organization of the NT church.

Ergo, if we invented it, we can change it. And references to the OT priesthood are ridiculous. Did that pass away, or didn't it? If it did, then it's requirements for priesthood are irrelevant to today's ministry. If it didn't, then let's build an altar and kill some livestock.

Tom, one minor note. Conservatives do not oppose change. They do not automatically identify change with progress.

[Tom Wetmore]

For me the bottom line is what the Bible teaches about the subject; and since I believe Ellen White was a true prophet of God, I also have a great interest in what she wrote on the subject...

As it is for me and many others who strongly support women in ministry and women's ordination! One of the most detestable practices of anyone on either side of this whole debate is to suggest that the other side is somehow less than Biblically based, either directly or by comparative implication.

I agree with your assessment in your other post that it may not be necessarily helpful to use strong or inflammatory language in this topic. But I seldom hear that admonition from one of similar persuasion directed at comments by one who is like-minded. That sort of comment is almost always hurled at the other side and usually after a well placed strike on the Achilles heal of the protesting side. If that sort of comment is met with any reaction from the like-minded, it is ususally applauded or otherwise affirmed.

Quote:

...If our church makes the changes on this issue due to political/societal influences rather than due to the study and application of God's Word...

Contrary to what Gerry and others would like to believe, the Adventist Church has not been prone to do so on this issue or most any other issue. It comes with the territory of being a minority religion and feeling a sense of being different or God's peculiar people - we simple don't seem to be troubled to by counter-cultural and have a very long history of doing things our own way despite what society and other churches have done. I simply do not see the feminist movement as having much of an impact on the Adventist Church.

Quote:

...it will also cave in to the greater pressures that will be applied by homosexuals who will want the same rights accorded to them. The same arguments used to defend women's right to be ordained pastors in the church can be, and are, used to defend similar rights of homosexuals. The history of other churches that have accepted women as priests and clergy shows that this is the pattern.

OK, let's get something straight, right now! (no pun intended...) This is a diabolical red herring - a straw-man argument that is sure to inflame every homophobic out there and totally derail any rational discussion about any other issue. I have done a survey of the denominations that ordain women and or allow women clergy and those that ordain homosexuals or allow homosexual clergy. There is no correlation between the two! None whatsoever! There are a significant number of denominations in the former category and very few in the latter. The denominations that have been ordaining women the longest, such as the Salvation Army for over 150 years, show absolutely no concession to allowing homosexuals in the clergy. And it should be fairly obvious that the one denomination that most vigorously opposes female clergy of any sort, has the most homosexual clergy - the Roman Catholic Church. It is just that they have, until recent years, kept that dark truth a deeply held secret.

I simply do not see that there is any likelihood that the Adventist Church is going to ever make a concession even remotely toward ordaining homosexuals. This sort of inflammatory suggestion makes my strongly worded post pale in comparison.

Tom

[John317]

... I have done a survey of the denominations that ordain women and or allow women clergy and those that ordain homosexuals or allow homosexual clergy. There is no correlation between the two! None whatsoever! There are a significant number of denominations in the former category and very few in the latter...

I simply do not see that there is any likelihood that the Adventist Church is going to ever make a concession even remotely toward ordaining homosexuals. This sort of inflammatory suggestion makes my strongly worded post pale in comparison.

Tom

(1) We need to do a careful, detailed study of this issue, looking at all the denominations that have accepted women as clergy and of those who have firmly rejected the practice. There are severe problems right now related to these matters in the Episcopalian church, so that whole congregations are electing to join the Anglican church. Let's look at those situations.

2) I remember when Fritz Guy and other SDA clergy and theologians met with gay SDAs and "dialogued" with them about 1983. Some of the gays were personal friends of mine. Fritz Guy came away promising them that he would study the issue of homosexuality in the Bible. These were not gays who were repentant of their homosexuality but were rather pushing for recognition by the church that homosexuality is not a sin. We need to look carefully at this and see what "progress" or influence these things have had on the SDA church up to this point.

3) I'm not the least bit put off the subject by the emotional language other people use. We need to examine the facts without emotion, which I fully intend to do.

In the following post, I will paste something written by Fritz Guy on woman's ordination that I believe is worth studying. The question I have is, does Fritz Guy's essay deal convincingly and satisfactorily with the theological issues and questions?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Fritz Guy on Women's Ordination:

The Moral Imperative to Ordain Women in Ministry

by Fritz Guy

For Seventh-day Adventists, ordaining women in ministry is a moral imperative that arises from the gospel of Christ, the overall teaching of Scripture, and our own Statement of Fundamental Beliefs: "We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation" (paragraph 13). Even with the recent General Conference vote in Utrecht, we must proceed to ordain women in ministry on the same basis we ordain men: their spiritual experience, their knowledge of Scripture, their competence for the tasks of ministry, and the fruitfulness of their ministry.[1] We must publicly affirm and fully authorize their ministry in and for the church. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it without delay. We have waited long enough.

Ordaining women in ministry is required first of all by Jesus' instruction that we treat others as we want to be treated-a principle of mutuality and respect which "is the law and the prophets," belonging to the very essence of God's will for human relationships (Matt. 7:12). Ordaining women is required secondly by the New Testament principle of spiritual equality in Christ; a person's value, role, or function is not defined by gender any more than it is by socioeconomic status or race (Gal. 3:28). And ordaining women is required thirdly by the leading of the Spirit, calling both women and men to ministry in the church (Acts 2:17-18).[2]

On the other hand, refusing to ordain a whole group of persons solely because they are not male, and without regard to their calling, ability, experience, and effectiveness, contradicts the inclusiveness of the gospel and expresses a gender prejudice that is morally wrong. Making maleness a prerequisite for ordination is the same kind of moral issue that slavery was a century and a half ago and that racial discrimination was a generation ago. Would it not be a moral issue if the church were to refuse to ordain ministers who were not Caucasian?

Whatever spin is put on it, whatever rationalizing is done to explain it, whatever narrow reading of Scripture is alleged to support it, restricting ordination to men constitutes a public declaration that women ministers are unworthy of ordination, simply and solely because they are women.[3] This is wrong not only in the light of Scripture and of morality, but also in the light of Adventist history, which includes in addition to the extraordinary role of Ellen White in Adventist theology, piety, and mission, the notable contributions that have been made since the 1860s by women evangelists, editors, missionaries, Biblical scholars, teachers, pastors, chaplains, and administrators.[4] And it is wrong in the light of theology, because it turns ordination into a symbol of maleness.[5]

We are becoming increasingly aware that ordination to ministry as a life-long, world-wide vocation and status is Biblically and theologically problematic.[6] But this observation should not be used as yet another justification for failing to ordain women. The formal ordination of ministers is the historic and universally-recognized practice of Christian churches, and it has been the consistent practice of Seventh-day Adventists since the 1850s (before there were any organized conferences to authorize it). Until Adventist women in ministry were being considered for ordination, there was no objection to ordination as "unbiblical" or "Catholic." The two issues-the ordination of women in ministry, and the theology and vocabulary of ordination-are related; but they are separate issues, and they should not be confused. We do need to develop our theology of ordination, and we may eventually decide to use different language in a symbolism that better expresses what we mean. But first of all we must ordain the women whose lives and service demonstrate the genuineness of their calling and the leading of the Holy Spirit. We must give them the same affirmation, validation, and authorization we have given men in ministry for 140 years. This is the immediate moral imperative for Seventh-day Adventists.

It might seem that by using alternative language such as "dedication," "consecration," or "commissioning," and making corresponding changes in the constitutional documents of various church entities, we could establish the full equality of women and men in ministry without placing ourselves in direct opposition to the General Conference vote in Utrecht. But this strategy has several weaknesses. In the first place, it depends on the same sort of literalism that is used by many to justify their continuing discrimination against women; in the second place, it could easily be regarded as an obvious attempt to evade the spirit of the General Conference decision while complying with its letter; and, in the third place, it fails to confront the moral issue, which lies not in the specific language of the vote in Utrecht but in its fundamental meaning. It was a vote to perpetuate the ecclesiastical superiority of men-a relic of medieval Christian prejudice still venerated by some Adventists, a relic we could and should have discarded 114 years ago, or at least 22 years ago.[7]

The vote in Utrecht against allowing equality for Adventist women in ministry was a grievous error. It constitutes a blot on the history and character of Adventism, and it must be rectified as early, as clearly, and as widely as possible. A proper response to this vote must address its meaning; to try merely to circumvent it verbally and procedurally is to ignore the stark reality that it was morally wrong. What we need to be doing now is not finding ways to affirm women without ordaining them, but finding ways to ordain them without resulting in too much turmoil.

Some practices and structures (such as the distribution of tithe funds, the organization of conferences, and the use of various communication media) are matters of church policy, and they can be settled by a majority vote according to practical and cultural considerations. In such cases we accept decisions even if we disagree with them. But the full equality of women and men in ministry is a matter of moral, spiritual, and theological integrity, in which we must be guided by the teaching of the whole Word of God and the spirit of the gospel of Christ. While we have great respect for a vote of a General Conference session because it is the broadest representation of the community of faith that is our spiritual home,[8] we must live in accordance with the Word and the gospel.[9]

We are painfully aware that in response to the vote in Utrecht, any action in opposition, or even any statement of dissent, may be misinterpreted as disloyalty to the church as a whole. This causes us great personal and spiritual sorrow; but we must live with integrity, motivated by an even higher loyalty to the principles of truth and love on which the church itself is founded. Opposing an action of the General Conference on moral grounds is a far more authentic expression of loyalty to and love for the church than is passive or grumbling compliance. For it is from the church that we have learned to "call sin by its right name" and to "stand for the right though the heavens fall."[10] In obedience to conscience we cannot, by a failure to speak or act, participate in the continuing discrimination against Adventist women in ministry.

Since the General Conference session failed to recognize the moral imperative of ordaining women in ministry, the responsibility for doing so now rests on others, beginning with the largest and most comprehensive organizational structures. The mission of the church will be best served if this responsibility is accepted by the North American Division. If the division fails to accept the responsibility, it will pass to the union and local conferences. If these organizations fail to accept it, the responsibility for ordaining women will pass to the congregations served by women ministers.

Adventist women in ministry are not on trial; they have recognized the leading of the Holy Spirit and demonstrated the reality of their calling. It is the rest of us Adventists-members, men in ministry, church officials, and various committees-who are on trial. Our actions, or our refusal to act, will show whether we too are willing to follow this leading of the Spirit.[11] Ordaining women in ministry is a moral imperative that we must obey without any further delay.

La Sierra University August 1995

NOTES

Seventh-day Adventist Minister's Manual (Silver Spring: General Conference Ministerial Association, 1992), pp. 77-78.

The role of women as spiritual leaders and active participants in the communication of the gospel is well attested in the New Testament (Luke 8:1-3; 24:10; Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:1-2, 3-4, 6, 7, 12; 1 Cor. 16:19; Phil. 4:3). This evidence is part of the overall movement of the New Testament toward gender equality and inclusiveness. It is this trajectory that provides the context within which the theological and practical significance of the well-known Pauline restrictions on the behavior of women (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12) are to be determined. As it was in the case of slavery, it is wrong here to make a particular practice into a prescription for every time and place. Nor have these Pauline restrictions been generally interpreted by Adventists as absolute and universal; such an interpretation would, among other things, logically undermine the ministry of Ellen White.

No one claims that women are identical to men. There is a wide array of anatomical, physiological, and psychosocial differences that contribute to a person's identity as female or male. The question is whether any of these differences, or all of them combined, in any way justify a refusal of full recognition and affirmation of the Spirit-led ministry of women. The answer is obviously and emphatically no. On the contrary, the differences between women and men show that the fullness of humanity created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) exists in the complementarity of female and male humanness-a complementarity that is essential to the fullness of ministry in the name of God and that can be adequately expressed only by the ordination of women as well as men in ministry.

For names and identification, see "Selected List of 150 Adventist Women in Ministry, 1844-1944," compiled by Kit Watts and published in The Welcome Table: Setting a Place for Ordained Women, ed. Patricia A. Habada and Rebecca Frost Brillhart (Langley Park, Md.: TEAM Press, 1995), pp. 359-81.

The imagery of "headship" (Eph. 5:23-24) has no relevance at all to the ministry of women in the church. This metaphor occurs in a discussion of household relationships, not the church. The same passage says explicitly that it is Christ who is the head of the church. In Scripture, ordination to ministry is a recognition of God's call to service and servanthood (Mark 10:42-45), not a conferral of status or authority. Just as "headship" has nothing to do with the church, so ministry has nothing to do with "headship."

See, for example, V. Norskov Olsen, Myth and Truth About Church, Priesthood and Ordination (Riverside: Loma Linda University Press, 1990), pp. 121-25.

At the General Conference session of 1881 a resolution "that females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry" was introduced, discussed by eight speakers, and then referred to the General Conference Committee (Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1881, p. 392; see also Signs of the Times, Jan. 5, 1882, p. 8, which includes this item "among the resolutions adopted," but seems to be mistaken in this regard). Unfortunately, the resolution was never heard of again. Ninety-two years later, in 1973, a conference of scholars appointed by the General Conference was convened at Camp Mohaven in Ohio and concluded that there were no theological obstacles to the ordination of women. But again there was no action. The fact that, so far as is known, no Adventist woman in ministry has ever been formally ordained is a result of the dominance of narrow Biblical exegesis, ecclesiastical tradition, and cultural influence over the truth of the gospel and the spiritual dynamic of Adventist belief.

See Ellen White's 1875 description of the General Conference as "the highest authority that God has upon earth" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 492), as well as her 1909 statement: "When, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is taken exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body" (ibid., vol. 9, p. 260). The current issue, however, is not a matter of "private independence and private judgment"; it involves decisions of the Southeastern California Conference constituency, the Pacific Union Conference executive committee, and the North American Division.

See the resolution adopted by the General Conference session of 1877, reprinted in the most recent (1990) edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, p. 17: "Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and rights of individual conscience." The vote against allowing equality for women in ministry can indeed "be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience."

Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1903), p. 57.

11. Adventists have long been aware that revelation is progressive, leading to an expanding understanding of spiritual truth (John 16:13). See, for example, Ellen G. White's ringing statement: "Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His Word. . . . This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 706). This progressive understanding of truth was evident in Adventist opposition to the practice of slavery in spite of the fact that there was no clear opposition to slavery in Scripture. It is likewise evident in the growing Adventist recognition that God's Spirit calls, leads, and blesses women in ministry.

[olger]

It will happen eventually, Tom. John317 is dead on in his warning.

For two reasons. Kit and others are working to ensure that it does, and 2) both issues are predicated upon gender confusion. They share the same headwaters. You don't have to believe it, just keep your antenna up for two more decades.

Berit Kjos has documented the linkage well in her book "A Twist of Faith."

As to Roman Catholicism.

To identify Bible-believing Adventists as “Catholic” based upon the participation of a single doctrine, fails to recognize that truth pre-existed the Papal Era. The Advent Message, and its forefather—the Reformation, look to the Apostolic era for our normative expression of Christian doctrine.

I found it interesting that you chose Catholics in lieu of Southern Baptists or Anabaptists to stigmatize those who hold to the Biblical view of male leadership.

Food for Thought... The recent comparison by some of our church folk that the Adventist church follows the Roman leader in their decision to not ordain women is faulty.

Although it does seem to provide a helpful parallel to those who resent the World church's decision, a careful study reveals two widely different motivations between Adventists and Catholics.

The Catholic church follows a historic precedent to use the "authority" of tradition over the Word. This was demonstrated throughout the Middle ages, but soundly declared in the formal setting of Vatican II.

Adventists on the other hand, follow the forerunning battlecry of the Reformation by demanding that Scripture is the final arbiter of faith.

Now, it's true that in the issue of WO there is a similar conclusion by both churches. But, however Biblical the RC attempt to sound in their rejection of WO, their singular motivation is again - tradition.

Adventists who oppose WO, are generally united in their appeal to Sola Scriptura, not tradition as some may suggest. As I read the book "Prove All Things" I am impressed again by the commitment that these authors have for the Word of God.

The difference is infinite. Why compare them?

Admittedly both churches are feeling the hydraulic pressure of culture, because of their refusal to come in line. This blurring of the lines between genders is precedented only by the prophecy of Isaiah that women would rule over the Lord's people (Isa 3:12). Is this passage an affirmation of Israel's strength? Never-- it is a direct condemnation of their/our weakness by Him Who sees all.

In our failing culture, the presence of Godly women is needed doubly to model a "true daughter of Sarah." Ironically enough, the pulpit is inconsequential compared to the open platform of life.

Biblical headship in the Adventist church also differs widely from the Roman Catholic magisterium. Our Adventist understanding is a God ordained male leadership (1 Timothy 2:9-15; 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1); theirs (RC) is a tradition-based eisogetical desire for control. Our comes from our desire to serve God according to His Holy word, and the Holy Spirit illuminating the Word is the solitary magisterium for us.

Blessings,

oG