Words, Policy & Ordination

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://atoday.org/understanding-one-another-at-a-crucial-moment/

NOTE:  The above is lengthy and in depth.  I have not yet been able to devote the time to it to fully understand it.   But, it is something that is worthy of consideration by all who are interested the issues that have been generated by the discussion of female ordination.  Those issues are complex and varied.

The article referenced above was written by Dr. Gary Patterson  a retired Seventh-day Adventist minister and General Conference officer. He has served as senior pastor of some of the largest congregations in the denomination, as the president of local conferences in the western and southern United States and as assistant to the president of the North American Division.

 

 

[debbym]

I have attempted to select and share some points that have really spoken to me, with the summary at the end. .  I found this to be in entirety a thoughtful and clear and accurate piece.

"In policy L 50, which outlines the fifteen qualifications for ministry, gender is not included. It has been observed that in the preamble to these fifteen qualifications, the words “man” and “he” are employed, thus indicating such matters apply only to males. There are two problems with this notion. First, the GC Policy book, prior to the late 1980’s was full of such gender language. It was decided at that time to edit out such usage of male gender terms which were typical of documents in that era and before. When this work was done, it changed the language in all but this policy. But to assume that such an omission was an intentional policy to exclude women is not valid.

Second, if we are to extend that line of reasoning to the 10 Commandments, then the tenth commandment clearly does not apply to women, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife ….” Furthermore, the admonition in Revelation 2 and 3, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches” would apply only to men. Further, the promise of Revelation 21:7 referring to the New Jerusalem, “He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son” would not apply to women.

Finally, this official recognition and granting of permission to discriminate against one of the classes of people listed in the policy is a direct violation of one of the Fundamental Beliefs of the church, Number 14, which states:

Unity in the Body of Christ. The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. 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. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children"

..............

"A Policy to Allow Discrimination"

"It is clearly stated that General Conference Policy BA 60 05 opposes discrimination. “The church rejects any system or philosophy which discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, color, or gender. The Church bases its positions on principles clearly enunciated in the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the official pronouncements of the General Conference.” Not only is this policy clearly stated, but it is represented as being supported by both scripture and Ellen White, leaving little room for argument.

This strong position is continued in the following section, BA 60 10 which states, “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. “

Thus far, the policy holds together. But the next sentence undermines and contradicts the position that has been clearly made and authoritatively supported. It states, “Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

This statement has been represented at times as prohibiting the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. However, it is not a policy forbidding such ordination. Rather it is a policy granting permission to exercise discrimination against certain classes of people. It is significant to note that the policy does not state who might fall into this category. It has been clearly stated in the policy that “race, color, or gender” are the issues being addressed, but it does not say who might be affected by this discrimination. Therefore, it could conceivably be equally applied to any one of the three categories wherever such discrimination is being practiced.

The underlying premise of the policy is one of granting permission to discriminate where such a policy exists. Thus the onus is on those who seek to discriminate, to establish such a position in their territory, not on those who do not, leaving them to proceed in harmony with the policy as it reads. The asterisk in this policy refers to a note at the bottom of the page which reads, “The exception clause, and any other statement above, shall not be used to reinterpret the action already taken by the world Church authorizing the ordination of women as local church elders in divisions where the division executive committees have given their approval.”

This policy establishes two matters which bear on the issue of the current discussion of the ordination of women. First, the policy establishes that the position it takes is discriminatory. The issues of gender, race and color are delineated as being covered by this policy, but it then selects one of these, gender to be specific, as an exception to the policy, thus indicating that discrimination is officially acceptable in this instance. One can imagine the justifiable outcry if either race or color, which also are mentioned, were selected as a valid reason for discrimination, which brings up the question as to why gender discrimination is acceptable and the others are not.

The footnote establishes the second issue relevant to the discussion. A major point in the argument against unions moving ahead with what is by policy their official domain of decision, is the call for unity in the world church. However, this policy indicates that the unity claim has already been officially breached among the divisions in the matter of the ordination of women as elders. As it states, this issue is to be decided by where “the division executive committees have given their approval.” Thus it already officially exists in the context of the ordination of women, that the divisions have gone their separate ways by authority of the General Conference Policy. This makes the argument of unity of no effect, given that it already does not exist by official sanction in the very area of the ordination of women as elders.

Likewise, the argument that ordination to ministry is for the world church, so it must be uniformly accepted, is also spurious in that ordination as an elder is also for the world church. One ordained as either an elder or minister, as noted above, is eligible to serve in any church world-wide where they are so invited. Furthermore, there is no gender restriction regarding serving as officers of the local church at all. It may be that in given churches or territories, there are local objections to openness in gender inclusiveness for church leaders, but this is not now, nor has it ever been a policy of the church.

In policy L 50, which outlines the fifteen qualifications for ministry, gender is not included. It has been observed that in the preamble to these fifteen qualifications, the words “man” and “he” are employed, thus indicating such matters apply only to males. There are two problems with this notion. First, the GC Policy book, prior to the late 1980’s was full of such gender language. It was decided at that time to edit out such usage of male gender terms which were typical of documents in that era and before. When this work was done, it changed the language in all but this policy. But to assume that such an omission was an intentional policy to exclude women is not valid.

Second, if we are to extend that line of reasoning to the 10 Commandments, then the tenth commandment clearly does not apply to women, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife ….” Furthermore, the admonition in Revelation 2 and 3, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches” would apply only to men. Further, the promise of Revelation 21:7 referring to the New Jerusalem, “He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son” would not apply to women.

Finally, this official recognition and granting of permission to discriminate against one of the classes of people listed in the policy is a direct violation of one of the Fundamental Beliefs of the church, Number 14, which states:

Unity in the Body of Christ. The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. 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. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children.

Policy, Practice, Precedent and Perception

In a document released by the General Conference on August 9, 2012 responding to the July 29, 2012 action of the Columbia Union it is stated that “It is not accurate to say that policy follows practice.” Unfortunately for the point of the August 9 document, this statement undermines its own attempt to indicate that the Columbia Union action is against General Conference policy, because of the fact that there is no such policy regarding ministerial ordination requiring that only males may be ordained or that females are excluded from ordination.

Ordination authority is clearly defined in General Conference policy. Regarding the approval of persons designated for ordination as noted above, policy B 05 states, “decisions regarding the ordination of ministers are entrusted to the union conference….” Regarding such decisions, the policy further states, “each level of organization exercises a realm of final authority and responsibility….” Thus, in the selection and authorization of such individuals, the General Conference has no authority over the union decisions so long as these decisions are in harmony with the criteria established for ordination by General Conference policy."

................................

"There is a perception existing that the General Conference cannot violate policy, that whatever it does constitutes policy, but this is not so. The General Conference can violate policy just as well as any other level of the church if it acts contrary to the provisions of policy. Unless and until the General Conference changes policy by vote, any action contrary to policy is a violation. Thus, the unions are not out of policy on this matter of gender inclusiveness in the ordination of ministers, the General Conference itself is out of policy.

The General Conference Secretariat has produced multiple papers on this issue of policy on ordination. These are helpful and thorough reviews of the history of ordination policy and procedure in the church as it has been practiced and as it has morphed into the present policy. That secretariat has authority to express an opinion on this issue is valid. In fact, it has a responsibility to express opinions on issues. However, they are just that, opinions. These opinions are neither rules nor policies. They may be correct, or they may be in error, just the same as anyone else who expresses opinions. Without question the opinions of secretariat are weighty, but that does not make them necessarily accurate, nor does it prevent other opinions from being expressed. Unless and until this issue is made into a specific policy it remains in the zone of opinion."

.....................

In summary, the crux of the matter comes down to five points that need to be recognized and addressed:

1. It is not unions that are out of policy on this matter. It is the General Conference, both at the office level and at the session level, that is out of policy. While the General Conference does have responsibility to study, investigate and advise on such matters, it does not have authority to run counter to duly authorized responsibilities that are delegated to other constituent bodies of the church, including the local congregation, the local conference and the union. Doing so seeks to turn back the 1901 and 1903 of the General Conference sessions actions to establish unions in order to prevent this very kind of action and violation of policy. And it reignites the issues over which Ellen White stated that the General Conference, in its dictatorial actions, was no longer regarded by her as the highest authority on earth.
2. The issue of ordination, over which this authority matter has arisen, has again and again been stated, even in General Conference Session minutes, not to be derived from either biblical or Ellen White positions, but from the issue of unity. But this raises the question as to why is it only unity if those opposed to the ordination of women are allowed to assert their will on the church. Such a false definition does not resolve the issue, but rather exacerbates it. The purported notion that ordaining a woman in a church somewhere in North America will undermine and destroy the world church is nonsense. If that were the case, why has the group of ordained women pastors in China serving in very large congregations, not destroyed the church both there and in the rest of the world?
3. The issue of the ordination of women is not one of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the church, but the authorized policy of discrimination against women is a direct violation of belief number 14 which clearly rejects such action.
4. Those who seek to rectify this wrong in their territory are not seeking to impose their will on other regions of the church. Rather, they recognize that other cultures and settings may not be prepared to go with this concept “at this time regarding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry” as recorded in the 1985 General Conference Session Minutes. (1985, July 5 GC Bulletin 9)
5. Those who are opposed to the ordination of women to the gospel ministry actively seek to impose their will on others who live in different societies and perceive the matter in vastly different perspectives regarding the rights and proper treatment of men and women as equals in the sight of both society and God. Differences in perspective and the needs of the church in different areas, were precisely the reason that union conferences were established over one hundred years ago. The wisdom of that establishment must be preserved lest we destroy one another and the church in a rigid, top down, authoritarian structure that impedes the advancement of the mission of the church, or even undermines its ability to function as the body of Christ it is called to be.