Resolving the question of women’s ordination
By Many Hands
The church faces an enormously significant decision, one that above all others in our lifetime will determine its future. What will the church do about women’s ordination?
Stop, you say! How could that be such a monumental question? Aren’t there much larger issues?
There are. But women’s ordination is the linchpin-question bringing the more significant and truly fateful inquiries in its train. How this question is answered determines how much authority we grant to culture; it reveals how far we are and are not willing to go in being shaped by God’s Word; and, it brings to the front the single, most baseline of all factors: how will the acceptance of women’s ordination change how Adventists interpret Scripture?
Consider the three options the church faces in deciding how to address women’s ordination.
The first path
One path would be to follow a pro-biblical qualifications plan. That is, the Church takes a deep breath and looks to the Bible. With determination it seeks to follow the qualifications there outlined for leadership in the church. Many who have studied these issues on a Scriptural basis hold that women are not called to serve as elders or pastors leading congregations. On a biblical basis, they can not be qualified to serve in these offices.
Under this plan, women would continue to serve in many active roles in the church, but in ways harmonizing with what Scripture reveals. This would take seriously the Adventist commitment to the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation. It would sustain the decision concerning that method voted by the church almost 30 years ago.
The second path
Another path is to ordain women as pastors. This would change the practice which has prevailed from the beginning of this Church until now. If this path is taken, women would be ordained to lead congregations and serve as presidents over conferences, unions, and divisions. It would mean the practice of “female” headship, with the adoption of (already proposed!) systems of biblical interpretation that locate the meaning of Scripture in readers rather than the Bible itself.
The interpretation aspect is the most significant. It raises the question to a new level. Many who might have been willing to accept the practice (could a convincing biblical case for women’s ordination be made), are immovably opposed to the abandonment of the Seventh-day Adventist use of the historical-grammatical method. Make no mistake; such abandonment would be required in practice if not in word. Only by changing our approach to interpretation can a case for the practice be said to be attained via an appeal to the Bible.
The third approach
A third approach, the most dangerous of all, yet which some might deem a “moderate” path, would be to let each of the 13 divisions of the world church decide on women’s ordination for themselves. This would go further toward dissolving global unity than any other action in the past century. It would reallocate authority away from the church as a world body, to numerous theologically self-determining local regions. This decision would mark an unprecedented fracturing of the Church.
This course of action would pave the way for localized decisions in other matters including the granting of ecclesiastical legitimacy to homosexual “marriages” and the ordination of clergy engaging in same-sex activity. Many favoring women’s ordination will balk at the claim, but other churches have already traveled this path and the results are only too clear. To advance in this direction is to walk directly into that storm with eyes open to the yet more serious controversies just ahead along that road.
Furthermore, in divisions where the leaders may support women’s ordination, many pastors and other members do not. To name one example, in the North American Division where many in leadership support the change in practice, many remain sharply opposed. Many pastors in the division oppose women’s ordination as insupportable from the Bible. Many of our church members likewise oppose the practice. Letting each division decide for itself, rather than decreasing conflict, will only make it more heated.
Some practices are seen as being non-negotiable. Even if they would be permitted by Adventists in different organizational jurisdictions, that would not render these practices acceptable. If the Trans-European Division, for example, would approve same-sex unions or same-gender sexual relationships, many Seventh-day Adventists in America, Africa and elsewhere will withdraw their membership from the church so as not to be associated with that practice.
It must be pointed out that a decision to let each division choose for itself would in effect be a declaration that the world church in General Conference session now agrees that women’s ordination is not a matter involving the Scriptures but only a local, cultural concern. Such a decision would mark the catastrophic surrender of the Church to culture.
Simply put, should the church choose the pro-women’s ordination or the let-each-division-decide-for-itself pathway, it would mean material movement on those larger questions, propelling the church toward dissolution.
Canary in the coal mine
Already the Theology of Ordination Study Committee process has disclosed urgent realities. Calling on those advancing women’s ordination to explain the approach they bring to Scripture in support of the practice has been revealing. Like workers bringing along a canary with them into the coal mine and watching whether it swoons to see if life-threatening gases are present, the principles standing behind the advocacy of women’s ordination have been revealed.
The degree to which alien, non-Adventist interpretational assumptions have filtered into the church among trusted scholars is coming to light. A significant segment of Adventist scholarship has already embraced postmodern interpretational principles that contradict the Scriptural foundations upon which this Church was built.
Women’s ordination itself is not the ultimate question. This is not like questions concerning salvation, Jesus, or the Atonement. But the loudly pounding footfalls following in its train include the giant questions outlined above.
The future determined
How the church decides the question of women’s ordination at the 2015 General Conference in San Antonio will determine the Adventist future. The stakes are that high.
Category: Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP)
Readers of OrdinationTruth.com know that we have a Seventh-day Adventist Church focus. Still, happenings in other churches often forecast what we will face as a body. The United Methodist Church is now in disarray over issues of same-sex marriage and church polity. Hundreds of their pastors are acting in insubordination toward their General Conference, and in several jurisdictions, leading Bishops are refusing to support their GC prohibition on conducting same-sex “wedding” ceremonies. There is now very open talk of separating an already divided church into separate bodies.
There are groups of Methodists seeking to set in order these matters, yet with little success so far. In peeking into the present battle within Methodism, we hope that are not seeing a near Adventist future. The following links will give readers a flavor:
http://goodnewsmag.org/
http://www.wesleyancovenantnetwork.org/what-we-believe.html
http://www.confessingumc.org/schism-has-happened-what-about-division/
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/bishops-seek-to-help-church-find-way-on-homosexuality
Above: Yet another take on the volatile current Methodist situation.
Categories
Angel Rodriguez Biblical Interpretation Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Ellen G. White Eternal functional submission Eternal submission Genesis Headship Hermeneutic of Suspicion John W. Peters Ordination Without Regard to Gender Pre-fall headship Seventh-day Adventist Church Submission Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
Peters–Response to Rodriguez on headship: the Trinity and Genesis 1-3
John W. Peters is a pastor in the Pennsylvania Conference. As part of the Theology of Ordination Stdy Committee he has been among the presenters in the TOSC meetings. Some of his materials were critiqued by Angel Rodriguez in his 76 p. anaylsis of the [pro-biblical qualifications arguments (arguments opposing women’s ordination). In the paper now made available on OrdinationTruth.com, Peters responds to Rodriguez’ particular critique of Peters. READ IT HERE.
Categories
Breaking news Church governance Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) delegated authority Doctrine of the Church Doctrine of Unity Evolution General Conference General Conference Working Policy Homosexuality Insubordination NAD Working Policy North American Division (NAD) Northern California Conference Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com Pacific Union Conference (PUC) Polity Sandra Roberts Sandy Roberts SECC Seventh-day Adventist Church Southeastern California Conference Unilateral Action Unity Utrecht General Conference Session 1995 Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
Northern California Constituency vote: "refer" on unity motion (updated)
On May 18, 2014, the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (a unit in the insubordinate Pacific Union) held its constituency meeting in Angwin, California. The conference of some 40,000 members was represented by hundreds of delegates. Several churches in the conference combined to bring to the delegates three items proposed for action. One item was a statement supporting the unity of the church and directly addressing the question of women’s ordination. A majority of delegates chose not to make a “yes” or “no” decision on the matter but to refer the motion to the conference executive committee. The full text of this motion was:
Resolution Supporting Unity of the Church
Whereas, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in response to conflicting practices within the church, the Apostles established church order by holding the Jerusalem Council, whose decisions were regarded as binding upon the Church everywhere;(1)
Whereas, in like manner, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was established as the highest constituted authority determining policies and procedures for the worldwide Church as reflected in the General Conference Working Policy;
Whereas, the Pacific Union has been delegated authority to represent the Seventh-day Adventist Church in its geographical region, conditioned upon the Union’s willingness to work in harmony with the working policies of the denomination as documented below;
Whereas, the General Conference Model Union Constitution and Bylaws requires sections essential to the unity of the Church worldwide, appearing in bold print, to be adopted into the Bylaws by each union conference;(2)
Whereas, the General Conference Model Constitution includes bold print mandatory language that requires all purposes, policies, and procedures of the union to be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists;(3)
Whereas, the Pacific Union Conference recognizes its role, as part of the worldwide church, as indicated by its adoption of Article III into the Bylaws of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Article III incorporates required language from the Model Union Constitution of the General Conference Working Policy as follows:
“The Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is part of the North American Division which in turn is part of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, a world church organization.
“All policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.”
This Union shall pursue the purposes of the Church in harmony with the doctrines, programs, and initiatives adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Constituency Session.(4)
Whereas, to assure the future unity of the Church, the Article XIV of the of the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws specifically precludes the Constituency Delegation from voting changes to its Bylaws which are not in harmony with the spirit of the Model Union Constitution;(5)
Whereas, Article VII, Section 7 of the bylaws of the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (NCC) requires that rules and regulations of the NCC adopted by the Executive Committee shall be in compliance with the Bylaws of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (PUC);(6)
Whereas, the current edition of the General Conference Working Policy declares all appointments and responsibilities within the church to be open to persons regardless of gender, “except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry.”(7)
Therefore, be it hereby resolved by the Northern California Conference in constituent session assembled, that the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists shall refrain from pastoral ordination to the gospel ministry without respect to gender in practice, policy, rule, or regulation until such time as the Delegates of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in worldwide session approve a Bylaw, policy, rule, or regulation which allows such ordination.
1. Acts 15
2. 2012-2013 General Conference Working Policy, D 10 05 Constitution of the Union Conferences, Page 135
3. 2012-2013 General Conference Working Policy, D 10 05 Constitution of the Union Conferences, Page 136, Article III – Relationships
4. Bylaws of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, August 29, 2011, 5, Article III – Relationships
5. Bylaws of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, August 29, 2011, Page 16, Article VII – Amendments
6. Bylaws of the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Artcile VII, Section 7
7. 2012-2013 General Conference Working Policy, BA 60 10 p. 113
As can be seen, the proposed motion was entirely reasonable, respectful, and appropriate. It was directed to the very body of persons—Northern California delegates—who should make such decisions. It would have inculcated unity and harmony with the world church.
Unfortunately, the Pacific Union and its subentitites has increasingly and persistently demonstrated a voted pattern of insubordination toward the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Union is operating in open violation of General Conference decisions in 1990 and 1995. A unit within the Union, the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, voted itself a woman president outside the agreed policies of the church in 2013 who is not recognized by the General Conference.
The motion, and the two other motions, were never read to the meeting, nor debated. They were consistently treated as a set when they were three distinct and separate motions. When their turn on the agenda arrived, almost immediately two delegates moved they be referred to executive committee. Several minutes of debate ensued, with many delegates opposing such course of action.
In the end, a slim majority of the delegates voted to defer all three items to a conferance administration that has supported the insubordinate action of the Pacific Union on women’s ordination and operated in contradiction to the world church. Northern California churches entrusted the delegates to represent them and to make decisions. Rather than vote “yes” or “no” on important issues impacting the mission of the church in their field, they punted.
Today’s action by delegates in the Northern California conference, emanating yet again from within the Pacific Union, is added evidence that units in this section of the church are operating independently of the world body. Rather than moving toward unity, this field is spiraling further away from the broader consensus of the world body.
Other items included a plan to change from two to five year apart constituency sessions. That plan was rejected by the delegates. Agenda items condemning the teaching of evolution and which also would have stated “unqualified disapproval” of the practice of homosexual acts, were, like the unity motion, referred to the conference executive committee. The most recent previous Northern California constituency session was held May 20, 2012.
The text of all three important motions is available here from the Northern California Conference website.
A 19 page set of footnotes supporting the Unity motion meticulously compiled was made available to delegates via the Northern California website, and is available VIA THIS LINK.
NOTE: ADvindicate.com has an article now offering more detail about the events at NCC Constituency meeting: The rest of the story: NCC constituency meeting
Categories
1 Corinthians Angel Rodriguez Biblical Interpretation Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Distinct roles Edwin E. Reynolds Headship Kephale MInority Report NAD TOSC Minority Report OrdinationTruth.com Seventh-day Adventist Church Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
Reynolds–Responses to Angel Rodriguez' arguments on 1 Corinthians 11, 14
Among those taken to task in Angel Rodriguez’ 76 page paper addressing the main pro-biblical qualification (anti-WO) arguments was Edwin Reynolds. Professor Reynolds has responded point by point in a paper here made available. Those who have read Rodriguez’ paper will want to review Reynolds’ thoughtful response. FIND IT HERE.
Categories
1 Corinthians Calvinism CBMW Church Manual Columbia Union Conference (CUC) Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood E-60 Ecclesiastical authority Gender General Conference General Conference Working Policy Genesis Gerry Chudleigh Headship Historical-grammatical method Larry Kirkpatrick Male-sex specific roles NAD TOSC Report NAD Working Policy NAD Year-end Meeting North American Division (NAD) Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com Pacific Union Conference (PUC) Principle-based Historical-cultural Method Seventh-day Adventist Church Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Trans-European Division (TED) Unilateral Action Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
Kirkpatrick response to Chudleigh on "Headship Theology"
Pacific Union Conference communication director Gerry Chudleigh published his paper on May 1, 2014 titled, “A short history of the Headship Doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Chudleigh proposes that in the 1980s a small group of Adventists from Southern Michigan raided Calvinist theologians for their “headship theology.” Nevertheless, he says, practically no Adventists had heard such ideas until 2012. According to Chudleigh “headship theology” is a brand new doctrine for Adventists, and the TOSC process “may be the first Adventist school of headship theology.” Via TOSC, according to him, this divisive new doctrine is being spread across the world field. Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick (Bonners Ferry and Clark Fork Idaho churches, Upper Columbia Conference, NPUC, NAD) considers Chudleigh’s rendition of events in this short response video. He is one of several ministers who are part of the Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP).
Categories
The decision that cannot be avoided
By Many Hands
“[T]he question of homosexuality now presents evangelicals in the United States with a decision that cannot be avoided. Within a very short time, we will know where everyone stands on this question. There will be no place to hide, and there will be no way to remain silent. To be silent will answer the question.
“The question is whether evangelicals will remain true to the teachings of Scripture and the unbroken teaching of the Christian church for over two thousand years on the morality of same-sex acts and the institution of marriage” (Albert Mohler, “God, the Gospel, and the Gay Challenge—a Response to Matthew Vines,” http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/04/22/god-the-gospel-and-the-gay-challenge-a-response-to-matthew-vines/).
The church stands on a precipice. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is seeing clearly on a crucial issue. The tides of culture are washing in on the church. Mohler warns we are now living in the midst of what is essentially a revolution. Society-wide conceptions of morality are rapidly changing, and “. . .our answer to this question will both determine or reveal what we understand about everything the Bible reveals and everything the church teaches—even the gospel itself” (Ibid.).
If Mohler is right, much more is at stake for Adventists than a mere attempt to hold together opposite wings as one church. The actual question for us, is whether or not the Seventh-day Adventist Church will continue its commitment to following the Bible, that is, whether or not the Seventh-day Adventist Church will continue to exist as we know it.
The larger context of Mohler’s article is the threat posed by the teaching of Matthew Vines. Vines, an evangelical Christian, began a few years ago to publicly argue that one can both be Christian and also engage in committed same-sex “relationships.” He has gone on to develop and publish his viewpoints. Mohler warns that Vines “specifically seeks to argue that the basic sexual complementarity of the human male and the female—each made in God’s image—is neither essential to Genesis chapters 1 and 2 or to any biblical text that follows.”
This will have a familiar ring to Seventh-day Adventists who support our longstanding use of the Historical-grammatical method, who see evidence in Genesis two as does the New Testament’s apostle Paul. Under inspiration, Paul looks back to Genesis two, before the fall, for divinely-revealed insight on male and female roles. Opposite this Genesis two understanding we find Adventists advocating what the NAD has recently designated as the “Principle-based, Historical-cultural” (PBHC) method of Bible interpretation. Theirs is a view holding that these male and female roles arise not from Genesis two but from chapter three, after Adam and Eve had disobeyed God.
The difference is enormous. If male and female roles of headship and submission are part of the Creator’s design from a sinless world (as are Sabbath and marriage), they remain forever normative. But if headship entered only after sin, it is temporary and not part of the created order.
It is interesting to ponder which approach is consonant with current cultural claims of role interchangeability and same-sex “marriage”? Mohler warns:
“There are a great host of people, considered to be within the larger evangelical movement, who are desperately seeking a way to make peace with the moral revolution and endorse the acceptance of openly-gay individuals and couples within the life of the church. Given the excruciating pressures now exerted on evangelical Christianity, many people—including some high-profile leaders—are desperately seeking an argument they can claim as both persuasive and biblical. . . . the Bible insists on a difference in roles. In order to overcome this impediment, biblical scholars and theologians committed to egalitarianism have made arguments that are hauntingly similar to those now made by Matthew Vines in favor of relativizing the Bible’s texts on same-sex behaviors” (Ibid.).
The warning is clear. Denial of male and female complementarity opens the way for the denial of sexual complementarity. There are risks and potholes all over this road. If the Seventh-day Adventist Church would remain on the path of faithfulness to Scripture, it must step carefully. It must look beyond short term “gains” (keeping the church “together”) to the longer-term perspective.
The church is not “together.” There are differing approaches, differing hermeneutics, different views concerning the authority of Scripture. But there is a movement toward clarity. In due course we will have clarity. As in the larger evangelical world, soon everyone will know where the Seventh-day Adventist Church stands. One pathway compromises with culture; the other, although painful, maintains the counter-cultural biblical witness of an Eden to be restored. This witness is God’s Eden corrective, not man’s compromise with culture.
We stand on the precipice. The only question is whether or not we recognize it. Clarification on sex-roles in the church is not coming one moment too soon. If Mohler is right, “within a very short time, we will know where everyone stands on this question.”
Categories
CAP authors Church Manual Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Culturally driven Doctrine of Unity Ecclesiastical authority Gender General Conference Homosexuality Larry Kirkpatrick Netherlands Union Ordination Without Regard to Gender Political correctness Queer Theology Sam Allberry Same-sex attraction Trans-European Division (TED) Unilateral Action Unity Women's Ordination
Homosexuality or Christianity?
Netherlands Union again places itself in opposition to the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick considers recent developments in Netherlands Union and the threat they pose to the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Bible and the world church says that same-sex intimacy is immoral, but the Netherlands Union has another idea. They are again acting unilaterally to oppose the position of the world church. Read why their approach cannot continue. FIND THE ARTICLE HERE.
The Council of Adventist Pastors operates an email mailing list. The list announces new articles, videos and features offered on OrdinationTruth.com. Participants may also discuss and study these matters back and forth over the list.
To be added go to the subscribe page: http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/reasontogether.
Categories
1 Corinthians 1 Timothy Angel Rodriguez Biblical Interpretation Complimentarian Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Cultural reconstructions Culturally driven Deaconess Doctrine of Holy Scripture Ecclesiastical authority Ellen G. White Ephesians Eternal submission Fear tactics Gender gender-inclusive language Genesis Headship Home and church connection Homosexuality Ingo Sorke Male-sex specific roles Mothers Ordination Without Regard to Gender Phoebe Seventh-day Adventist Church Sola Scriptura Spectrum Magazine Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
Sorke–Response to Angel Rodriguez
In Angel Rodriguez’ 76 page summary and analysis of the position of those pro-biblical-qualifications (anti-women’s ordination) position, Rodriguez noted several objections to materials provided by Ingo Sorke. Sorke, theology professor at Southwestern Adventist Universy and member of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC), read Rodriguez’ paper and offers his reaction in the paper linked here. Sorke offers a firm and clear defense of his position and response to Rodriguez’ many assertions. FIND IT HERE!