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.
4 replies on “Three pathways”
AMEN & AMEN!!!!! WELL SPOKEN, and PRECISELY CORRECT!!!
Why are our “Leaders” choosing to ABANDON GOD’S HOLY WORD. Why is it that THE BIBLE IS NO LONGER OUR GUIDE. IT IS SHAMEFUL, Our CONFROMITY to the WORLD IS ABHOORENT TO GOD!!!! May HE have MERCY on those who are determined to follow the leading of “other denominations”. May Our Church Leaders make a choice TO STAND FOR TRUTH and RIGHTEOUSNESS. We are seeing, IN THIS ISSUE, the separating of the SHEEP and the Goats, the WHEAT and the Tares!!!!! A LITTLE COMPROMISE ALWAYS leads to a LOT OF COMPROMISE!!!!! Need I say more??
Well said… as a pastor in Romania, I am amazed how little the administration allows to talk about this subject. As every time in history, whenever there is something to debate, romanian church does not want to create conflict, has no position for the truth and even if we have the most members in adventist Europe church, we do not stand fot each other… every opinion contrary to administration decisions is considered an open door to unnecessary discussions. What a shame!
Yes! It is important that Adventists remain united globally on matters of theology. I believe we can and should do more to decide the issue of male headship and the church. Rodriguez seemed to have a good reason to reject male headship in the church. It is interesting how many responses to his paper there have been on this site.
Yet the East Central Africa Division in their BRI paper have stated quite clearly that if their delegates to the 2015 GC Session do not receive further education on the issues involved in the current debate and discussions many of them will vote according to their traditional African worldview. In this worldview, ordained pastors are nothing more or less than churchly chiefs. This stance has much more to do with status, than with any pretended biblical worldview.
Yet organizations such as CAP would happily rely on support for their stance from Africans who have embraced such pagan and traditional African worldviews.
Hi Peter,
After reading your post this morning, I went back and refreshed my memory of the brief 4 page ECD Report (here for those who are interesting: http://www.adventistarchives.org/brc-east-central-africa-division-presentation.pdf). It says nothing as you claim. The first page tells us that their laypersons are very busy winning souls but they feel WO is an important question and will work on the question. They say that they do not see exegetical soundness in the arguments for women as priests in Eden. They say that in their studies they are unsure of the arguments both for and against WO, but they feel it is safer to adhere to the plain message of Scripture. They close by saying “not yet” on WO but they are ready to study. They seek clarity.
Your characterization of these earnest brothers and sisters as embracing pagan and traditional African worldviews and voting about WO on the basis of their culture rather than on Scripture is not even remotely implied in their report. Indeed, your characterization has the ring, at least to my ears, of a distasteful attitude of assumed western superiority and elitism on your part, and belittles sincere attempts to work out these issues. I don’t want to use the “r” word but it sounds very…racist.
I rejoice that African Adventists along with many others around the globe are looking at these issues to see what the Scriptures say. I was pleased to see in all three TOSC “Way Forward” documents reference to the validity of headship. It is even in the pro-women’s ordination position although in that document limited to the home. Forgive me Peter, for wondering if in fact, it is you who are overwhelmingly indebted to the “culture” you are immersed in for your views on WO.