Analysis of the GC Letter to the Columbia Union by an Adventist Theologian
by
This document came to Adventist Today. It is being circulated among the delegates to the Columbia Union Conference constituency session tomorrow and evidently to delegates to the upcoming Pacific Union Conference constituency meeting. The author is a Seventh-day Adventist theologian. Adventist Today has agreed not to publish the name.
1. The letter as a whole is an argument that although the ordination of ministers without regard to gender is a matter of religious conviction for the officers and executive committee of the Columbia Union Conference (pp. 2, 5, 6), they should subordinate their convictionto church protocol. The letter disavows any need “to discuss the specific question of ministerial ordination or to express an opinion about it” (p. 1); instead, it changes the subject to ecclesiastical authority masquerading as denominational unity. Religious institutionalism prevails over spiritual integrity.
2. The letter is right that the Columbia Union Conference should participate in a denomination-wide discussion of ministerial ordination without regard to gender (pp. 1-2). This participation, however, does not require that it refrain from acting in harmony with what it sincerely believes to be its God-given duty.The Columbia Union Conference does not ask that any other part of the church follow its example; it simply claims the freedom to function according to its own conscience.
3. As the letter states (p. 2), the General Conference sessions of 1990 in Indianapolis and 1995 in Utrechtdid not authorize ministerial ordination without regard to gender; but they did not explicitly forbid such ordination, although the letter’s Appendix (p. 7) assumes that they did.
4. It is true that “as currently understood in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, ordination to the gospel ministry is ordination to serve the global Church” (p. 2). But this has never been interpreted to give an ordained minister the right to serve wherever one might wish; a minister must be called by a local conference to fill a specific need. Just as a competent conference administration would not call a minister to serve in place where one could not speak the local language, so it would not call a minister to serve in a place where one’s gender would be an obstacle to effective ministry. On examination the appeal to serving the global churchturns out to bea bogus argument.
5. The letter claims that “for one entity to express and demonstrate its reasoned dissent with a global decision of the Church might appear to some as a legitimate course of action. However, the implications of such an action are not limited to the one entity” (p. 3). This is an example of the notoriously fallacious “slippery slope” form of argument..
6. Repeated references to “unilateral action” (pp. 1, 2, 4) and “one entity” (pp. 3, 6) in contrast to “the rest of the church” (p. 2) ignore the fact that two other union conferences (Mid-America and Pacific) in the North American Division and one (Northern German) in the Euro-African Division have already acted similarly to the Columbia Union Conference. The truth is that a theological, spiritual, and moral commitment to ordination without regard to gender has for many years been a growing reality among Seventh-day Adventists in various parts of the world. In protest against the 1995 General Conference decision in Utrecht, in 1998 an international faculty committee at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary published Women in Minis–try: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, supporting the ordination of women.
7. The letter recognizes that the General Conference Session in 1883 resolved “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” (Appendix, p. 7). What the letter does not note is that 90 years later, in 1973, a group of Bible scholars appointed by the General Conference met for the express purpose of examining the Biblical and theological implications of ministerial ordination without regard to gender. It concluded that there is no Biblical or theological objection.Nor does the letter note that in 1995, after their request for authorization to ordain women in ministry was denied by the General Conference Session in Utrecht, the union conference presidents of the North American Division jointly declared, “While loyal to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we still firmly believe in the Biblical rightness of women’s ordination.” Surely these scholars and these union conference presidents, along with the Seminary faculty, are part of “the rest of the church.”
8. Although subsequent General Conference sessions have not implementedFundamental Belief #14, adopted by the 1980 General Conference session in Dallas, neither have theyrepealed or modifiedits clear language:“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” (emphasis supplied). There is no way that an “unbiased reading” (p. 5) canreasonably harmonize the denial of ministerial ordination to women with this explicit affirmation of an equally explicit New Testament principle (Gal. 3:28).
9. The claim that “unity is first of all a mutual commitment to how the Church functions” (p. 3) issimply wrong, based on a basic misunderstanding of the nature of unity. As a matter of fact, unity in the Church is first of all a spiritual matter of mutual trust,expressed in respect for differences of conviction or practice so long as those differences do not contradict the fundamental definition of the church. Since the Seventh-day Adventist Church organized itself in the 1860s, the exclusion of women from its ordained ministry has never been part of its self-definition; and, as the statement of Fundamental Beliefs makes clear, it does not do so now.
10. The proper role of the General Conference in this situation is to encourage mutual trust and respect in spite of the existing differences of conviction and practice, rather than trying to persuade a significant segment of the Church to refrain from living up to its spiritual and moral conscience. The Roman Catholic Church with its hierarchy of bishops and cardinals is not a proper model for the Seventh-day Adventist Church with its General Conference officers and division presidents (p. 6).The letter does not explain why the General Conference administration finds it necessary to oppose the ordination of ministers without regard to gender; but it is clear thatits argument rests not on sound Biblical and theological reasoning but on an alleged need for procedural uniformity in this regard.
The GC is the highest authority in the SDA church. They are empowered by the world church to deal with flagrant rebellion in the Conferences and Unions, if they didn't have that authority we would already at this point in time, be fragmented into a multitude of psuedo SDA churches. Which brings to mind the text in Judges 21:25 "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
TruthWave7, that appears to be some more Papal reasoning. Again to quote the article:
"The Roman Catholic Church with its hierarchy of bishops and cardinals is not a proper model for the Seventh-day Adventist Church with its General Conference officers and division presidents (p. 6)."
First there was appeal to Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostlic Succession and Sacred Tradition. Now there is appeal to the power of pontentates and princes of the Church. I am suprised you aren't quoting Matt 16:19.
I am also not sure what your reference to Judges means? Are you saying kingship is the best model, because I seem to recall God warning about the place of hereditary kings; whereas, in the time of Judges, God raised up spiritual leaders as required – His preferred model. One could argue that the SDA Church is likewise in danger of moving away from spiritual leadership towards an emphasis on appointed/political leadership, contrary to our restorationist claim to Joel 2.
I am sure I am not the only one that had some misgivings when a hereditary princling took over our highest office, and nothing I have seen so far has given me that much confidence. You all talk about the Church looking like it is 'about to fall', but who says this reform re WO is not an extension of the true Reformation, and the opposition based on RC reasoning a counter-reformation that is the source of apostacy?
Stephen,
You are correct, the hierarcy does not trump the conscience of a major union. The analysis above points out that the Pacific, Mid America and North German Adventists unions all approve of WO when such an action first fills a pastoral need and is sanctioned by the said union. Loma Linda University Church under the leadership of then Louis Venden were vanguards on the issue of WO. What the GC was trying to effect with this letter to the CUC was preventing what will become a run away horse cart in the NAD. The GC has lost the argument as more Unions with their requisite members, pastors and theologians recognize the moral bankruptcy of this discrimination. As I have posted before biblical arguments were used to support SLAVERY! Certainly a reprehensible institution. The biblical perspective on slavery was cultural and by no means sanctioned by God. As Justice Roberts said in his confirmation before the Senate when he was grilled on the issue of Stare Decisis, the customary following of previous precedent by the federal courts. Roberts affirmed the principle of Stare Decisis but also pointed out that sometimes the practice is wrong. If we had followed Stare Decisis in all instances then slavery would still be the law of the land. Discrimination is wrong and I am shocked by SDA's suggesting that we in essence follow eclesiastical authority in this matter. No we should not and I am happy to see the overwhelming vote of approval by the voting members of the CUC. They stood their ground despite the appeal to "unity" and also the implied threat of going against the GC authority.
For decades the GC as a whole has refused to deal with this issue up front and has tried to sweep it under the rug. No more. There is now a powerful list of SDA unions that are in favor of WO.
Pacific Union
Mid America Union
Columbia Union
Northern German
The GC is not the highest relgious authority in the SDA faith community, it simply is the at the top of the organizational pyramid. It can issue opinions which are optional if they conflict with the plain teachings of Scripture (St. Paul) which says that God does not make distinctions based on gender. Very simple actually.
We have alwasy said – well, more often written and perhaps hoped it was ignored – that the GC authority was limited by Scripture and conscience. And the GC is the highest authority when in session – when it is the church assembled – not when it is a bureaucracy. We have an interesting system where power flows upwards from the local church, but also downwards from God. We sometimes forget that our leaders are not elected, but 'called'. Technically we don't 'choose', but accept God's will. We have also in the past stressed servant leadership, and a return to that – in theory and practice – might go a long way towards solving many of our problems.
Kevin,
Our leaders are both "called" by conscience but also "elected" by humans. That leaves a lot of open territory for debate. "Calling" and "election" of leaders is an imperfect process because we are humans. I may "feel called" but how do I know the calling is from "God" per se? If I feel "called" I would bounce this notion off a few respected colleagues. I have been on many committees selecting administrative leaders at LLU. We "pray for guidance" look at the qualifications of those who feel "called" and then make a decision. Most of the time I think we get it right but sometimes we have made the wrong decisions and pay the price for it. In those instances we have to ameliorate the damage caused by our decision. In the end once the bowed heads are raised the responsibility is all on us as humans. I have never heard "Gods" voice say "choose him or her."
In the end I echo Stephen Fergusons idea that what is going on here may be the latest evolution in an ongoing reformation occurring in the SDA church.
About GC authority, what do you make of Acts 16:4?
4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.
Are we equating the GC to the First Apostles?
Yes. But again, there is a very big difference between all the Apostles and Elders in session (which is equivalent to our GC in session) compared with the Apostles individually (which is equivalent to our GC executives). Paul obeyed the former, but he did not always obey the latter.
Wasn't this the degree of the 'Church in Session', comprising the Apostles and Elders – as noted in Acts 15. Doesn't that illustrate Kevin's point, which is often forgotten, about the GC in session vs the elected executive of the GC. You will note in Acts 15 that Paul does submit to the full authority of the Apostles and Elders in Council. At other times, however, Paul doesn't seem to be compliant, even having a very public argument with Peter about the treatment of Gentiles.
I think you may be correct that Paul seems to submit, but having sumitted to the demand to avoid food sacrificed to idols, he went on to teach that eating food sacrificed to idols was nothing, unless it offended your brother or sister. He made it clear that the offended party was the weaker Christian, but still counselled to consider their reaction. No council decision – then or now – prevented a change in policy at a later date if it seemed to be the way the Holy Spirit was leading. Perhaps we could solve this issue by paying more attention to the question 'where is the Holy Spirit leading us?' rather than 'what do our (favourite) theologians have to say?'
Do you really think the Holy Spirit will signify his wishes by a urim or thumum? How can the Holy Spirit's wishes be know in such controversies? It's repeated so often, now step up and solve that so we poor humans can readily discern Her wishes. Is it possible that we are given reasoning and should no constantly depend on something else but make decisions by our own God-given ability.
Indeed a very difficult question. Are we like Gideon complaining that there is no sign or miracle, only to have God tell us we are the miracle. Are we like Moses praying and complaining on the mountaintop, with God telling us, get off this mountain and get the people moving. But I do believe God sincerely talks to people's hearts, which is His primary intervention in the world.
Those who see the ordination of woman (or slaveholding, or capital punishment of disobedient children, or even the mixture of cotton and wool fabrics and the covering of a woman’s head at all times in public) as theological issues will most assuredly see these things as behavior that transcends all cultures and time. Yet, I am sure that these same Christians find it at least marginally distressful to note how sects of Islam forbid education for women and girls, execute women for alleged infidelity (while sparing males the same fate), and insist that women neither drive motor vehicles nor be allowed at any time in public to show even a square centimeter of exposed flesh or hair.
Surely it is obvious by now that God does not withhold his blessing from the ministry of women, either in administration or in other areas of service, and that a Spirit-directed, Bible-believing church founded on the ministry of a Spirit-filled women who was VERY open about questioning the administrative decisions made by ordained men of her day (was she in rebellion?) should certainly be capable of entrusting equal and integrated recognition to both male and female pastors. The case is repeatedly made that Jesus had no women among the 12 apostles, but neither did he marry or begat children; he never organized a denomination, never traveled far-out-of-country as a missionary, and certainly never founded a school system or seminary. Furthermore, he opposed his own apostles when he insisted in laying his blessed hands on children, noting that of such was the kingdom of heaven.
Certainly he would not withhold those same blessed hands from a woman, today, who demonstrates every pastoral quality and desires to dedicate her life to ministry. In the wake of the demonstrated qualities of Ellen White as a revivalist, teacher, and exhorter, I cannot fathom the reticence to allow other women to serve on par with males, as directed by God's guiding Spirit. The church is suffering public reproach for this stand (not only in China, my dear friends!), and good and honest people are turning away from the church because of our treatment of women, as surely as they were turning TO Adventism in the 1860s, because of our “non-biblical” stand against slavery. It’s time to study a bit of history and the concept of Present and Progressive truth to recognize from whence we’ve come, and whither and how fast we hope to get to where we’re going. As a prophetic church we have long predicted that in the latter times, God's spirit would fall in special ways on women and even children. It's well within the Adventist mainstream behavior to rejoice at the prospect of adding a whole new contingent of authorized talent to our pastoral/evangelistic teams in North America.
I suspect the reason why the issue in the SDA church is ordination rather than employment is Ellen White. Almost every other denomination has argued over whether women can be priests/pastors. We are the only one where that is taken for granted by most, yet we argue over ordination of women. I can't imagine any other church deciding women can be commissioned as pastors, but cannot be ordained as pastors. There is simply no theology of ordination or of minsitry that can support such a position. But we have to allow women to be teachers and preachers because Ellen White and many other women were, and so many articles were published defending that practice. If we ever get to the real debate – can women actually do these things – we will either have to say 'yes', or we will have to admit the church has made a grievous mistake in allowing women (including Ellen White) to do these things in the past. Politically, the GC is correct in making sure the debate remains focused on ordination and not on function, as a debate on the issue the NT seems to be addressing leaves us in a lose-lose position.
WO (Women's Ordination) or MO (men's ordination) is a non-issue. If men can only fully perform their calling by having the hands of ordination laid on them, and if the church encourages and supports women to study for the pastoral ministry and then employs them to work as pastors, they are duty bound to authorise and empower them to do their work, just as fully as men, and therefore have hands of ordination placed on them too. It makes no sense to give women equal pay and benefits as men, to do the same job, except that the former will do less for the same reward and the latter will do more for it. This is dual discrimination. Where is the logic in that? However, if ordination has become such an issue, then why not scrap it altogether and start afresh. We will not be committing the unpardonable sin if we did not ordain people to Pastoral ministry. Don't we as a church teach the prieshood of ALL believers. We don't ordain every member for that matter. At the next GC session in 2015, why not let all the delegates anul ordination of men and women and institute a commissioning service instead with credentials being bestowed upon all pastors, irrespective of gender, and for a newly employed pastor who starts work for the conference on his/her first Sabbath. Surely the seminary years should have given those men and women the opportunity to demonstrate their calling to pastoral ministry in their very pratical study programme in conjunction with at least one local church. Why let our churches suffer under un-called pastors!
I don't see the problem as being ordination in itself. It does have some unfortunate historical baggage, but so do many other beliefs and practices. And the 'odaining'/'commissioning' distinction is mere words resulting from politicking and should be treated with all the respect such activity deserves.
What I see as unfortunate is the confusing of spiritual and administrative authority and duties – and the apparent privileging of the administrative. I believe God calls men and women to proclaim the gospel in many ways. If those ways are public and the person is seen as representing the church, then ordination is a good method to indicate church approval. But the call comes from God, as does the ability to do the work. And whether we are talking of pastors or teachers or accountants or janitors, I agree we do not want to see the church employing and/or ordaining people not called by God to those positions. Too often it seems people get positions based on the questions 'who do we think is the best person for this job?' or 'where can we use this person?' rather than the question our system presupposes which is 'who does God want in this position?' That is why we refer to offers of a position as a 'call'. And it was always meant to be from God, not from the nominating committee or the President, no matter how desperate either may be to fill the position or to find a suitable position to reward someone.
That most of the distinctions between commisioned and ordained pastors are about bureaucratic procedures rather than core gospel activities is disturbing. Do we really believe ordaining an elder or deacon requires more authority than preaching and teaching the gospel? In the NT church it seems both could be done by the local church. Even Paul and Barnabbas (both apostles) were set aside by the church, not the hierarchy. I believe it is time we again recognised the priesthood of all believers. As for organising and disbanding local churches, that is so rarely done by a pastor that it seems irrelevant, especially as it is then voted on and accepted by the session. I am sure Paul never asked visiting dignitaries to come and officially declare any of his churches to exist, nor is it recorded he spent his time wandering around the Mediterranean making speeches to declare local churches established.
I want to know my pastors have the gifts necessary to do their work, and some evidence that God is working through them (and all four pass, as far as I am concerned). If that is true, then I believe God has qualified them to ordain elders and deacons (and anyone else the local church requires) on behalf of the local church (which is where the recognition really comes from), and for the Conference to have to withhold that right because it may upset someone on the other side of the world is just ridiculous. When we get through with this study of ordination – and inevitably discover we actually knew what the Bible said all along – it wouldn't hurt, and may help greatly, if we could turn our attention to the weightier matter of ecclesiology. That is IMO where we really have confusion and need to both discover and rediscover a few things – the centrality and importance of the local congregation being one of them.
“What I see as unfortunate is the confusing of spiritual and administrative authority and duties – and the apparent privileging of the administrative.”
As I have mentioned previously, that appears to be the central argument of Emeritus Professor Robert M. Johnston of Andrews University, in his excellent article 'Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years'. He argues that the NT model actually distinguishes what he calls charismatic leadership (i.e. those chosen by the Holy Spirit, such as apostles and prophets) from appointed leadership (i.e. those appointed against visible selection criteria as elders and deacons).
Prof. Johnston also argues that it was only after the failed prophetic revival of Montanus in 165 AD, that the office of bishop and apostle were gradually fused, where the appointed hierarchy of the Catholic Church effectively did away with charismatic leadership. However, I agree that it is certainly worth exploring what the Bible actually teaches concerning these two distinct types of leadership, and how the restorationist Seventh-day Adventist Church, which claims to fulfil Joel 2:28-29, should perhaps organise itself.
Even the appointed leaders in the NT were primarily spiritual leaders. I am referring to what are essentially bureaucratic functions – one intended to keep the church machinery working – as opposed to ones that actually relate to sharing the gospel.
I think Ervin hit the nail on the head early on here, "The GC is not the highest relgious authority in the SDA faith community, it simply is the at the top of the organizational pyramid. It can issue opinions which are optional if they conflict with the plain teachings of Scripture (St. Paul) which says that God does not make distinctions based on gender. Very simple actually."
I'm sure it would be nice to believe that the GC is the actual God-given authority on all matters, but the fact is that it is simply the administrative top rung in an earthbound organization. This is an argument about fundamental fairness, nothing more and nothing less. Fortunately, fairness is beginning to win.
Hurrah for fairness. Is there a way for the GC to just sit on WO somehow. Sometimes there are topics on the agenda that just don't get addressed since the person running the committee chooses to ignore it or skip it, or save it until last – and oops there's no time left.