Another Denominational Governing Committee Supports Ordination for Women Pastors
by Adventist Today News Team
For the fourth time in two weeks an executive committee within the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted yesterday (March 22) to move the denomination toward the ordination of women who serve in pastoral ministry. The action taken sounds like a small, even bureaucratic step. “To remove the term ‘Ordained-Commissioned’ and replace it with the term ‘Ordained’ on all ministerial credentials, regardless of the gender of the credential holder.”
In fact, it moves over the line from urging higher levels of the denomination to resolve the concern for denying full pastoral status to women into taking action. Since its beginnings the Adventist denomination has first issued a “Ministerial License” to a person entering pastoral ministry and then had a service with the “laying on of hands” in prayer after about five years, and after that giving the individual a “Ministerial Credential.” The Ministerial License has generally been seen as a first step toward ordination to the gospel ministry.
Starting in the 1880s, women working as ministers and evangelists were issued the Ministerial License. At least one woman—Ellen G. White, a cofounder of the denomination—was repeatedly issued the Ministerial Credential over several decades. These facts are clearly documented in the annual Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook.
After 1990 when a study commission was unable to come to a decision on whether the Bible permits or prohibits the ordination of women, denominational leaders decided to end the practice of issuing the Ministerial License to women clergy and introduced a new category of “Commissioned Minister.” This new category was designed to be parallel to the ordained minister in order to treat women in ministry with equality to men.
Leading up to the 2005 General Conference Session there was discussion among church administrators about another attempt to resolve the issue. When a decision was made to again set it aside, a number of local conferences in at least two regions of North America began the practice of issuing an “Ordained-Commissioned Minister Credential.” The Southeastern California Conference was one of those conferences.
The governing body of this conference has now voted to take the step of removing what some observers have called a “half way” measure and simply issue the Ordained Minister Credential to all its pastors, including the women. “The committee believes this step will enable all pastors to better fulfill the conference’s mission statement, which is the expansion of God’s kingdom through preaching, teaching, publishing and living of the everlasting gospel throughout the cross-cultural communities of its territory,” said a statement issued by Enno Mueller, interim communication director.
The Southeastern California Conference includes five counties encompassing the major metropolitan areas of San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside. It has more than 70,000 members in 156 local churches and is home to a number of major Adventist institutions. More than 10 women are employed as pastors in the conference. Since the 1980s, it has repeatedly asked the General Conference to provide for equity between men and women in ministry.
“This may create the kind of confrontation that I have hoped and prayed to avoid,” a retired denominational leader told Adventist Today. Another source pointed out that the General Conference has permitted the Adventist Church in China to move ahead with the ordination of women. In 1995 when a number of local churches ordained women serving as pastors, the North American Division officers sidestepped a confrontation by taking the position that a local church only has authority to ordain local elders, so this must be what these churches had done. Under the General Conference Working Policy the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences, although local conferences issue the actual credentials.
Or perhaps God is speaking through duly elected officials and constituency meetings and not through self-appointed guardians of the church. While many may find that unlikely, it wouldn't be the first time it has happened that the corporate church was right.
For many Adventists, the Southeastern California Conference is a model for what the future of the Adventist Church in North America should look like and how it should act. Mr. Joy's comments strongly indicate that he does not understand the real world of how the Adventist Church operates. If I had not read some of his previous comments, I might reasonably conclude that his comment is intended as a joke. But I guess there are Adventists in some parts of the church who oppose progress and would prefer to stay on the wrong side of history.
And many Adventists feel that if the SE Califl Conf. is "a model for what the future of the Adventist Church in North America should look like and how it should act," the church is in worse shape than we thought, and it will come ever nearer to that point where it "appears as about to fall." May God have mercy on us.
And regarding Kevin's comment: nice straw man argument, but it's too transparent. This isn't about the "gift of ministry," and I suspect he knows it. All Christians are called to minister to their fellow man, but that is vastly different from the issue we are discussing.
It isn't a 'straw-man' argument for those of us convinced that some women have been called to pastoral ministry and we have seen the results of their work. If God calls and blesses, what more proof do we need?
It is good to see the church move to end its rebellion against the Holy Spirit and move to recognize the Holy Spirit's leading by ordaining those the Holy Spirit has given the gift of ministry regardless of their sex.
Perhaps this will clarify how the Adventist Church operates in the real world:
"The General Conference is the highest earthly authority for the Church. The General Conference in session, and the Executive Committee between sessions, is the highest organization in the administration of the Church's worldwide work, and is authorized by its constitution to create subordinate organizations to promote specific interests in various sections of the world. When differences arise in or between organizations and institutions, appeal to the next higher organization is proper until it reaches the General Conference in session, or the Executive Committee at the Annual Council. During the interim between these sessions, the Executive Committee shall constitute the body of final authority on all questions where a difference of viewpoint may develop." NAD website.
If that ever were true it is not now. I find it interesting that some will use White as the ultimate source of this, but ignore her other clear comments to the contrary. In addition, the GC has never been a leader in issues regarding fairness for women, ie. Merikay Silver case. They have to be yanked along.
The NAD statement on the SDA organizational structure is not true? When did it change? And by what authority?And what is the new organizational structure that the NAD has missed?
What are the limits of NAD's authority? Does it have unlimited authority?
Just as the three branches of the U.S. government have been given certain powers, they are limited; i.e., Congress makes laws, SCOTUS inteprets them when in dispute; and the Executive branch is responsible for adherence to those laws.
What are the powers granted to the G.C. and what are its limitations? To claim that the are the highest earthly authority for the church is circular reasoning (it is, because we say it is) and implies authority over the conferences and individual members. The G.C. is an administrative body, not an executive power. Just as the U.C. has a constitution specifically delegating the power, there must be a G.C. Constitutions which also outlines its duties, responsibilities, and power. Where is the G.C. constitution explaining these powers?
The NAD statement says that the GC in session and its Executive Committee between sessions "is authorized by its constitution to create subordinate organizations." If you want to see the constitution I suggest you contact the GC and ask for a copy. As for circular reasoning, what level of church government is your preference to be the highest level of authority? And would that happen to be on an "it is, because we say it is" basis?
Yes, the GC has authority over the very subordinate organizations it creates. No implications needed. The problem we are facing is that some subordinate organizations are becoming increasingly insubordinate. For a world church to confer upon its highest level of government "final authority" status is entirely proper. Anything else would be disunity, with every level of government going its own direction, ultimately leading to every individual going his own direction. Unfortunately, it seems that this is what some would prefer.
To call the local and union conferences as "subordinate" is a sad description of the "chain of command" that is suggested is the structure of the SDA church.
Where does the expression "subordinate" describe local and union conferences; or that they should bow to the wishes of the G.C.? There is a certain amount of autonomy given them on the basis that local conditions are far better known by those closest to the situation, which is not unlike the U.S. Congress that makes laws affecting all the states when the conditions are very different. In fact states can govern themselves and only when the states' rules appear in direct conflict with federal laws. This is seen today where states have laws that are only applicable to their own state and cannot be applied to any other.
Currently, there is NO G.C. ruling on WO–it has been sent to study for 150 years– so without a single law or ruling on this, they cannot be in rebellion or flouting any rule. They have all the benefits of making their own laws and enforcing them. Until the G.C. has written a definitive rule on WO that is to be enacted by all conferences, there is nothing that can be done other than by persuasion.
Yes, there is no current GC ruling on women's ordination, but there is a systematic process in place for the world church to study the issue and bring it to a resolution. We can expect the definitive rule you seek at the next GC Session. BTW, your last sentence admits that the GC does have authority over conferences when it makes a definitive ruling to be enacted by all conferences. Who knows how the world church will resolve the WO issue at the next world session, but currently its ruling is that no Division can go its own way, and that includes the Unions and Conferences that are part of the Division.
"currently its ruling is that no Division can go its own way, and that includes the Unions and Conferences.
Doesn't everything depend on the interpretation of what it means to
"go its own way."
Must the conferences consult with the division for its movement of personnel within the conference? Must it get approval for every minister who is ordained? Must each conference approve–union, NAD and G.C.? How independent are the conferences? Must the NAD sign ever potential ordination?
In what decisions must confernces be subodinate to the NAD or GC? Surely, they make many decisions without requesting permision. Is there something in the church manual specifically outlining how the structure operates?
It's very simple. To "go its own way" means to go contrary to a specific GC decision. The unions and conferences are subordinate to the NAD and GC in every decision. Obviously, if they are in compliance with church policy there's no need for the higher levels to micromanage the lower. That's why we have different levels to begin with. Your desire to find this in the church manual merely reflects your hope to find a way around the clear NAD statement on SDA organizational structure
Perhaps you can direct us to the "specific GC decision" on women's ordination. Have they ever made a decision, or is to "study further" considered a decision? Kicking the can down the road is not a decision, is it an admission that they do not want to make a decision. The G.C. has many times stated that the reason no decision has been made is they do not want to disrupt the unity of the church and that the entire world church must be in harmony with any decision before it is reached. Where lies the authority for ordination? Must the G.C. approve each and every candidate from every world conference?
The specific GC decision on women's ordination is the specific GC decision to not allow a Division to go its own way on women's ordination. Is this a difficult concept? For the entire world church to be in harmony with God's order in His church is certainly a good reason to take the pains to get it right. And if you haven't noticed, there is a timeline in place for this issue to be resolved by the next GC session. If at that time the world church decides that WO is biblical and in harmony with God's order for church authority or it decides that this is merely a cultural issue to be decided at the Division level, then those who have been advocating for this can congratulate themselves for proding the world church in the right direction. But if the world church decides that on a biblical basis WO is out of harmony with God's order of authority for His church, then those who have been advocating for this should thank the world church for keeping them from making a great mistake. However it goes, to defy GC authority at any time is not God's will and always produces disunity among God's remnant people. The authority for ordination lies at the Union level acting under the guidelines of the Division/GC. I answered your last question in my previous post.
If, after 150 years of "studying" WO, what makes anyone so certain that a definitive answer will be given? The track record on decisiveness is not at all conducive to expect an answer.
If the conferences decision to ordain is in direct defiance of the G.C. what has been their answer to the resolutions made by them thus for? Have they been condemned, censored, or ordered to cease and desist from speaking on WO? Currently, there is already disunity among the world church and its members with some promoting WO and some against. Why is it thought that a decision either for or against WO will suddenly prove unity? A false pretense of unity is not unity at all. Unity by coercion is not willing unity.
Is God's will limited to the GC?
"The authority for ordination lies at the Union level acting under the guidelines of the Division/GC." Has the G.C. spoken against the union actions?
Women's ordination has hardly been on the front burner of Adventist attention for 150 years. But it has been given increasingly more attention for the past 20 years or so, mainly in North America. If you are impatient for the church to make a definitive decision on the issue, fine. But where is the patience of the saints?
As I understand it, none of the unions have authorized WO. They have only expressed support for it, and there is nothing defiant about expressing your opinion. Actually, the NAD Unions should be given credit for respecting the organizational authority of the church and not authorizing the ordination of women. Or have I missed something? What Union has officially authorized WO? If there is none, then there is nothing to be condemned. There is no need to confuse the expression of opinions with defiance of church authority. The recent actions of the SECC is another thing and we will need to give it time to see how it plays out.
Unity is more dependant on respect for authority than on unity of thought — this is what holds many marriages together. We all have our own opinions on just about everything. But for any organization to survive requires respect for duly constituted organizational authority. It is indeed possible to have unity while holding different views. This should be especially true for a Christian organization. You are right that there is no such thing as unity by coercion (isn't this what the great controversy is all about?). And when it comes to any church, people who cannot respect its order of authority are free to leave.
"Is God's will limited to the GC?" No. But it is His will that we respect the authority of the GC and to work within its constituted framework to effect change.
Unity is more dependant on respect for authority than on unity of thought.
Unity was not the solution for the early church. It was decided that the Gentiles did not have to conform to the Jews demands to obey the Jewish practices.
The Jews remained in Jerusalem and Paul went to the Gentiles who were not authorized to unify with the Jewish segment of Christianity. This did not destroy the church, it fostered its rapid growth: had the Gentiles been made to adhere to the Jews' demands, there would be far fewer Christians. As history shows, the Jewish Christians fade from history by the end of the first century, while the Gentile Christians grew at a rapid rate. Unity on beliefs would have greatly hampered conversion.
The example of the early church is a good example of how church unity is achieved. The controversy was settled by the Jerusalem Council, and unity was maintained when the early Christians respected the Council's authority. And thanks to the Jerusalem Council, the Gentiles were authorized to unify with the Jewish segment of Christianity. Thus we see that that it would have been disrespect for duly constituted church authority that would have greatly hampered conversion.
You have to chart the power flow to see the totality. The GC in session is the highest authority, and it is the GC that creates Unions. But it is the Unions who vote the delegates for the GC session. And that continues down the line as Unions can create Conferences, but it it is Conferences who vote the delegates for the Union sessions. Likewise Conferences organise local churches, but local churches vote the delegates for Conference sessions.
Power in the SDA church is not only hierarchical but always circular. It always flows in both directions. No church administrator ever loses sight of the fact that the people he is elected to govern (and governing in our church is in theory a form of serving) are the same people who will have a lot of influence over whether that service continues beyond the first term. And presidents of lower levels are always part of the executive committee. Any level of administration, even the GC, has very little coercive power, and that power is almost always delegated by the lower organisation. If we were truly a hierarchy like the RC church, the GC President could simply remove the union officials from office and replace them with 'obedient' officials. I think you will find the GC cannot do that, as Union officals have to be elected by a Union session, which means effectively by representiatives of the Conferences.
Our belief that the election process is one of discerning the will of God adds the complication that opposing officials above or below you effectively questions the will of God. And an official at any level can quite legitimately claim that s/he is there by the will of God specifically to do what s/he is doing if that is what s/he believes. In many ways, we actually place ultimate authority in the local church, as that is where the process of choosing officals for higher levels starts, and only the local church has direct control over members. Every level above the local church has delegated authority to do those things necessary. If the Unions have been given authority to determine who can be ordained, then it is Unions who will make that decision. If they can argue that their decisions are in harmony with at least the spirit of the GC working policy, then they will probably get away with whatever decision they make. I am not sure if the question of whether GC policy is advisory or mandatory has yet been tested, any more than the question of whether the Church Manual is advisory or binding on local churches. Apart from disbanding a lower organisation I don't believe there is much a higher level can do apart from trying 'moral persuasion'. I am not sure ordaining women will prove to be sufficient for the charge of rebellion to stick. Far 'worse' things have been done at various levels with no formal discipline resulting.
I don't know of anyone who has suggested that the GC President can remove union officials. But this does not mean that "insubordination" or "rebellion" does not apply to a union or conference that chooses to violate a specific GC directive. There are some things the world church considers important enough to decide as a world church — e.g. fundamental beliefs. It happens that, at this point, the world church has determined that no Division can go its own way on women's ordination. This can change, but at this point any NAD Union or Conference move to ordain women is premature. It's result will only be strife and conflict that those who are pushing it do not foresee.
There are no differences between the unions and NAD so there is no need to appeal to the next higher organization. Is the union "higher" than the local conference? Higher than the local congregation? Where is this stated? Local churches are largely autonomous in who they choose as leaders in their local congregation and do not have to ask or need permission to do so. Neither do unions need permission from the NAD.
There is no "final authority" beyond the conference that must first give permission necessary for women to be ordained.
And who made you the final authority on SDA organizational structure? The NAD statement and your statement are polar opposites, and whether you like it or not the NAD statement is the real world of how the Adventist Church operates.
The SECC is in direct rebellion towards the World Church and towards the authority of the Scriptures, which provide ample evidence in the act of Jesus only appointing 12 men as Apostles, in spite of the fact that there were numberous godly women disciples following Jesus at that time. And we know that Jesus was not motivated or influenced by cultural or politically correct reasons, He did his Father's will to the tee, would to God that the leaders in the SECC would "go thou, and do likewise".
In truth it is the individual Adventist who is the highest human authority. Whatever individual Adventists want they will ultimately get. The "higher" ups cannot afford to lose the "dollars" if they fly in the face of what Adventist pew sitters actually think is correct.
Obviously the SECC of SDA must have a great deal of pew sitter support in order to take this action or they would not have done such a thing. No one is going to tell them (SCC) different no matter who they are.
I predict there will be more of this coming in the future. There will be Ordained Women Pastors in NA Division we are just experiencing the growing pains.
I still hope that the SPD will get to be the first to legally ordain women as pastors, as we were the first to ordain deaconesses.
" how could we accept women pastors in the Church? (1 Tim.2:9-12)
The same way that women are accepted to teach in the church and the church colleges, which Timothy says should not teach or speak.
Didn't we answer this question with Ellen White's first sermon in church? If she wasn't teaching, what was she doing? It is hard to believe that people can accept Ellen White as an infallible teacher, but won't listen to a woman preacher because it is against what Paul wrote.
In my humble opinion, respect for diversity is far more unifying than respect for authority.
I'm curious to know how far your respect for diversity over respect for authority will go. Would it include the ordination or marriages of gays and lesbians? And in your opinion, would this respect for diversity be unifying for the church?
Is the choice by the General Conference to stand firm, respectfully, against women's ordination a theological point or a preference point? I would conclude it's the latter.
A pastor I respect greatly made the following logical statement: "When the General Conference gave permission for women ministers to be ordained in China, which was to be within the Chinese laws requiring all ministers to be ordained, they proved it was not a theological point, or they would not have done it."
If the Chinese government had mandated all churches worship on Sunday, or close, the General Conference would not have submitted to the governments authority on this matter becasue we believa theologically Saturday is the Sabbath, not Sunday. To conform would have been a direct disobedient action of the 10 Commandments and Scripure. In the matter of all ministers being ordained in China, the General Conference willingly submitted to this mandate, becuase doing so did not conflict with any Biblical understanding or authority of Scripture otherwise.
The decision decades ago to allow women to be ordained as elders also proved the same point. If we allow women to be elders when elders can do almost all a pastor can do, and allow a woman who is commissioned to do almost all an ordained pastor can do – and the exceptions are organisational, not 'sacramental' – then we have shown that we do not really believe the issue is theological, but rather one of organisation. If it were really a theological issue based on the NT, we would not allow women to preach and teach in our churches. After all, that is what is actually forbidden – ordination is nowhere mentioned.
Dean, your question points to the heart of the issue, and it is the question the world church has been directed to grapple with. While you have concluded that women’s ordination is a matter of preference, the world church has not been so quick to dismiss the possibility that it is a matter of theology. Thus, the GC’s decision to stand against women’s ordination is a decision on the side of caution until the theological question is settled. And until the world church definitively answers the theological question, the GC has deemed it unwise to permit the NAD to move on its own.
Given the lack of an official position based on a thorough, corporate review, I suspect that the decision in response to the situation in China was a pragmatic administrative decision that will be subject to review once the theological question has been settled. That is, the decision regarding China should not be regarded as “proof” that women’s ordination is not a theological consideration, as the corporate church has not yet even ruled one way or the other on this.
Is it really a matter of theology? Hasn't the G.C. made statements that there are no biblical reasons against women's ordination; and that the desire is to have the world church in unity on this question.? This has been given as the reason for delaying a decision more than once.
The unity, or lack of unity in the church, is felt to be most important. There may never be unity on theological reasons based on the very controversial issue that has been expressed from members worldwide. Pragmatism often has more priority than theology.
As I posted in a comment on the Mid-America Union web site, the biblical arguments in support of ordaining women are set forth in the book “Women in Ministry” (published in 1998 under the auspices of the Adventist Theological Seminary). The biblical arguments against ordaining women are set forth in the book “Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry” (published in 2000 by Adventists Affirm). Both books are a compilation of articles by respected Adventist scholars. Obviously, the theologians of our church believe women’s ordination is a matter of theology or these books would not have been published.
There is plenty of room for diversity of theology within a united church body of Christ. But there is no room whatsoever for disrespect for authority within a united church body of Christ. This is an objective impossibility.
The statement of "Louis" that "The Holy Scriptures teach us how Christian women should be dressed and groomed" lacks an important context. A correct rendering would be something like: "One New Testment wrter expressed his opinion has to how women converts in one Greco-Roman town in the First Century AD.should be dressed and groomed." His opinion on this point has little relevance and no authority relative to 21st Century contexts.
After a number of North America local conferences provide both men and women the same "ordination" status, I'm sure that Union Conferences outside of the South will figure a way of dealing with it that in a manner that does not risk reducing the amount of funds coming to them. Likewise, someone at the GC will certainly figure out a facesaving way to putting a "orthdox" face on all of this. The GC can not afford to lose the income from the part of the church that keeps the whole show solvent.
I guess that this boils down to whether the church is a 'top-down' organization with orders and edits coming from the General Conference President and the General Conference Committee (which incidently is similar to the Pope and the College of Cardinals), or a bottom-up organization in which a community of local churches organize a conference to deal with common issues and a group of conferences organize into a union etc. The current GC administration is solidly top-down! The General Conference can never respond to the needs of local congregations throughout the world and should not be asked to do so. The local conference however, can do this. The South-eastern California Conference and the Potomac Conference and the Mid-America Union have done this. Bravo! This is the way it should work.
It was never put to the vote. The GC has been trying to avoid doing so every time it comes up ever since. The only definite vote we have is that we should move on this together and not leave it to divisions or unions to decide. That vote is of course open to change at any time. The GC in council could decide to hand the decision to the divisions or unions. The decision to allow women to be ordained as elders a few decades ago, and the decision to allow women to be ordained as deacons at the last GC, as well as granting permission for women to be ordained as pastors in China, will all have to be rescinded should the GC ever vote against ordaining women. That is unlikely, although I believe it will stall on voting as long as it can.
Thanks be to God for the growth in African and Asia, who will no doubt overwhelm the votes of our smaller NAD membership, if things come to a vote at the next GC session.
Sorry, but your comment is not helpful. Whatever is decided must in the end be based on its biblical merits, not on such political maneuverings as the majority overwhelming the minority. If the minority has the weight of biblical evidence on its side, then the position of the minority should carry the day. Biblical truth must be allowed to speak for itself. This is what sets God's remnant church apart from the rest.
If it must be based on theological reasons and none have yet been given, then the Chinese women pastors could be disfellowshipped for destroying the church unity there. Pragmatism often triumphs.
"I must recommend the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists begin the process of reconciliation and then proceed with a special constituency to consider the disbanding of the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
You are right on target and the sooner it happens the better. To consider the SECC as a model is sheer fantasy since it has been insubordinate for years. Unity of the church is at stake. Order must be maintained and each church subdivision cannot go off into any direction it chooses. Chaos will result. May wiser heads be at the helm.
Are those who propose considering the disbanding of a conference, fully aware of the Church Manual's policy for beginning this process and under what conditions is may begin?
This is not subject to an individual member so while it is free to express such opinion, it is totally ineffective in producing desired results.