Majority of Study Committee Willing to Extend Ordination to Women
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team with information from an official news bulletin, June 5, 2014
The majority of the members of the committee assigned to study the topic by Seventh-day Adventist denominational leaders expressed a willingness to permit the ordination of women serving as pastors at its final meeting this week in Silver Spring, Maryland. A total of 95 of the 106 members of the committee voted with the following results:
A total of 40 members voted that “each entity responsible for calling pastors be authorized to choose either to have only men as ordained pastors or to have both men and women as ordained pastors.”
A total of 22 members voted “we recommend that denominational leadership at a proper level be authorized to decide … whether such an adaptation [permission to ordain both men and women] may be appropriate for their area or region," despite the widely-held belief that there is a “biblical pattern of male leadership … in the office of the ordained minister.”
A total of 32 voted to continue the "practice of ordaining/commissioning only qualified men to the office of pastor/minister throughout the world church.” The official news release gave no explanation of why this option seems to have ignored the fact that the denomination's Working Policy has since the 1990s allowed women to serve as commissioned ministers.
This means that a total of 62 out of 95 members who voted (a two-thirds majority) expressed a willingness for the extension of ordination to women pastors in those divisions or union conferences that decide to do so. Yet, denominational leaders seemed to steer away from coming to a conclusion on the question which Adventists have debated since the 1970s.
“The results of today’s poll shouldn’t dictate any outcomes for the world church, but they should be given their appropriate weight,” said Pastor Geoffrey Mbwana, a vice president of the denomination's General Conference (GC) and vice chairman of the study committee. “No one should quickly say, ‘This is all a clear matter.’ All that is really clear at this moment is that we have strong differences about the matter of ordaining women to ministry.” The official news release labeled the vote "an informal poll" and stated that was seen by denominational leaders an evaluation tool to determine if consensus positions had developed in the committee.
The assignment of the committee was to do an in-depth study and analysis of the subject of ordination with input from GC divisions around the world. The committee wasn’t organized to be proportionately representative of the number of members around the world. The next steps in the decision-making process will come in groups where the large imbalance between the number of members in North America, Europe and Australia and those in Africa, Asia and Latin America may become significant.
One committee member wistfully noted to the group that Wednesday (June 4) was Pentecost in the Jewish calendar. He said he hoped that a miracle of unanimity might conclude the two years the committee has spent on in-depth study of the Bible, theology, church history and the Adventist heritage. The committee included many of the denomination's Bible scholars, as well as key denominational administrators and some pastors and lay members.
Pastor Ted Wilson, president of the GC, addressed the committee after the poll results were announced by Dr. Artur Stele, the chairman of the committee. “As we move forward with this process, I’m asking that we each act with humility, not authoritatively or in an overbearing manner,” Wilson urged. “We should do all things in the spirit of Jesus.” He has repeatedly over recent years expressed concern about the unity of the very international, multicultural denomination.
Wilson also thanked the committee members for an action they had voted unanimously earlier in the meeting. They had voted “to affirm that in spite of the differences of opinion on the subject of women’s ordination, the members of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee are committed to the message and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as expressed through the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.” The Fundamental Beliefs document does not take a position for or against the extension of ordination to women pastors.
“We will be very open and fair in the way we approach the handling of this matter,” Wilson assured the committee as he sketched key steps the denomination will take in the months ahead. First, several administrative groups at denominational headquarters will consider the written report of the study committee during meetings June 16-19, Wilson said. Those groups will position the matter for the agenda of the annual meeting of the denomination’s governing body October 9-14 in Silver Spring, Maryland.
GC administration has promised to make all materials from the study process and supplemental documents available in advance to the more than 300 members of the body. It will decide what to recommend to the denomination’s quinquennial GC session attended by delegates from all nations which is planned for San Antonio, Texas, in July next year. Wilson said that multiple presentations will be made at the scheduled meetings to help the members openly review the subject.
Wilson urged committee members to remain hopeful about the ultimate outcome of the process as the Wednesday session ended. “We may not yet see just where the Spirit is taking us on this issue,” he said. “But we firmly believe that God will open the way for His church to fulfill its mission.”
Stele praised the spirit of committee members during four weeks of meetings over the past 24 month. “Though we’ve had challenging and difficult discussions at times, we’ve developed a camaraderie, a respect for each other, during the last two years,” he said. “A large majority of participants learned to trust each other as they prayed together, ate meals together, and talked in the hallways. This is the first truly global study process on this issue that has ever been attempted. It’s been gratifying to see and feel how much this unique process has built up mutual understanding and better relationships.”
Dr. Lisa Beardsley-Hardy, GC education director and a committee member, focused on the long-term gain to the church from the study process. “One of the most important developments for us as a global, multi-national church was to revisit our hermeneutics, and think about how we study the Bible across many cultures,” she stated. “This experience helped us to clarify what we believe, and why we believe it, as well as focusing us on how we unitedly pursue our mission.”
After some forty years of debate it seems that a final decision is soon to be made. However, in one sense the decision has already been made. Two unnions in North America have started ordaining women pastors. There are a number of other unions and conferences who are in favor but waiting for the 2015 GC Decision. It seems very unlikely that there will be a third rejection of women's ordination as pastors at this GC. Our system of governance gives a lot of authority to the various levels of the church. The only option GC leadership has is to recommend the dismantling of the maverick unions but they will still need to have unions in those areas and how will they prevent the delegates from voting the same leaders back into position? I believe that the decions to ordain women as pastors is a fait accompli.
Will the Administration finally listen this time? Will see!
Question? Did even one member change their mind from their pre-existing opinion during this study?
Yes that would seem to be the proof of the whole exercise. Others it was all just a waste of time really when you think about it.
Wow…
Ephesians 5:23 says it all. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. One major Church throughout history has reversed this relationship and has led her daughters to do the same. When the relationship between man and woman changes, God's way(family) is destroyed. When the relationship between Christ and the church is changed(when the church becoms the head), then that church is not of God. Are we to now be a daughter? As Christ said about those in his day looking for a sign. If they would not believe in the sign of Jonah (then they would not believe any sign). So neither will this generation believe in Biblical answers but in human wisdom.
And let's just assume for purposes of argument that this is a reasonable theological precept for all time. How does it Biblically follow from the analogy of Christ/church relationship to husband and wife relationships that women should not have leadership roles in the church? Maybe only unmarried women, like Sandy Roberts…?
There are texts regarding "ordination" (not a biblical term, as you should be aware by now) which may be difficult to understand. Eph 5 is not among them. The "heading" to the whole passage is vs. 21 – talking about mutual submission (submit to one another) – everything following are examples of what this submission might mean – for women, for men, for children, for parents, for empoyees, for employers. Christ's submission is at the center (Christ gave himself up for the church). In other words: this passage talks about an attitude I ought to have. It is not talking about church leadership and administration – and certainly not about whom I should withhold a blessing from (that's the purpose of laying on of hands).
I assume Duck's view is a female opinion, even a sub-servient female. Can we please have the Drake's opinion? Is he an alpha male?
Let's agree for the sake of argument that headship theology is correct. God also ordIned that the first
born be the priest of the family. But the first born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not become the priest of the family and the ancestors of the Messiah did not come through them. It seems that while God states an ideal ne is willing to change when the ideal does mot live up to the ideal. If all men were really spiritual acted like Jesus as. Servant to those around them we may not need women leaders. But it is clear that not all men reach this ideal so God appoints women to step into the gap
Where did God ordain that the first-born was to be the priest of the family? Like many other aspects of the patriarchal system it was a human custom that God felt free to set-aside in three successive generations. You could add to this list of first-borns set-aside by God – Cain was the firstborn but his offering was not accepted, Abraham was not the first-born son, Saul was least among the sons of Kish whose family was least among the households of Benjamin which was least among the tribes of Israel (you can read about it Judges), David was least among the sons of Jesse whose family was least among the households of Judah (you can read about it in Ruth), Solomon was neither the first son of David nor the first son of Bathsheba.
This argument that the partiarchal system was ordained of God has been used to justify slavery and servitude and polygamy as well as bartering of women and children and servants and slaves like they were animals. If this was ordained of God then I am free to take multiple wives (even sisters) and take the servants of my wives and the daughters of my servants as concubines.
Peter as right when he perceived that God is no respecter of persons (that noun includes men and women), but he chooses from everywhere those who will follow Him. This is a powerful statement. Just because we assume our traditions are ordained of God does not mean that God sees things our way.
“Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. {AH 115.2}”
Newman: "But it is clear that not all men reach this ideal so God appoints women to step into the gap."
Clearly you are wrong in this assertion. Too many have allowed themselves to be misled by the ardent feminist movement which was never ordained of God.
Maranatha
Seeker,
You have totally mis-applied this Ellen quote.
1) Ellen says Eve was by Adma's side before the fall. Ellen does NOT say Eve was subordinate to Adam before the fall.
2) Ellen says nothing here about the specific roles of women and ment. She only says that ALL (both men and women) are to accept the roles God gives them. She says nothing here about women accepting the roles that men have given them.
This is another classic example of people reading their own biases into an inspired commentary.
Was Ellen White ordained as a minister?
She was issued the ministerial credentials of an ordained minister by the General Conference (signed by GC President George I Butler as I recall) but there is no record that she was ever formally ordained in a traditonal "laying on of hands" ceremony.
there are many positions, should have taken two position, however the Bible emphasizes that the priest (minister) is a man, more women (not disparage them, I come from one, as everyone on earth) I do not see the fact that they are ministers or Elders. http://www.conexionadventista.com Escuela sabática
So you limit the NT principle espoused by Paul, the priesthood of the believers, to only men?
It seems clear to me that Paul is including everyone.
On the other hand Catholic theology limits the preisthood to an all-male ordained clergy.
My first exposure to headship theology was in 1975. Bill Gothard was in his prime. I attended his one week Basic Youth Conflicts Seminar. I visted in the home of the contractor who built our house. He was a Baptist and we were discussing the role of husband and wife when I asked, "if you were short of money would it be all right for you to command your wife to be a prostitutr for a while?"
"yes," he answered.
"wouldn't that be sinning?" I responded
"No," he replied, "she would be obeying her husband which the Bible commands. I would have to answer to God not her."
Now I know that is extreme but where do you draw the line? If the husband abuses her (and who decides what abuse is?) must she still submit? I never heard of it in the Adventist church until recently.
It is rather ironic that those who criticize those who support women's ordination say we are submitting to culture, are oblivious to the culture ("apostate" Protestantism, Grudem, Piper, Gothard) that has influenced their theology.
It is interesting to compare the coverage at Atoday and ANN. ANN lists the result of the non-binding straw poll in order from most to least votes. Atoday lists them in order from most supportive to least supportive of the publishers' preferences (which I happen to agree with).
It is true that 62 of 95 voters were willing to permit women be ordained. It is also true that 54 of 95 voters still endorse the pre-eminence of men in church leadership. Atoday chose not to remark on this result.
It is instructive that the "compromise" proposal that endorsed male pre-eminence but permitted women to be ordained where lower-layer jurisdictions found it prudent, received the least votes. The majority of those voting were not prepared to endorse the compromise as their first choice.
And the reported tallies only account for 94 of the 95 reported votes. What did that lone voter endorse – none of the above? Not to mention those participants who either were not present or chose not to vote?
It looks like Newman is attempting the old prestidigitation trick of guilt by association. Clear eyed observers of whatever persuasion can see that it holds no water. For more clarity take a look at:
http://tinyurl.com/m9ssdez
Maranatha
Again, Newman, you have it backwards; WO is a matter that is dear to the heart of the feminists among us and their supporters which are promoting the culture of ardent feminists. Opposition to WO is based on the word and example of Scripture.
Christ chose 12 apostles not 12 apostelettes. He could have chosen 6 of the group from the ranks of women. It's instructive that He did not. Culture did not prohibit Him from doing so. Nor was He bound by culture as those promoting WO would bind us.
Maranatha
Truth Seeker. So you think I have it backwards. Well the whole issue of women's ordination is a smoke screen. The real issue is ordination itself. Please show me from Scripture where we get three separate ordinations: deacon, elder, pastor. The word ordination does not even appear in the NT. Our practice is not Scriptural. However, I am open to you showing me otherwise.
The primary voice against women serving in the capacity of fully ordained ministers is the Catholic Church; yet I have been gratified that no advantage has been taken of that fact on this site to accuse anti-ordination voices of being papists, Jesuits, etc. On the other hand, voices against full ministry of women declare flatly that our Adventist sisters who believe themselves to be called by God are in fact operating under the spell of atheistic feminists. Somehow it seems foolish and wrong to glibly call one another names, we who profess the name of Christ.There is no evidence whatever that anti-ordination Adventists are proponents of the papacy or that our sisters called to the ministry have any close connections whatever with militant feminists—unless you also believe, perhaps, that Pope Francis has an older brother who was an Adventist in Argentina. Urban legends, all of them….
Please show me where we have any scriptural basis for ordination of any kind that is not a conveyance of a greater amount of Holy Spirit power upon an individual. I have attended a number of ordinations where references were made about the Holy Spirit but have never seen where the person ordained left with a greater measure of God's power. The only increase I have ever seen was in their paycheck because ordained ministers are (or were) paid more.
See: http://tinyurl.com/k7mrdoj
Militant feminism is indeed a factor relating to the subject of WO. Some women along with their misguided male supporters have participated in the strenuous endeavor by the left to ordain women.
One only has to follow the historical trajectory of the "worldly" efforts to enthrone females, incidentally at the expense of the kids, to see parallel efforts by church liberals who embraced a crusade for WO which has succeeded in diverting the church from its real mission. While the church promoters of WO initiated its program later than the "worldly" movement it did indeed emulate the worldy movement in many respects.
Seldom does one see a serious effort by liberals to recognize to what extent this ill begotten movement has damaged the family. Nor do we usually see emphasis on the female role in the home.
In fact, I believe many opposed to WO have no concept as to the damage wrought by the feminist movement both within and without the SDA church.
Maranatha
There has never been in all of history a militant effort to enthrone men.
There has never been in all of history a masculine agenda regarding ordination.
Truth Seeker,
repeating your argument over and over again that women's ordination is an issue of the feminist movement does not make it more convincing. The feminist movement at large doesn't care about church leadership and administration issues of the SDA church at all. They have more important things to do.
However, your view of "feminism" seems to be stuck in the eighties, when feminists were still bent to show that women were the better men… You will find that feminism is far more differentiated and matured today.
If you look for an Adventist "feminism", it's most likely rooted in Gen 1: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
It is rather naive to suggest that feminism has not largely influenced the push for WO when it has in fact done so. Denying repetitively that feminism has not influenced this won't make it any more convincing either.
What's wrong with feminism influencing WO? As Andreas rightly points out, isn't "feminism", which we might broadly consider the promotion of gender equality, rooted in God's original plan in Eden? Are we Christians not meant to strive for that "in the beginning" position, as Jesus instructed in Matt 19:8? And isn't misogyny, the opposite of gender equality, rooted in sin, where the curse of sin was for the woman's desire to now be for her husband, and he would rule over her per Gen 3:16?
I don't quite get your argument Trevor. Simply saying "but it's feminist" hardly proves anything, either here nor there.
There are a whole range of forces that affect what we do in Church. For example, why do we wear suits and ties and not wear long Arab-like robes, as they would have worn in Jesus' day? Is that not culture influencing church?
Where is the use of the term 'President' and 'Conference'? I can only find bishop, church and basilica! Are these not concepts influenced by secular American culture (which ironically is according to Adventist eschatology the Second Beast power of Revelation)?
Truly, try to strip away from church every aspect of 'secular culture' and see what's left. Now that would be interesting.
The more important thing is to judge secular influences according to biblical principles. So if "feminism" (which is actually a difficult concept to define) is influencing the Church, than in itself means nothing. The question is whether gender equality is consistent with the Gospel. I think a simple look at Gal 3:28 suggests the answer is yes.
Hello very cool blog!! Man .. Excellent .. Wonderful .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally?I’m happy to search out so many useful info here in the put up, we’d like work out more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .