North Pacific Union Conference Takes Cautious Steps on Gender Discrimination in Ordination
by AT News Team
In the wake of decisions by four other union conferences to end gender discrimination in ordination, the North Pacific Union Conference (NPUC) executive committee voted three steps at its regular, quarterly meeting on Wednesday (November 14). A careful process will (1) “inform and educate Northwest members of the rationale toward biblical church leadership without regard to gender; (2) engage and encourage constituents in structured conversation and discussion on women in ministry; and (3) call a special session of the NPUC constituency to address ministerial ordination without regard to gender.” No date for the constituency meeting was specified.
A Committee on Women in Leadership, which was appointed a year ago, reported to the executive committee and a paper reviewing the New Testament references to ordination was presented. The paper makes the point that in the most recent English translations of the Bible, the word “ordination” does not appear because of its questionable origins. The paper was prepared by Dr. John McVay, president of Walla Walla University and a Bible scholar.
“Some have actively wondered if perhaps our system of ordination is not even biblical, but rather, based on a tradition far removed from our own Protestant roots,” says a statement published yesterday on the web site of the Gleaner, the NPUC periodical. Clearly defensive on the controversial topic, the statement addressed the question, “Has the NPUC leadership already made up their minds?” In fact, the executive committee includes those who “believe strongly in the value of equal inclusion of women in all facets of Adventist ministry and leadership,” as well as those “very much opposed to the idea of ordaining women,” the statement said.
“The Northwest includes Seventh-day Adventists with quite progressive views as well as some of the most conservative members in the denomination,” a retired administrator told Adventist Today. “It has had congregations leave the denomination in recent decades who felt that the Adventist Church was too sectarian and it is the home of some independent ministries that have been condemned by the denomination for acting like schismatic groups.” Balancing such a range of opinion will be difficult for the NPUC leadership.
please read EG White writings and you will find 124 words about ordination.
please search by searching engine in EG White writings the word "women ordination" and you will get zero (nothing) but you will get 21 words for "men ordination"
EG White and the Bible writers is discrimantion people? our God Who called them is discrimination God?
You will find her encouraging everyone – including women – to follow God's will for their life. You will also find James White speaking of women preparing for the ministry, and you will find a number of women working as pastors. I don't believe you will find even one place where Ellen white indicates women can't be pastors, or can't be ordained. When she speaks of men preparign to be colporteurs or medical workers, we don't argue that excludes women, but when she speaks of men preparing for the ministry, we then assume she excludes women. If you read everything she says about ministry, I don't believe we can conclude she excludes women from any part of it.
I also don't believe you will find our church prior to the 1970s saying that someone could hold a postion which normally required ordination but could not be ordained. Until recently – at least the 1980s – the argument was over what people could do, not over ordination. Perhaps we should return to the argument that really matters – what people can do. If they can do, they can be ordained; if they can't be ordained, they can't do. To say that someone can be a pastor but cannot be recognised as a pastor is just plain stipidity.
"Cautious steps?" Starting down a road that might lead to something which has been rejected by the world church could hardly be called "cautious." Willful, stubborn, and rebellious, maybe, but not cautious.
Isn't it a little foolish for the world church to invest 3 years, as well as money and effort, into studying something it has already rejected? The GC may have made a few less than wise decisions over the years, but I hardly think it has come to the point where it makes a decision first and then holds an investigation to see what the decision should be. Or could it be that the GC does not see a vote to not proceed with ordaining women to maintain unity, and a vote not allowing the decision to be made by the Divisions, was not actually a rejection of ordaining women? And should the next GC vote that a clear decision is not possible, so each Division can make its own decision, will that make the current series of votes still rebellious, or will that label shift to those who will not accept anything short of a definite 'NO' to women's ordination?
I have never quite understood why those who support women's ordination as pastors are 'in rebellion' because they don't accept the GCs vote not to ordain women (at least for now), but those who oppose women being ordained as elders are 'loyal church members', even though the GC has authorised the ordination of women. The nearest I have come is the explanation given by an elderly relative "When the GC speaks in session, it is like the voice of God, and they said 'no' to ordaining women as pastors, so we have to follow that. When they said 'yes' to ordaining women as elders, they got it wrong. We have a duty to oppose bad decisions." He knew that those who took the opposing view could say the same thing, but he was sure they were wrong, and that they knew that they were wrong, so they had no excuse to oppose the GC when it came to ordaining women as pastors.
Jean C and all those opposed to WO
I am curious, would you accept a move that did away with ordination completely? Since it has a Roman Catholic origin, what makes it different from Sundaykeeping? Would you have a problem if all workers were made equal by the laying on of hands and sent out to work according to their talents?
Wouldn't that be a biblical solution in keeping with the principle that we are all equal before God and should not debate over position as Jesus told His disciples Luke 22:24. We need to aim for the highest principle rather than present shallow arguments of gender specifics which have no basis in principle.
This is similar to the Jew vs Gentile division in the NT. Jesus said, "And think not to say…We have Abraham as our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" Mt 3:9. Or there was Peter's vision in which God showed him that all people were to be part of God's kingdom (Acts 10).
To me these texts clearly show that all humans are equal in their role in the Kingdom. The Gospel was first preached to the Jews until the time came it was to go to the Gentiles. The time has long past for women to be equal partners in giving Christ's message to the world. It is the principle and not the following of cultural, man-made customs to the end of the world. Could it be that for whatever reason people take literally cultural mores that appear in the Bible and apply them today and explain away the common sense of the biblical principle?
This is no ordinary distraction because it hinders the truth in this present world.
The issue is not ordination, per se, but, rather, the principle of male headship outlined by Paul, and patterened throughout the Bible. No matter what kind of creative eisegesis is practiced, it is impossible to explain away Paul's counsel on this subject–unless, of course, one takes a very low view of Scripture and accuses the Biblical writers of being inspired more by culture ("culturally conditioned") than by the omniscient Holy Spirit.
Some have actively wondered if perhaps our system of ordination is not even biblical?
Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
Acts 6:3, Acts 6:4, Acts 6:5, Acts 6:6
What a distraction the devil is using to pull people away from the true work of speading the gospel. Instead of following the roles He has given for service and submission, restless souls care more for power and position. Wake up and smell the trumpets….it won't be long.
Aren't your texts in Acts 6 referring to the selection of deacons, not pastors (i.e. apostles/clergy)? And doesn't the Bible allow for women deacons, to 'wait on table', so others can focus on spreading the Gospel? And isn't there some irony in your argument then?
And what does that show about your reliance on pronouns of 'he' and 'men' for the presumption that the Bible must be talking about the male gender alone and not adult human beings? If the reference to 'men' in Acts 6 limited the role of deacon to males, why and how did the office of deaconess come about?
How did the early Church evolve to open up these roles for women? And given the early Church only allowed for 7 deacons to be appointed (given 7 has symbolic significance as does 12 apostles), why and how did the Church open to allow more than 7 deacons and more than 12 apostles (recognising Paul named himself as an apostle, despite lacking apostolic succession and despite his lack of acceptance by the "GC" of his day of the super-apostles)?
I do agree this whole argument is a distraction. Those who oppose this issue should just leave alone and focus on their own ministries in their own corners of the world.
So if Stephen (who was ordained by the laying on of hands) was only a deacon, why does the Bible say:
"Word of God increased" in Acts 6:7?
"Did "wonders and miracles" in Acts 6:8?
"Were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit in which He spake" in Acts 6:10?
"We heard him speak blasphemous words" in Acts 6:11?
Then in Acts 7:2-56 Preaches a sermon at his trial just before being stoned. This does not seem like someone who was a "ordained deacon" to wait on tables….
Take Ellen White at her word when she points to Biblical examples on this matter. When you read her writtings in context it is clear that she calls the males to be husbands/shepherds of the home and the church.
Sorry, are you saying Stephen wasn't a deacon? He certainly wasn't an apostle (i.e. a member of the clergy, as Matthais was chosen as the replacement for Judas). Some argue that Stephen and the other of the 7 were in fact elders, saying the office of deacon and bishop didn't exist yet, as reflected in Acts 15 reference to 'apostles and elders'.
But Stephen clearly wasn't a member of the clergy. Why do you think that only members of the clergy are qualified to be full of the spirit, and to preach, and to be die for God? This indeed does seem to be someone who humbling waits on tables in service to their fellow brethren at one minute, and called to testify before Caesar and the lion's jaws the next.
Check out those who were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost Acts 1:14; 2:1-4 There were men and women who were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Note that Peter quotes this as a fulfillment of Joel 2 which promised men and women prophecying.
Eventhough Jesus was silent on many issues, Jesus clearly taugh servanthood and not headship. Jesus was very clear about being servants and not kings. To get to male headship, you have to ignore Jesus. I think that is partly why so many rich and powerful rejected Him.
There are a number of conservative theologians – even in our church – who have a very high view of Scripture yet still do not see the doctrine of 'male headship' as being taught in the Bible in anyhting like the form being used to oppose the ordination of women. There are, of course, other problems with the doctrine. For one thing, why does it apply solely to the ordained pastoral ministry, but apparently nowhere else in life?
Male headship only in pastoral ministry? how about "house-band" husband/shepherd of the home? Again why does Paul point back to the creation story in 1 Timothy 2: 13, 1 Timothy 2:14 and 1 Timothy 2:15?
No where else in life, how about the NFL?
the NFL???? Friend, this is a topic about church leaders. It is not about husbands, or business execs or political people, it is about church.
BTW Remember there are no presidents, conferences, departments, or Sabbath Schools mentioned in the Bible. I am not suggesting we change from men to women, but that like the parts of our organization that have been added, we add more workers – women.
Timo is following Gods word disrespecting women? Was placing a male lamb on the alter as commanded disrespecting the female lambs? Ellen White was a prophetess used by God and never claimed to be a pastor.
Was lawfully making a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a female a sign of respect or lower status for all females?
Was it a sign of respect or lower status for all females when he created a male first? Or named the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem with male names of the twelve tribes of Isreal? Or the twelve foundations after the twelve male disciples?
God Himself gave Adam a companion. He provided "an help meet for him"–a helper corresponding to him–one who was fitted to be his companion, and who could be one with him in love and sympathy. Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his second self; showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation. "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it." "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one." {AH 25.3}
We are equal, yes, yet given different roles to fullfill. Oil and water are equally imported to the cooling of an engine yet they have been given a different role in the process. (try removing either from your cars engine!)
Read on in her writings in fact in the same book and the distinction is vividly clear. The man is to be the shepherd of the home and the church. This may be counter to current culture…. (check out the article "War on Men" by Suzanne Venker 11/24/12)….but it is not counter to the Word of God.
I pray for NPUC that you follow God's will for YOUR Union, in His time, in His way; not because of the GC opposes or the PUC proposes but because it is the way God leads you. Vaya con dios.