Traditional Approach to Bible Supports Ordination for Women Says Historian
by Monte Sahlin
By Keisha McKenzie and Monte Sahlin, April 3, 2014
The question of whether clergy ordination should be extended to women serving as pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is caught in crossfire between liberals and conservatives, but it is not really about competing methods of interpreting the Bible. This is the history revealed by Dr. Olive Hemmings during the 34th Annual Edward Keough Lectures last weekend (March 28-29) at Washington Adventist University in Takoma Park, Maryland.
A historian, Hemmings traced the changing flow of arguments pro and con as the debate has developed since a union conference in Europe requested clarification in the 1960s. Her first presentation was entitled, “Higher criticism and the Resistance to Women’s Ordination: Unmasking the Issue.
In 1971 the General Conference convened a committee of scholars on the role of women in the Adventist Church. The group included 13 men and 14 women. It studied 19 research papers and the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) proposed a path to women’s ordination which included first, ordination of women as local elders and hiring women as associate pastors; then a pilot program leading to full ordination to the gospel ministry.
During the 1980s, a shift occurred, Hemmings reported. In 1973 Dr. Gerhard Hasel had written a paper on “Man and Woman in Genesis 1-3” which emphasized gender mutuality. By 1989 the same author had published a paper entitled, “Biblical Authority and Feminist Interpretation.” The second paper focused on a “feminist threat” that concerned many church leaders starting in the 1980s. The “feminist agenda” and Bible study methods related to it, “higher criticism” or the historical-critical method, were invoked as a threat at the 1985 General Conference (GC) session in Utrecht, and the request of the denomination's North American Division (NAD) to be allowed to ordain women in its territory was rejected.
Hemmings suggests that the idea of women clergy became a scapegoat for a perceived identity threat. Opponents began to argue that the church and the authority of the Bible were under attack by "liberal feminism" and new approaches to interpreting the Bible. However, the early papers from the BRI in the 1970s, especially Hasel’s had shown that no new interpretative methods were needed to support the theology or policy of women’s ordination.
Hemmings classifies Adventist faith as rooted in the Biblical inerrancy tradition. Where sacramental denominations like the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches limit the sacraments to a male priesthood, those who believe in Biblical inerrancy teach that Jesus consummated the sacraments in His death on the cross and that priests today do not represent Christ on Earth in a sacramental sense, so a woman can mediate the Word of God to the church. Thus, early Adventists accepted the role of Ellen White as a divinely-inspired messenger from God.
Inerrancy sees the Bible as the authoritative source of truth and that the Bible contains no internal contradictions. The historical-grammatical method of Bible study is rooted in these two premises and evolved from the Protestant Reformers’ concern for understanding the Bible authors’ intent and fixing the meaning of the Biblical text.
Hemmings argued that verbal inspiration and proof-texting, “matching text with text without regard for context," pervert the Reformation’s historical-grammatical method. Fundamentalism based on verbal inspiration and proof-texting often results in claiming “no internal contradictions” in the Bible and universalizing selective ancient cultural practices, such as slavery.
In the 1980s some Adventist leaders wanted to align the denomination with the fundamentalist movement against the “modern, liberal” branch of Christianity. Women’s ordination became a symbol of the Adventist-fundamentalist alliance against liberalism, Hemmings stated despite the fact that opposition to women’s ordination is not consistent with the historical Adventist approach to Bible interpretation.
Hemmings argued that women’s ordination has been a casualty of a cultural attack and not a logical or Bible-based one. Women’s ordination came to symbolize something different to the church as mainstream feminism began to critique patriarchy. As fundamentalists began to lump together liberals, patriarchal critiques and higher criticism, and as liberal feminists began to use higher criticism tools and push for women’s ordination, women’s ordination was caught in the “cultural-ideological war [and] the Bible serves as a weapon rather than a means of instruction.”
Within the Adventist denomination, several challenges to traditional belief arose during the 1980s. The sanctuary doctrine, the role of Ellen White, charges of plagiarism, and a six-day creation were questioned as groups like Adventist Forums “closely scrutinized” Adventist doctrines. As the denomination recovered from this period, it moved to resist further challenges.
The cultural conflicts have confused the debate over methods of Bible study. The BRI books on biblical hermeneutics and interpretation stated that the Reformation principle of sola scriptura was under attack and the denomination needed to agree to use methods of Bible study other than higher criticism. But in defense of Ellen White’s authority, it uses higher criticism, including source criticism and genre criticism. Hemmings asked, "Is the church concerned with interpretation? Or with the meaning that results from interpretation?”
In closing, Hemmings noted a deep anxiety about the survival of the denomination that is manifested in opposition to women’s ordination and has made that opposition a symbol of loyalty to some. The BRI has changed its position while insisting on a single hermeneutic to protect the church against the “mortal threat” of liberalism. Interpretations of the Bible are not the real issue, Hemmings concluded.
Two scholars responded to Hemmings presentation; Dr. Richard Rice, a theologian at Loma Linda University, and Mitchell Tyner, a retired staff member at the GC. “We need historical context to understand historical developments," Rice stated. He summarized Hemmings’ argument that the reversal in church policy on women’s ordination is “guilt by association.” Some reasoned that higher criticism was a tool of religious liberalism and feminism a feature of social liberalism. If the target was liberalism, women’s ordination was collateral damage. He gave other examples in church history, in the 4th and 5th century and again in the 11th century of "unintended consequences" due to reacting to developments without a clear Biblical understanding. Reaction can lead the church into apostasy. Some now perceive the church as “out of touch” because of its exclusion of women from full participation in ordained ministry.
For Rice, the slippery slope fear, the fear that if women are included, dangers will follow, is a deductive fallacy that doesn’t justify fearful resistance. Rice also challenges the belief that the Bible contains “clear” guidelines that will satisfy the entire world and validate “all church life and thought.” He notes that policy does not always precede practice, as demonstrated in the status and circumcision of Gentiles during the early Church. “The Spirit works in the community,” he said. That is, experience teaches what policy has not yet caught up with, and the church is defined by the Holy Spirit, not merely by shared policy.
Tyner reviewed the historical context for changes in the Adventist church over the years. In 1863, when the GC was started, Reconstruction was initiating the progressive era in the U.S. In 1919, the Adventist church had an historic conference on Bible interpretation, and as a reaction against progressive views expressed by the GC president, there was a change at the 1922 GC session. In the 1920s the Adventist church moved toward fundamentalism during the same time that American society closed immigration and there was conflict over women’s rights. The 19th Amendment passed in 1919-1920 and the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in 1923.
In 1968, Richard Nixon used "the southern strategy to" get political support and, Tyner stated, that marked the beginning of the “Southernization of the United States.” Among Adventists, the largest union conference in the NAD is now the Southern Union and Southern Adventist University is the center of Adventist conservatism.
During the 1970s, Republican political activisit Phyliss Schlafly promoted “traditional roles” to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. Among Adventists, Mohaven began the 1970s but in 1979, Jerry Falwell, a Southern Baptist preacher, launched the Moral Majority, an activist conservative movement based on “preservation of traditional values.” By 1980, the Reagan counterrevolution was in full swing, and Adventist religious liberty work shifted from “liberty for all” toward “special interest protections.”
In 1990 and 1995, the GC refused to move forward with women’s ordination despite the recommendations of the early 1970s. In 2005, some Adventists argued that “equality is not a biblical virtue.” There are those who want “to take the church back half a century.” Tyner stated that America is uncomfortable with demographic change today. The church has similarly failed to live up to the implications for equality in the gospel. The church must pay attention to “real problems, real people, real time; That’s what it’ll take. And then we’ll see real progress,” Tyner concluded.
In the question-and-answer time, the question was asked, Is the policy opposition to women’s ordination about cultural differences? Tyner said no. U.S. missionaries exported U.S. culture along with the gospel for most of the 20th century and the rhetorical principle they used to do this was “the unity of the church.” Cultural variance was essential for the health of the church but variance didn’t fit that rhetoric, and so the U.S.-based GC allowed U.S. cultural conservativism to overrule culture in other parts of the world church, as if U.S. values were Christian values. The inverse is happening now that the voting center of the church is outside the U.S. and in the name of “the unity of the church,” non-American values are restraining American church members. If the denomination uses culture to interpret the Bible, readers are forced to ask, “Whose culture should we use?”
Keisha McKenzie is a board member for Adventist Today who attended the Keough lectures and took notes. Monte Sahlin is executive director for the Adventist Today Foundation and edited this article. The other two presentations will be reported in the next few days.
'If the denomination uses culture to interpret the Bible, readers are forced to ask, “Whose culture should we use?”'
Fascinating and so true. I remember having a discussion with the head elder of a conservative SDA Church here in Australia (who was actually from Africa) about the issue of clothing. He was intent on saying unless you wear a tie you shouldn't be up the front of Church.
He really struggled to understand that there is nothing inherently right or wrong in wearing a tie, in a biblical sense, because a suit and tie are not found in the Bible but just Western cultural imports. Sure, there might be an eternal biblical principle about wearing respectful and modest clothing, but the actual application is very much determined by cultural, geographic and historic context. Otherwise, we'd all be wearing Arab-like clothing, as that is most reflective of the 'biblical style.'
In some circumstances, it may actually be total folly to wear a suit and tie, such in extremely hot climates. And yet you will often find Adventists wearing just that in some of the hottest countries in the South Pacific.
Great example, Steve. There are similar clothing norms in the Caribbean, too. During my years there, elders were only just beginning to suggest—with reservations—that jacket, tie, and button-down shirt were not pre-requisites for men presenting anything from the church platform. After all, "We should give God our best." The "What would you wear and do if you were visiting the Queen?" argument was often used too—as if the courtly rules and expecations of colonial monarchs and subjects are what should guide one's comportment in church.
I agree with the panelist who said that US missionaries exported US culture along with the Seventh-day Adventist message. Most churches around the world still share a common liturgy and similar customs for the "sanctuary" or main worship space, not because those customs are biblically required but because these are norms US Adventism adopted based on its own heritage and exported as it spread around the world. Non-US regions have adapted them, and I'm curious to see whether or how those same regions will influence the common practice of US Adventism in the next 40 years. The demographics of the worldwide church are changing, and the direction of influence may be changing too.
It is unfortunate that dress was exported from the west while human value was not. Thus, Islam, with its submission of women can make a bigger impact on nonwestern cultures.
I have always admired Hudson Taylor, a 19th-century missionary who took on the traditional dress of the people he served and was beloved by those people.
Dr. Hemmings' presentation is an excellent piece giving us recent historical background and biblical insight.
There were 71 men in the Sanhedrin who counseled together on the murder of Christ. In that culture it would have been an outrage had Jesus chosen women apostles.
The US—at least during my parents' childhood and adulthood—was in no position to teach other nations about human value. And yet US mores about family life and male and female gender roles were exported along with what then was a US bias toward the suit and tie.
Theologians note that Jesus's ministry was both funded by and inclusive of female disciples. His friends and his enemies were indeed scandalized by his familiarity with people like Lazarus' sister, the woman who anointed him at Simon's home, the woman at the well, and the Magdalene. I grew up hearing that Jesus couldn't possibly have had female disciples, yet that fits neither the facts as I read them nor my sense of the much more "impossible" things the gospel writers are sure he did do.
I don't find women less credible than resurrection.
I agree with you that Dr. Hemmings' research is wonderfully thorough. I look forward to reading her book.
No system, even religious, is devoid of cultural influences. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality.
I strongly disagree with women's ordination as Pastors. The Bible clearly outlines that the man is the head of the home and the head of the man is Jesus. The Biblical structure of the Church also shows that men should be the head. A Church being led by a woman is not Biblical, I put the blame squarely on men most times for not standing up to their duties both in the Church and in the home!
I beg to differ. The head of the church is not a man. The head of the church is Jesus Christ. In the Jewish religious system women were not priests because priests took the lives of the sacrificial animals and women were the givers or life, not the takers. However, in the Christian church, we no longer have priests. The NT teaches the priesthood of ALL believers. So, Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church, ALL the believers are able to directly approach God without an intermediary, the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to ALL believers irrespective of gender, race, age, language and culture and the community of believers simply recognizes those who have received the gifts be they men or women.
Couldn't have said it better, Barry!
DJ you are spot on…. It's our fault as men for not leading out in our families and church. Yes we are to be the "priest" of our homes by being servant/shepherds.
The Lord has constituted the husband the head of the wife to be her protector; he is the house-band of the family, binding the members together, even as Christ is the head of the church and the Saviour of the mystical body. Let every husband who claims to love God carefully study the requirements of God in his position. Christ’s authority is exercised in wisdom, in all kindness and gentleness; so let the husband exercise his power and imitate the great Head of the church.188 {CCh 145.6}
Barry you are right that we all may approach God and we have a intermediary though…. it is Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. This does not take away the God given role to be the spiritual leaders in our family and church. Something DJ is so right about.
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
You're a bride of Christ and so are women! Christ didn't die so we continue Judeo-Phallic tradition, Christ died to end family, end ownership, end injustice and tribalism! He died so all could be ONE and free from gender and blood.
Invite the Holy Spirit as the sole mover and let people of all kinds be so moved lest your like be washed away like all those that stood between God's people worshipping the true God and the His Son, our Savior.
The blood and circumcised skins are DRIED OUT!
Only the Spirit lives NOT GENDER!
Go make the corporate church in fancy pointy phallic mega church- but the will of God will be done in His Almighty Name. Christ came, died, and saved us from the dead tradition BUT still if you're unwilling to accept Christ as supreme and look to the priesthood, or Caiphas, or Ted Wilson w/ his well pointed invictus phallic agenda, or the Law to be your REFUGE- then I humbly pray for the Spirit to be that much stronger in your lives.
I believe there are more women out there that are resisting God's call to women and stopping other women from doing the same. More women can be more against this revivalist movement than their phallic loving husbands.
Believers of the power of the Holy Spirit should pray for them.
"Christ died to end family Lynn"? Please give me the reference…. The Spirit lives but with Truth.
I believe that the church has become feelings oriented politically correct and thus federalized and emasculated because men have abdicated their role. The very reason that Ellen was picked rather than James.
It seems misogyny is alive and well in the SdA church. Although, it is destined to eventually die with the younger generation who will soon be the leaders; that is, if there are any young people left.
Macho servants, shepards. Misogyny is alive among paranoid males in the Pauline tradition. In the USA, the abdication of males has left close to 60% of homes without a father in command, while there is debate as to which father has tenure of more than 12 hours a visit?? Isn't this cultural theme the global norm??
It is sad that many of us only have a visit with our Father one day in seven for a couple of hours….
It is the young people that are standing for the truth….groups like the GYC that will be a army for the Lord.
Webster defines misogyny as "the hatred of women":
I would ask Elaine or Earl what "hatred of women" would it be for a man to protect his family physically or spiritually as stated in the Word of God or SOP?
I must confes that I have not spent much time on the woman's ordination issue, as I do not consider it is a Salvation issue.
However I am a little surprised that few, if any, appear to have seriously considered whether women are included in the 144,000 of Revelation.
In 1:6 and 5:10 John refers to a group, (men and women) who are kings and priests.
In 5:9 and 14:3 John says only this group, the 144,000 can sing the new song.
7:4 says these are redeemed from among man, (mankind) and are first fruits, (not the great multitude, cf. Rev. 7:9, 19:6).
7:4 and 15 says these are servants.
7:15 says these serve God in His temple day and night.
7:3 says Hurt not — until we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
7:14 says they come out of great tribulation, a time such as never was, 12:1.
In Rev. 7:4 and 14:3 John heard the number who were sealed as first fruits, and servants,
cf. the following from the SOP.
The living saints, 144,000, in number, — By this time the 144,000 were all sealed and perfectly united. On their foreheads was written, God, New Jerusalem, and a glorious Star containing Jesus' new name. — The 144,000 shouted, Hallelujah! as they recognized their friends who had been torn from them by death, and in the same moment we were changed and caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air. We all entered the cloud together, — Here on the sea of glass the 144,000 stood in a perfect square. — Jesus raised his mighty glorious arm, laid hold of the gate and swung it back on its golden hinges, and said to us, You have washed your robes in my blood, stood stiffly for my truth, enter in. — And as we were about to enter the holy temple, Jesus raised his lovely voice and said, only the 144,000 enter this place, and we shouted Hallelujah. — I saw there the tables of stone in which the names of the 144,000, were engraved in letters of gold.— After we had beheld the glory of the temple, we went out. Then Jesus left us and went to the city. Soon we heard his lovely voice again, saying: Come my people; you have come out of great tribulation, and done my will, suffered for me; come in to supper, for I will gird myself, and serve you. —
Ellen G. Harmon
N.B. This was not written for publication; but for the encouragement of all who may see it, and be encouraged by it. E. G. H. {DS, January 24, 1846 par. 1}
Are you saying that widows and divorcees with children cannot not be spiritual leaders in the home? What about women who never marry?
I have never been able to understand how one can be an Adventist and still take literally the Pauline quotes about women in the church and not understand that there either had to be different circumstances or that his quotes were culturally determined. Women teach in all our schools and churches, and are by no means quiet. EGW was never quiet. I am sorry but this just isn't reasonable to me. We even have copies of her ordination that was required for preaching. There has to be some other reason for your thinking that is neither biblical or practical. I can accept that for your country (?) or opinion. But let's call it what it is–opinion.
Invite the Holy Spirit as the sole mover and let people of all kinds be so moved lest your like be washed away like all those that stood between God's people worshipping the true God and the His Son, our Savior. Washed away like Pharoah heroic men in the Red Sea that open to let believers through and shut out those who first rejected and shut out their hearts from the Holy Spirit.
Even mighty Pharoah's hard vengeful and bitter heart could NOT match the power of The Lord.
The blood and circumcised skins are DRIED OUT!
Only the Spirit lives NOT GENDER!
Go make the corporate church in fancy pointy phallic mega church- but the will of God will be done in His Almighty Name. Christ came, died, and saved us from the dead tradition BUT still if you're unwilling to accept Christ as supreme and look to the priesthood, or Caiphas, or Ted Wilson w/ his well pointed invictus phallic agenda, or the Law to be your REFUGE- then I humbly pray for the Spirit to be that much stronger in your lives.
I believe there are more women out there that are resisting God's call to women and stopping other women from doing the same. More women can be more against this revivalist movement than their phallic loving husbands.
Believers of the power of the Holy Spirit should pray for them at this final hour. And women with their spiritual work can be like the late arriving laborers at the vineyard who get equal pay b/c that is what WE ALL AGREED UPON- so as Jews see their Christian brothers arriving late for the heavenly wage b/c we were once in such need.
Now Christian brothers should be proudly smiling as the Holy Spirit is WORKING TO HUMBLE PAGAN MEN of the church that pridefully don the phallus and the old Law and NOT THE HUMBLE LOVE OF CHRIST! Christian brothers should be overjoyed at their Christian sisters- b/c we are one w/o gender or flesh or blood or even the Law to condemn us but the Holy Spirit is here, freely given by the Father, and saved by the Son.
Mr/Mrs Lynn will note that I spoke out against supporting a call to have him/her banned for his/her postings on another blog in which his/her 'contraband' comments were subsequently deleted by the powers that be. However, my feelings and appreciation of Mr/Mrs Lynn's right to fully express the way liberals think and reason, especially on a liberal safe-haven, even expressing the extremes they can go to, helps me to better understand how liberals think and propagate their views. Better the liberal you know than the one you don't – does come to mind.
I am particularly interested in the use of the 'phallic/phallus' word that Mr/Mrs Lynn seems to be bent on raising. For example in the post above he/she uses this word a number of times. What's with this word Mr/Mrs Lynn that you are so bent on mentioning here? Do you have a biblical basis for your doctrine or will that just be another doctrine of men? Mr/Mrs Lynn should also note that from his/her comments that one can reasonably conclude that a strong element of misandry does emerge from his/her comments.
Note what has been used to advance the cause of the feminist movement in the church.
http://ordinationtruth.com/2014/04/04/open-letter-to-angel-rodriguez/
Why WO is not Biblical:
http://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-egalitarian-papers.pdf
Ella: "In that culture it would have been an outrage had Jesus chosen women apostles."
Proof please, or is it just your opinion? Doesn't history indicate that at Jesus' time there were female priestesses? I know of no reason Christ could not have easily chosen 6 disciples and 6 desciplettes. That he didn't is instructive.
Maranatha