Women’s Ordination in Adventism: Unity vs. Culture [Updated]
By Jim Walters, July 5, 2015 [Updated July 7], Reporting from San Antonio: As I was flying from Los Angeles to San Antonio Thursday morning to attend the 60th General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination (GC), I thought it inconceivable that women’s ordination (WO) could be voted down next week. But having spent the last two days talking to delegates and laypersons from particularly Latin American and African countries, it’s hard to conceive of WO being passed. The issue is that of contrasting bubbles; think of two soap bubbles with minimal connection.
The first bubble is the one I live in: It’s filled with the light air of theological unity and is inhabited by church people who are characterized by an abundance of education, theological reflection and a living connection with the broader world.
The second bubble is the one in which 90% of Adventism lives, and it’s filled with a palpable air breathed by church people who are largely content with the biblical culture on gender roles that continues to exist in their own lands. These second-bubble, equally bright folk, are characterized by concrete thinking and lives minimally informed by the larger world.
The Theological Unity Bubble
In preparation for coming to this GC Session, I read David Trim’s article of a couple of months ago in the Adventist Review on the first general conference session held in 1863—some 20 delegates from a half dozen newly formed associations of Adventist congregations mostly in the Midwestern US. It’s a fascinating historical account of 20 men gathering for a weekend and putting aside self-interest for the good of the fledgling Advent movement (although James White was unanimously voted to be the first GC president, he declined for the greater good). A central lesson for the current GC Session, argues Trim, is our own need today to pursue policies that put church unity ahead of partisan advantage. Although I don’t recall that he specifically named the WO debate, surely he had the WO issue in mind—called the “800-lb. gorilla” at this GC Session by one attendee I spoke with today. Trim typifies those committed to theological unity in Christ; he is an academic (formerly a professor at Newbold College) who thinks in nuanced terms across cultures in the name of the greater good for his church.
I also recently read excerpts from the 130+ page GC Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report sent to all current GC Session delegates. Leading church thinkers from around the (mostly western) world—left, right and middle—comprised the committee, and even those in the most conservative block of committee members dealt with the theme of church unity, arguing that only ordained men could realistically serve in churches across world Adventism—and they are right! But it was the most progressive block of committee members who were most adamant about church unity: “In the setting of difference of opinions on a subject that is not part of the message and mission of the church [WO], we reaffirm our constant unity in Christ….” (p. 94). My point: the more academic Adventists—both leftists and rightists on WO—are particularly concerned about church unity.
A third example of church leaders being concerned about church unity comes from the invocation offered Thursday afternoon as the Session reconvened in the Alamodome. The gentlemen, obviously not a native English speaker, included a plea for unity in his short prayer.
All three illustrations indicate diverse persons of considerable education, on a world stage, sharing one theological worldview: that unity of the church is of overriding importance—superseding smaller points of difference.
The Biblical Culture Bubble
Thursday afternoon I sat in the bleachers, probably 300 feet from the podium and just behind a whole line of leading laypersons and pastors in bright orange T-shirts (emblazoned with a church logo) from Trinidad. I discovered that the woman immediately ahead of me was a dentist at the local Adventist hospital, and I introduced myself and said I was trying to get a good sense of where she and her accompanying church members were on the WO issue. Delphina Ovid, DDS, was happy to talk and introduce me to leading members of a 500-member delegation that had traveled from the South Caribbean Conference (of some 60,000 members, she said), and we spent over an hour in congenial conversation—them asking me questions about WO at Loma Linda University (LLU), and me probing to get a genuine feel for how the church membership in this large Latin American conference of black members is thinking about this issue.
Friday morning on the sidewalk outside the Alamodome, I fell into conversation with two Nigerian thought-leaders—professor Friday Mbon, PhD, a sociologist of religion at a public Nigerian university, educated at Andrews University and McGill University; and pastor Uzoma Nwosi, communication and publishing director, Eastern Nigeria Union Conference. Both gentlemen are articulate leaders who are well versed on WO issues, and both are thoughtfully opposed.
Professor Mbon freely speaks about “cultural” and “ideological” issues, as would be expected from a sociologist. Mbon cited Paul’s saying that in Christ there’s no basic difference between Jew or Greek, slave or free, or male or female (Galatians 3: 28). He says that Paul is stating that in Christ there is no “superiority” of classes of persons, and he questions whether WO is relevant to Paul’s spiritual directive. He says that the New Testament doesn’t clearly address all our questions, and on such questions we should be “silent.”
Pastor Nwosi strongly contended that we should not “sacrifice on the alter of cultural difference” the unity of the church “in truth and in mission that it has enjoyed from the beginning.” Pastor Nwosi asked several rhetorical questions: “Should we rewrite Scripture?” “Can a house divided among itself stand?” “Should we exalt any culture above inspired Scripture?”
Five take-home points:
- Caribbean Adventists largely oppose WO. Elder Michael Phillips, the evangelism director for the conference, who indicated that he had a good feel for where the membership stands, suggested that a quarter are strongly opposed to WO, a quarter are mildly opposed, a quarter softly opposed, and a quarter are to some degree in favor. Phillips particularly stressed the deep cultural roots of the issue, but he added a theological component, indicating that there isn’t a New Testament example of women leading out in church as did men, and Ellen White was not ordained as were men.
- The Caribbean has very active churchwomen. Two-thirds of the group of 15 I spoke with were women, one of whom, Pamela Stephen, introduced herself as a “pastor.” Pastor Stephen is one of 5 “commissioned” pastors who work as conference-paid religious educators serving multiple congregations (and 3 additional women serve as assistant pastors). Interestingly, although Stephen is a positive, self-confident woman of ability who is commissioned, she volunteered that she opposes WO. She views WO as against Biblical practice.
- WO could initiate “the shaking” in Adventism. The senior churchman of the group, elder Emmanuel Peters, director of the regional ADRA, unhesitatingly gave me this quotation for attribution (and this after he’d given me pro-WO arguments I’ve long heard in Southern California): “Women’s Ordination may begin the shaking of our world church. If sincere church members will allow God to do his work in bringing gender equality to the ministry, they will not be shaken.” However, upon hearing Peters say this, Phillips the evangelist, quipped that the shaking may well go the opposite direction.
- Caribbean youth are evenly divided. A young and articulate woman attorney, a Pathfinder badge on her shirt, was introduced to me as being knowledgeable about where the Caribbean youth stand on WO. The attorney confidently declared that the young church members, overall more progressive than their elders, are evenly divided—strongly opposed and strongly in favor.
- Nigerian church members, if the two leaders are at all representative, believe that male leadership in the church is a divinely directed practice of long standing that is important to continue for the good of the church.
Upon reflection, the striking thing that emerges from the prolonged dialogue with articulate church leaders from Trinidad and Nigeria—to say nothing of strolling through the hundreds of eclectic denominational and independent booths in the sprawling convention center—is the immediacy of a vibrant church life: God working through his people to build up the church. The great majority of women don’t mind a supporting role to ordained male pastors, particularly if the latter are doing a good, conscientious job. The more abstract and distant concepts of “church unity” and “equality” did not naturally arise, and were only addressed when I raised the issues. Biblical zeal exercised through biblical cultural roles that continue in more traditional areas of the world, if the Caribbean islands and Nigeria are any indication, is the life and blood of Adventism—and that’s why the world church, come next Wednesday, will almost surely vote against WO. And the fact that the issue is nuanced, allowing divisions to make individual judgment, is almost totally beside the larger Biblical/cultural precedent.
The one development that could possibly upend the above predication would be for President Ted Wilson to forthrightly make a Biblical/ missional case for WO. Given his unchallenged orthodoxy and his considerable authority in developing world Adventism, Wilson is uniquely qualified to make the case for Yes on WO. But given Wilson’s well-known opposition to WO, it seems more likely that he’d make the opposite speech.
However, miracles do happen. And just as performers can make one big soap bubble out of two, so Wilson could be a unifying churchman, making room for progressive elements in the church. But without question, an inspired world Adventism is sprinting forward—with or without their theologically sophisticated, worldly wise brothers and sisters.
Dr. Jim Walters is a professor in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University. He is a contributing editor for Adventist Today and vice chairman of the board for the Adventist Today Foundation.
Some of us are well aware that many seek unity and hold this to be more important than loyalty to specific scripture teaching.
So does the Catholic church.
You may even sell this agenda to the majority, but it won’t impress a minority who hold the bible above unity or authority of the church.
The argument presented was the same given to Luther and he was admonished to “not divide the church”. But for Luther, unity and the church be damned if the bible was not held over and above any authority to make a decision.
It seems much of modern Adventism have forgotten our fundamental Protestant heritage and now opts for spiritual manifestations to determine what God approves or condemns. So, if a woman manifests certain spiritual qualities on various levels, she is, ipso facto, qualified to hold any office regardless of gender.
And then to affirm this principle, success in her ministry seals the deal. But success is not the test of loyalty to truth nor how to determine what is the will of God, or not.
After the early church changed the day of worship, thousands were converted to the church, and no doubt, this was pointed to as “proof” that the decision made was God ordained.
No amount of “success” will move a bible student to abandon their conviction when they have been persuaded by a careful study of scripture. Nor will “spiritual manifestations” have any relevance to determine truth or error.
In the end, unity for a Protestant, will always be a…
But “unity” can be achieved best by a unified vote to let each conference/union set the procedure in its own area. For anyone anywhere to require that women NOT be ordained, and try to impose that rule on the North American membership, would be foolhardy at best. That just goes against our culture.
And culture must be taken into consideration. Let’s LET the Caribbean members require only male headship; that fits with their culture. But in North America, we need to follow the progressive culture of our NAD.
For pity’s sake — Unity does NOT mean unison! We can all join in unity by uniting in our own individual cultural norms.
Bill: It is so ironic and sad to see you appealing to the Adventist heritage of being Protestant to support the Catholic view of only ordaining men. And no matter how many times you say your view is “based on clear Bible declarations” it is really only based on your interpretation of whatever you hang your hat on. Others, myself included, believe your interpretations are incorrect. Therefore, the issue of unity is whether those two groups with very different interpretations on this topic can live in harmony together and in unity because of even higher callings.
“Thus saith the Lord” based on clear bible declarations. And neither is the bible ambiguous and unclear on this issue.
Thank you, Jim.
I felt like I was there listening over your shoulder.
Thank you for the quote from ADRA’s Emmanual Peters from Trinidad, “Women’s ordination may begin the shaking of our world church. If sincere church members will allow God to do his work in bringing gender equality to the ministry, they will not be shaken.”
I like that this observer sees it as God’s work to bring gender equality to the ministry.
It is … and whether the delegates vote Yes or No on the item as presented, it will not inhibit God doing this work. This by itself is perhaps evidence of God’s hand at work already.
Women ordination?? No I don’t support.
It probably will not be enacted in your country, so no worries. But do you believe that all areas of the world should not ordain women, or only those who strongly object to it?
I believe that many of us who live in regions where there’s a high concentration of Adventists–usually because of institutions–often fail to fully appreciate how conservative the church in general is here in the United States and Canada. I think many of us would be surprised at how many even of the North American Division’s GC Session delegation may vote against women’s ordination. Also, I think the church as a whole is dramatically more conservative than we typically assume. I would suggest that the church leaders from throughout the world field who typically come to Annual Council and Spring Meeting are generally more progressive than their respective constituencies. So many of their region’s GC Session delegates will be drawn from those more conservative leaders and members. I hold out very little hope that women’s ordination will be approved, but I desperately hope I’m wrong. As Jim Walters notes, Elder Ted Wilson’s approach could possibly make enough difference to swing the vote. My prediction is that we won’t see that happen. But if he does make an appeal in favor of women’s ordination, and if women’s ordination passes, I would expect it to be by a very narrow margin. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
“if Ted Wilson makes an appeal in favor of women’s ordination….”
That’ll happen when pigs fly.
If, and I repeat if, Wilson did make a such a forceful speech to approve W/O and it was subsequently approved he should be known as the GC Pope 1.
With subsequent holders of the office being sequentially numbered.
One would have better odds of winning the lottery than Wilson making such a speech.
Which makes me wonder still why the yes note will bring about unity and not the no vote. For if the vote is no, how will disunity happen?
We now have turned into wealth and money as the bases of argument for WO. Now those with more money or larger number should be heard and not the Bible?. If truth can be bought with wealth and influence as NAD and other people would want us to believe, then majority of the world populace who are poor due to imbalance and selective economic inequality by the world ‘s rich countries against poor ones, will never have access to the doors of heaven. Let those think money is everything remember what Satan pledged to offer Jesus should He had kowtow and worship him. If NAD think money is everything then they are mistaken. Jesus will save more poorpeople who fortunately occupy the world’s population and leave the few whose wealth have made them trample God’s word. Those in America and Europe want everyone in this world to believe they are the most favoured among everyone. What ever America and Europe believe should be accepted by everyone is that not it? WO is nothing but a philosophy of socio cultural pressure with no Bible support yet because Americans and their former masters Europeans are rich, they want to force their will on the church due to their fat budget for the world church.if NAD decide not to support the world church God can still raise up help from elsewhere. All indicators shows that U.S. Is acting the second Beast role of REV. 13. God will never allow NAD nor any other people to destroy His truth. Now U.S. Culture is fasting destroying the Bible God won’t allow…
The NAD members have forgotten that for more than 140 years they have rule the SDA world and have imposed their whims on the world-wide church. Now that the tables have turned and the NAD membership is only 7% of the SDA world church membership and its power to impose its will on the world-wide church, the claim is that it”would be foolhardly at best” to ” try to impose that rule on the North American membership.”Why wasn’t “foolhardy” for the NAD to impose its will on the world-wide church when it had a majority membership and it is “foolhardy” now for the world church outside NAD to express its conviction on theological matters and to vote accordingly?
To affirm, as Jeannie Brown states, that the American depraved and decadent culture must be considered as the most important factor in such an important decision on WO is more that foolish – it is totally arrogant and inconsiderate and shows how superior the Americans consider themselves over the world church membership.
It should be remembered that the decision at Jersusalem allowed each group to practice what seemed best for them. If this precedent were followed it would result in those wanting only males as ordained and give those who believed that women should be ordained the same privilege to do what seemed best for their new converts.
If the early church did not impose the exact rules for all, why is it impossible for the church today to follow the examples of the founders of Christianity?
Jim you are partially right in what your analysis indicates. Also, your Wilson miracle scenario is correct. Our President is not about to change in any way his stand on the WO issue. Ted Wilson is consistent and predictable on this his signature issue. Even if Nixon went to China, Wilson is incapable of change. Those who advocated for change on this issue needed to present it from a cultural argument/necessity on the role and status of women in our western society.
Woman’s Ordination in the Adventist church will be defeated because the argument has been framed and trapped in theological study and not in the cultural language and political reality for it to be accepted as a world church. We must also think culturally when it comes to accepting, rejecting, or ignoring viewpoints that affect how we understand God, His Word, and how we are to live as Christians.
To quote John Calvin:
“For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church.”
Or, in plain English, don’t overthink the issue of WO, follow the local culture of the region in the church where WO is needed. To expect that the entire church will follow our (NAD) lead on this issue, just based on what we perceive is correct theology , and to not present a fundamental alternative to Neal was a BIG mistake!
When Ted’s father was General Conference president, he insisted (against advice to the contrary by many) that ordination was an issue that had to be decided by the “world” church. That was a mistake that haunts us to this day. No change in church attitudes or policy ever happens when you need universal agreement, even in the name of “unity,” on any controversial issues. When I was teaching at Atlantic Union College during the middle 60’s, no African-Americans could be admitted to Southern Adventist University; yet we had a number of them, as did other “northern” SDA institutions. When we insist that only an affirmative vote by the world church can resolve this issue, we are making disunity inevitable. We will lose valuable people and many who remain will be bitter. We have failed to educate our members world-wide on how to read the Bible carefully and critically. What we have sowed is reaping the first of many whirlwinds to come.
If America says Yes to WO how dare the rest of the world say No? Indeed superiority is at work. All the argument being raised here are either about what they think TED WILSON should have done or not? Thank God that now all delegates are wide awake unlike previously they use to outwit them so they dance to the tune of so called American wishes. WO will forever be voted against anytime it will be presented . No GC President from U.S having WO agenda will even be allowed to get there by the world church. NAD can cede from the world church and have their own WO, GAY BISHOPS, LESBIAN PRIESTS as other Protestant denomination like Presby, Methodists etc have done. No longer the Bible but American rights. NAD will reduce further in membership even as it is now should they practice WO whose immediate siblings are GAY BISHOPS AND LESBIAN PRIESTS. Truth lovers will give up the church and look for churches that uphold the Bible and not societal or cultural
pressure. IS AMERICA TRUE CHRISTIANS NOT ASHAMED TO SEE THEIR SUPREME COURT DO WHAT THEY JUST DID? Now they don’t talk about this but WO. HOW CAN THE REMINANTS OF THE MAYFLOWER PILGRIMS, THE FOUNDERS OF THE GREAT FATHERLAND STOOP SO LOW ? PEOPLE WHO ONCE HAD THE BIBLE AS THEIR STANDARD AND IN GOD THEY TRUSTED? REVELATION 13 GIVES US THE ANSWER
Perhaps those of us who would like to see more women empowered to do their part in spreading the Gospel around the world should put our money where our mouths are. How about creating scholarships for women theology students at the nineteen Adventist colleges and universities in Africa, the fifteen in Inter-America, the sixteen in South America, the eight in South Asia, the eighteen in Southeast Asia, and the two in the Middle East? That could be followed up with five years of salary for women pastors upon graduation. Perhaps if we had undertaken a program like this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now.
Hi there mates, pleasant paragraph and good urging commented here, I am truly enjoying by
these.
Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was once a amusement account it.
Glance complex to far brought agreeable from you!
By the way, how can we communicate?
Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back
to your blog? My blog is in the exact same niche as yours and my users would genuinely benefit from some of the information you present here.
Please let me know if this ok with you. Cheers!