Pastors urge NPUC to end its one-sided campaign for women's ordination

A group of 28 pastors in the North Pacific Union Conference (NPUC) launched a website called OrdinationTruth.com today, asking the NPUC leadership to "stand down from the proposed special constituency session," which will push women's ordination. On January 30, 2013, the pastors issued a letter to NPUC President Max Torkelsen III, calling out the pro-women's ordination bias of the Gleaner. Nov. 14, 2012, the NPUC Executive committee voted to "inform and educate 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," but since the NPUC has offered only one perspective, the letter goes on to announce that OrdinationTruth.com will be launched to ensure that "alternative views can be shared with NPUC readers." The letter ends with the group's request that the NPUC Executive Committee rescind its action to hold a special constituency meeting.

We respectfully ask that the NPUC Executive Committee rescind its action to hold a special constituency meeting. Let the 2015 General Conference in session respond by official vote to the recommendations to be offered by the 2014 Annual Council's action regarding the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, and let the North Pacific Union Conference leadership and constituents lend that decision of the world church whatever it is its full support.

You can read their news release here:

North Pacific Union Conference (NPUC), North American Division, February 4, 2013: Today the NPUC Supporting Pastors launched the OrdinationTruth.com website. At launch, twenty-eight ministers formally lent their support, choosing to be named and listed as Supporting Pastors. As more pastors learn of this encouragement toward unity, it is anticipated the list will speedily grow.

Those within the Union advocating in favor of Women’s Ordination are preparing for a special constituency meeting of the Union where NPUC could move ahead of the world church. The Supporting Pastors came together to respond to this emergency. They respectfully ask that the NPUC Executive Committee rescind its November 2012 decision and that no special constituency meeting to act on Women’s Ordination be held before the 2015 General Conference session.

In 2012, two of nine North American Division union constituencies voted to act independently of the world Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA). Those two unions moved unilaterally to ordain women as pastors. The SDA Church rejected similar initatives in 1990 and 1995 General Conference sessions. In Adventist polity, an ordained minister carries authority to function across the world field. Union conferences do not have authority to determine whether women shall be ordained within their territories; this decision rests with the combined Church represented by the General Conference. A group within the NPUC also launched a union-wide initiative intended to lead to a special meeting. But such action at this time could align the North Pacific Union with other insubordinate unions.

OrdinationTruth.com is intended as a fresh venue where information can be shared highlighting Christian teachings about unity, order, and gender in the Church. The site also exists to help assure that the conversation about Women’s Ordination in the Union is balanced. The Union paper has carried only one side of the question. Immediately, and in weeks and months to come, OrdinationTruth.com will carry news, articles, and studies addressing questions of unity and Women’s Ordination, especially within the territory of the NPUC. There is also an e-mail list where interested persons can participate as the situation unfolds. For these materials, more detailed positions, and participation options, persons are directed to http://www.OrdinationTruth.com.

Initially published documents include an overview document as well as, “Ordination: God’s Purpose versus Satan’s Designs,” found in the FEATURES section of the site.

The NPUC Supporting Pastors seek to work in harmony with the NPUC and invite prayer for Union leadership and support for the world church in this difficult hour.

# # # The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian denomination of 17 million members operating in 230 nations. The NPUC (North Pacific Union) Supporting Pastors are Seventh-day Adventist ministers called to serve in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Upper Columbia, Idaho, and Montana conferences. In particular, they are led to give voice to the understanding of Seventh-day Adventists who (1) seek to work in harmony with the world church as represented by the General Conference, and/or (2) who cannot conscientiously support as an appropriate practice Women’s Ordination in the present situation. NPUC Supporting Pastors recognize the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church located in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA as the ultimate organizational authority within SDA polity.

Adventist Review appears to lean toward women's ordination

The following story was published by the Adventist Review recently in anticipation of a diversity celebration summit October 31 through November 2, 2012, hosted by the North American Division:

In anticipation of this event the Adventist Review asked five authors to write about aspects of this topic they hope to see addressed in this year’s event. We welcome your feedback concerning these and other issues reflecting the diversity of the members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.—Editors.

The first author was a female pastor who told her story of an agnostic coworker who allegedly had a dream in which God told the agnostic to tell her to "prepare yourself to be a pastor." There is much biblical evidence that God speaks through a variety of mediums to communicate to his people, and there is also biblical evidence that supports women being given the gift of speaking.

However, there is no biblical evidence that supports our experiences superseding God's word. Experience is not our guide. The word of God is our ultimate measure of truth. When experience contradicts the word of God, we must submit to God's word. So obviously the Adventist Review is saying women's ordination is biblical; otherwise, they would be putting experience over God's word.

It appears the Adventist Review may be jumping the gun by publishing this pro-women's ordination story before any thoughtful article discussing the biblical validity of ordination is published. Publishing touchy/feely stories in support of female ordination is not helpful to the discussion.

Here is the story they published:

I had a strange dream last night,” my coworker said to me. “In that dream your God gave me a message to give to you.” I froze in disbelief. She was agnostic and thought Christianity was a ridiculous religion. But God has spoken in dramatically “divers manners” before (Heb. 1:1, KJV)!

“Tell me more about your dream,” I said.

She continued, “Your God instructed me to tell you that you are to go prepare yourself to be a pastor.” She then proceeded to describe, in precise detail, the campus of Andrews University, where the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary is located. She had never heard of Andrews University. She concluded by saying, “That is where you are to go. I’ve done what I was told. Now it’s your turn to do what you’ve been told.”

For many years I had stubbornly avoided God’s call to pastoral ministry. So, perhaps in a bit of divine exasperation, God chose a most unlikely person to get my attention and to convict me to obey. In some strange way I also felt that God used her to convey the affirmation of His call for me. That was 10 years ago. Every day since, God has affirmed that call in unlikely ways.

God’s call is affirmed through Paul, whom I baptized, with some hesitation, when he was 7. Paul, in turn, gathered eight of his friends and gave them Bible studies. Two years later I baptized four of them, with Paul standing in the baptismal tank with me.

God’s call is affirmed through Carolyn, who after hearing me preach about courage informed her family that she was going to be a pastor. Her tenacious conviction to follow God’s will, against her family’s wishes, inspired her brother to give up drugs and turn his life around. They are now both studying to be pastors.

God’s call is affirmed as I answer a midnight phone call from a teenage girl, feeling uncomfortable that her boyfriend was pressuring her into an intimate encounter. She resisted his advances and broke off the relationship. She is now a young adult speaking to teenage girls about God’s plans for their lives.

God’s call is affirmed through Kent and Marissa, who have grown to understand that their priority is to teach their children to love God and follow Jesus. They make choices that are often ridiculed to be spiritual mentors for their children.

God has done some amazing things through my ministry. He has given me strength, courage, and wisdom to overcome many of the challenges I face as a woman in pastoral ministry. Every day I see signs of His affirmation. Ultimately, though, God’s affirmation is measured not in what I do, but rather in what He does in the lives of the people I minister to. I continue watching and listening as God acts in ways I never would have dreamed.

Response to critiques on 'Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination'

Since first writing on the topic of gender-neutral ordination (Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination) several months ago, I have received several varied and interesting critiques of the article I wrote. Below are my responses to the best of those critiques, along with a slightly revised version of my August article after my responses. I also deal with the issue of women working well in China as pastors, and an argument drawn from Joel 2 in favor of ordination of women (sermon at Pioneer Memorial Church). I believe the prevalence of these two arguments and the apparent validity of the several critiques warrants another edition.

Excerpts from letters answering concerned readers of my August article Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination

To “Mary” You ask a good question regarding what authority a church elder has in the church. I am not sure whether you are asking, “What authority should he have?” or “What authority has the church given him to exercise today?” They are not the same question. As my writing is in regard to the ideal, let me address the first question.

In the New Testament, the elders do have authority. Their authority is not a kingly one, and I think that is a point you are making. But it is a teaching authority. They regulate the doctrinal teaching of the church (see the disputed passage in 1 Timothy 2 as well as Titus 1:11).

1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

Again, this is a delegated authority. Yes, as you say, it rests ultimately with the whole church and more particularly with the church business meeting that chooses its elders.

Responsibility and authority always come together. You cannot have one without the other. When a person is given a responsibility, he or she must be given sufficient authority to carry it out.

So what real authority does an elder have? The elders can say, “Joe will not be teaching in this sanctuary.” The elders can call a meeting and explain that Laura is a futurist and that her teachings are not to be countenanced. Anyone else could, feasibly, do these things, but the elders are responsible to do them. And for that reason, their teaching is considered authoritative. They answer to God for the words of instruction that they allow to assault the ears of their charges.

This teaching authority is best possessed by those who can handle it impersonally. Joe is wrong, not because he is mean, but because his facts are skewed. Jim is right, even though he is a lousy communicator, because his facts are right. While this may seem like it is neither here nor there, it is a hint at God’s reasoning in the gender distinctions given regarding local church administration. Some issues are best handled relationally, others are best handled objectively.

Gender uniqueness matches the work well for another reason. The trade skills of an elder are passed on through mentoring (See 2 Timothy 2:2). And gender A to gender B mentoring is a moral liability.

The business of the church (how to handle the budget, where to build the addition, whose project to fund) was never intended to be in the domain of the elders. It was to be the work of deacons. There is no human authority over other humans in the business authority of the church.

In other words, while we might think of the ability to fire the janitor as a much higher level of authority than the ability to shush an errant teacher, we would be thinking wrongly. The church is the body of believers, not the body of property holders. Regulating the teaching of the body is the highest level of authority God has given to the church.

To “Michael” You wrote “Some of the arguments [in favor of women’s ordination] seem weak to me, but there were some unfamiliar quotes in there in which EGW apparently endorsed women acting as pastors:”

Even in Colporteur Ministry EGW speaks about men and women doing “pastoral” labor. It is part of that otherwise famous quote:

If there is one work more important than another, it is that of getting our publications before the public, thus leading them to search the Scriptures. Missionary work--introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them--is a good work and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor.--Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 390. (1880) {CM 7.1}

Ellen White wrote often about ladies working and it seems clear enough to me that she had in mind “caring for the flock” as women are needed to do.

When men and women accept the truth, we are not to go away and leave them and have no further burden for them. They are to be looked after. They are to be carried as a burden upon the soul, and we must watch over them as stewards who must render an account. Then as you speak to the people, give to every man his portion of meat in due season, but you want to be in that position where you can give this food.--Manuscript 13, 1888. {Ev 345.2}

But are the female pastoral workers needed to care for both classes, men and women? Not ideally. No, they are needed to shepherd a certain part. So says the Bible.

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children.

Women instructors should labor with the young women, not to see how much work can be gained from them, but to win their love and confidence. When this is won, there will be no difficulty about the work, for the workers will be filled with a desire to please. {PM 259.5}

To “Many” regarding China If the Lord Jesus had only played things smoothly in John six, the Christian church would have gotten off to a much larger start. Thousands were inclined to follow Him that day. They were ready to take risks for His kingdom.

But at the end of the day, only a handful of persons were still following Him and He was off the radar map of the twitter-happy types.

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then again, the early church could have been much better funded long before the cross if Jesus had not handled one seeker so strictly. By requiring the earnest man to sell his possessions, it seems that Jesus squelched his interest in the truth.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to gather, from apparent spiritual successes in evangelism and church work, evidence regarding what God wants us to do. If in China there are lady pastors doing a successful work, may God bless their work with faithfulness to the Bible rule. Underground there may be a very different picture of what God is doing. But all this is neither here nor there. Why?

The Bible, not experience, is the ground of our faith and practice. We do what God says.

To Readers of a Sermon at Pioneer Memorial Church on the Topic of Ordination

Indeed, God will pour out His Spirit on both genders. May the Latter Rain come soon! But there is a significant fallacy in this argument: Since God will empower and fill ladies in the future, we have Bible evidence that God is changing His gender-role directions for the last day church.

What is the fallacy? The future filling of women by the Spirit is no change at all. There have been female prophets since early days. There have been many of them. They have spanned more than a thousand year of Bible history.

And for all that, we find no evidence of female priest or elder.

Then there is no evidence that God will make a change. And the whole bit of oratory becomes empty.

Brief Bible thoughts on women's ordination (revised)

Additional remarks have been italicized.

The Issues and the Issue

Silence can be eloquence. And on the issue of women’s ordination to the gospel ministry in the Adventist church, too much has already been said. Books have been written on both sides of the issue. The anti-ordination camp has urged that the Bible settles this issue decidedly. The pro-ordination camp retorts that the Bible writers conformed to cultural norms in their day when they limited the role of women in local church administration.

And I, of course, have highly oversimplified the issue by making such a summary.

Complicating matters, somewhat, are two facts: the Bible abounds with evidence of women prophets, but never of a female priest.

Nevertheless, I agree with many who argue that the real issue at stake here is the question of scriptural authority versus higher critical nay-saying.

The New Testament Data

When the Bible outlines the qualifications for being an elder, they are worded in distinctly gender-specific terms. The elder is to be the “husband of one wife” and to “rule” his house well. The apostle argues that if he is not able to rule his house, how can he be expected to rule the church well?

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

If we ask the question, “who is authorized in the Bible to rule the home?” we have a simple answer even in Genesis 3:16. Paul makes reference to this fact also in the verses just before the ones above.

1 Timothy 2:11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

These three verses are located just between an exhortation to women to adorn themselves with meekness and the announcement that if a “man desire the office” of an elder, that he does well. What kind of teaching then, did Paul have in mind in verse 12? He certainly didn’t mean that a woman could never teach anyone under any circumstance. After all, he commanded elder women to teach younger women and children (see Titus 2:3-5).

The “teaching” in verse 12 is united to the idea of “authority” in the same verse. Now teaching authority in the church belongs to the elders. So this passage is about the issue of women’s ordination to the position of “elder.” And that is plain simply by the fact that, after commenting on the perils of giving birth, Paul next addresses who should be permitted to teach with authority.

The reason that a woman is refused such a position is plain in the passages above. She ought to be subject to her own husband. And how, then, can she be in authority over him? She ought to submit to his headship. How then can she rule well her own home?

These same arguments are used by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

1Co 11:3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  35  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The “speaking” here cannot be a reference to speaking in general. Earlier in the same book Paul laid down regulations for females to pray and prophecy in assembly. Rather, the speaking and silence and obedience here must be the same as those mentioned in the 1 Timothy verses. These speeches are the authoritative teaching of elders.

The idea of gender distinction in family government is plainly present in several other New Testament passages.  (See Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter 3:1, 5-6.) Some persons can see no light in extrapolating the male-headship-in-the-home into the realm of church governance. Nonetheless, the home is the training ground for church governance. That is the logic behind Paul’s statements on the qualifications for being an elder.

But what about the issue of prophets? We mentioned earlier that female prophets were present in Corinth. Even the female prophets, by the way they kept their hair, were to show their submission to their husband, their spiritual head.

1 Corinthians 11:5  But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

This is not, of course, the only New Testament reference to women praying or prophesying. Acts 21:9 records that Philip had four daughters that were prophets. The assembly by the river was a meeting place for women and a place where prayer was routinely made. Acts 16:39.

Were women refused the position of elders because of cultural norms? If this was the case, Paul had opportunity to either argue this way or to give no reasons at all. So how did he found his argument? In his writing, he founded it on the order of creation, the origin of sin, the teaching of nature regarding gender, the model of ancient holy persons. And never once did he found it on the customs of the Jews or of the Romans or of the varied peoples among whom he founded churches.

To ignore his reasoning while countering his conclusion is to discount his authority. And as I said in the introduction, this is the primary issue.

Were women involved in ministry in the New Testament? Indeed. Even Jesus had women that ministered to Him and that, to at least some extent, traveled with Him.

Mark 15:40  There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41  (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

Lu 8:3  And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Acts records the work of a husband-wife team that worked hand-in-hand with Paul, the author of the anti-ordain passages. Acts 18:2-3.

Why would God allow women to minister to Jesus, to plant churches, to prophesy and pray in public, and yet refuse to them the position of elder?

Prophets have no personal authority associated with their gift. They speak for God. Socially, if they are a daughter (as were Philip’s four prophets), then they still are a daughter. They are still subject to their father. And when God speaks through them, they are as subject to those words as are the others that hear.

So Ellen White can be a prophet and James White can be an elder and theirs can be a happy home. (And it was, most of their married life.)

By way of contrast, the position of elder has personal authority with it. Let me explain.

When men organize themselves into any type of group and choose one of their own number to be a director, they are choosing to submit part of their individual independence to each other and to the leader. They do this for efficiency. Even angels are ordered in such a way.

Are such men saying that one is fundamentally superior to themselves in strength or intelligence? No. All they are really doing is saying that things will work better if there is order. And as order requires that someone do the delegating, they choose one of their own for that purpose.

That is what the church does. The choosing of only men to the position of elder is no statement of male superiority. It is only acting in harmony with a divine policy established to maintain efficient and orderly action.

So women may teach Sabbath school classes. They may conduct VBS. They may lead a stewardship drive. They may help their husbands plant a church. They may even do pastoral work in the fullest sense of caring for the flock. But may they be placed in headship over the flock? No. That would upset the order of the family.

But what if she is single? No, that won’t fix it. To put her in the elder’s position would be to forbid her to marry. And that would be too similar to a doctrine of devils.

Old Testament Data

In the Old Testament women figure prominently. Huldah the prophet was probably a professor in the “college.” Deborah was the courage behind Barak’s success. Miriam won the hearts of her nation and led them in anthems. Women, elsewhere, show up most often in their positions as significant mothers.

But never, in all the history of the Old Testament, do we find a female priest.

“Wait!” says one. “Wasn’t it a whole nation of priests?” Oh, yes, that is true. But that was part of Korah’s argument when he wanted to be exalted to an administrative position. And it didn’t hold much theological weight by the end of Numbers 16. (It did seem to hold some at the beginning of the chapter.)

The fact is that when we select a man to be an elder, he is our peer. We are not obliged to believe what he says, despite our understanding of Scripture. He is not our prophet. We are not obliged to do what he says despite the dictates of our conscience. He is not our king. But we are to respect his headship for order’s sake. We expect him to the take the lead and we need him to do so.

In like manner, when God chose an Old Testament person to be a priest, he was a peer of his wife and relatives and fellow Israelites. They were, after all, a kingdom of priests. But they pooled their priesthood and conferred it on someone who could exercise it for their mutual benefit. And so they respected their God-chosen priests.

This is how Luther explained it when he preached about the priesthood of believers. He wrote that the priesthood belongs to everyone, but that not everyone can exercise it. So the body chooses who will exercise the authority that they all possess. (If they didn’t possess it, he reasoned, they wouldn’t be able to give it to their pastor.) And so, as long as a woman has a voting right in choosing the elders for the local church, she shows that she is a true possessor of the priesthood. For order’s sake, she gives her part of it to the man chosen to represent the whole.

Ellen White and Adventist History

While the prophet lived the issue of woman’s suffrage was a hot political one. Women in the United States had taken the lead in many social issues, from nursing to the care of deranged persons, to the advocacy of temperance.

And in the Adventist church itself a group of women led out in one of the most successful and pervasive of all revivals, the introduction of the Tract and Missionary Society. Often a woman presided over that organization. The directorship of this organization was one of the most significant positions in the denomination.

But women were not ordained to the gospel ministry. We were the people of the Book. And the Book spoke clearly on this issue. We had a woman prophet and the Book smiled on that. It did not smile on the idea of having women elders. (Ordaining women was suggested once in meeting. It didn’t get as far as a vote.)

Conclusion

For years I have hesitated to write on this issue, and for only one reason. I wasn’t sure where to draw the line Biblically regarding women teaching and leading in church functions outside that of ordained elder. That issue is resolved for me now by the proximity of 1 Timothy 2 to 1 Timothy 3.

The Bible isn't confusing. If it takes long arguments to make it that way, the arguments are at fault rather than the Bible. Nearly all the primary verses used in Biblical studies of this topic could fit on two pieces of paper.

If a man desires the office of an elder, he desires a good thing.

If a woman desires the same, she doesn’t understand. She cannot rule her house well. If she rules it, that is not well. And so, like all the other members of the church, she gives of her priesthood authority to the men chosen by her and by the church to exercise it. And then she respects that authority that, originally, was hers.

Amen.

A response to Richard Davidson

As the debate over ordination and female headship has progressed, several otherwise conservative Adventists have stated that they see no problem with female headship in the church. In several instances, they have said this not because they have studied this biblical issue for themselves but because they trust a conservative theologian who has studied it and sees no problem with female headship in the church. Preliminarily, the idea that we can outsource our Bible study to some theologian or panel of theologians is not an Adventist, nor an historic Protestant position, as Ellen White makes very clear:

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, . . . the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, . . . the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. . . . Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will. Great Controversy 595

Although this debate was not sought by traditional Adventist believers but, rather, was thrust upon us by our more liberal brethren, the current posture of church politics demands that every Seventh-day Adventist personally study this issue. We must not look to “the opinions of learned men” nor to “bishops, pastors or professors of theology” to decide for us what is Bible truth.

The theologian most frequently cited as a conservative who favors female headship is Richard Davidson, a professor of Old Testament at the Adventist Seminary. He wrote a chapter (Ch. 13) in the book, Women in Ministry, entitled, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture.” Turning first to the issue of whether there were created, pre-Fall sex role distinctions that might have a bearing on sex roles in the Christian Church, Davidson notes that most commentators have seen in Genesis 2 clear indications of role distinctions. The most frequently cited indicators are:

1. man was created first and woman later (2:7, 22);
2. woman was created for man to be his “helpmate,” to solve Adam's loneliness after naming the animals and seeing that they had mates but he did not (18-20);
3. woman comes out of man, created from Adam's rib (21-22); and
4. the man names the woman (v. 23 [also 3:20]).

Davidson argues that these Bible facts do not indicate created role distinctions, or male headship, in the pre-Fall world.

But in arguing that these facts have no bearing on sex roles in the church, Davidson contradicts other passages of Scripture. Paul uses three of these facts to argue for male authority and female submission in the church, including 1) man was created first, 2) woman was created from man, and 3) woman was created for man. See 1 Tim. 2:11-14, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. [1] For Adam was formed first, then Eve”); 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-10 (“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. . . . For [2] man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [3] neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have a sign of authority over her own head”). Instead of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, Davidson argues against Paul's inspired interpretation of the Genesis narrative.

Scripture must be allowed to interpret Scripture. This method of Bible study defines us as Protestants and as Seventh-day Adventists. The Protestant reformers understood that to concede that a panel of scholars—a magisterium—was required to rightly interpret Scripture was to concede that Rome had been right all along, and that the Reformation had been a mistake. Scripture must be interpreted not by a council of learned doctors of the church but by reference to other Scriptures. As the Westminster Confession (1646), a typical Reformed statement of faith, puts it:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one [one Spirit inspired it]), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Ellen White concurs with this historic Protestant principle and methodology:

The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning of the word. By comparing different texts treating on the same subject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scriptures will be made evident. Fundamentals of Christian Education 187

Applying the principle that Scripture is its own expositor, we must submit to the Bible's own interpretation of the Bible facts regarding the created sexual order. Richard Davidson's interpretation must not be allowed to trump Paul's inspired interpretation, and the Pauline Epistles clearly indicate that the history of creation prior to the Fall has implications for the sexual ordering of the Christian Church.

Discussing Gen. 3:16 (“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”), Davidson concludes, correctly I think, that this should be viewed not merely as a description of the way things would henceforth be, but rather “a normative divine sentence” subjecting a wife to her husband. But although Davidson concedes that Genesis 3 is a sentence of female submission in the family, he denies that there is anything in the history of the Fall that points to male headship in the Christian Church. Here again he contradicts Paul, who finds in the history of the Fall a rationale for male headship in the church: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

Davidson's response to 1 Tim. 2 is to argue that this passage, which is commonly translated, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man,” should really be translated, “I do not permit a wife to teach or have authority over her husband.” He argues that the passage is yet another variation, or reiteration, of the household codes that command a wife to obey her husband. (See, e.g., Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1) The Greek is ambiguous, so one has to look at the context to see whether it should be translated woman/man or wife/husband. The context is public worship, i.e., what goes on in church, and assuming that the husband and wife attend the same church, putting the wife in a headship role in that church would effectively put her in authority over her own husband. Hence, Davidson's interpretation contravenes what he himself believes is the purpose of the passage, unless untenable provisos are added, such as that only single women may exercise authority in church, or only married women whose husbands attend different churches. The overwhelming majority of translations translate this passage as woman/man rather than wife/husband.

Davidson takes this same approach to 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, arguing that the Greek term should be translated “wives” rather than “women,” as in, “wives should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission . . . it is disgraceful for a wife to speak in the church.” Here again, however, if Davidson's advocacy of female headship prevails, wives will not be in submissive roles in church, even vis-a-vis their own husbands. The self-defeating nature of this interpretation is likely why, just as is also true of 1 Timothy 2, the overwhelming majority of translations render the Greek term “women” instead of “wives.”

Davidson argues that this passage addresses a specific problem in the Corinthian Church, perhaps wives disrupting the service by loudly asking questions of their husbands (if the Corinthian Christians were following the Jewish synagogue model, men and women would have been seated in different areas, thus physically separating husbands and wives). But the term “ecclesias” is plural—“the churches”--indicating that the advice applies to more than one church. Moreover, there is a legitimate question as to whether the clause “as in all the churches of the saints” in verse 33 modifies the previous clause, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” or the next clause, “Women should remain silent in the churches.” That God is a God of order and peace seems to be a general attribute of the Divinity, not an attribute that applies alone with regard to the churches. Hence, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the churches of the saints,” does not really make sense. Accordingly, several modern translations put the latter two clauses together, rather than the former two: “As in all the churches of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” If these clauses are joined, then Paul clearly was not addressing a specific problem in Corinth, but was giving general guidance about deportment in Christian Churches.

Davidson's strategy—pursued by sacrificing a rational translation of texts such as 1 Timothy 2:11 and 9 Corinthians 14:33-35—is to limit male headship to the marriage relationship and the family, denying that it applies to the organization of the church. But he does not seem to realize that in placing even more scriptural weight behind the “household codes” he is pari passu strengthening the argument for male headship in the church based upon 1 Timothy 3:

Whoever aspires to be an overseer [episkopes, bishop] desires a noble task. . . . He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Davidson would weaken the case for male headship in the church based upon passages such as 1 Timothy 2, but in so doing he inadvertently underscores the fact that, biblically, only men are heads of households, and hence only men are qualified to be overseers and fill headship roles in God's church.

Ultimately, the problem with the supposedly conservative Davidson is that his approach to this scriptural issue is not the historic Protestant and Seventh-day Adventist approach. He does not allow Scripture to be the rule of interpretation of Scripture. He analyzes passages in isolation from other passages that bear on their meaning. Few Adventist doctrines could survive this hermeneutic, if subjected to it by hostile theologians. One suspects that Davidson is trying to save Scripture from the ignominy of being out of step with the dominant culture. But, as I explored more fully in the article, “The Adventist Arab Spring,” the dominant culture (which is nowhere more dominant than in academia) is increasingly hostile to biblical values with regard to sexuality and sex roles. As we approach the end of time, it will become more and more difficult to remain faithful to Scripture while remaining, in any degree, sympathetic to the prevailing culture.

Petition asks conferences not to support Pacific Union vote

Dr. Lela Lewis authored a petition asking conferences in Pacific Union not to support its recent decision to approve ordination to gospel ministry without regard to gender. The petition does not address the theological issues surrounding ordination, but attempts to "implore God’s people to come together in the spirit of love through the power of the Holy Spirit."

[W]e the undersigned do not support Pacific Union Conference’s recent decision to go against the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists’ council in respect to women’s ordination. We believe that to do so ultimately mars the image of God in His church and His people by creating disharmony and confusion....

The petition cites the recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and Mountain View Conferences to stay in harmony with General Conference working policy, as the example each conference should follow. Both those conferences are in the Columbia Union Conference, which recently voted 209 to 51 to authorize ordination of female pastors.

Conference will not recommend bylaw change in regard to ordination

Mountain View Conference, which is within the Columbia Union, says they will support involvement of all members in church ministry, but will only do so in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist World Church as expressed by actions taken during the General Conference in business session. The statement was voted by the conference's executive committee July 23, 2012, according to a post on the Columbia Union Conference's (CUC) Facebook page. The statement can also be found on the front page of the conference's website:

Mountain View Conference Executive Comm. statement:

Due to the current and considerable dialogue in the North American Division regarding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, the Mountain View Conference Executive Committee voted the following statement:

Whereas the Mountain View Conference has a long history of actively supporting, encouraging, and empowering women in church ministries, and

Whereas the Mountain View Conference recognizes itself as an integral part of the Seventh-day Adventist World Church, it is therefore resolved:

The Mountain View Conference, following the scriptural mandate of the priesthood of all believers, and as directed by its Constitution and By Laws, intentionally chooses to continue its long-held commitment of supporting, encouraging, empowering, and celebrating the involvement of all members, regardless of gender, in church ministry. However, we will do so only in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist World Church as expressed by actions taken during the General Conference in business session. (Emphasis added)

After the CUC's July 29th vote to authorize ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender, the Pennsylvania Executive Committee voted a statement that said, "While the Columbia Union has a more general wording in its by-laws, the Pennsylvania Conference has very specific wording, which we will abide by."

Pennsylvania Conference Executive Comm. statement:

PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OFFICERS STATEMENT REGARDING THE COLUMBIA UNION ACTION ON ORDINATION

The recent Columbia Union Special Constituency Session regarding ordination without regard to gender has led to some questions from those wondering how this might affect the Pennsylvania Conference and its future actions.

The Pennsylvania Conference Officers have carefully reviewed the action of the Columbia Union Session, and have reviewed the Pennsylvania Conference Constitution and By-laws. While the Columbia Union has a more general wording in its by-laws, the Pennsylvania Conference has very specific wording, which we will abide by. This wording states that the Pennsylvania Conference policies and procedures shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

The purposes, policies and procedures of the Conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the NAD and the GC. (Pennsylvania Conference Constitution, article 3, voted 2009)

It is our belief that according to this wording we as a Conference will follow only that which the General Conference policy provides for, in regard to ordination. Our Pennsylvania Conference Constitution and By-laws Committee is not recommending a change in this wording to the Pennsylvania Conference Constituency Session this Fall.

Live blog: PUC special session at Woodland Hills, Calif.

The Pacific Union Conference's special session begins at 1 p.m. (PST). The event is being held at the Warner Center Marriott, Woodland Hills, 21850 Oxnard Street, Woodland Hills, California, 91367. ADvindicate will be covering this event via live blog, but the PUC will also be streaming the event live for those who want to watch it. According to PUC President Ricardo Graham, "This session is called to consider the following changes to the Pacific Union Bylaws. The proposed changes will enable the union to approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender, when a local conference requests such approval."

There will be two discussions and two votes on today. The motion to amend the bylaws will require a 2/3 majority to pass. The proposed change will enable the union to ordain ministers without regard to gender and that will require 50 percent plus one. The agenda can be read online.

Watch the PUC's special session.

Watch PUC special constituency session live

You can watch the Pacific Union Conference's special constituency session live August 19 at 1 p.m. (Pacific Time). A list of the delegates has been published in the July edition of the PUC Recorder. Below is the special constituency session announcement:

Notice of Pacific Union Conference Special Constituency Session

A Special Session of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will be held at the Warner Center Marriott, Woodland Hills, 21850 Oxnard Street, Woodland Hills, California, 91367 on August 19, 2012. Registration will begin at 10 a.m., with the meeting beginning at 1 p.m., August 19.

This session is called to consider the following changes to the Pacific Union Bylaws. The proposed changes will enable the union to approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender, when a local conference requests such approval. [Words highlighted in gray to be deleted; underlined words to be added]

"All In general, the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall will be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."

The Pacific Union bylaws entitle each local conference to one delegate without regard to the membership count of the conference. Additional delegates are based on a proportional basis, on the count of the membership of the conferences, made at the end of the calendar year immediately preceding the date of the regularly scheduled session.

Ricardo Graham, President

Bradford Newton, Executive Secretary

Elder Ted Wilson's Appeal for Unity

The following video is of Elder Ted Wilson on Sunday, July 29th, at the Columbia Union Conference's 2012 Special Constituency Meeting. The special meeting was called in regards to the motion of authorizing ordinations without regard to gender. Elder Wilson addressed the meeting before the vote. He appealed for unity and encouraged the delegates to wait for the new church study on this issue, which is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Using secret ballots, delegates passed the motion with 209 in favor, 51 opposed, and 9 abstentions.

For the Columbia Union's statements, video recording of the full session, and more, visit the official 2012 Special Constituency Meeting page.

Equal but Unique

Do different roles equate to gender inequality? Life is full of paradoxes. From “Jumbo shrimp” and the “Beginning of the end” to “If you didn’t get this message call me”, paradoxes don’t seem to make much sense on the surface. However, the point of a paradox is to illustrate a truth, even if the statements seem to contradict each other.

Men and women have been created equal but unique. At first glance this looks like just another paradox. However, my purpose in this article is to demonstrate from Genesis that both male-female equality and male headship were instituted by God at creation.

Genesis 1-3 lays the very foundation of Biblical manhood and womanhood. All other verses must be interpreted consistently with these chapters. Here, the twin principles of male-female equality and male headship are properly defined, instituted, and remain permanent beneficent aspects of human existence.

Equality. Man and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally.

Male headship. In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction. The model of headship is our Lord, the Head of the church who gave Himself for us. Right here is a distinction that many fail to make in our world. The antithesis to male headship is male domination. By male domination I mean the assertion of the man’s will over the woman’s will, heedless of her spiritual equality, rights and value. This article will be completely misunderstood if the distinction between male headship and male domination is not kept in mind throughout. Feminism acknowledges no such distinction.

Christian feminism argues that God created man and woman as equals in a way that excludes male headship. According to them, male headship was imposed upon Eve as a penalty for her part in the fall. It follows, in this view, that a woman’s redemption in Christ releases her from the “punishment” of male headship. What then did God intend for our manhood and womanhood at the creation?

Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He them; male and female he created them.”

Each of these three lines makes a point. Line one tells us how we got here. We came from God. Line two highlights the divine image in man. We bear a resemblance to God. Line three boldly affirms the dual sexuality of man. We are male and female.

Finally in verse 28, God pronounces His benediction on man. “God blessed them and said to them…” In His benediction, the Creator also authorizes male and female together to carry out their mission to rule the lower creation. To sum up, man was created as royalty in God’s world, male and female alike bearing the divine glory equally. Most Christian feminists would heartily agree with this paragraph. But Genesis 2 and 3 are more controversial. I must challenge a point of feminism before we move on.

As in verse 26 and 27 God refers to both male and female as man in Genesis 5:2. “He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man.”

This is a striking fact indeed. It demands explanation. After all, if any of us were Creator, would we after creating humans use the name of only one sex as a generic term for both? I expect not. Our modern prejudices could detect a whiff of “discrimination” a mile away. But God cuts across the grain of our peculiar sensitivities when He names the human race, both man and woman, “man.”

Why would God do such a thing? Why would Moses carefully record such a thing? Surely God was wise and purposeful in this decision, as He is in every other! His referring to the human race as man tells us something about ourselves. Let me suggest that it only makes sense against the backdrop of male headship. God did not name the human race “woman.” If “woman” had been the more appropriate and illuminating designation, no doubt God would have used it. He does not even use a neutral term like “persons”, no doubt to the dismay of the more politically-correct among us.

Genesis 2 So was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals “suitable for him.” But she was not equal in that she was his “helper.’ God did not create man and woman in an undifferentiated way, and their mere maleness and femaleness identify their respective roles. A man just by virtue of his manhood is called to lead for God. A woman just by virtue of her womanhood is called to help for God. The very fact that God created human beings in the dual modality of male and female cautions us in an unqualified equation of the two sexes. This profound and beautiful distinction is not a biological triviality or accident. God wants men to be men and women to be women. A man trying to be a woman repulses us, and rightly so. It is perverse. The same is true when a woman attempts be a masculine.

Must the male headship side of the paradox be taken as an insult or threat to women? Not at all. Eve was Adam’s equal in the only sense in which equality creates personal worth. Adoption into God’s family. In a parallel sense, a church member has just as much freedom and significance as a church elder. But the elder is to lead and the member is to support – no cause for offense there. I see this fallacy again and again in feminist argumentation. “Subordination = denigration” and “equality equals indistinguishability.” Where does this convoluted thinking come from? Was the Son of God slighted because He came to do the will of the Father? Is the church denigrated by its subordination to the Lord? Never. Subordination is entailed in the very nature of a helping role (Genesis 2:18).

Why then, do some fellow church members resist this teaching so energetically? One reason is incidences of male domination asserted in the name of male headship. I have seen examples of this, along with examples of hostile, dominating women. Both are wrong. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychologically compelling power. In short, feminism is an emotive reaction to male domination, driven by pain or pride. But male domination is a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine.

If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences we will be forever translating our past pain into the present where it damages ourselves and others. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, or popular hysteria, but by the pattern of gender and sexual truth taught here in the Holy Scriptures. As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This is a Biblical principle that stands forever apart from changing cultures. And when we exchange Biblical principles with culture, we can go down all kinds of wrong roads—such as the July 29th vote by the Columbia Union Committee to “ordain” women in opposition to the expressed will of the world church.

Illustration: Christian feminism claims that Jesus’ selection of twelve men as His disciples was merely a cultural accommodation designed to avoid conflict in His missionary enterprise on earth. In others words, Jesus was acting culturally and not on divine principle. Such thinking has a difficult task before it. One, it fails to explain how the foundation of the Holy City itself is based on cultural accommodation (Revelation 21:14). And two, it makes the Godhead guilty of departing from principle in the selection of initial church leadership. It is astonishing that any professed believer could bring such a charge against Him. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, and allow that they simply haven’t thought it through.

The twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem are named after the twelve Apostles, and the gates are named after the twelve Tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:10-14). By permanently building cultural accommodation into the eternal foundation of the home of the redeemed, “christian feminism” makes the Lord guilty of immortalizing temporal cultural “exclusiveness.” This powerfully illustrates the bankruptcy of feminist theology. The Holy City rests solidly upon the principles of God, not upon the shifting sands of culture. Jesus’ selection of twelve men as His apostles was an intentional and principled choice by God (John 17:6).

Summary Male-female equality and male headship are woven into the very fabric of the Bible. Feminists themselves recognize this, to quote one writer “Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible” (Rosemary Radford Ruether). This is the reason for the influx of current reinterpretations of Scripture to support their purposes. Yet it is wrong to wrest the Scriptures for any purpose. All of us have had the experience of discovering to our dismay that we have been making the Bible say what it doesn’t say. This can be turned around. To make such a discovery and then to repent is to grow in grace.

What might be the principle source of feminist angst to the Biblical text? Consider the following: there is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth. Feminism denies this principle. To them, any limitation in role threatens or reduces personal worth. But why? Why must my position dictate my significance? Simple answer. Because the world reasons this way. But the gospel tells us that our glory, and our worth is measured by our personal conformity to Jesus the Christ. The absurdity of feminism lies in its irrational demand that a woman is not complete unless she occupies a position of headship. And what do we call something with two heads? A monster.

Thoughts on the Columbia Union vote

This past Sunday, a special constituency meeting of the Columbia Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists voted to authorize the ordination of women. Despite the pleas of General Conference President Ted Wilson, who was present at the meeting and spoke twice, the vote was not even close: 209 to 51. More than eighty percent (80%) of those present and casting votes voted for the motion to authorize ordination without regard to gender. A number of thoughts occur to me in light of this extremely lopsided vote. 1) The fight over female ordination was lost, in principle, when the church allowed females to be ordained as elders. The scriptural principle of male headship in the church (which is the main reason not to ordain women) was totally eviscerated by this compromise. The fight over female ordination was lost, as a political matter, when women were hired as pastors to do jobs indistinguishable from those done by men, and given a ceremonial confirmation (commissioning) indistinguishable from that given to men. These compromises rendered the refusal to ordain women politically indefensible.

2) The calls for unity, issued by the division heads at the GC some weeks ago and by Elder Wilson personally at this meeting, were unavailing. The world church must articulate a scriptural reason, a doctrinal principle, for opposing female ordination. The mere fact that divisions representing 85% of world membership do not want to ordain women will not suffice to prevent the divisions representing the 15% from doing so. For Adventists in North America, Europe and Australia/NZ, the fact that Adventists in Chad or Zambia are not ready to ordain women is not a good reason why we shouldn't do it. This argument has been made and has failed. Principle must be met with principle, and “unity” is not a principle. If unity were an overriding principle, then we would all still be Roman Catholics; basing faith and practice upon the Bible is more important than unity for unity's sake. If there is a principled basis for opposing female ordination, the church must articulate it.

3) The church has been studying this issue for 40 years; the idea that the church needs yet another study to understand Bible truth is risible, and was, in fact, ridiculed at the CUC constituency meeting. (Potomac Conference President William Miller stated, “One of our favorite pastimes as denomination is to commission another study.”) Ted Wilson knows how the SDA Church works at the highest levels, and he has concluded that another study will be helpful, perhaps as a parliamentary maneuver to prepare the issue for a church-wide vote at San Antonio. But there is no need for another study to see that there obviously is a doctrine of male headship in Scripture. Biblically, this is not a close question, but a closed question. We instinctively defend Sabbath-keeping, but the New Testament authority for keeping the Sabbath is insignificant in comparison to New Testament authority for patriarchy, for male headship in the home and in the church.

4) Although the doctrine of male headship is clear in Scripture, it is an issue that divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals wish to ignore the doctrine, whereas conservatives would uphold it. Studies by panels of “experts” and “theologians” merely reveal who is liberal and who is conservative. Liberals will always conclude that the verses pointing to patriarchy and male headship in the church are culturally conditioned and hence may safely be ignored. Conservatives will always conclude that it is not safe to brush these passages aside, if only because we will soon be brushing aside every verse in conflict with today's culture (most immediately with respect to homosexuality). Ultimately, the question is whether this is a liberal or a conservative church. I had assumed that the SDA Church was a conservative church, but, in light of this lopsided vote, the best that can be said is that the Adventist Church in North America is conservative on many issues, but has blind spots on important biblical issues, such as human sexuality and sex roles.

5) If the church is going to reverse the vote of the Columbia Union constituency (and the upcoming vote of the Pacific Union constituency) the only way forward is to draft a fundamental belief regarding male headship in the church and bring it up for a vote at the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio. Only if there is an actual, bona fide, doctrine of male headship, which is violated by female ordination, can the church in North America and the developed world be brought to heel. It isn't too late to win this struggle, but it is too late if Ted Wilson and other conservative church leaders believe that appeals to unity, or appeals to wait for yet another study, can stop the momentum behind female ordination. I know that Ted Wilson wants to uphold Bible truth, and liberal machinations during the Paulsen tenure have left him in a weak position. But we cannot wait two more years to start making the biblical case for male headship in the church. We have to start promoting this doctrine now, while many Adventists are still open-minded on the issue. Most of those who are still willing to accept a doctrine of male headship in the church are now in other parts of the world, not in North America, but we had better start supporting them with Scriptural arguments now, not in two years.

6) It is important to emphasize that the vote in the Pacific Union on August 19 is not limited to the question of female ordination. The vote in the Pacific Union would alter the bylaws of that union, so that the union's working policies need not always be in compliance with the working policies of the GC and the North American Division. In effect, the Pacific Union is giving itself the right to ignore the world church, not just on female ordination but on any issue it chooses. Because this involves a change to the bylaws, the motion must carry by a two-thirds majority. (As we have seen, the motion in the Columbia Union carried by much more than two thirds, but that motion was limited to the issue of ordination.) My sense is that most of the delegates to the August 19 meeting are unaware of the sweeping nature of this change. If you know a delegate to this meeting, please make them aware that they are deciding whether to give the PUC effective carte blanche to ignore the world church whenever it wants to.

'One wife husband'

Observations of 1 Timothy 3:1,2 & Titus 1:5,6

Both proponents and opponents of women’s ordination have staked their claim to divergent interpretations of 1 Timothy 3:1,2 and Titus 1:5,6. While some see a plain reading of the verses as clear enough, others are challenging these passages with legitimate, yet more complex textual arguments. What did Paul mean when he wrote that a “bishop . . . [should be] the husband of one wife”? Or literally translated- “a bishop . . . [should be] a one wife husband“? Some view this passage through the lens of “culture”- claiming it should be applied to different times and places in “relevant“ ways. In a future article I will review why the “culturally-conditioned” argument is nothing more than subjectivism since it relies on conjectures, guesses and the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, etc.) rather than the biblical text. Furthermore, it constantly changes with time and location. Recently, some have jettisoned the “culturally-conditioned” argument for a “leading of the Spirit” one. Going so far as to claim that the Spirit cannot fall on the church until it ordains women as pastors and elders. Unfortunately, this is biblically untenable. The conditions for the “Latter Rain” are clearly outlined in Acts 2,3 and Revelation 3:18-20- and women‘s ordination is nowhere mentioned. One often hears the assertion “no conference, union or church should stand in the way of God‘s calling to me . . .” In my last article, we saw that the position of “pastor” (poimen) can indeed be filled by a women- since it is a “Spiritual Gift.” However, the functions of the “pastor” are NOT the same as those of the “bishop” (episkopos) and the “elder” (presbuteros) which are NOT spiritual gifts! Certain objective qualifications must be met before one can “apply“ for those positions (including 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Furthermore, the Spirit does NOT lead the church independently from the written Word He inspired. If some feel God is leading them to become “Bishops“ or “Elders,” the only way to confirm this would be with the “Measuring stick” of Scripture.

Still others feel that to continue “debating theology” is not “biblically practical”, that we don’t need theoretical perspectives, but to focus on being “mission-driven.” They see this “theological” argument as getting in the way of the mission of the church, an ecclesiological issue. But instead of carefully examining the text of Scripture and following a “thus saith the Lord”, they are using pragmatic and emotional reasons (women “pastors” in China, etc.) to buttress their position. “Legal” but questionable policy changes are being hastily pursued in order to vote in changes before the world church can study the issue and respond. These efforts, based on faulty hermeneutics, threaten to further disrupt the global unity of the church.

While this “mission-driven-movement” sounds nice and very “Adventist,” if it is not on rooted in Scripture, but on policy or ecclesiology- the efforts will be unsuccessful. For all these reasons (and others), it is helpful to re-visit the texts upon which those who oppose and affirm women “elders” are based: 1 Timothy 3:1,2 and Titus 1:5-7. My purpose is not to present a scholarly exegesis- but an overview of the clear textual evidence.

Grammatical Considerations

“The fact of gender, when considering a word in isolation, is of little importance . . . But in analyzing a sentence as a whole, gender may play a key role, especially when considered along with the adjectives, pronouns, and relative clauses that may be present. Taking note of the gender may alter altogether what a sentence may seem to be saying in English.” Interestingly, in Titus 1:5, the word “elder” (presbuteros) is in the accusative masculine. In the context of verses 5-7, nine of the descriptive nouns and adjectives of presbuteros are in the masculine. In 1 Timothy 3:2, the word for “bishop” (episkopos) is also in the accusative masculine. In the context of 1 Timothy 3:2, there are eight descriptive nouns and adjectives which are also in the masculine. These grammatical parallels seem more than just coincidental. While it doesn’t definitively show that an “elder” or “bishop” should be a “male,” it is grammatically consistent with that conclusion and strongly points that way.

Lexical Considerations

1. “Elder,” “bishop,” “pastor” are different, distinct offices

In the last article we saw that the offices of “elder,” “bishop,” and “pastor” (presbuteros, episkopos, poimen) are distinct, although (as we noted) there is some overlap between them. To summarize the findings: the “elder” (presbuteros) deals primarily with executive, administrative and judicial areas of church policy. The “bishop” (episkopos) has supervisory, investigative and guardianship functions, while the “pastor” (poimen) is nurturing, guarding and teaching. We also saw that the “elder” and “bishop” are recognized and selected based upon external, objective criteria (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-8). After evaluation of the candidates based on these biblical standards, they are ordained. On the other hand, as we mentioned, the “pastor” is a spiritual gift that is recognized and affirmed without ordination and an explicit list of “external” qualifications. I described what seemed to be modern equivalent of these positions in the church today. (Please see previous article.)

The significance of these findings can’t be overstated, especially where Christians assert the Holy Spirit’s calling to be a “pastor”. Obviously, the word “pastor” doesn’t have the same meaning that it did in the Bible. So the etymology of this English word has undergone some changes since the New Testament. If one takes the position that the Holy Spirit has given them this gift then the position that they should fill is the poimen. However, if they desire to fulfill the role of the episkopos or presbuteros, even if they are called by the Spirit, they must be evaluated by criteria found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-7. The claim of the Spirit’s leading does not supersede the Spirit’s inspired word, which is used to “test” all “callings”.

2. Lexical (dictionary) meanings for episkopos and presbuteros are delineated for “men”

A word never means what it never meant. The purpose of a lexical (“dictionary”) definition, is to find out what a word meant at the time it was written. An important clue to what episkopos and presbuteros mean today is to understand their meaning when Paul penned Titus and 1 Timothy in the first century A.D. In order to do this, analytical, critical and theological Greek New Testament lexicons, expository Greek dictionaries, Greek-English concordances and New Testament Greek theological wordbooks should be consulted in order to understand. Strong’s Concordance has several weaknesses that I addressed in my previous article and should be probably be avoided when doing serious Bible study (at least it should not be used by itself).

A summary of the definitions are as follows:

Episkopos

1. “The name given in Athens to the MEN sent into subdued states to conduct their affairs”
2. “A MAN charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others rightly”

Presbuteros

1. “A body of old MEN” (presbuterion) ; “An old MAN” (presbus, presbutis)
2. “Rulers of people, judges, etc., selected from elderly MEN”
3. “Aged MEN” ; “In the Christian church they were MEN appointed”
4. “Old MEN of the Jewish Sanhedrin” “Officers in the congregation of the Jewish Synagogue”

Interestingly, one area that was intentionally left out of my last study, was the significant use of masculine names (“men,” “man,”) when defining presbuteros and episkopos. Since the purpose of that study was only to show that there is a difference between the three offices, these were omitted. However, from a lexical standpoint, it seems likely that both the “elder” and “bishop” were to be served by men. There is no dictionary definition from the era the New Testament was written that define these Greek words as being filled by “women.” This isn’t a “cultural” issue since the “men” were from both the believing “Jewish community“ (Jewish Sanhedrin, etc.) and the non-believing “Greek community” (Athenian statesmen, politicians). This further strengthens the case against gender neutral inclusion for an episkopos or presbuteros.

3. The lexical (dictionary) definition for “Aner” is limited to three possibilities

As with the preceding section, we must also understand what the meaning of the word translated “husband” (aner) was in the First Century. These meanings are:

1. An adult human male (of full age and stature- as opposed to a child or female)
2. A husband
3. A human being, an individual; someone; a person, generally (in terms of address)

Interestingly, in all the lexicons consulted (around 12), the word aner never means a “female,” “woman,” etc., but can refer to “people in general.” On the other hand, it definitely refers to a “male” or a “husband.” The third definition shouldn’t be considered in Timothy or Titus, since the phrase “human being of one wife” makes no sense. “One wife husband,” or “one woman man” seem to be the clear interpretation of “aner.” Since the context refers to “children” (1 Tim. 3:4) a “wife” (v. 2) and a “house” (v. 4), the most logical and contextually consistent interpretation would be to translate “aner“ as “husband”. Therefore, the Greek phrase “mias gunaikos andra (aner)” should probably be translated “one wife husband.”

Why did Paul use a word that may not always be referring to a “male” (aner) rather than a word that always refers to a “man” (arsen - pronounced “Are-sane”)? Because arsen does not lexically mean “husband.” It seems that Paul was trying to convey both “maleness” and “marriedness” within the same word. Therefore, the best word he could have used is aner. Another word anthropos also means a “male”, but like arsen, doesn’t define the marital status as aner does. Understanding aner as being a “(male) husband” is a significant point buttressing the argument that a “bishop” must be a “ married man.”

Comparative Considerations

There are 215 references for the word aner in the New Testament. Of these, about 40% do not have “contextual markers.” A “marker” is a word(s) the author uses in context to identify which lexical (dictionary) meaning he intends for the word in question. These 40% are translated in the general sense of “humanity,” “people,” etc. Interestingly, however, when aner is to be interpreted as a “man” or “husband”, there are contextual markers that support that understanding. The remaining 60% have at least one of the following contextual markers:

• NAME OF THE MAN: Mentioned in the immediate context (“Joseph”- Matt. 1:16; “Peter”- Luke 5:8; “Jairus”- Luke 8:41; “Zaccheus”- Luke 19:2; “Adam”- 1 Tim. 2:12; etc.).
• FEMALE GENDER WORDS: In contradistinction from “males” in the same context (“Aged Women”- Titus 2:5; “Woman”- 1 Cor. 11:7; etc.).
• MARRIAGE WORDS: Speak of a “male’s spouse” in contrast to himself (“Wife”- Mark 10:2, 12; “Wives”- Eph. 5:24,25; “Widows”- 1 Tim. 5:9; etc.).
• FAMILY WORDS: Referring to male/female relations and progeny (“Women and children”- Matt. 14:21/Mk 6:44; “Father”- Lk 9:38; etc.).
• REPRODUCTION WORDS: Contrasting a “male” with “female characteristics” (“Virginity”- Luke 2:36; “Adulteress”- Rom. 7:2; “adulterer”- Rom. 7:2,3; “Childbearing,“ etc.).
• CONTEXT: There are times when the context makes it explicitly clear that “males“ are being spoken of (“twelve disciples”- Acts 1:21; The “Apostles”- Acts 5:25; “seven deacons”- Acts 6:3; etc.).

In 1 Timothy 3:2 there are several contextual markers that identify that a “male” is being spoken of: “Wife” (3:2; “Childbearing” (2:15), and “Woman” (2:11,12,14). In Titus 1:5,6, there is the marker “Wife” present. This contextual evidence strongly implies that a “bishop” and “elder” should only be a “male.”

Syntactical Considerations

The words “one woman man” or “one wife husband” (mias gunaikos andra) is an interesting and unusual way to communicate this phrase. If Paul wanted to convey a married man, why didn’t he say “a bishop must be a man who is married”? When we look at the syntax (sentence structure) we see that he was describing the quality or character of the man as well as his marital status.

The Greek word for “woman” is gune, and refers to any adult female (including wives). The King James Version translates gune as "woman" 129 times and "wife" 92 times. In 1 Timothy 3:2, gune (gunaikos) is “in the genitive and therefore deals with attribution. It may refer to relationship or quality, for the genitive defines by attributing a quality or relationship to the noun which it modifies."

Tony Capoccia has made the following insightful comment regarding the genitive:

“This should not be considered a possessive genitive, for that would mean that the word in the genitive indicates one who owns or possesses the noun it modifies. In that case the translation would be "a man owned by one woman." Nor can this be considered as a genitive of relationship ("a man who has [possesses] one wife") for there is no indication within the phrase or context that that relationship is implied. It is best to understand this "gunaikos" as being a genitive of quality, that is, giving a characteristic to the noun it modifies.”

The noun andra is the accusative singular of aner. “This accusative functions here as an object of the main verb ‘be’ along with a long list of other accusative nouns and participles. Stated simply, the clause is ‘Therefore . . . an elder must be . . . a man . . .’ The words ‘one woman’ modify "man" to explain what kind, or to qualify the noun by attributing to him this character.” N.T. Greek scholar Robertson adds that genitive of quality (also called attributive genitive). ‘expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness.’ “Since the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man” or “a one-wife type of husband”.

In conclusion, the unique way of expressing the phrase “one wife husband” was Paul’s method of representing the “character” of "the bishop" ("ton episkopon") as well as his marital status. Syntax doesn’t negate the lexical, contextual and comparative evidence that has already shown that aner also refers to a “male husband.” Rather, the syntax shows what KIND of a “husband” Paul is referring to. Scholar Getz makes the following observation: "Paul needed it very clear that an elder in the church was to be a 'one-wife man' — loyal to her and her alone." The emphasis of sentence structure shows that the “bishop” must be completely faithful to his wife, and emphasizes moral purity. The syntax does not change the marital or gender status that we have already affirmed; it only clarifies its quality.

Theological/Contextual Considerations

The context of 1 Timothy 3:1,2 extends back into chapter two. The foundation of what Paul lays for the office of the episkopos, is rooted in the creation and fall account of Genesis two and three. The issue of “teaching” and “women keeping silence” is the subject of my next article, so I won’t address this interesting topic now. We see Paul addressing the “authority” of man over a “woman” for two reasons. First, “Adam was formed first” (v. 13). Second, “Adam was not deceived” (v. 14). Genesis two and three give us some clues of Adam’s role as the leader/head of his “home”:

1. God gave Adam instructions on how to care for the Garden (2:15)
2. God instructed Adam in regards to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
3. Adam named all the living creatures (2:19,20)
4. Adam named “the Woman” (2:23)
5. Only after Adam ate the fruit, were their “eyes opened” (3:7)
6. God called unto “Adam” first (3:9)
7. Man shall leave parents, “cleave” unto his wife- a sign of protection, guardian

Interestingly, the roles of the episkopos and presbuteros are similar to those seen in Adam’s functions. The executive and administrative roles of the presbuteros are seen in Adam’s naming the animals, directing the custody of the garden, and naming of “the Woman”. The supervisory and investigative functions are seen in Adam’s role as the informant of God’s will concerning the Tree of Knowledge and man’s “leaving father and mother.” The second reason for man’s “authority” over “woman” was rooted in the statement “Adam was not deceived.” Adam momentarily “investigated” the matter in his mind and knew what was right. He chose to follow his wife, however, and sinned blatantly. His ability to discern the deception (while Eve did not) play a role in why Paul mentions that “Adam was not deceived.” However, most importantly, Paul’s foundation for 1 Timothy 3 is rooted in the Genesis creation and fall account, not culture.

Conclusions

Our overview of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 shows that a convincing biblical argument can be made for a “male” “elder” or “bishop”. Grammatical considerations showed that contextual nouns and adjectives are in the masculine, thus matching the genders for episkopos and presbuteros. The lexical considerations gave additional evidence that the offices of the episkopos and presbuteros, whether as “rulers of people, judges, statesmen, Sanhedrin, etc.”, were filled by “men.” Furthermore, the definition for aner (“husband”) supports a “male”/“husband” understanding over “humans in general.” A comparative study (using contextual markers) demonstrated that aner, when referring to a “male,” contains at least one each in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. Further supporting the contention that Paul intended “males” to be the episkopos and presbuteros in the church. The syntactical considerations emphasizes the character of the “husband” while not negating the gender. Finally, the theological/contextual considerations shows that the office of episkopos (and by extension the presbuteros) are rooted in the creation and fall account, not in culture.

References

All references for this article are available in a PDF file. Download PDF here.

Two unions lobby for female pastoral ordination

The Columbia Union and the Pacific Union both plan special constituency meetings at which there will be a vote on whether to authorize the ordination of female pastors. The Columbia Union constituency meeting is set for July 29, and the Pacific Union constituency meeting is set for August 19. The presidents of these unions have abandoned any pretense of neutrality, and are strongly urging their constituents to endorse women's ordination. Dave Weigley, President of the Columbia Union Conference, and Ricardo Graham, President of the Pacific Union Conference, have written editorials in favor of female ordination, and beyond that, both have dedicated the July issue of their respective union news outlets to arguing for female ordination.

Part I: The Columbia Union Visitor

In the July issue of the Columbia Union's monthly paper, The Visitor, Elder Dave Weigley sets out his reasons for supporting female ordination:

“Since we announced plans to hold a special constituency meeting July 29, I’ve discovered that many members, pastors and leaders support our request to authorize ordination of women clergy. They realize that although we continue to debate the issue theologically, it’s largely cultural.”

But is it a merely cultural issue? Paul based his teaching of male headship in the church on the history of creation and the Fall. (2 Timothy 2:11-14) Because the doctrine of male headship is rooted in facts of history that do not change and are the same for every culture, this apostolic mandate is eternal and trans-cultural.

Elder Weigley continues:

In his new book titled Where Are We Going? Jan Paulsen, immediate past president of our world church, writes, “The church has never taken the view that biblical teachings exclude the possibility of women being ordained to ministry on an equal footing with men. But global leadership has felt that local readiness and perceptions—heavily influenced by culture—have thus far kept us from moving forward on this as a global community.” (p. 12)

The first sentence quoted from Elder Paulsen is true: the SDA Church has not put this issue on a doctrinal basis. Given the clarity of Scripture, it should have done so long ago, but it has not. It seems very unlikely, however, that all opposition to female ordination is merely cultural and not scripturally based.

Elder Weigley, in what has become typical of liberal argumentation, appeals to the Holy Spirit in justification of what is not in accordance with the Scriptures the Spirit inspired:

1. I can no longer dismiss the evidence of the Spirit’s moving in China and other parts of the world where women are advancing the mission of the church as promised in Joel 2.

China is transitioning from the extreme persecution of Christianity to a more tolerant attitude toward faith. After communists took power in 1949, foreign missionaries were expelled and all ties were cut between Chinese Christianity and Christianity in other countries. Even today, no foreign ties are tolerated, hence the church in China has no connection to the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church. The practice of having women in leadership roles developed by necessity during times of persecution, when male pastors were often imprisoned. Frequently, “old uncles” guided the churches from the background. It is wonderful that God has used women to skirt persecution in China. It does not follow from the Chinese situation, however, that Christians who are free to practice their religion according to the dictates of conscience should set aside clear scriptural guidelines.

And of course the reference to Joel 2:28-29 is not persuasive:

“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”

No one disputes that the gift of prophecy can be given to both men and women. The Bible affords several examples of female prophets (Judges 14:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9), and, obviously, a female prophet was crucial to the founding of this denomination. But the fact that women can be and have been given the gift of prophecy---a fact of which Paul was fully aware (1 Cor. 11:5)---does not set aside the apostolic mandate of male headship. To the contrary, in the very same passage in which Paul writes of women prophesying, he also notes that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man . . .” (1 Cor. 11:3)

Elder Weigley continues:

2. In the early days, our church saw the value of encouraging both genders to serve according to their calling, and history tells of female pastors, missionaries, evangelists, conference presidents and General Conference treasurers (see pp. 16-17). In New York at the turn of the 19th century, for example, women won 60 percent of our converts.

Several of the examples are husband-wife evangelistic teams, not female senior pastors. Opponents of female ordination or female headship do not dispute that women have a vital and indispensable role to play in evangelism, soul-winning, bible work, social-welfare-charity outreach, etc. The issue is female headship in the church, which is not scripturally a woman's prerogative.

The rest of Elder Weigley's arguments are premised upon the assumption that opposition to female headship in the church is merely cultural, and that the issue is mere “policy,” rather than a scriptural or doctrinal principle:

3. We already accommodate policy variances in some places for practical purposes, cultural sensitivities or to advance our mission, e.g., polygamy, labor unions, women’s ordination. In our cultural context, this issue has moral and ethical implications.
4. Only recently has there been an attempt to have us walk lockstep in policy. Our pioneers would have been hampered by such uniformity.
5. Mission should drive policy, not vice versa. As policies become outdated or problematic for the advancement of the gospel, we revise or abolish them, and/or create new ones.

In addition to Dave Weigley's editorial, several other articles in The Visitor advocate for female headship in the church, including: “Why We're Advocating for Women's Ordination,” “Understanding Ordination,” “11 Pioneering Women Ministers,” and “Time Line: The Road to Ordination.”

In “Why We're Advocating for Women's Ordination,” the authors address the concern that women's ordination will lead to acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as follows: “That's an unfounded leap because these topics are in no way related. The church's stance on marriage is doctrinal (See, Fundamental Belief # 23) and we, therefore, affirm it.” Later, in responding to the charge that the Columbia Union is rebelling against the world-wide SDA Church, they say, “If this were theological or even doctrinal, we would continue to deny the requests we receive for female ordination from our conferences. But this is an ecclesiastical practice that . . . holds no Biblical mandate.” And again, later in the article, “But this is a matter of practice, not doctrinal belief. We are united with the world church in doctrine, mission and Spirit.”

Clearly, the failure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to have articulated, long before now, a scriptural doctrine of male headship has made it difficult to maintain discipline among the church's various administrative units on this issue. Had such a doctrine been articulated, the Columbia Union would, by its own admission, be compelled to abide by that doctrine. But because the issue has not been framed as doctrinal, the liberal unions call it a question of mere “policy,” and feel at liberty to ignore the repeated verdict of the world church in General Conference Session. It is crucial that the Church at the General Conference level articulate that male headship in the Christian Church is not mere “policy,” but Bible doctrine.

The Visitor also relies on the fact that the General Conference has already fatally compromised the principle of male headship by allowing the ordination of female elders in those divisions that want to do so:

“We are already united in our practice of ordaining both men and women to ministry at every level except one – pastoral. . . . To be commissioned as a pastor, she must be ordained as an elder first.”

Since the ordination of female elders violates the principle of male headship in the church, the Church, if it ever recognizes such a principle as Bible doctrine, will need to “walk back” the policy of ordaining female elders. Needless to say, such a reversal will be very difficult to accomplish. The advocates of female headship (but sadly not their opponents) were looking to the future when they achieved this compromise.

Part II: The Pacific Union Recorder

The Pacific Union Recorder also has devoted most of its July issue to lobbying for female ordination. The articles are “Our Praise Shall Ascend” (an editorial by Ricardo Graham), “The Campbellite and Mrs. White,” “What Haskell Said,” “A Pastor's Perspective,” and “Following the Heart of Jesus” (a condensed sermon by Ricardo Graham). In addition, a notice of the Special Constituency Session is posted, and the name of every delegate is listed (subjecting them to lobbying and importuning for a period of about six weeks, until August 19). The articles are all translated into Spanish, Elder Graham probably correctly anticipating that opposition to female headship will be stronger in the Spanish-language community than among English-speakers.

In the article “Following the Heart of Jesus,” Elder Graham argues that the trajectory of Jesus' teaching leads to radical equality between men and women:

“What is the bull’s eye? Equality and unity in the church. There can be no unity without equality and inclusion. The church must seek to follow the natural progression of Jesus’ trajectory, all the way to the mark.”

But the trajectory of Christ's teachings is best seen in His own actions, and Christ ordained twelve male disciples (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; DA 290-297) but not a single woman among His sizable cohort of female followers (Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:27-30). Ellen White makes clear that the calling of the 12 male disciples included ordination:

“When Jesus had ended His instructions to the disciples, He gathered the little band close about Him, and kneeling in the midst of them, and laying His hands upon their heads, He offered a prayer dedicating them to His sacred work. Thus the Lord's disciples were ordained to the gospel ministry.” Desire of Ages, p. 296.

Elder Graham is essentially arguing that Christ would do things differently if He came to earth today, instead of two millennia ago, but we can use this uncabined rationale any time we find it inconvenient to follow Christ's example, and need a handy excuse not to do so.

Elder Graham acknowledges that Paul wrote, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12), but counters this text as follows:

“We must remember that God spoke to and through a patriarchal, male-dominated society. The men in biblical times were, to put it bluntly, sexists. We should not, however, assume that because the society was sexist that God is sexist or that the modern church needs to be.”

Putting to one side the repeated use of the loaded term “sexist,” God did, in fact, create a patriarchal world. Adam was created first, and Eve was created out of Adam's rib, a suitable helper or “helpmate” for Adam. (Gen. 2:18-25) Adam was not created after Eve, to be a helpmate for Eve. Matrilineal societies are very rare, and true matriarchies probably non-existent (which gives some indication of the radical nature of the Western cultural elite's push toward a post-patriarchal society).

God also created a patriarchal religion. The pagan religions of the ancient world had multiple gods and goddesses. (See, e.g., Acts 19:27-28) Frequently, the same god had both a male and a female form, across several different cultures, and it was not rare for pagan religions to have female priestesses. But the God of Judaism and Christianity is always referred to by the male pronoun, and was never served by female priestesses. It is often remarked that Judaism was the first great monotheistic religion, but it is just as remarkable, though not as often remarked, that it was the first mono-gendered religion. When God was incarnated in human form, He came in the form of a man. And although Christ had followers of both sexes, as noted above He ordained only men. God is not “sexist,” but God did create sex differences and a sexual order, and He did specify differing gender roles in the home and in religious worship.

Part III: The Change to the Pacific Union's Bylaws is Not Limited to Ordination

It is important to examine the changes to its bylaws that the Pacific Union wishes its constituents to approve. The terms that are struck through are to be deleted, and the terms in brackets and in [bold] are to be added:

"All [In general], the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall [will] be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."

As presently worded, the bylaws state that ALL Pacific Union policies, purposes and procedures SHALL be in harmony with NAD and GC working polices and procedures. There are NO exceptions. With this change, the Pacific Union would give itself permission to be out of compliance with General Conference and NAD working policies and procedures not just on female ordination, but on any issue it suits them to be out of compliance, as long as they “generally” or usually comply.

Obviously, the implications of this change go far beyond the issue of female ordination. Elder Graham acknowledges this in his article, “Our Praise Shall Ascend,” when he states, “It is important that we make the small changes in the bylaws, not just for the immediate discussion surrounding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, but to provide room for the Spirit's leading in all that we do.” (emphasis added) The constituents may believe that they are voting on female ordination, but they are actually voting on whether to give the Pacific Union permission to ignore GC and NAD working policy whenever it wants to. By this change to its bylaws, the Pacific Union is making an astonishing move toward secession from the world church.

It is possible that this change could have a bearing on the origins pedagogy controversy at La Sierra. The Adventist Accrediting Association (AAA) exists to ensure that the Adventist philosophy of education is implemented at Adventist schools like La Sierra. And where is the Adventist philosophy of education articulated? In General Conference Working Policy:

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes that God, the Creator and Sustainer of the earth, and the entire universe, is the source of knowledge and wisdom. In His image, God created man perfect. Because of sin, man lost his original estate. Christian education, by perfecting faith in Christ, restores in man the image of his Maker, nurtures in man an intelligent dedication to the work of God on earth and develops in man a practical preparation for conscientious service to his fellow men.”

This creation-centric philosophy of education, articulated in GC working policies that the Pacific Union would like to give itself permission to ignore, is not being implemented at La Sierra, which teaches that the human race descended from an apelike hominoid. If the constituents pass the requested change to the bylaws, La Sierra can respond to AAA by noting that, as a Pacific Union institution, La Sierra does not have to abide by General Conference working policy in every particular, only “in general.” This might seem a stretch, but it should be noted that, pursuant to the incestuous system of interlocking boards by which the SDA Church is governed, Randal Wisbey is on the Pacific Union Executive Committee that wants these changes to its bylaws, and Wisbey is always two or three tactical steps ahead of the creationists who would like to return La Sierra to the Seventh-day Adventist philosophy of education. The requested bylaw change plays into Wisbey's hands.

Southern Calif. Conference votes for women's ordination

A Southern California Conference (SCC) survey shows significant support for women's ordination from pastors, executive committee members and lay members of the region committees. However, only 45 percent responded to the survey, and of the 71 pastors who responded, 66 percent thought women's ordination was a cultural issue. The SCC voted May 1, 2012, to support ordination of women to gospel ministry and to encourage the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee to implement its action after receiving the reports from the surveys.

SCC Women's Ordination Survey

2SCC Votes to Support Ordination of Women