For the third time, in July 2015, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will vote on the topic of women's ordination. Three contradictory positions were biblically justified by theologians. This article takes a scrutinizing look at… by Kai Mester
At the October 14, 2014 General Conference Fall Session, three positions on the issue of women's ordination were presented. In the committee that had studied the subject, no agreement could be reached. Therefore, three theologians were asked to present the different positions to the delegates in 20 minutes each. Of course, more detailed written reports are also available. They are publicly available on the Internet.
This article intends to give an insight into the three positions (in capital letters) and at the same time to comment on them (in normal type). At the forthcoming plenary session of the General Conference in July 2015, a binding decision on this is to be taken by democratic vote.
DR. CARL COSAERT OF WALLA WALLA UNIVERSITY COMMITTED TO WOMEN'S ORDINATION FULLY: http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/theology-of-ordination-position-no.-2
Naturally, Cosaert primarily tried to invalidate the arguments against the ordination of women. FOR IN THE BIBLE, HE SAYS, THERE ARE NEITHER PRIESTESSES NOR APOSTLESES. ALSO, PAUL DOES NOT ALLOW THE WOMAN TO TEACH OR EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER MEN, REASONING THE CREATIONAL ORDER.
HOWEVER, COSAERT ARGUMENTS THAT JESUS INTRODUCED THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS AND MADE WOMAN EQUAL TO MAN (GALATIANS 3,28:XNUMX), an argument which in fact no one disputes. The question is whether this also eliminates any allocation of roles. COSAERT CONTINUES TO SAY THAT BOTH MEN AND WOMEN HAVE RECEIVED THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS SINCE THIS TIME. Everyone agrees on this too.
Let's look at the arguments further: THE PAULINEN PROHIBITION TO WOMEN IN 1 TIMOTHY 2 MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CHURCH DEDICATION IN EPHESUS. There the women would have joined false teachers, which is why their license to teach was withdrawn. This is where you need to pay attention. Is the Bible verse reinterpreted here by a so-called reframing as if it could no longer have any meaning for today?
COSAERT CONTINUES: IN OTHER PLACES PAUL ALSO NAMES WOMEN IN LEADERS: EUODIA, SYNTYCHE AND PHOEBE (PHILIPPIANS 4,2.3:16,1; ROMANS XNUMX:XNUMX). Euodia and Syntyche are named as gospel workers. All agree that women have always had a great role in spreading the gospel. Not addressed here, however, is the issue of elder (overseer, bishop) ordination, an office held in our church by church leaders and pastors. Phoebe, in turn, served only as a deaconess.
COSAERT FURTHER EXPLAINS THAT EVE'S FALL ONLY MENTIONS PAUL AS A POWERFUL ILLUSTRATION OF THE DANGER OF TEMPTATION TO WOMEN. HE LISTED THE ORDER OF CREATION TO SHOW THAT GOD NEVER WANTED WOMAN TO RULE MAN, BUT TO STAND AT HIM'S SIDE WITH AN EQUAL RIGHT. THAT ADAM WAS CREATED FIRST DID NOT GIVE HIM AUTHORITY OVER HIS WIFE. RATHER THAT THE WHOLE CREATION WAS A DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS COMPLETENESS.
But if you read the text impartially, it is difficult to follow this logic completely:
“Likewise I want women to adorn themselves with modesty and discipline, in honorable propriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or elaborate clothing, but with good works, as befits women who profess godliness. A woman should learn in silence, in all submission. But I do not allow a woman to teach [man], nor to rule over man, but she is to keep quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression; but she shall be kept from it by bearing children, if they persist in faith and love and sanctification with discipline.” (1 Timothy 2,9:15-XNUMX)
The context of this section of the letter also offers too few arguments for a purely cultural interpretation.
ACCORDING TO COSAERT, 1 CORINTHIANS 11 ALSO REFERS TO A SPECIAL CULTURAL CHURCH SITUATION IN WHICH WOMEN BROUGHT SHAME ON THEIR HUMAN PARTIES. THEREFORE PAUL SAYS THAT WOMAN WAS CREATED TO BRING HONOR TO MAN. BUT HE ALSO SAY THAT NO MAN IS BORN WITHOUT A WOMAN. THEREFORE, MEN SHOULD ALSO DO HONOR TO THEIR WIVES. IN ADDITION, THIS CHAPTER WAS NOT ABOUT QUESTIONS OF GOVERNANCE, AUTHORITY, OR ORDINATION. WOMAN'S RIGHT TO PUBLIC PRAYER AND PROPHECYING IS EVEN EMPHASIZED HERE.
Cosaert may be largely right about that. But the real point of this chapter in relation to the ordination of women is: "I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ... The man... is the image and glory of God; but woman is the honor of man. For man does not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11,3.7.8:XNUMX) If Paul was indeed – and we believe he was – an inspired writer, then it is difficult to describe him statements to deny their general validity.
COSAERT LISTS THE THREE PROPHETESSES MIRJAM, DEBORA, AND HULDA TO SHOW THAT WOMEN HAD SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP ROLEES EARLIER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. DEBORA EVEN ACTED AS A JUDGE AND MIRJAM AS A LEADER ALONGSIDE HER BROTHERS MOSE AND AARON. Well, Miriam always stayed with her brother Aaron in the "shadow" of Moses and even became a leper for a short time when she wanted to step out of this shadow. The only leadership role that the Bible speaks of for Miriam relates to the Israelites: "All the women followed her." (Exodus 2:15,20)
As a prophetess, Hulda was merely a mouthpiece for God and held no official office in Israel. Only Debora stands out because of her male role. But she explains the reason for this extraordinary situation: »There were missing leaders in Israel, they were missing until I, Deborah, stood up, until I, a mother of Israel, stood up.« (Judges 5,7:XNUMX) This is how God likes today in extreme situations Calling and empowering women to a similar ministry. But a rule submitted to a council for a vote cannot be derived from it.
COSAERT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PAUL MENTIONS THE CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING AN ELDER OR CHURCH LEADER THAT HE MUST BE A MAN OF ONE WOMAN. HOWEVER, HE THINKS THE SAME APPLIES TO DEACONS. YET IN ROMANS 16 A DEACONESS IS CALLED. SO IT CANNOT BE DEDUCED THAT ELDERS AND DEACONS MUST BE MEN IN EVERY CASE. Clinton will address this argument further below.
FINALLY, COSAERT MENTIONS THAT ELLEN WHITE ENCOURAGED WOMEN TO SERVE IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS AND WAS SERVING IN THAT POSITION HERE. It's true: the gospel restores women to the worth and status that God intended for them, and even men who thought of themselves as important ambassadors of God have unfairly discriminated against women.
However, advocates of the ordination of women fail to appreciate the influence women are deprived of when they are blessed for the positions of leadership. The next step would certainly be the quota system at some point. Pastor's children are already having a hard time, and pastor's children will certainly have it even harder. So there are fewer and fewer second-generation men and women of God.
Few understand today that the task of mothering is more important than that of a state leader. In any case, Ellen White never held municipal office. There was no shortage of male leaders in her day either. Her husband was general conference president, not she. He also preceded her in the vision of the narrow path {2T 596.2}. She fulfilled her task as a mother and did not allow herself to be institutionalized or otherwise appropriated as a prophetic voice during her lifetime.
All in all, Cosaert's arguments are not convincing.
DR. NICHOLAS MILLER OF ANDREWS UNIVERSITY THEOLOGICAL SEMINAR WAS THE SPEAKER FOR ALL WHO WANT MEN'S ORDINATION TO BE THE RULE AND WOMEN'S ORDER TO BE A REGIONAL EXCEPTION. HOWEVER, AS THIS POSITION, THESE EXCEPTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIVISION FOR THE APPLICABLE UNION, AND NO ASSOCIATION OR LOCAL CHURCH SHOULD BE OBLIGATED TO THIS PRACTICE.
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/theology-of-ordination-position-no.-3
This is probably the most adventurous position. It is the result of the search for a peaceful compromise between the other two positions. This is intended to prevent any splitting off of those regional units of our faith community that would like to ordain women in the preaching ministry and in some cases practice this alone against the decision of the General Conference.
MILLER AGAINST THE ETERNAL SUBMISSION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER AND THEREFORE AGAINST MAN'S LEADERSHIP OVER WOMAN BEFORE THE FALL. THE MAN WAS DESTINED TO BE THE MAIN FAMILY ONLY AFTER THE FALL. ALSO MEN IN THE CHURCH ARE CALL TO LEADERSHIP, AND THEREFORE PAUL REFERS TO THE ORDER OF CREATION AND THE FALL.
Here is a flaw in his argument. How can Paul base woman's subordination to man on the order of creation—that is, man being created first—if this argument is meant to be unbiblical? According to Miller, before the Fall of Man there was no subordination, neither of woman to man, nor of the divine Son to the Father.
MILLER FURTHER ARGUES THAT DESPITE THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP MEN HAVE IN THE CHURCH, THE ONLY HEAD IN THE CHURCH IS JESUS. WOMEN SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO HIM ONLY. ALSO, THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS WOULD BE GIVEN TO BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. HOWEVER, AT THE OFFICE OF ELDERS, GENDER STILL PLAYS A ROLE. BUT IT IS JUST ONE OF SEVERAL CRITERIA AND NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT, BUT HAS A MORE PRAGMATIC AND NOT MORAL CHARACTER.
Be careful here! Many other bids could easily be pushed into the pragmatic category. As soon as a command has nothing to do with morality, it loses weight and binding force.
HOWEVER, MILLER REJECTS THE INTERPRETATION OF 1 TIMOTHY 2 AND 1 CORINTHIANS 11 AS SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL CULTURAL SITUATIONS. IF YOU FOLLOWED IT, YOU COULD SOON INTERPRET ROMANS 1 IN THIS SENSE TO LEGITIMIZE A GAY LIFESTYLE. Yes, some Protestant churches have actually preceded us on this path.
MILLER CONTINUES THAT THROUGHOUT HISTORY GOD HAS ALWAYS REACHED TO HIS PEOPLE. FOR EXAMPLE, HE GIVED INTO ISRAEL'S WISH FOR A KING, EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT THE IDEAL. HE EVEN ANNOUNCED THIS KING BY HIS PROPHET. Indeed, if we vote for women's ordination on this argument, we must be prepared for dire consequences. Unspeakable suffering came upon Israel: division, war, idolatry and exile. Certainly we are told that we are repeating the history of Israel. But you shouldn't consciously put it on!
MILLER MENTIONS THAT ZELOFHAD'S DAUGHTERS WERE ALLOWED TO INHERIT THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PROVIDED BY LAW. Well, the law of Moses was not meant to be the last word of God. It picked people up at the level where they were still approachable. Death penalty, animal sacrifice and meat consumption were required under certain conditions. However, amnesty and vegetarianism are not contrary to the spirit of the law.
Likewise, the rights of women are definitely expandable, because experience has shown that women suffered massively from men in history.
NEXT NAMES MILLER DAVID. HE WAS ABLE TO BECOME KING EVEN THOUGH HIS GREAT-GRANDMOTHER WAS A MOABITE AND ACCORDING TO MOSAIC LAW SHOULD NOT BE ADVISED TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. ALSO DAVID ATE THE SHOWBREAD, WHICH WERE RESERVED ONLY FOR THE PRIESTS.
This is true! However, God's merciful exceptions cannot be used to derive a general rule or exception, especially when it comes to civil and ceremonial aspects.
God continues to amaze us today by treading unusual paths. But does that mean we should enshrine these pathways in our charter?
THE COUNCIL OF ACTS, SO MILLER, WAS ALSO SEEKING A COMPROMISE TO PREVENT A CHURCH SPLIT. Of course it is a role model for us. But this compromise was about which Mosaic laws should be imposed on the Gentiles. Obstacles to the spread of the gospel among all peoples should be removed, but without making bad compromises.
If the general conference were to decide whether women should be allowed to baptize other women, for example in Muslim countries where it is unthinkable for many women to be touched and baptized by a stranger, I would immediately vote in favour. But that's not the point. Underlying the whole question is a much more feminist approach.
MILLER FINALLY MENTIONED THAT ELLEN WHITE SUPPORTS THAT IN REMOTE AREAS WHERE NO PREACHER IS REACH, UNCONFIRMED LAY PERSONS COULD PERFORM BAPTIZATION. ALSO STRESS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHERE MEN FAIL TO PERFORM. Absolutely agree! However, I think it is impractical to give the decision-making power to the divisions. In an emergency situation, rapid action is often required, making permits unnecessary.
Overall, Miller's argument strikes me as risky. It may have the potential to avert a split from individual regional units for the time being, but in the long term it harbors the risk of more serious consequences, as can be seen in the example of Israel.
DR. CLINTON WAHLEN OF THE BIBLICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE TAKES THE POSITION OPPOSING AGAINST WOMEN'S ORDINATION. THIS POSITION ALSO ADVERTISES ABOLISHING THE ORDINATION OF CHURCH LEADERS, WHICH HAS BEEN COMMON IN SOME AREAS FOR MORE THAN DECADES. AT THE SAME TIME, BROAD PROMOTION OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN IS RECOMMENDED.
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/theology-of-ordination-position-no.-1
FIRST OF ALL, CLINTON ELECTIONS REAFFIRMS AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER POSITIONS ON THE FOLLOWING:
JESUS IS THE ONLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH; ALL BELIEVERS ARE CALL TO SERVICE; THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS ARE INDEPENDENT OF GENDER; ALL BELIEVERS BE PRIESTS; MAN AND WOMAN ARE CREATED BY GOD TO BE EQUAL; IN CHRIST BE NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK, EITHER MAN NOR WOMAN; AND IN THE LATER RAIN SONS AND DAUGHTERS WOULD PROVE.
But now to the arguments by which he differs from the other two positions: 1. TIMOTHEUS WAS NOT A LETTER TO A CHURCH BUT TO A GOSPEL MINISTER AND THEREFORE NOT BOUND TO THE SITUATION OF THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS. Well, actually we cannot dismiss any New Testament letter as situational, not even the letters to the churches. God's Word is definitely our standard. But on each subject, all relevant passages from throughout Scripture must be consulted. In this way we can see what the text has to say to us today.
WHEN PAUL WANTED TO EXPRESS GENDER NEUTRAL, SAYS CHOOSE, HE DID SO (1 TIMOTHY 2,1.4.5:1). BUT IF HE EXPRESSES GENDER SPECIFIC, HE MAKES THIS ALSO CONSCIOUS (2,8 TIMOTHY 15:1-3,1). In addition, in some verses he expresses himself in such a way that one sex is completely excluded (10.12 Timothy XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX, XNUMX). This argument is not so easily dismissed out of hand.
TO BOTH TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS HE WRITES THAT ELDERS AND DEACONS SHALL BE THE MAN OF ONE WIFE. BUT DEACONESSES WOULD BE MENTIONED AS A SPECIAL GROUP WITH ITS OWN CRITERIA (1 TIMOTHY 2,11:2,3). Titus 5:4-6,1.3 affirms that women are to serve other women. They even have explicit authorization to teach (v. 18,24). In contrast, the first deacons were also charged with the care of widows and thus ministered to the opposite sex (Acts 27:XNUMX). As a couple, Aquila and Prisca could also take care of their protégé Apollo together (Acts XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX). But if a single woman had adopted a man, this would not have counted as "respectable."
CHOICES CONTINUES, IN THE SAME LETTER PAUL TALKS ABOUT THE WIDOWS WHO HAD BEEN "WIFE OF A MAN" (1 TIMOTHY 5,9:XNUMX), SO HIS EXPRESSION IS QUITE SPECIFIC. A GOOD POINT! ALSO THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY MORAL COMMANDMENTS, SUCH AS THE LORD'S SUPPER OR THE MISSIONARY COMMANDMENT, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND STILL HAVE BINDING CHARACTER. Of course!
ADAM'S CREATION BEFORE EVE GAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO HIM. IN FACT, BEFORE EVE WAS CREATED TO BE HIS HELP, HE RECEIVED THE MISSION TO MAINTAIN THE GARDEN AND RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH TREES HE MAY EAT. EVE ALONE IS NOT THE CROWN OF CREATION, BUT MARRIAGE TOGETHER WITH THE SABBATH IS THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE TWO CREATION REPORTS. That is interesting! He also named the animals beforehand. That few hours lead made Adam feel responsible.
When a man and a woman met for the first time, it was not Eve who gave her husband a name, but Adam his wife: “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh! She's supposed to be called 'woman'; for she was taken from man! Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.« (Genesis 1:1,23-24)
It can be assumed that Adam first brought his wife up to date with his current level of knowledge and experience and that in this way a special relationship of trust developed. In so doing, Eve recognized Adam as her protector and guide. However, he did not exploit his position in any way, but only used it for Eva's best. So she only had advantages, no disadvantages, which is why we have to speak of equal rights and equal value.
SOME CLAIM THAT IF YOU CHOOSE 1 TIMOTHY 3,2:1 (OLDER MUST BE A MAN OF A WIFE) LITERALLY, YOU MUST TAKE 14 CORINTHIANS XNUMX LITERALLY ALSO. IT SAYS THE WOMAN SHOULD BE SILENT IN THE CONGREGATION. WAHLEN NOW EXPLAINS THAT THIS CHAPTER IS NOT ABOUT A GENERAL RULE, BUT ABOUT REMOVAL OF THE CHAOS IN THE SERVICE PROCEDURE OF THE CORINTH CHURCH. SOME BROTHERS WERE SPEAKING IN TONGUES WITHOUT A TRANSLATOR, OTHERS SHARE THEIR INSIGHTS WITHOUT WAITING FOR THEIR TURNS, AND THE SISTERS WERE ASKING THEIR QUESTIONS. PAUL COMMAND ALL THREE GROUPS TO SILENCE IF THEY COULD NOT KEEP ORDER. This is not a reinterpretation, but results from the immediate context.
ALTHOUGH WOMEN HAD PERFORMED IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IN THE BIBLE, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PRIESTESS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, OR A SINGLE APOSTLE OR PREACHER TO LEAD A CHURCH. THE MOSAIC LAW SENT ONLY MEN FOR THE PRIESTS AND JESUS CALLED 12 MEN TO BE APOSTLES. WHILE YOU DID NOT HAVE TO BE MORE JEWISH TO BECOME AN ELDER, THE GENDER REQUIREMENT HAS NEVER CHANGED. GENDER IS THE FIRST CRITERION STATED IN 1 TIMOTHY 3,2:XNUMX AND THEREFORE ESSENTIAL.
The Gospels do indeed name Jesus' female disciples, but women were freer from office and worked even more in gentleness and stillness than men, often with greater impact. However, the men were called upon to take responsibility for the structures.
All in all, I feel the position put forward by Clinton Wahlen is the closest to the Bible.
In a culture that is moving further and further away from the Bible, we should show that God wants to shape all areas of life through his revealed word, even if this is considered politically incorrect.
At the same time, we should live out the core concerns of women's rights and freedom rights activists, some of which are quite legitimate, by raising the value and dignity of women so much that nobody gets the impression that women are being oppressed or held down here. When even the highest officials see themselves as servants rather than generals of the body of Jesus, the women of our church ultimately have an army of servants at their side.
But the dignity of women is not raised when they baptize men, marry married couples, bury the dead, become pastors of congregations, leaders of associations, unions and divisions just because they can recently receive ordination.
Whatever the decision in 2015, God will continue to guide His people into and through the great trial. His pure glory, his gentle nature will enlighten the whole world. And as in the first great test during the events of Calvary, it is to be expected that women will also play a decisive role in this last great test. They were the last on the cross and the first at the tomb. Their love and devotion will once again allow them to emerge from the crisis as undisputed heroines.
God have mercy on us men that we face up to our responsibility and, above all, reach the hearts of men in this world for the gospel so that more male leaders are available at the local, regional and national level. At the same time, may God sanctify our leadership style in such a way that women feel free to engage in gospel ministry, emancipated from any male dominance, control or oppression. Then the question of women's ordination will no longer concern us.
Leave a Comment