5 Lessons From the Ordination Debate

For the last few years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been engaged in a process of ongoing study and discussion to determine if we should allow for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. To be clear, the Adventist Church has a long history of women serving as teachers and in other capacities--in fact, the Church was cofounded by a woman, Ellen White, and we still hold her inspired counsel in high regard. Also, since the first days of the movement we've had female pastors. Rather, the debate is centered around if the specific practice of ordination should extend to women, where the Church publicly recognizes someone's call to ministry and grants them authority to do things such as plant a local church, perform wedding ceremonies, and so on.

Next month, the Adventist Church will gather as a global Church in general conference (GC). We do this every five years, where thousands of representatives come together to decide issues of Church business, policy, and, occasionally, vote on statements of doctrine. This is where we'll decide what to do with the question of women's ordination. We'll vote either to (a) prohibit it or (b) allow various divisions of the Church to decide for themselves on this matter. There's a checkered history of this matter being brought up in previous GC sessions and various unions and divisions taking actions on it, but I won't recap that here. Suffice it to say, there's a lot of discussion and excitement around this topic.

As I've been listening and watching, I've recognized 5 areas where we need to experience radical growth as a community. My hope and prayer is that this controversy will teach us the lessons we need to learn to face the challenges ahead. I'm confident we will through the Spirit's teaching and Christ's leading.

We Like to Argue
Adventists have a long history at debate and we've become pretty good at it. In the early days of the movement, an Adventist pastor would ride into town and challenge the local, say, Baptist or Methodist pastor to debate on a topic such as Sabbath. Entertainment options were limited in the late 1800s, so this typically drew quite the crowd. And when we found that we could more often than not win these debates, we thought it must be a pretty good approach.

But Ellen White disagreed. She offered some sharp criticism of those who actively seek out debates, urging that they be avoided whenever possible. Significantly, she observed, "With those who have educated themselves as debaters, there is great danger that they will not handle the Word of God with fairness" (Testimonies, Vol 5, p. 708).

She also warned more generally against "argumentative discourses", believing they eclipsed the far more important purpose of presenting "Christ and His matchless love" (1888 p. 822)

Yet, many Adventists have continued to covet the debate and 10-points-to-prove-them-wrong sermons. One minister, who I genuinely respect for his commitment to evangelism, has even done a series of debates against himself!

At least he won.

Now that women's ordination has become a topic of interest, my Facebook newsfeed has become filled with a superabundance of (lengthy) sermon series, seminar videos, and articles seeking to prove a particular position.

Unnecessary debates. Argumentative discourses.

I get it; this is important. We should talk about it. I'm not saying let's end all conversation.

In fact, it would be very unhealthy if no differences of opinion were expressed in our community, for that would mean we have abandoned the project of reformation:

When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what. (Testimonies, Vol 5, p.707)

However, what seems to have largely happened is that individuals have committed to a position--perhaps after hearing a favorite speaker present on it--and then they've sought to amass arguments in favor of that view and dismiss those contrary to it. (There are, of course, a few notable exceptions.)

One cannot listen to ten hours of presentations or read half a dozen articles advancing a particular side and trust them to accurately present the opposing view. Comparable time must be given to the voices on the other side.

Ultimately, we need to learn to respond to differences of opinion by a greater distrust of self and a greater willingness to search the scriptures with an open heart.

Moreover, all of our discourses must become centered on Christ and His matchless love. This isn't incidental to our theology. Rather, Adventist theology is a system of truth where all the teachings center on the character and work of Christ. 

The Sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. (Gospel Workers, 315)

There is one great central truth to be kept ever before the mind in the searching of the Scriptures—Christ and Him crucified. Every other truth is invested with influence and power corresponding to its relation to this theme. (Manuscript 31, 1890)

Never should a sermon be preached, or Bible instruction in any line be given, without pointing the hearers to “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” John 1:29. Every true doctrine makes Christ the center, every precept receives force from His words. (Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 54)

These are the two overarching goals of the Advent project that our pioneers spoke about: (1) discover what Scripture teaches, recognizing much has been distorted or lost sight of in the many years of Christian history and (2) center all truth in Christ. Let's get back to work!

We Need to Study Scripture Deeper
Some excellent Biblical study has been done with regard to the question of women's ordination. Quite a bit, actually. The Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) is a great place to start looking. However, this depth of study has largely failed to trickle down to how many individuals and ministries are engaging with this topic. Many have offered simplistic arguments or what they claimed to be the nail-in-the-coffin "proof texts", insisting that a plain reading of the text settles the question. However, our movement has always recognized that many passages don't lend themselves to a "plain" reading:

"Some portions of Scripture are indeed too plain to be misunderstood, but there are others whose meaning does not lie on the surface to be seen at a glance. Scripture must be compared with scripture. There must be careful research and prayerful reflection. And such study will be richly repaid." (Steps to Christ, p.90)

Currently both sides are criticizing the hermeneutics that the other side is using (from the con-side here and from the pro-side here), while both continue to use arguments that are simply not faithful to the text. Here are a few noteworthy examples:

• [PRO] Women have an equal right to ordination: Except, ordination isn't a right. Moreover, ministry isn't a right. When you read about Paul's calling to ministry, it is clear that he didn't have a right to become an apostle, but an obligation and privilege. The Spirit calls whom He wills. He has a right to call whomever He desires. Here's an excellent sermon that engages with this a bit further.
• [PRO] Women should be paid the same as men: I agree and it is deeply unfortunate that the current arrangement of ordaining male pastors while only commissioning female pastors has often led to unequal compensation. Paul clearly taught that ministers have a right to be fairly compensated (1 Cor 9). This needs to be addressed. Immediately. But it doesn't, in itself, necessitate the ordination of women. There are other ways to guarantee equal pay.
• [CON] Paul said, "I do not prevent a women to teach or exercise authority over a man": This is, simply put, a tough passage. However, even if we try to take it at face value, devoid of any context, it would say too much. In particular, it would say that women can't teach. This is inconsistent with the New Testament witness of female teachers (such as Prisca) and the long history of female teachers in the Adventist Church, which nobody is currently contesting. Some try use this to argue that Paul is just preventing women from authoritative teaching positions (and still permits non-authoritative teaching--whatever that means); however, this seems to directly contradict our understanding of the authoritative nature of Ellen White's writings. In fact, this verse was used as a criticism that Ellen White had to overcome during her ministry. This should indicate that we need to carefully study the context and situation of Paul's writing. From my personal study, here's what I've found.
• [CON] A women can't be the husband of one wife: Paul wrote that an overseer or deacon ought to be "the husband of one wife". Therefore, the argument goes, since a woman can't be the husband of one wife, she shouldn't be ordained. Yet, Paul himself was unmarried and ordained (Acts 13:1-2). Moreover, to read an implicit assumption here that the individual must be male would be inconsistent with how we read the rest of Scripture. For instance, when we read the last commandment prohibits a husband from coveting another man's wife, we understand that this applies to women not coveting other woman's husbands, as well.Instead of using this text to answer the question of women's ordination--which Paul was in no way addressing--we should ask what Paul was addressing (such as the sexual immorality prevalent in the church) and understand from there why he gave this qualification.
• [CON] God only ever chose men to be priests in the Old Testament: Problem: Pastors aren't priests. There may be good reason for, say, the Catholic Church not to ordain female priests, but Protestants don't have a priestly class. Rather, we affirm that Christ is the great High Priest that the Old Testament priesthood was anticipating and we hold to the New Testament model of a priesthood of all believers in Him.
• [CON] It's contrary to the creation order: Here, one appeals to Paul's statements that a husband is head over his wife and notes that Paul couples this with creation language. In particular, he says things like, "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." Some have taken this to mean that a man has authority over his wife. However, this is especially problematic for Adventists because when Jesus says things like, "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", we certainly don't take that to mean that man has authority over the Sabbath! Rather, "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Some really careful study should be done to determine what exactly Paul means by his headship language. Especially since right after arguing that woman (Eve) came from man (Adam), Paul reminds his readers in 1 Corinthians 11 that every man came from a woman--notably his mother!
  Yet, whatever conclusion one comes to, the fact remains that Paul limits this language of headship to the relationship between a husband and wife. Some try to argue that a pastor/overseer is head of the Church, and women can't be heads, but this logic isn't present in any of Paul's arguments. Rather, Paul consistently reserves the title head of the Church for Christ alone.

Sure, one can weave together some of the above arguments and verses to make a case either for or against, but when we do so, we are using Biblical language in a way that is alien to how the authors of Scripture used it. We shouldn't open up a letter of Paul and demand it answer the questions we may have about women's ordination, because then we've already brought the assumption that it is saying something about women's ordination.

We need to learn to let Scripture answer the questions that it is addressing, not the questions we want it to address.

We're Misusing Ellen White 
I've seen numerous individuals appeal to statements of Ellen White to settle this debate. There are two problems with this.

First, I deeply appreciate the counsel of Ellen White. I believe it is an incredible, valuable gift to the Church, "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" (Great Controversy, p. 595). Those are her words. So if we want to be those people of God she describes, we can't expect her to do the work of Biblical study on this one for us. Significantly, there were a number of controversies in her day that she refused to settle, insisting we let Scripture alone settle them.

The second reason this is problematic is because Ellen White intentionally avoided speaking on the issue of women's ordination. In 1881, a motion was presented to the general conference to permit the ordination of women. It was moved to committee and never followed up on. However, some continued to inquire what Ellen White's position on it was. Here's her personal secretary's response:

"Sister White, personally, was very careful about expressing herself in any wise as to the advisability of ordaining women as gospel ministers. She has often spoken of the perils that such general practice would expose the church to by a gainsaying world; but as yet I have never seen from her pen any statement that would seem to encourage the formal and official ordination of women to the gospel ministry, to public labor such as is ordinarily expected of an ordained minister."
“This is not suggesting, much less saying, that no women are fitted for such public labor, and that none should ever be ordained; it is simply saying that so far as my knowledge extends, Sister White never encouraged church officials to depart from the general customs of the church in those matters.”
[C.C. Crisler; June 16, 1916]

Notice, she very carefully avoided addressing it. Good luck looking for that this-settles-it quote! Moreover, the fact that she felt comfortable remaining silent means we probably shouldn't think of this as a moral issue or pillar of the faith.

We need to respect Ellen White's counsel and we need to respect her silence.

We Don't Know What to Do About Culture
Culture seems to always come up in these discussions. Many have tried to frame the entire debate in terms of faithfulness to Scripture verses conformity to culture.

However, we just noted in the section above that women's ordination was a live issue in the 1880s. One cannot therefore claim it is simply the Church being carried away with the feminist movement. Moreover, we shouldn't assume that the right position is always the position that seems most contrary to the trends in culture. Yes, there is always a danger of being swept along with the current of the times. But there is also the danger that we become reactionary against culture. Either way, culture is dictating our moves. An example may help illustrate this.

Over the last century or two, higher criticism has been catching on as a way of reading and understanding Scripture. In essence, this approach removes any supernatural aspect from the creation of Scripture, seeing it entirely as a product of the societies that the authors inhabited. As such, when a prophecy is encountered that is later fulfilled, it is assumed that it must have been written after the event that it's describing.

Many Evangelicals, troubled by this attack on the authority of Scripture, responded by developing a view that God dictated every word of  Scripture. This counter-cultural position directly addressed their concerns of higher criticism.

So which side did Adventism fall on? Did we go with culture? Or did we go with the counter-cultural position?

Neither.

Adventists believe in thought-inspiration, that God inspired the thoughts of the authors of Scripture which they were free to express in words of their own choosing. This recognizes a cooperation between the human and divine. We reject higher criticism because it leaves no room for the divine agent, yet we also reject word-inspiration because it leaves no room for the human agent:

"The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen... It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind." (Selected Messages, Bk 1, p. 21)

Notice how this description carefully avoided both extremes. Similarly, today we shouldn't simply accept a view because it appears to stand up against trends in culture that may concern us. In seeking to avoid falling into the ditch on the left, we may end up in the ditch on the right.

There's another problem in the way we discuss culture: we fail to recognize that culture is often a valid consideration for how we do things. Recall that Ellen White, as the statement from her secretary above reveals, stayed quiet on the issue of women's ordination because she was afraid of what the "general practice would expose the church to by a gainsaying world".

She knew ordaining women wouldn't be popular in late nineteenth century America and she didn't want the practice to hamper the mission of the Church.

Therefore, it is altogether reasonable for one to suspect that there may be good reason to consider ordaining women if the culture has changed so that it would no longer hurt the mission of the Church. Even more-so if one believes it would help the Church's mission in that part of the world.

Now, that's not to say we end the discussion there. Deep Biblical study should be done to see if the practice is in harmony with Scripture. It's simply to recognize that our decisions shouldn't be dictated by a knee-jerk reaction against the culture we live in.

We Need to Show More Love
This last observation is probably the most important of them all.

In the midst of our debates over what head means in 1 Corinthians 11, we must demonstrate that we're committed to the unity of 1 Corinthians 12 and have made our top priority the love of 1 Corinthians 13.

This means we abandon our suspicion of one another. This means we continue to respect and serve alongside those who are of another opinion. This means we actually like people we disagree with. More than that, we trust them. We think higher of them than we do of ourselves.

Rather than advance a narrative that the foundation of the Church is threatened, we abide in the promise that Christ has built the Church on an unshakable foundation and He will protect it from the very gates of hell (Matthew 16:18). There's no reason to let fear divide us.

I'll close with this word of counsel:

Strive earnestly for unity. Pray for it, work for it. It will bring spiritual health, elevation of thought, nobility of character, heavenly-mindedness, enabling you to overcome selfishness and evil surmisings, and to be more than conquerors through Him that loved you and gave Himself for you. Crucify self; esteem others better than yourselves. Thus you will be brought into oneness with Christ. Before the heavenly universe, and before the church and the world, you will bear unmistakable evidence that you are God’s sons and daughters. God will be glorified in the example that you set. 

The world needs to see worked out before it the miracle that binds the hearts of God’s people together in Christian love. It needs to see the Lord’s people sitting together in heavenly places in Christ. Will you not give in your lives an evidence of what the truth of God can do for those who love and serve Him? God knows what you can be. He knows what divine grace can do for you if you will be partakers of the divine nature. (Testimonies, Vol. 9, p. 188)

The world is dying to see a demonstration of this love. What an awesome opportunity we have to show it.

Paul, Women, and the Command to Remain Quiet

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)

I've long wondered why Paul wrote this to Timothy. Perhaps you have too.

If so, you should know we're not the first ones to recognize that some teachings of Paul are tough to understand--and easily mishandled.

Far from it.

Discussing Paul's letters, his friend Peter wrote, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)

Wow! Serious stuff. So what are we to do?

In one of my all time favorite books, Ellen White notes: "Some portions of Scripture are indeed too plain to be misunderstood, but there are others whose meaning does not lie on the surface to be seen at a glance. Scripture must be compared with scripture. There must be careful research and prayerful reflection. And such study will be richly repaid." (Steps to Christ, p.90)

This seems to be one of those cases.

Recently, I decided to dig a little deeper. Today I concluded that Paul is in no way the misogynist some of his critics have made him out to be. Actually, if anything, Paul was a counter-cultural advocate of women. Here's how I arrived at this conclusion*:

If you haven't yet, you may like to open up to 1 Timothy and follow along.

Paul's first letter to Timothy opens with him explaining that there are some teaching the law who don't know what they're talking about (1:7). Their problem is that they deviated from what the whole thing is about: "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (1:5).

We later learn that these unqualified teachers includes a group of women who are also described as needing to learn and shouldn't have the authority to teach (2:11-12). Notice, Paul also encourages them to "continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (2:15).

The structure of the letter helps us recognize that Paul is discussing a particular group of women that are part of a larger problem in Ephesus that Timothy needs counsel on how to handle. Paul is writing to address "certain persons" (1:6), not all people. We cannot divorce his counsel from the situation that called for it.

Who are these women? They are likely new to the community (thus 3:6) and thought they could immediately start teaching because they had a high status in society (2:9). But Paul doesn't care about their status; he esteems people based on their character and actions (2:10). Thus he tells them to hold off on teaching (in the Greek, "I do not *now* permit...") to continue learning respectfully (2:11).

It is noteworthy that there is one other time when Paul commands a group of individuals to exercise ἡσυχία (translated in 1 Tim 2:11-12 as quietness or silence) and that's to a group of Thessalonians that Paul describes as "disorderly, not working as all, busybodies" (2 Thess 3:11-12). Similarly, Paul commanded them to work in quietness.

In neither case is Paul's concerned about gender. Rather, he's addressing situations of disorderly conduct--one case largely involves men, the other women.

Next in his letter to Timothy, Paul appeals to the story of Eve being deceived by the serpent to serve as a potential warning of the seriousness of the situation. Why cite Eve? Because the situation occurring in Ephesus involves people incorrectly teaching the law and Eve is the ultimate example of someone misquoting the law. In her conversation with the serpent, Eve stated that the commandment said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die" (Genesis 3:3). However, that's wrong. She added the clause "neither shall you touch it" (compare with Genesis 2:16).

Ellen White perceptively explains how this led to her deception:

In Eve’s controversy with the serpent, she added “Neither shall ye touch it.” Here the subtlety of the serpent appeared. This statement of Eve gave him advantage; he plucked the fruit and placed it in her hand, using her own words, He hath said, If ye touch it, ye shall die. You see no harm comes to you from touching the fruit, neither will you receive any harm by eating it. (Confrontation, p. 14)

By appealing to this story, Paul isn't teaching that Eve was deceived because she was a woman. He is making the point that she was deceived because she didn't properly handle the law--the very situation that Timothy was dealing with (1 Tim 1:7). 

By also mentioning Adam, who was formed before Eve and wasn't deceived (1 Tim 2:13-14), Paul seems to be softly rebuking those in the community who may have been around longer than this group of women and had a better understanding of the law, but who, like Adam, went along with the situation instead of lovingly addressing it.

Yet, to be clear that he isn't just Eve-bashing, Paul reminds his readers that salvation came through her offspring, the Messiah (1 Tim 2:15; compare Gen 3:15). Paul also seems to have high hopes for what can come out of this controversy.

What Paul does in the next part of his letter is incredible.

Significantly, the very things Paul instructs the women to learn are included in the qualifications for servant leadership positions (1 Tim 3). For instance, Paul only mentions κόσμιος (good conduct) twice in all of his writings: once when describing what this group of women should learn (2:9) and again when describing what attribute the overseer of a church should have (3:2). Paul also, right before calling out this group of women, had called out a group of men and told them that they needed to learn some things too (2:8), which he also includes in his list of qualifications (1 Tim 3)--such as how to control their anger. Also, Paul lists "husband of one wife" to condemn bigamy and affirm the value of marriage (contrast with 1:10, 4:3). The point is he is unpacking what it means to be "above reproach" (3:2) in light of recent situations in the church.
By blending the instruction that he had just given to both the group of men and the group of women to form the list of qualifications, Paul accomplishes two things. First, he prevents those causing the problem--both the group of men and the group of women--from taking over leadership positions in the community. Second, however, he suggests that in time, those very ones causing the problems may become qualified men and women to take over those roles. Paul's solution is both practical and redemptive.

Does Paul really envision both men and women serving as leaders? Indeed, elsewhere he mentions women who were serving in leadership roles, such as Phoebe serving as a deacon and Junia serving as an apostle (Rom 16:1-6). Granted, some scholars argue that there is some ambiguity of the Greek here that might allow for alternative readings of the roles of these two particular women. Whatever the case, there's no ambiguity when it comes to Prisca. Acts records Paul met Aquila then his wife Prisca (Acts 18:2-3). But then Acts goes on to address them as Prisca and Aquila--breaking the cultural trend by putting the wife's name first (Acts 18:18, 26). Of note, the context is them teaching Apollos, indicating that Prisca was leading out in the teaching.

Similarly, in his earliest letter, Paul sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca (1 Corinthians 16:19), but moves on in later letters to addressing them as Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:3, 2 Timothy 4:9), affirming her role as a teacher and challenging his culture.

Granted, as revolutionary as Paul was, he was just following the example of Jesus who intentionally challenged the status quo by elevating women and giving them roles of supreme importance. For instance, after His resurrection, Jesus first appears to a group of women and tells them to spread the word that He had risen, despite the fact that the testimony of women was considered unreliable.

Moreover, Paul was responding to the sacrifice of Christ, since he believed the Cross-event gave all people equal standing before God. In another letter, Paul taught, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)








*Note well, my understanding of Scripture is constantly growing, especially on some of these less plain passages. "We see in a mirror dimly." If you walk away with a different understanding, that doesn't bother me in the least. I agree with White: "We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light." Here's an excellent article that explores further how Ellen White and the early Adventist Church promoted unity while allowing for some theological diversity.