Many Traditionalists are totally opposed to the ordination of women. Compassionates unconditionally support the ordination of women. Neither seem amenable to any position in a middle ground. I’m not sure I inhabit that middle ground, either. But I don’t find the situation quite as simple as those two alternatives. I don’t even think that the denomination’s position on the ordination of women — either way–deals with the real problem congregations face today.
Scripturally, the issue seems pretty simple to me–hear me out. All the energy expended over qualifications for the priesthood in the Old Testament seems pointless to me. As Christians, we believe that the entire OT system passed away, that we have one High Priest. Whatever ordination means today, it does not correspond to priesthood. At least for Protestants, ministers do not mediate salvation to the believer. In sum, I’m not interested in the OT evidence, any more than I need to know what incense to combine with the blood of the sacrifice. We don’t do that any more.
Secondly, I see no evidence that the gifts of the Spirit enumerated in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, or Ephesians 4, are limited in their distribution by sex. Indeed, Philip’s daughters exhibited the gift of prophecy. And prophecy is one of the ‘best gifts’ Paul wants us to aspire to. Unless there is some other evidence declaring that only men receive the gifts of the spirit, I have to conclude that ‘pastor and teacher’ in Ephesians 4 can be exhibited by a woman.
Whether that corresponds exactly with what we think of as an ‘ordained minister’ is a different question. In fact, nothing in the scripture corresponds directly with our practice of ordination. And that points to the final reason: ordination among SDA’s originated so that we could distinguish between those actually preaching our doctrines and those who weren’t. We, as a denomination, invented this particular type of ordination. So if we invented it, we can change it.
So I see nothing in scripture or in church doctrine that prohibits the ordination of women. Not prohibiting, of course, is not the same as promoting. And here’s where I get into difficulty.
First, I think that there are many situations and many ministries where an ordained woman would be invaluable and necessary.
But there’s another side to this. As Donald Joy and others have pointed out, our churches have become increasingly feminized, places where men do not feel comfortable. And this becomes obvious when looking at statistical data. Women outnumber men in every denomination, including our own, and not by a slight measure. Having a woman pastor for a congregation made up predominantly of women makes sense in one way, but if it makes the setting less hospitable for men and boys, it might not be wise.
Put another way, while a woman pastor would be ideal in some situations, she would be a problem in others. Of course, the same is true for a man. In other words, the sex of the pastor isn’t the problem.
As I see it, the problem is the notion that SDA pastors are supposed to be interchangeable; that a man ordained in Aberdeen, SD, will be just as good a pastor in Mumbay, India, or that a woman ordained in Glendale, CA will be just as effective in Papua, New Guinea.
As near as I can tell, we long since abandoned the practice of rotating pastors blindly, without considering where they ‘fit.’ Remember, Peter and Paul decided to split the responsibility, with Peter focusing on the Jews, and Paul on the gentiles.
In line with my last post, I think we should deal with people where they are. Yes, I think that different Divisions should be allowed to go their own way on this. But we should not expect that Kenya, say, will be ready to receive a woman pastor. Pastors are not, and should not be considered interchangeable.
The question isn’t whether we should ordain women and start rotating them through the churches, but whether this congregation would benefit from this pastor, man or woman. There are some congregations where the need for a woman pastor with the right gifts is an aching need. There are others where any woman pastor might exacerbate existing problems. The same is no doubt true for men.
So, do I favor ordaining women? As a political statement, no. But then, I oppose using ordination to make political statements. Are there women with spiritual gifts that a church needs, and should these women be ordained? Yes!
We need spirit-filled men and women ordained to minister to the churches. But we should be more concerned about how that particular pastor enhances the work of the gospel in that church/community than whether the pastor is male or female.
Using the feminization of the church as an argument not to have women pastors is weak, because under which gender’s ministry did it become feminized? Maybe if our historically male pastorate has attracted primarily women, we should put some balance into the ministerial force in order to attract a more gender-balance congregation.
Mrs. Johnston,
I am honored that you would pay attention to my blog. Your husband was one of my favorite teachers at the Seminary. I concur that male leadership has not always served our congregations well. Perhaps increasing the number of women pastors would have the effect you suggest.
I did not say that having a woman pastor would make a congregation less welcoming to men, I simply said IF that were true, it would not be wise to assign a woman pastor to that congregation.
My point was first, that pastors are NOT interchangeable, and second, that we take that into account when assigning pastors.
Apparently, liberals and conservatives have been replaced by Compassionates and Traditionalists. Personally, I don’t think the labels equate. This aside, since, as Christians, we believe that the entire OT system has passed away and we therefore have no use for the OT evidence for or against women’s ordination, then it seems we could consistently draw the same conclusion regarding tithing. We could also do away with a priest in our homes. After all, we don’t do that anymore.
The receiving of spiritual gifts is different from being called to a position of authority in the home or the church. If not, then Paul must have been ill-informed when he said that the husband is the head of the wife and that an elder should be the husband of one wife. One must also wonder why God would discriminate against women by not having a single woman’s name engraved on the foundations or on the gates of the New Jerusalem. Twenty-four men and not a single woman? Is God not a Compassionate?
The question is not whether this or that particular congregation would benefit from a woman pastor. The question is whether God has called women to be pastors and elders. If so, your question then follows as a legitimate one. If not, your question is entirely presumptuous and the answer is a universal No. Our church is quite appropriately now in the process of answering the first question. Let’s answer it first and go from there.
Perhaps you would benefit from reading earlier posts where I gave more attention to defining Traditionalists and Compassionates.
“We could also do away with a priest in our homes.” I think we use that as a figure of speech, as an analogy, not a literal function. Or do you slaughter a lamb twice a day?
I’ve never been to an Adventist church where they sacrifice animals and burn incense.
“your question is entirely presumptuous”
That’s one of the reasons I’m so lonely. 🙂
We indeed use the term “priest of the home” as an analogy — to the spiritual leader of the home. No need to be facetious regarding animal sacrifices. Would it have helped had I said, “We could also do away with men being the spiritual leaders in our homes”? That is, is the calling to spiritual leadership in the home no longer gender specific?
Perhaps you could tell me why your question is not presumptuous.
I’m sorry you are lonely.
I was not being facetious about a priest. A priest is a mediator, one who stands between. In religious terms, a priest mediates the benefits of the sacrifice to the believer.
And yes, we don’t do that any more. We have one high priest, one mediator–Jesus Christ.
As to some of your other questions, I refer you to an article by a friend of mine, which says, among other things “[The] 1995 General Conference session in Utrecht…. it was officially recognized that there was no biblical or theological to support a position of forbidding such ordination,” You can read the whole thing here: http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors
I’m happy to say I serve a God who welcomes questions.
I didn’t say you were being facetious about a priest. I said you were being facetious regarding animal sacrifices — e.g. “I’ve never been to an Adventist church where they sacrifice animals and burn incense.”
Thanks for the link to Dr. Patterson’s article. Let me share one with you: http://christorculture.com/portfolio-view/reflections-on-womens-ordination/
I will read your article. If you will read mine, perhaps we could then compare notes.
I wasn’t being facetious about animal sacrifice. That was central to the OT system. I was demonstrating the contradiction between using qualifications for the priesthood for our pastors. Our Pastors don’t do what priests did. It’s a totally different function. None of the pastors I know hails from the tribe of Levi. It is ludicrous to say that system passed away, but the requirements for the priesthood still apply.
We have one high priest. He meets and surpasses the requirements for the priesthood. See the entire book of Hebrews.
I read your article. As you will see if you read Dr. Patterson’s article, your article is factually mistaken about where the authority for ordination lies. It’s also mistaken concerning what the GC votes did or did not do.
Ed, here are a couple of quotes I think are relevant:
“The father, who is the priest of his household, should conduct the morning and evening worship” (CG 521). “In a sense the father is the priest of the household, laying upon the family altar the morning and evening sacrifice. But the wife and children should unite in prayer and join in the song of praise” (MH 392).
Some elements of the OT priesthood can be figuratively applied to the new covenant dispensation. Of course the morning and evening sacrifice EGW referred to was not animal sacrifice. It was the figurative sacrifice of worship that applies just as much to NT times as it did to OT times. This being the case, the question now is: Does the element of male-only priests apply to the spiritual counterpart of priests today?
I asked you if God’s calling to spiritual leadership in the home is gender specific. In response you referred me to Dr. Patterson’s article. I read the article, and now I have to ask: How does this article answer my question? The article only speaks of how the structure of the SDA church functions and where its institutional authority comes from. The political issues surrounding WO is one discussion; the theological issues is another.
So let me slightly rephrase my question and ask it again: In your view, is the call of God to the spiritual priesthood of the home gender specific? If so, and since women receive the same spiritual gifts as men, why would God discriminate against women in this way?
PS: If you really want to discuss the Adventist political issues surrounding WO, I would be glad to discuss it with you. I see real problems with Patterson’s position. But this is a diversion from the theological issues we are currently discussing.
I did not refer you to Gary’s article in response to the question of spiritual leadership in the home. I referred you to it because it detailed the jurisdiction and actions of the various church entities with regard to ordination. His position is not a position but a recitation of facts. The church has a structure, constitution, and bylaws.
“Some elements of the OT priesthood can be figuratively applied to the new covenant dispensation. Of course the morning and evening sacrifice EGW referred to was not animal sacrifice . . . Does the element of male-only priests apply to the spiritual counterpart of priests today?”
There are so many problems with that statement I hardly know where to begin. “Some elements.” O.K. Which ones? And how do we determine which ones?
Let me see. “Some literal elements of the OT can be figuratively applied. . .” So, “Does the element of male-only priests apply to the spiritual counterpart of priests today?”
So, literally bleeding an animal to death and burning much of the carcass on an altar becomes joining in song and praise? I must confess, I am at a loss to come up with any system of correspondence. It actually sounds a bit like one of those Netflix commercials:
Q. “If killing an animal equals praying and singing, what does having an X and a Y chromosome equal?”
A. (Me) I have no idea.
Revelation tells us, and Ellen White agrees, the incense in the sanctuary represents the prayers of the saints. The priest combined the blood of the sacrifice with incense and took it to the golden alter before the veil.
So, if a woman prays, will her prayers only reach heaven if a man (her husband, father, etc.) intervenes on her behalf, or will they go straight to heaven?
When Revelation says we are “kings and priests.” Since both of those terms denote males, does that mean females are excluded from the prophecies and promises in Revelation?
If you can come up with a rational, consistent, systematic way of which elements can be figuratively applied while others (maleness) must be literally applied, I’d be willing to consider it. Lacking such criteria, I’d just have to consider the uses in your quotes figures of speech.
Aside from that, the quotes a pretty clearly homiletical and not exegetical.
Once again you have avoided answering my specific question.
“So, literally bleeding an animal to death and burning much of the carcass on an altar becomes joining in song and praise? I must confess, I am at a loss to come up with any system of correspondence.” Are you familiar with Ps 141:2? “Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” David was not at a loss to correspond his worship of God with the evening sacrifice. Neither was EGW at a loss to equate the morning and evening worship offered by the priests of households today with the morning and evening sacrifice of the OT.
“So, if a woman prays, will her prayers only reach heaven if a man (her husband, father, etc.) intervenes on her behalf, or will they go straight to heaven?” Surely you don’t believe that the personal prayers of women in the OT had to be routed through their husbands or the priests. Why would it be different now?
“When Revelation says we are ‘kings and priests.’ Since both of those terms denote males, does that mean females are excluded from the prophecies and promises in Revelation?” According to our commentary these references are probably an allusion to Ex 19:6: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Females are no more excluded from the prophecies and promises in Revelation than they were from the prophecies and promises in the OT.
Perhaps you have misunderstood where I’m coming from. I’m not saying that men are called to spiritual leadership in both home and church just because only men were priests in the Mosaic system. The call on men to leadership preceded this. We see it in the call of Abraham (only men received the sign of the covenant), and we see it all the way back in the beginning when a new order was established after the Fall. The male priesthood instituted in the time of Moses was merely a continuation of what God had already established. And in my view, just as God’s call on men to spiritual leadership preceded the Mosaic system, so it continues succeeding the Mosaic system.
Of course, a serious conflict arises when such a view conflicts with a secular culture saturated with the feminist agenda. But I suspect I will have opportunity to elaborate more on this point when I respond to your next post.
@Ed Dickerson thank you for considering pros and cons in such a balanced way.
I find that many biblical rules are culturally conditioned. Therefore we have in the Bible various imperatives, rules and counsels that hardly must be obeyed today:
1. put off your shoes, when you come before God (Exodus 3)
2. pray raising your hands, open eyes towards heaven (1Tim 2:8; Lk 9:16; Ps 123:1, cf. Ezek 18:6)
3. men and women should sit separated in Church as they were in the time of Jesus in the synagogues and at the temple’s courts;
4. you are allowed to have two or more wives, if you care about their rights (Dt 21:15-17)
5. if you are a married woman, you must cover your head (1 Cor 11)
6. women must not speak in public meetings (1Cor 14:34)
7. women must not be public teachers, such as bishops etc. (1Tim 2:11-13)
etc.
I’m aware that God adapted some of His expectations to the historical and geographic culture. Some of these customs are still valid today in some countries and our missionaries should be careful not to disregard them. In the time of Paul, the Greek culture required women be covered, silent and not participating to the public life. Their place was in the gynecaeum. This was an old law, and Paul could not disregard it, and at the same time be sure of the Gospel’s progress. If we reject ordination for women because Paul said one or another, we are not consistent, since even in the most patriarchal Adventist societies, we have women as teachers (Bible instructors), rarely wearing a head-cover, and certainly praying in a different style: shoes put on, hands joined, eyes closed. We are surely not consistent. At least to accept a woman as preacher and evangelist, but not as a minister, it means to see the ordination as a mystical-patriarchal rite.
I think that our leaders should have first familiarized our people with a better hermeneutic than simply appeal to proof-texts. At this moment, I doubt that our SDA worldwide community is prepared to accept or at least to understand the true problem. Spirits are inflamed, a large majority is quite horrified at the perspective, and they tell this is only the beginning — the next step is accepting practicing LGBT as church members. This majority is not right, to my opinion, but for the time I cannot see a best way than allowing church leaders in the free western countries to ordain women, as they find proper. Simple people think in only two variants: either prohibiting WO or imposing it to the whole church. Sad. But I hope God will find a way to keep us both united, loving one another (no matter the continent we are on) and respecting our mutual differences.