It's interesting, I think, that when the body of Christ affirms what God is doing, for some the first inclination is to dismiss it as ideologically driven.

Make no mistake, when God calls a person to minister, no amount of dismissing, protesting or labeling can negate what God has done.

It's also interesting that a one-sided discussion would be considered "a balanced perspective."

A truly balanced perspective would at the least note that there are biblical readings that would seem to discourage women from so much as speaking in a sacred assembly, and that there are many who strongly oppose women in ministry, while at the same time acknowledging that there are many compelling reasons why women should serve as ministers within the body of Christ.

-----------------------

I think that the biggest piece of undone business identified in this statement (aside from the actual act of ordaining women) is the task of clarifying and solidifying Adventist theology of ordination. Because the church has been weak in articulating its understanding of ordination, discrimination has been allowed to persist for years and years.

The reason that some continue to proselytze is to confirm in their minds that they have the truth: it is reconfirmed every time someone new accepts the same position and it continues ad infinitum: truth is proved by those who get on board.

OTOH, those who are willing to stand alone, and there are many past examples, are the ones who affect change and never stop at seeking additional truths. Truth is never static but progressive. If it were, we would have adopted it at long ages in the past and stopped searching. Where would the Protestants and SDAs be had we all be content with the religious beliefs of the one Christian church from the beginning?

The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee has just set a wonderful example for the rest of the Adventist world to follow.

Why must every decision be seen as zero-sum? What may be right for one person or one division may not be the right choice for another. Is there no room for those who wish to minister yet be denied because of gender? If everything is seen as either right or wrong, black or white, it limits good choices.

Stop murmuring and complaining, Elaine. I know that you are the most active but subtle anti-Adventists...hiding in the name of "better/newer perspectives", "unity" or even "love" and always feel better because you think you're not as stupid as conservatives...and yet you're talking too much. Sorry!

Why don't you ask all women pastor to change their last names with their husbands' names? Is there no room for those who wish to change their family's names yet be denied because of gender?

Did Jesus make a mistake when he called all non females as their first disiples? Why not any female as He did when choosing prophets or messengers? Is there any difference between "Prophets" and "disciples"?

I welcome much of this statement especially the call to clarify the Adventist theology of ordination.

However, ordination of women where ordination means a setting apart for 'a life of ministry' ie tenure leads to automatic questions.

eg.
1) What does tenure mean in the event of pregnancy and childbirth?
2) What does tenure mean in the event of Queen Elizabeth asking you to be her viceroy. (Here I reference Sir Patrick Allen's recent predicament of deciding between the call of God and service to the nation as Jamaica's no. 1 citizen).
3) What does tenure mean when a husband is transferred, from a wife's present ministry and she feels as if God is asking her to go too? Is she automatically to be granted a position in ministry in her husband's next port of call?

The easiest solution to such questions is to have the ceremony of the laying on of hands mean no more or less than authorization to be a servant leader and consecration for that specific role. In each subsequent role there will be a laying on of hands.

PS Excuse me, if any of the above issues are thought to be politically incorrect.

Let's go back to the Bible and Bible alone as the only one standard in which all doctrines must be tested and purified.

WE ARE THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.

Pac.Union Conf. should not be as our standard...
Neither NA.Division.

But the Bible is.

The ages keep changing but the Divine Truth remains the same regardless of time. So now, show me from the Bible about women ordination. Please!

Do you (still) believe in the Bible, my friends?

Peter

"1) What does tenure mean in the event of pregnancy and childbirth?

2) What does tenure mean in the event of Queen Elizabeth asking you to be her viceroy. (Here I reference Sir Patrick Allen's recent predicament of deciding between the call of God and service to the nation as Jamaica's no. 1 citizen).

3) What does tenure mean when a husband is transferred, from a wife's present ministry and she feels as if God is asking her to go too? Is she automatically to be granted a position in ministry in her husband's next port of call?"

We have faced all of these issues:

1. Mothers have the same statutory rights whether they are Office workers, Bible Workers, Interns, Chaplains, Ordained, Commissioned, Teachers or College Lecturers.

I can tell you enough about 'stay at home Pop pastors' to kick that one into touch.

It may have been the case that Ordination was a recognition of what God has already done in the ministry, coupled with a life long committment.

2. I could tell you many stories about male ordinands turning on their calling for reasons far less honourable than being a Governor General of Jamaica.

3. Both my wife and I committed ourselves to church service while at College as Teachers. We have negotiated this conundrum for the last 35 years, and are both un-ordained Union administrators with little to complain about. (Save charges of nepotism, even from the kind of people who trawl college week of prayers and glow with holy righteousness, when couples respond to their call)

It may be true that a given Conference may struggle with many people with such issues, we currently manage several of these situations. Large urban settings make this more practical wheras, remote settings are more challenging

Please don't introduce petty practicalities - they have all been dealt with, not always to total satisfaction but we have done our best.

Worse still, don't expose yourself to cans of worms.

Otherwise Best regards

Peter

I think that I was responding responsibly to the barriers that you had raised, rather than advocating in this blog in favour of or against womens ordination.

I respect the literalist hermeneutic/non cultural view that people use based on Paul's writing for what it is. Those that see it as applicable to all societies for all time should just stick to that argument and not introduce red-herrings.

That was my major complaint with the DB debacle.

As a math oriented treasurer, I am inclined to put red lines through nonsense.

On the life-long commitment argument: I think that you will find that the average age of entrants to ministry and ministerial training has gone up. In our neck of the woods, Ministry is for many a career of later choice. Most pastors now have a portfolio career. Some commit early and stay the course, other commit early and divert mid-life, others start mid-life and commit for the remainder. Many Pastors are picking and choosing where they will serve in the world according to their life-style need on a national and international basis.

That is the way men are applying their ordination at present, this argument should not be levelled against Women who may need to accomodate their natural God given gift.

A couple of years ago a 63 year old man was presented for ordination having started ministry at 60, he is about to retire at 65. With no disrespect to the individual, the idea of 'life long service' does not resonate. The church was happy for the 5 or 6 years that he had to give.

'Life Long' is not an argument that can be consistently applied in the WO consideration.

(To be slightly naughty: Why is it that we love Pastors with a colourful pre-ministry record, and are able to smooth over all kinds of episodes on the grounds of grace? Some colleagues seems to think this is a 'selling point' on their CV's! Are we able to fairly apply this to women employees whose history might be gossipworthy?) Double standards is the point!

There are some high ranking women in the church, persons of excellence, who have chosen to be single. To lay arguments about motherhood on them is just not fair.

Taking arguments to the extreme (reductio et absurdum) may be valid when the argument is pure logic. It is not appropriate in situations that can be managed with the application of 'common sense'.

I conceded as fair argument that having many Pastoral couples could offer logistic problems, but I also suggest that most Conference managements would not be able or willing to go to that extreme. On balance there would be a mix with Women pastors whose husbands were not church employees.

The Adventist narrative I believe, is that EGW was not first in line for the prophetic gift, the men chosen goofed up and so God picked a Women. (I parody my recollection of the Prophetic Guidance course)

To put it simply, God could do it again?

I suggest that the debate is rooted in hermeneutics and should be addressed at the level. Theologians and Academics should not dishonour their calling by introducing bogus arguments.

Peter, my understanding of SDA ministerial credentials is they're granted only to denominational employees and denominational retirees.

I was ordained as a Bible teacher together with six other men. Three of us had a few to several years of pastoral/evangelistic experience which meant, in my part of world, one must have engaged in church planting evangelism at least once to twice a year; while the other 4 had years of administrative institutional experiences either or both in the local conference/mission, hospital, publishing, and school. Interestingly enough, during our collective interview, only one question was asked of us that in my mind had no relevance to the admnistrative-type candidates as far as their lifelong commitment as ordained ministers was concerned. Briefly, regardless of the position or responsibility one was subsequently assigned by the conference executive committee, what mattered was one stayed denominationally employed until retirement. As far as I know, those who retire with a ministerial credential may continue to be issued the same, year after year for as long as they live.

ps: I am not ordained or commissioned and have no particular need or desire for such. I like to consider that being a Servant Leader - life long is within my intent, as it is with thousands of lay leaders employed or appointed by the church.

Peter

I am not sure that you are to entitled take may observations of 'what is' to the proof you suggest.

I do have the faith to believe that people who take vows whether ordination or commissioning are honest in their intent at the time. I am experienced enough to have observed that their circumstances change and their capacity to fulfill that committment changes. I certainly do not believe that Women who may wish to give life long service inclusive of maternal responsibility are any less genuine.

If anything, the church at times with its fractiousness might have been more considerate about the stress it places on people like me and their Paternal responsibility. Though I am no whinging pom!

For myself, I made my commitment years ago have sustained it for 35 years and I renew it each day. Whether committees decide that I require the laying on of hands makes no difference to my committment. They call me to the job. I do it that's it. I even risk defending some of them on a website that enjoys challenging them!

>>> So now, show me from the Bible about women ordination. - earlier post above.

Instead - why not look at texts in the Bible that were used to prove that God condones slavery - verses that were used by Christians to excuse both slavery and the subjugation of African Americans! Now, we rightly put these verses into context - and argue for equality of colour/race - but are unwilling to put in context verses written two thousand years ago in the first century that talk about women in leadership! How convenient.

Genesis 17:12
Exodus 12:43
Exodus 21:1
Exodus21:20
Exodus 21:32
Leviticus 22:10
Leviticus 25:44
Luke 7:2
Colossians 3:22
Titus 2:9

How many times GC have say no to WO until some of our brethren will understand (including the dean of the SDATS).