Women should be singing the song made famous by the Civil Rights marchers:

"We shall overcome."

"Just how does disenfranchising 60% of the membership promote unity?"

It doesn't of course but I'm sure those in power see it as less disruptive than the alternative. Those in favor of women's equality are less disruptive in pursuing what they want then are those who oppose it.

Things will not change until it becomes too painful not to do so. Right now, it would be more painful for the church to change because those who oppose it are more ready to cause that pain. Those in power understand that if a change were to occur, unity would be more threatened than if things stay the same.

Unity can be maintained with the status quo because those in favor of ordination won't disrupt that unity enough to cause the change. Those against ordination are ready to disrupt it enough to make those in power unwilling to change.

David,
There are many "churches" within Adventism. You mention the conservative and liberal churches. But what about the regional varieties--the Midwestern church or the North Pacific church. Historian Keith Lockhart told me that the thing that surprised him the most after his last visit to the US was the regional variations in Adventism. The experience of church is very personal and local. People then generalize from their own experience out. So, for instance, when people leave the church they leave at a specific time and place that they normalize in their minds as being representative of the entire church. Years later, when for some reason they come back in conversation with the church, they assume that it is the same as when they left it. But the church changes. The conversation changes. The conversation about women and ordination is not the same today that it was at Utrecht. It can't be. Now we have women as vice presidents and secretaries of divisions We have a woman vice president at the GC. We have a woman who is the pastor of the largest church in China. Whether we like it or not, it is ever so slowly changing. This reality is nothing to hold against each other. The conservatives are changing just as much as the liberals, the Southerners just as much as the New Englanders. It is from the variety of voices that the beautiful harmony of our praise ascends to our God.

Mr. Read,

This is a light switch for your bulb brain.

We live about 10 minutes from a real true red meat conservative SdA Church where Teddy MacArthur/Colonel Klink is apparently a member.

We live about 5 minutes away from one of those liberal/progressive/subversive SdA churches that are a bane to your existence and apparently pastored by an editor of an independent SdA publication.

We attend neither.

It's just a wild guess that they are aware of each other.

God Bless you in your banality and have a Happy Sabbath.

That Adventist doctrine should vary radically from one geographical region to another is an opinion of the liberal church-within-a-church that the traditional church doesn't know about, and wouldn't agree with.

Maybe next time Cooper will be elected. Being that he rightly refused to campaign for himself (unlike Ted), those who wish to see progressive and Godly change in the church should speak up, loudly...and then vote just as loudly.

David,
You seem to have no understanding of the close link between culture and religion (including Adventism). Adventism exists in a number of forms globally, also when it comes to understanding propositional truth. Your conservative-liberal persective may be a good tool in chasing down those who you do not agree with - perceived apostates, but it is useless if you want to understand the dynamics of any religious movement, including SDA. Adventism has never existed in a pure form, and never will. Adventism like all other holistic worldviews are accessible only in interpreted. form.

Ole

David,
You are thinking bimodal distribution when you should be thinking bell curve.

Easy to do when one thinks in terms of "us" versus "them" but if one actually looked at a hypothetical data plot of beliefs, I have no doubt that one would see a bell curve, not separate humps for liberals and conservatives.

I happen to think the AAW made a good choice this year!

I also think "Just do it" is a good policy for women.

"I, too, hope that those people, and Samir Selmanovic comes quickly to mind in New York, are sought out by the leadership for advice and partnership."

Why, in the name of common sense would he be called for advice and partnership?

Would we ask for permission to treat SDAs of dtfferent races fairly? Why then do we keep seeking permission to treat both men and women with equity. Those who keep asking puzzle me even more than those who keep saying "no."

Which will happen first?

1. Women allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.

2. SdA women allowed to be ordained.

If Dr. Baum was Teddy's guest did he pay her expenses?

Or were the expenses billed to the BSHQ?

I've read that the Hopi sometimes say "We are the ones we've been waiting for." If ever there were a situation to which these words apply it is this one.

It really is bad faith repeatedly to return to church leaders with questions they should not be asked in the first place. It is a way trying to shift responsibility for an ethically intolerable outcome to others.

At least those who oppose the full participation of women in SDA ministry have the courage of their convictions and I repect them for that.

As I understand it, determinations as to which persons will be ordained are typically handled at the local and union conference levels. This is where this issue should have been handled from the very first and this is where it should be resolved today.

As one officer of the General Conference has said, "There are no new texts." Hence, at this time to call for yet another theological taskforce to study the matter is also a way of trying to avoid acting responsibly.

Yet on this issue to do nothing---to wait for others to take the lead--is to be on the wrong side of history. God's truth does "keep marching on" and those who favor fair treatment of both men and women in SDA history aren't keeping up.

Self-styled "progressives" are now the problem, not those who describe themselves as "conservatives."

It is incredibly sad to yet again se the old men of GC offices vote women down. The issue of women's role in the church indeed is a question of equality and justice. It is a mystery to me that Ted Wilson, who so eagerly seems to be working to bring the church back to his father's time in the 70'ies, has not learned from his father's great failure in the Merikay issue. He should be the foremost in working for justice for employees and members in the church, and yet he seems to be doing the very opposite.

Yet again this reminds me of the urgent need for a critical and unbiased press in the SDA Church. Unfortunately, by writing here in Spectrum we are only discrediting ourselves as liberals and infidels in the minds of the many David Reads on the right fringe of our church. But what alternatives do we have to voice our oppositions to he current developments?

But with regads to justice, please Spectrum, remind Ted Wilson and the old men of the Merikay case and the verdicts of that issue. Here in Europe women's ordination certainly is a legal and cultural embarrassment for our church. Just as the Merikay case was.

What can grassroots people do to ordain women?

Anonymous1

I take it that the issue at hand is whether commissioned women ministers should be allowed to serve as conference presidents with all the duties and responsibilities of that office.

When the delegates to the constituency meeting(s) where conference presidents and other officers are elected believe that the best qualified is a woman, they should elect and install her with no reservations and no restrictions.

They should do this without fear and fanfare. It's as simple as that!

Some will huff and puff but they won't blow the whole house down. After all, they live in it too!

davidlarson writes: "I also hold that we should apply whatever theology of ordination we now have to qualified persons without regard to race, gender, economic class and so forth. ... Even when a dessert is not what it could or should have been, it should be divided fairly among everyone in the family." [my emphasis added]

Dave, I would call attention to your use of the word 'fairly'. Getting to the root of how we humans determine such norms is, I suggest, at the heart of this matter of ordination & women's equality. And I think you have implicitly in this post made an assumption, rooted in natural law, that there is a universal called fairness that is discernible to all. And you then appeal to it.

But there are other folks, perhaps exemplified by our correspondent 'Your Friend' who, every time women's ordination is discussed, uses the argument that I would label 'God said it, I believe it, and that settles it'. Folks who refer to authority but allow that authority to float free from natural law (and might even dispute that such a thing exists) will be immune to your appeal to 'fairness', Because fairness - and really anything one might consider normative - is reduced to whatever the believer thinks God has said. I would guess for some who hold this view in the extreme, if their revelatory source said that God told us to jump (say, each Tue at 5 PM) they would only ask 'how high', rather than question the rationality of the request and, thus, risk the slippery slope down to unbelief.

This, I submit, is a powerful deterrent to any discussion as your appeal to fairness is easily dismissed.

I think how we do things is very important.
I am still not convinced that "protest action" would go down well in the church.

My dilemma is this:

1. The only parallel I can think of is interracial marriage. Ellen White seemed to suggest that pushing for it (in her time) would be an unnecessary barrier to the gospel.

2. This seems to be backed up by the Bible's approach to slavery, polygamy and justice (eye-for-eye) that is--do not push people ahead of their time.

3. However, being black, I appreciate the agitation that the Civil Rights movement and the anti-slavery movement brought to society as it has been a real blessing to people of colour. (In fact, the lack of this kind of movement in Latin America--for example-- seems to have frozen their own racial attitudes).

4. Additionally we are taught that we should stand up for what is right regardless of the consequences.

So which is it?
Does the Gospel take precedence over social issues? Are social issues the gospel?

I fins myself wanting to endorse Dr. Larson and say: "Just go ahead and do it."
But is that what Christ would do? I genuinely do not know.

I do agree that this is a local issue and that there should be many more independent women ministers as well as pastors at the local church level. I find myself wondering if this would not have been resolved sooner if there were more local church/conference (not even union) action--i.e. if there were many more commissions and pastoral assignments.

But withholding tithes in protest? Really? Back to earth some of you!

Most of the problems in the SDA politics are solvable by local congregation action. That is where the power and money comes from. Problem is, most of them don't want to rock the boat. It is fun to blame the top. Once i realized the system was broken at all levels, as shown by the tolerance at all levels for Cliff's anti-evolution witch hunt, and that i did not have the strength to accept any responsibility for the damage the system was doing to people and to Christianity, i quit.

I salute and encourage those who work from inside to fix it. Don't wait for the gc, the nad, the union - act in the congregation and the conference

The gc was supposed to be the servant, not the master

Anonymous1

Strike. Stop supporting the system. Campaign.

Read the church manual. The businesses meeting, not the board, runs an sda congregation. Go to them with like minded individuals, make motions and get them passed and insist they get implemented.

Anonymous1

Sadly this kind of church is more common than most of us admit, finding placement for Women in ministry is not straight forward even in a country where a Women has been the head of State for almost 60 years.

Unlike, normal human rights, non of us have a right to lead, it comes by consent and invitation.
A key component of Revival and Reformation must be the revocation of all discriminatory practices, and raising criteria by which those who hold the right of ordination retain such status.

Rich identifies a big problem when he highlights how difficult it apparently is for some to make ethical decisions on any basis other than appealing to authority.

Yet EGW and others tell us that, when we obey only because we are forced to obey out of fear that some authority will punish us if we don't, we actually fail to be obedient.

Doing the right thing out of inner conviction and not merely in submission to external authority is the only thing that counts, says EGW. I agree.

Scripture is on the side of ordaining qualified men and women today because this is in harmony with its overall moral flow. This issue parallels slavery. There is no explicit condemnation of the practice in Scripture and this is why many in previous generations defended it. But for Biblical and other reasons they were wrong.

The point of being a morally responsible person and group today is not to repeat what people in Bible times did. It is to discern the direction God led them and to move further down that same road.

Going beyond Scipture in the same direction is right; moving against its overall flow is wrong.

Changing topics: I think it better not to frame doing the right thing in this manner as a "revolt," "protest" or "uprising" because it isn't. Neither should those who favor treating men and women rightly congratulate themselves for being ethically advanced or courageous.

No one makes a big deal of not spitting on people. Treating women the way we officialy do in this denomination is ethically equivalent. No one should be hailed as a moral hero for stopping.

"Furthermore, if those who advocate the fair treatment of all those who are being considered for ordination cannot persuade their own local and union conferences to do so, they should not be critical of those who can't convince the whole SDA world.
The local and union conferences are the problem, not the General Conference." --David Larson

I agree w/ all of David's other points. However, the local & union conferences are not easy to impact.

I've been on executive committees at the conf & union levels in different areas of the NAD. One conf cmte routinely advances the names of both men & women candidates to the union which must approve them; the union pres always rejects the women for ordination, because ordaining women violates GC policy.

In my experience, the union level is especially problematic. The decisions are made--before the exec cmte meets--by sub-committees. There is little, if any, discussion at the exec cmte meeting. The exec cmte then is presented these decisions for final voting, & since it is a very large group w/ a very full agenda, it's essentially rubber stamping. These decisions then move up to the NAD for approval.

Union presidents of my acquaintance are typically careful to not make decisions against GC policy. Perhaps they are grooming themselves for advancement, which is not granted to rockers of boats.

A conf or union pres has a lot of power over what happens in exec cmte. Not only during meetings, but in who ends up a member of the cmte. Just as we've seen Ted Wilson go against process, it occurs also at other levels. Jerry Page (now GC Ministerial as Wilson's choice) was the most openly controlling conf pres in pushing through his desires.

The exec cmtes have employee & lay members. The employees need to stay on the pres' good side, obviously. He's their boss. Lay members come w/ a varying degrees of passivity to a church leader, or perhaps the need to be part of this "privileged" group, & so some don't question anything. 

Our system is not designed for change. We've tended to make significant changes only when pushed to the wall by law & lawsuits.

Webser's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines ordain as follows:

"Tio invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions' confer holly order upon:" There is no qualification as to gender. The brethren read more into First Timonthy 2 and 3 than was intended. In the first century A.D.it was primarily men who were educated and trained for leadership. That is no longer true.

I was taught Bible Doctrines by a woman--who was totally inept. I was taught English Literature in the Academy by a woman who was totally versed in both English Lit but in Bible Doctrines. My appreciation of English Lit and Scripture was in English IV at the Emmanuel Missionary College Academy in English IV. Male faculty in the Department of religion put off any questions asked by freshmen students. particularly if it dealt with Daniel or Revelation. The point was simple--repeat what I told you in class and you will be graded well. Ask questions will only get you into trouble.

My English teacher was entirely different. Ask her a question and she would say: "Great question Tom, I suggest you read so and so--I think you'll find the answer. At least then we can discuss it clearly.

Now that kind of wisdom demands ordination. She died shortly after I shipped out for the South Pacific. We did say good-bye two weeks before I sailed. In heaven she will have a front row seat. So near the throne that the faculty of the Department of Religion will have difficult even seeing her.

My fifth and sixth grade teacher was made of similar stuff. Few males have come up to their level of
spiritual guidance. I met my first such male at Junior Campt--Edward Heppenstal, and the second
at the University of Chicago--Graham Maxwell, and the third at our dinner table H.M. S. Richards, and M. Maxwell sister of Graham. .And just a few years back Alden Thompson.

All were well read, sensitive to the needs of others, and reflecting the Spirit of Christ's ministry. All were approachable, and sincere listeners and great teachers. They would lead one from error or ignorance, with grace and compassion.

None of the harshness of a Pator Kevin Paulson et al. Non- of the arrogance of a Conference Committee.

The bottom-line is that a women who more than meet the requirements Paul sets forth in Timothy
But I still wonder why any woud want to be numbered with that self centered group. Tom Z.

p.s. I hit save instead of preview so there are more typo's than usual. Tom Z

hopeful said:
"We've tended to make significant changes only when pushed to the wall by law & lawsuits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly it appears so.

There is a slight parallel here with the Mormon Church and its issues with blacks and the priesthood. Many times its the law/society that drags a church into more Christ-like behaviour.

David Larson talks about "moral flow", but it is a very difficult thing for many traditionalists to grasp. If you want to see this in action, ask them if the Bible says that slavery is wrong. They will often argue up to the limit and no further--i.e. that slavery in the Bible was more humane ("different") than modern-day slavery--and will ride for all it's worth on the Jubilee year.

They will never make a "moral flow argument"--even though their personal views are essentially derived from it.

Kim Green, thanks a lot.

I agree with your analysis.

I also think that SDAs have avoided many of these issues (gender equality etc.) because of an overriding sense that we need to avoid persecution--so political agitation is shunned. That's my only guess.
SDAs have traditionally been wary of the religious right and its affiliated parties since persecution is supposed to come from that quarter while at the same time shying away from the left (with their more liberal social attitudes). Only recently have many been identifying with the right in my observation.

Freud said women have "penis envy." Truth is, men always have envied women the creative power to bring new life into the world. All their victories at battle, their achievements, their 200 million new members into the church, pale into insignificance with the ability of women to cradle a new life in her body. Men sublimate this into many and varied achievements, which is why we see the strong desire to "keep women in their place" barefoot, pregnant, and with children or in the kitchen.

How different is the SDA church in withholding women from ordination than the Saudis who prohibit women from driving? It is the same fear that women may equal or excel men--a very scary thought. Which makes one wonder: what is the reaction of those against women's ordination at the 5,000 members brought in by women in China? Was that against God's will? Does the church recognize, even appreciate these women's efforts? Where is their thankfulness, even congratulations?

Some years ago I read the constitutions of all the conferences in North America. One conference stood out from all the others--Southeastern Calif. There is a section which says "We follow the policies as voted by the North American Division and the General Conference." Southeastern's said "We essentially follow the policies . . .) That little word "essentially" will allow them to ordain women if they so choose because they will not be violating their constitution. Is that word still there?

I comment on the argument that ordination has to be a world decision since ordained people from the US should be recognized anywhere in the world. In one of the colloquiums at the General Conference when I served on the GC Executive Committee there was an exchange between Elder Neal Wilson, president of the GC and Elder Bradford, president of the NAD. Elder Wilson had just made the argument that it would not be right for a woman to be ordained in the US if she would not be allowed to preach in a church in Africa.

Elder Bradford got up and in his most impressive voice said: When I was ordained I was not allowed to preach in the white church across the street. If your argument is valid then black preachers should not have been ordained because they would not be accepted everywhere.

Elder Wilson had no response.

David Trim

Was it not the case that Kjell Aune complained that the MEU Executive Committee had not been consulted rather than Executives?

Victor,

You make an excellent point when you suggest that Adventists need a stronger theology of ordination. I think that any future change in practice in this area (as in all areas) should flow from a solid theological understanding of the action, and what it means. As a catholic, I have a very particular understanding of ordination, and the difference between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of all believers. And so I would pose some questions that I think Adventists need to address when considering what they believe ordination is.

Does ordination "DO" anything? Does God accomplish a change in an individual who is ordained, that sets them apart from other individuals? Does one's ordination enable (or just allow) one to perform certain rites that non-ordained people can not perform?

Are there indeed things that only an ordained minister can do in Adventism? (Besides be president of a conference!)

What did ordination look like in the New Testament, in the 100s, 200s 300s etc throughout christian history?

Just some thoughts,

Tim

abe thompson might find happiness on this bus--
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregion/bus-segregation-of-jewish-wom...

Riverside Gal - Sat, 10/22/2011 - 19:47
"Charles, if you only knew (and perhaps you do)."

Please, do tell, Riverside Gal!

Elaine
Even for AI a male is involved somewhere along the line.And yes western society is not replacing itself so in the end it will be the Moslems that inherit the earth. They at least know how to handle rebellious headstrong females.

The rebellion against authority is not new it was in fact the beginning of sin in heaven .The unwillingness to keep the station that God ordained.

The problem for the SDA church is that they have already let the genie out of the bottle in that they have a lady prophet, female local elders and girls in theology classes in college.The SDA church was on the slippery slope from the beginning and at best can only fight a delaying rearguard action.The ordination of women preachers is inevitable given how far that denomination has departed from the apostolic guidelines.

Maybe out of all the mess a few will find their way back to NT practice and policy but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Abe, do you ever shed you caftan and turban and whip (for ladies who drive)?

What I find interesting and instructive about this is that (in my view) the refusal to fully ordain women is a sin. I believe that every bit as surely and passionately as the most conservative, literal-minded Adventist believes homosexual relationships are a sin, or that belief in anything other than six literal days of creation is a sin. So I find myself challenged to behave on this issue as I often ask my conservative colleagues to act. My instinct is to demand that women immediately be fully ordained in every union and conference in the denomination, and that churches that refuse to do so be disciplined severely. I am reminded though that a community is made up of a diversity of voices, and that there is wisdom in making as much room as possible for as many voices as possible. There are limitations to that of course - when a policy inflicts actual harm we each must take our own actions to minimize the harm, and there comes a time when the harm must cease. Still, in the interest of community I have been persuaded to support a policy in which some portions of our community are allowed a just and fair ordination policy, while other portions are allowed to keep the discriminatory policy a while longer. While I disagree strongly with those who refuse to treat women fairly, I do not believe that those I disagree with have forfeited their right to membership in the community, nor do I desire to belong to a community that only accepts those who think as I do.

What is frustrating of course is that what should be an extreme compromise position has been so consistently and flatly rejected by the world church. The time has long since passed when the status quo can be simply tolerated. Some kind of direct action to right this wrong is required. The parallel to race is exact - and if we wonder where we should go from here, we need only consider our response if the General Conference refused to fully ordain Black, or Asian, or Hispanic ministers. Conferences and Unions in the NAD have no choice but to start recognizing the full ordination of women, and nominating and electing appropriate women ministers to positions of organizational authority, including that of unit presidents. The world church can then decide if they value unity and community enough to recognize those actions, or want to take a more schismatic response.

Paul certainly expected women to speak in church, or else why would he address how it should happen? He'd never have given these directions if women were truly forbidden from speaking in the church.

"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." 1 Corinthians 11:5

‎"We can usually discern what is transcultural and what is culturally relative by asking this simple question: Is the issue in this passage uniformly addressed throughout Scripture? If it is, we can be confident that the teaching is probably transcultural. But where the Bible itself offers different teachings on a particular issue depending on the context, that is an indication that we’re dealing with an issue that is culturally conditioned." --Greg Boyd
http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-church/women-in-ministry/

There were no churches as we know today in Paul's time. Most of the time they met in homes and the building of Christian churches came later. It is reasonable to consider that if women prayed and prophesied in homes, would they suddenly reamin silent because they were in a "church" building? Is a building so sacrosanct that women are second-class (as they were in Jewish synagogues)?

I think a lot of harm came to kids when parents moved away from the biblical model and fathers worked long hours away from home and family, and to a large degree abrogated major responsibility for child rearing to the mothers. I think a lot of harm came to families when we moved away from the biblical model of large extended families where everyone contributed to care and support instead of the enormous pressures left for families with only one or two adults. I think a lot of harm came to kids and families when our society embraced the industrial era model of work and life, and when our society became consumed by a capitalistic mindset and practices.

Your Friend, your attitude frequently shows misunderstanding of women, and even an underlying animosity. Perhaps it's time to stop blaming them and time to find in your heart some ways of relating to them and understanding them with insight, empathy and wisdom.

Your Friend--

Sometimes it is difficult to tell where your sincere beliefs end and your general grumpiness begins. They seem like a woven rope.

-- Tim

Well Elaine, Paul would have to be talking about the synagogue as opposed to house worship or he would be contradicting himself in regards to Christian conduct of women. Thus, the anti-women's ordination supporters would be right in making Paul's 'anti-women' comments we find in scripture, simply to apply to a specific context and not to all women in church. Thus supporting their view that women should not be ordained but can still speak and teach as Paul's words are not a blanket application to women's roles in the church in general.

I would like to believe that these admonishments are Paul speaking specifically in terms of women not holding any position in the church hierarchy or speaking out in the synagogue (and my point is that either this is cultural, or the anti-women's ordination supporters are hypocritical in their smorgasbord methodology of choosing what to follow in regards to Paul's counsel), yet in their personal life, the above comments that seem pro-women speaking out, would apply.

Darrell,

In short, anti-women spiritual leaders (men AND astonishingly some women) are hypocrites for selectively applying a historically and culturally specific admonition in a way that appeases the less informed/aware in order to fortify and reserve modern religious political positions for men alone?

Agreed.

Your Friend, my comment about the harm done by refusing to fully ordain women was not directed at those (like you, apparently) who oppose ordination, but for those of us who favor it. If you are genuinely interested in a real conversation about the harm done to women and men and girls and boys by our current unequal, unjust and (in my view) immoral ordination policy I would be willing to engage you in that later. For now, my point was simply that those of who who oppose the current policy have a judgement to make, in terms of how long we can stand by and do nothing in the interest of a pluralistic community, and when we must take more effective action to at least minimize the harm. Those who do not oppose the current policy (and presumably do not perceive any harm) are not faced with this particular dilemma.

I will note that your claim that children are harmed when their mothers work outside the home is a somewhat different justification for the current discriminatory ordination policy than what we often hear, which is that God or the Bible supposedly specifically is against women working as ordained ministers, not working outside the home in general. While I believe your kind of rationalization was part of the Church's earlier, illegal discriminatory employment practices, I think the Church has, at least formally, recanted that position, and I don't think you will find that it is, or can be, part of the current rationale for refusing to ordain women.

@ J. David Newman. You wrote: "I comment on the argument that ordination has to be a world decision since ordained people from the US should be recognized anywhere in the world. In one of the colloquiums at the General Conference when I served on the GC Executive Committee there was an exchange between Elder Neal Wilson, president of the GC and Elder Bradford, president of the NAD. Elder Wilson had just made the argument that it would not be right for a woman to be ordained in the US if she would not be allowed to preach in a church in Africa.

Elder Bradford got up and in his most impressive voice said: When I was ordained I was not allowed to preach in the white church across the street. If your argument is valid then black preachers should not have been ordained because they would not be accepted everywhere.

Elder Wilson had no response."

My response: AMEN!
My wish: SISTERS ACT NOW!

President Jimmy Carter's example is clearly an act of leadership:

Jimmy Carter Leaves Southern Baptists (an ABC News report) Oct. 20 2009?

Former President Carter, a longtime Sunday school teacher, is walking away from the Southern Baptists because of the church’s stance on equality for women.

In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published today, Carter says Southern Baptist leaders reading the Bible out of context led to the adoption of increasingly “rigid” views.

“I’m familiar with the verses they have quoted about wives being subjugated to their husbands,” he told the paper. “In my opinion, this is a distortion of the meaning of Scripture. … I personally feel the Bible says all people are equal in the eyes of God. I personally feel that women should play an absolutely equal role in service of Christ in the church.”

Southern Baptists are the United States’ largest Protestant denomination, with 15.9 million members.
In June, the group’s leaders voted at its national convention that women should no longer serve as pastors. They also voted to condemn racism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and adultery.

Although the statement of faith regarding pastors was not binding on congregations, some Baptists warned that some churches would quit the denomination. Some congregations did quit two years ago when the Southern Baptists declared that wives should “submit graciously” to their husbands.

End of Tradition

“My grandfather, my father and I have always been Southern Baptists, and for 21 years, since the first political division took place in the Southern Baptist Convention, I have maintained that relationship. I feel I can no longer in good conscience do that,” Carter was quoted as telling the Journal-Constitution.

The former president told the paper he will continue as a deacon at Baptist church in his hometown of Plains, Ga., and that he and his wife, Rosalynn, will associate with Baptist groups “who share such beliefs as separation of church and state … a free religious press, and equality of women.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

"Ordination is a minor (and frankly non existent) issue in the grand scheme of things. The issue is women's AUTHORITY." --Darrell C

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20

Don't get me wrong, hopeful. I'm not saying that men should have authority over women. My point is that so many freak out over the idea of women being ordained, but not teaching or preaching and doing generally what a pastor or elder does.

And yet, Paul's issue is not with women being ordained. To ordain or not to ordain isn't even the focus of Paul, nor is it mentioned. Paul would have an issue with so much of what anti-women's ordination supporters allow for women in the church, yet all they seem to think about is 'it is un-biblical to have ordained women!' Show me in the bible where Paul specifically prohibits ordination of women but still believes they can teach, preach and have authority over men in church counsels, committees and ministry teams? You can't find support for either. Nonetheless, conservatives harp on this one issue that isn't even an issue in the scriptures to totally disregard the rest of Paul's counsel on women's authority.

Either it is cultural or follow it the whole way, Ted W, Doug B and all other company. You can't sit there sanctimoniously and claim the bible is on your side when all you are showing is pious hypocrisy on the matter.

The priesthood of all believers and the spiritual walls in Christ have been broken down between male and female, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, free and bond. So many pooh-pooh Galatians 3:28 in regards to explaining it this way. This is not merely speaking about 'salvation' as so many try to make it. If that were the case, then we should be having slaves as according to that interpretation, slaves can be saved just as the masters can. No, this is abolishing the walls of enmity in Christ between all of these groups.

Just as there is so much cultural application regarding men and women in the OT that we as Christians today disregard, so there is in the NT as well. Paul is no less inspired for preaching according to the cultural norms of his time.

In first world countries, Adventism is far behind the curve in its treament of women in the church.