Let's Be Serious

It's time to take a careful look at the issues involved in the current ordination debate.

1. Ordination and Polygamy: Who Cares About Women's Rights?

A couple of years ago I attended a meeting of many (not all) of our leading North American religion personnel—college and seminary Bible teachers, doctoral students, editors, and so on. At the meeting I heard a prominent Bible teacher deal with women's rights. This teacher recognized that many Seventh-day Adventists in "third world" countries want the General Conference to disapprove the ordination of women ministers. He also observed that a General Conference policy forbids Adventists in third world countries to baptize polygamists. He proposed a "solution": (1) The North American Division should let the General Conference know that it will no longer oppose the baptism of polygamists in Africa. (2) In return, Africans should let the General Conference know that they will no longer oppose the ordination of women ministers in North America. Just like that.

The teacher's proposal was greeted with warm applause and supportive comments from most (not all) of the eighty or so Adventist religion personnel who made up the group. But then an African teacher in the group announced that African Adventists don't want permission to baptize polygamists. At this unwelcome interruption, someone told the African that he was giving merely his own opinion; that at the 1985 General Conference session the delegates from two African Union Conferences specifically requested permission to baptize polygamists. The African replied that the request in question was made by non-African delegates and that as soon as these delegates returned to Africa, the African Adventists compelled them to reverse their request. Thus the African Unions are indeed unanimously opposed to the baptism of polygamists. Our African added that African Adventists consider polygamy to be harmful in itself and forbidden by the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. At once a North American retorted, "You say this only because you Africans have been brainwashed by the missionaries". Well!

In July 1989 I visited the West African country of Nigeria. I was shown how polygamy degrades women. I was told that many African women join the Seventh-day Adventist church because our church upholds the right of a woman to be her husband's only wife. Reflecting on the meeting a couple of years ago and on my experience in Nigeria, I realize again that some Bible scholars are so eager to upgrade (as they suppose) American women that they are willing to downgrade African women, if this is what is needed to push ordination through the General Conference. So let's be serious. Who really cares about women's rights?

2. "Identicals and Distinctives"?

The two sides in the current discussion over the ordination of women elders or ministers have been referred to as "the Pros and the Cons" and as "the Progressives and the Ultraconservatives" among various other suggestions. They might also be termed "the Identicals and the Distinctives". Both groups (and this is important) agree that men and women are "equal" in dignity and in God's sight. But the Identicals hold that—apart from certain minimal differences in respect to reproduction—men and women are virtually the same as one another. The Distinctives, on the other hand, while similarly urging that men and women are "equal," call attention to the distinctive roles which they perceive our loving and wise Creator bestowed on men and women as spouses, parents, and members of society.

1 Corinthians 3:8, 9 is good for helping us distinguish between being equal and being given distinctive roles. We all know that to plant a tree and to water it as it grows are two distinct (though related) occupations, but this passage reminds us that "he who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers". Ellen White speaks of distinct (though related) roles for fathers and mothers:

Let's be serious. Distinctives affirm the equality of men and women as persons in God's sight, just as do Identicals. But they also affirm the right of a woman to be distinctively a woman, and of a man to be distinctively a man.

3. Does the "tendency of the Bible" or its "trajectory" point to women's ordination?

Because the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings contain no passage expressly approving women's ordination, Identicals urge that development within the Bible can be extrapolated to demand women's ordination today. They say that in the Old Testament a woman was so subjugated that she was regarded as her husbands' possession, along with his cattle and other property. (To prove this, they sometimes cite Ex 20:17, which is important.). Then they say that in the New Testament, Jesus, by contrast, afforded women special respect, Philip's four daughters prophesied, Paul called some women his "fellow workers" (Rom 16:3), and Phoebe was a "deacon" (ibid.). Such development from Old Testament to New Testament, they say, points unmistakably in a direction that demands women's ordination today.

But does it?. Is there even such a development?. Let's be serious. Were there not prophetesses (e.g., Miriam and Huldah) in Old Testament times as well as in New?. Did not women (e.g., Deborah) occasionally lead men in Old Testament times?. Do not even our Identicals remind us of Miriam, Huldah, and Deborah when they're not arguing about development?. Must we overlook the fact that it is the New Testament, not the Old, which expressly states that a man is the head of his wife (1 Cor 11:3)?. It is the New Testament, not the Old, which says that women should not "teach and have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:12). When we speak of development, the "trajectory" of Biblical evidence can be shown to point away from rather than toward the ordination of women ministers.

4. Does the Tenth Commandment denigrate women?

As we all know, the tenth commandment (KJV) says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's". Some Identicals, who favor ordination of women ministers, tell us that this Old Testament passage denigrates woman to the level of a man's possessions, in contrast to the better treatment of woman in the New Testament.

But let's be serious. The tenth commandment was written by God, just as the fourth commandment was. Are our Identicals sincere when they imply that in Old Testament times God Himself regarded woman as her husband's property, lower than his house and on a level with his donkeys?. If Identicals are sincere (and we assume they are), where is their argument about development?. Both the Old Testament and the New teach that the ten commandments are still in effect, that they are as unchangeable as God Himself. "Till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law" (Matt 5:18 RSV).

What then should we do with the apparent disdain for women in the tenth commandment?. First, we should regard the commandment as a transcript of God's character. Second, we should examine the Hebrew term translated "house". Upon examination we find that the Hebrew word is beth, a common term that can indeed be translated "house" in some contexts but which is very often translated "household" and "family". (See any good Hebrew-English lexicon and such texts as Gen 7:1; 34:19; 41:40; 45:2; 50:22; Ex 16:31; 19:3; 40:38; etc., etc.). So what is God requiring of us under the tenth commandment—in the twentieth century A.D., just as much as in the fifteenth century B.C.?. He is lovingly and wisely requiring us to refrain from coveting our neighbor's household or family. He knows it's best that we not lust after a man's wife or, for that matter, after his servants and animals. In the list of the members of the man's household and family, pride of position goes, as we should expect, to the wife. The wife is mentioned first, in the place of honor.

5. "The husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2): What does it really mean?

When the Holy Spirit instructed Paul to write in 1 Timothy 3:2 that an elder "must be the husband of one wife," what did He mean?. Identicals who favor ordaining women elders have suggested several options other than that an elder should be a married man. Let's look at them.

6. Does "husband of one wife" mean "not polygamous"?

Some Identicals suggest that "the husband of one wife" means merely that a man, if elected to be an elder, must not be polygamous. Most Seventh-day Adventists would, at first thought, consider this interpretation perfectly obvious. But let's be serious. If this is all the passage means, it means that the church may elect as an elder a single man, a divorced man, a widower, or a man who has never been married. Not even most Identicals would be willing to accept this interpretation. The passage quite plainly means more than merely "not polygamous."

7. Does "the husband of one wife" mean "faithful to one woman"?

Some Identicals suggest that "the husband of one wife" means merely that a man, if elected elder, must be "faithful" to his wife; that is, he must not be an adulterer. Clearly this interpretation makes good sense. But let's be serious. This interpretation goes far beyond what the Greek text actually says. The Greek says nothing about faithfulness or adultery. It speaks only of being "the husband of one wife." Further, if all that was needed was "faithfulness," then once more we have to conclude that a single man, a divorced man, a widower—and even a woman—could serve as an elder. As in the case of the suggestion that the passage means merely "not polygamous," most Identicals who favor ordaining women elders would find this interpretation unacceptable.

8. Does "husband of one wife" mean "married only once"?

Some Identicals suggest that "the husband of one wife" means that a man, if elected elder, must have been married only once—that is, he must not have remarried after his wife has died. Once again, let's be serious. Surely this interpretation seems unkind to godly widowers. It also goes far beyond what the Greek text says. Even more important, it contradicts 1 Timothy 5:14, where Paul, writing in the same letter under inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, expresses a desire that young widows remarry. Evidently Paul was not opposed to remarriage after the death of one's spouse.

9. Can we apply "husband of one wife" equally to men and women?

Some Identicals propose that "the husband of one wife" is an inclusive phrase that in the twentieth century should be understood to mean "a person with only one spouse." Let's be serious. Does the Greek text say, "Let an elder be a person with one spouse"?. It does not. It speaks only of a man being the husband of one wife.

10. What does "husband of one wife" really mean?

At any rate, we should notice that the passage doesn't say that an elder is to be a "person" with "one spouse". The Greek language had a generic word for "person" (anthropos), and it was quite different from the word for "man," (aner) considered specifically as masculine. The word for "woman," considered specifically as feminine, was gune (from which we get "gynecologist"). In 1 Timothy 2 God says through Paul that an elder is to be a man (aner) married to one woman (gune). The matter couldn't be any clearer. If we want to be serious, we have no choice but to leave the matter as God left it. An elder is to be a married man, "the husband of one wife".

11. Was Paul restrained by contemporary culture?

By Paul's time Roman culture had been vigorously permeating the various cultures engulfed within the Roman Empire for some two hundred years. Within Roman culture, women didn't vote or occupy major political offices, but as even the Bible testifies, women did own property (e.g., the mother of John Mark) and conduct their own businesses (e.g., Lydia, seller of purple). Also, as their situations might develop, women managed both male and female slaves. In addition, women not infrequently served as priestesses and occasionally even as high priestesses of the various religions of the day. Some women (and also some men) behaved wildly at pagan gatherings, but most women (and also most men) lived fairly orderly lives. Roman society was complex. Many free women enjoyed more liberty than did millions of men who were slaves or freedmen. For more information, write for my paper, "Women in the Greco-Roman World".

Historical research provides reason to believe that Paul, far from being reluctant to give women some additional freedom he desired to grant them, was directed by the Holy Spirit to restrict the liberties that some Christian women were taking under the influence of Roman culture.

12. Did Ellen White encourage women to be ordained as elders?

No, she did not. People on both sides of the issue have for years been searching for such a statement, using even the laserdisc concordance. They haven't found one yet. It seems safe to say they never will. Inasmuch as Ellen White was inspired by the same God who inspired the Bible writers, this is not surprising.

13. But some congregations like women as elders and ministers.

We want to be serious. Many Christian congregations enjoy worshiping on Sunday, praying to saints, and being led by the Pope. To ask what people like may be democratic; Seventh-day Adventists, however, ask what the Bible says.

14. But isn't God blessing people through women elders and ministers?

Let's be serious. God seems to bless people through the ministry of Billy Graham. So should we all become Southern Baptists?. Many people seem spiritually blessed by the Pope. Should we all turn Catholic?. God uses many channels; but He has told us in His Word that His choice for an elder is that he be a married man, "the husband of one wife".

15. What about the many women who go into secular employment because we don't ordain them?

Let's be serious. The number of women already employed by the Adventist church in various capacities is in the hundreds of thousands. And the number of women who voluntarily serve in various capacities is in the many hundreds of thousands more. By contrast, the number of women who would ever serve as ordained ministers seems small. Besides, we must acknowledge that conferences have only so much money with which to hire ministers. For every woman they hire, they have to hire one fewer man. If we argue that women must be ordained, for otherwise they will go into secular employment, we must reply that an equal number of men, refused ordination so women could be ordained, would have to go into secular employment. In any case, if men and women are the same, the argument that we must hire women in place of men seems to lose its force.

16. Is there a consensus in the SDA church in favor of women elders and ministers?

In spite of insistent and almost clamorous promotion of women elders over the past 17 years, latest statistics can claim only around 900 women elders in the North American Division (NAD), distributed over fewer than 900 congregations. But in the NAD there are some 4000 congregations. This means that even in the NAD well over 3000 congregations nearly 80% of them do not have women elders. And our nine overseas divisions are almost unanimously opposed to ordaining women elders and ministers in their territories. Plainly, if there is any consensus in our church, it is in opposition to ordaining women elders.

But should consensus settle the question either way?. The Adventist Review has informed us that about 25% of NAD members drink wine occasionally a higher percentage, incidentally, than the number of our churches that have women elders. What does this prove?. And that 62% of NAD members drink caffeine beverages. Does this make caffeine healthful?. And that some 98% of our youth regularly watch commercial movies, with all their lust and violence.

We want to be serious. If our Seventh-day Adventist church is to ordain women as elders and pastors, we "demand" a "plain 'Thus saith the Lord'" in its support. In view of the plain requirement that an elder must be a married man, "the husband of one wife," nothing less will do.