Response to NAD President's Request to Annual Council

In the Adventist Review for February 1995, by means of a speech delivered to the Annual Council, you request support from the church for a North American Division (NAD) initiative dealing with the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Your Request is courteous and pleasant. My heart urges me to consent to it; my conscience, however, compels me to demur. I pray that my disagreement may be as courteous as your Request.

Thoughtful people realize that, as president of an organization, you may at times have to represent positions different from those you hold personally. This may be the case with your Request. In any event, we must take the Request seriously and consider whether the church should approve it.

At the William Miller Farm last October 22, everyone could see that you were deeply moved by the marvelous uplifting that occurred as our people believed the Bible the way it was written. Even Daniel 8:14 implicitly trusted... produced an exaltation of spirit. You asked that the experience be repeated in Battle Creek in October 1995, with the emphasis this time on the Sabbath and the Spirit of Prophecy.

It is wonderful to see our leaders take the Bible as it stands and exhort us to believe it. "I will come again." "Unto 2300 days." "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." "Here are they that...have the testimony of Jesus."

The same Bible that predicted the end of the 2300 days and that identifies the final remnant says in 1 Timothy 3:2 that a bishop or elder is to be "the husband of one wife."

Thus my own primary response to your Request, Elder McClure, is to urge you to take your stand on the Word of God in this matter as you did so genuinely at the Miller farm on the Sanctuary and Second Coming doctrines. Even in your Request, you acknowledge that "our objective must be fidelity to God's Word." I humbly invite you to the very fidelity of which you speak.

Although my response can thus be expressed in a few words, I do not wish to give an answer so short that it appears disrespectful of the many different arguments that your Request employs. So I have identified ten arguments and have prepared a response to each in turn. (In some cases I have reworded the arguments for convenience but without any intention of changing their meaning.)

1. We do not wish to cause a problem. We are loyal Seventh-day Adventists and note that ordination of local elders has not caused division.

When you say that you are a loyal Adventist and do not wish to cause a problem, I respect for a moment the question your personal integrity. I do, however, question whether all the people who have propelled you into making your Request share your irenic attitude. Are there not voices East and West prepared to ordain women ministers even in defiance of General Conference action to the contrary?

The 3:1 vote in 1990 opposing the ministerial ordination of women failed to stop the pro-ordination movement, which interpreted this set-back as a spur to enhanced agitation. This being the case, will acceptance of the NAD initiative stop the agitation? Will it not be taken as an invitation to press on until women are ordained in every Division, in every Union, in every Conference?

But because in every congregation people have Bibles and can read, sooner or later it will be discovered that the Bible says that a bishop or elder is to be "the husband of one wife," a qualification that no woman can satisfy. Hence not merely will the denomination be divided, but every General Conference Division, every local congregation will be divided. This anti-biblical movement has the potential for setting loose a wave of divisiveness without parallel in our denominational experience.

I believe that you and most of the North American Division want to avoid being divisive, but I and many others fear this initiative is playing with fire.

2. "Our part of the world has a peculiar need."

Surely this is so. But what is this peculiar need? We are living in the end time. The seal of God and the mark of the beast loom just ahead, along with the close of probation and the inception of the time of trouble. What do we need more than anything else? In order to "endure unto the end" we need to be "settled into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually," so we "cannot be moved" (Ellen G. White comments, SDA Bible Commentary, 4:1161).

With deep respect for your position as president of the North American Division, I would lay before you my conviction that what our part of the world needs most is for leadership at all levels to summon us to the highest possible allegiance to the Bible as the Word of God.

3. No theology is involved; the matter is merely ecclesiological.

I agree that the matter is ecclesiological. At the end of the extended passage (1 Timothy 2 and 3) in which the Bible says that an elder is to be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2), occurs this summary: "These things write I unto thee:... that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God" (1 Timothy 3:14–15).

So indeed the matter is ecclesiological, but this does not make it any less theological. For one thing, "ecclesiology" as understood in seminaries is a branch of theology.

But let me assume that what you intended by "ecclesiological" is "administrative," meaning that the choice of a woman in preference to a man is something that a committee can handle without particular reference to Scripture.

Though selection among male candidates, all of whom appear to meet Bible qualifications, may well be merely an administrative matter, how can we agree that selection of a woman candidate is merely administrative when the Bible says that a bishop or elder is to be the "husband of one wife," a qualification that no woman can fulfill?

Besides, after years of study, I do believe that the issue is profoundly theological. Under the inspiration of God, Paul used clear theological reflection to support his position. One of his theological positions was that men have responsibilities which differ characteristically from those of a woman in consequence of creation itself. Another was that just as Adam was a type of all men and of all sinners, so Eve was a type of all women. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:13–14).

Thus, because Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived, said Paul under inspiration, only a man (that is, "the husband of one wife") can occupy the authoritative teaching position of elder or bishop.

The statement that a bishop or elder is to be "the husband of one wife" does not stand in naked isolation; it stands at the climax of a passage (1 Timothy 2 and 3) that begins with the duties of every Christian person (anthrōpos in Greek), then moves to the different duties and limitations of man (anēr) and woman (gunē), and reaches a kind of climax with the passage that includes the statement that the bishop or elder is to be the husband/man (anēr) of one wife/woman (gunē).

That the ordination of women does involve biblical theology was recognized by the General Conference when the issue was raised in the early 1970s. The Mohaven meeting of 1973 was convoked on behalf of the General Conference by Gordon Hyde, then serving as head of the Biblical Research Institute. The principal speakers were theologians from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary.

I cannot escape observing 1 Timothy 3:2 in that matter; it makes no reference to any Bible passage. Yet 1 Timothy 3:2 is in the passage of Scripture our Manual for Ministers says should be read before the prayer for ordaining elders. Mark Twain once confessed that he had no difficulty with Bible passages he didn't understand. The verses that troubled him were the ones he did understand.

What verse is any easier to understand than 1 Timothy 3:2, the passage which says that a bishop or elder is to be "the husband of one wife"?

4. Some actions by the Annual Council in 1973 and 1974 and the Spring Council in 1975 set the stage for ordaining local women elders.

Your Request referred to the history of the pro-ordination movement. I do not blame you for leaving out some aspects of this history, for your space was limited. But some things that you of necessity left out are pertinent to my opposition to the NAD proposal.

Much is made these days about the recommendation of the Mohaven Conference which examination reveals is unwarranted. The Mohaven recommendation, which provided the basis for the church council actions you referred to, should not be taken as reflecting the mature conclusions of the persons who were present. The chairman, not the participants, wrote the document, modifying the participants' recommendations as he chose and preparing the final draft after returning to his office at the General Conference.

I know this because I was a member of the Mohaven group. I well remember that final evening. The chairman—who had already given his consent that a woman relative of his could serve as a local elder—divided the participants into small groups and assigned us to work on different provisions of the final statement. But when the full group reassembled and handed in our statements, the chairman began writing whatever he wanted to say without regard to the statements! Feeling that his action was most inappropriate and wasted the time we had put into our statements, I got so upset by this breach of procedure that I feared I would say something out of place. I therefore left the meeting and walked around the campground until I could regain my composure.

Among my other memories is my amazement at what some of my colleagues did with the Scriptures. They cited Galatians 3:28 (in Christ there is neither male nor female) and Genesis 1–2 (the creation stories) to prove that men and women, being equal in God's plan and in Christ's salvation, could both equally be ordained. "But," I thought to myself, "these verses say nothing directly about ordination."

At Mohaven, 1 Timothy 3:2 did not come into focus. But over the following few years, reflecting on 1 Timothy 3:2 and other passages, at least several of us Mohaven participants came to realize that women cannot be ordained to the ministry in an environment that is faithful to Scripture as the Word of God. Some pro-ordination people continue to cite the Mohaven positions of these men as favoring the ordination of women, but this is unfair and untrue to them. I and at least two other "Mohaven theologians" came to reject and oppose the ordination of women, whether as local elders or gospel ministers.

The appeal to church councils worries me not a little. Did not Martin Luther teach us that councils err and that our only safety is in relying on the Word of God? Along the same line, what did Ellen G. White say?

Are we really prepared to say that Seventh-day Adventists should place the vote of a committee above the voice of a Scripture as plain as 1 Timothy 3:2, which says that a bishop or elder is to be "the husband of one wife"?

5. In twenty years the church has not taken a theological position on the matter; indeed, our theologians differ. Does this not "speak for itself?"

Admittedly, Seventh-day Adventist theologians do differ over the issue; but is this the only issue that our NAD theologians are divided over? Are they not also divided over the interpretation of Genesis 1–2, over the importance of committed Sabbath keeping, over the relative importance of polygamy and of homosexuality, over our potential or lack of it for victorious living, over the inspiration of Ellen G. White, and even over the significance of that most characteristic of our doctrines, the sanctuary and 1844? Because our theologians are divided on these topics, are we to conclude that the topics are not theological? No. Then are we to infer that the topics are unimportant? No. Or that our evangelists—men on the front lines armed with the Word of God—have no authority to speak on any of these subjects?

To the contrary, does not Inspiration say that "all who will gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their defections, and loyalty from their treason, will triumph with the third angel's message"? (Sons and Daughters of God, p. 201.) While skeptical scholars gnaw their meatless bones, let the rest of us press forward, confidently proclaiming the plain words of Scripture. It is on the strength of Scripture that we must settle the issue before us.

What has actually happened in response to the 1974 Annual Council stipulation that "the President's Executive Advisory ... arrange for further study" is almost incomprehensible.

This demand for "further study" was voted as policy. Yet, policy or not, it has not been carried out, even over twenty years. We can only wonder why not.

When the General Conference is serious about "studying" an issue, it proceeds along well established lines. It assigns the topic to the Biblical Research Institute, or it sets up a new commission and assigns the topic to it. The Institute or commission in turn assigns subtopics to capable educated individuals and asks them to prepare research papers on these subtopics. At an agreed-upon time one or two years in the future, the people who write the papers assemble and read their papers to the committee. After each paper is read, the chairman conducts a disciplined analysis of each one that may last for two or three hours. Everyone concentrates on the paper's data and interpretations, and often many suggestions are offered. In due course the authors are asked to revise the paper along the lines discussed in the discussion. A year later, when the Institute or commission meets again, a vote may be taken whether to publish the paper.

This is the way in which the denomination normally conducts "study" into a question confronting us.

How differently did the Role of Women Commission carry on its work! The papers, with very few exceptions, were never read to the group, and none of them was critically analyzed. In other words, the denomination has not yet officially "studied" the ordination issue in the twenty years since a policy was voted that it should do so. The present request by the North American Division is not the considered result of disciplined, scholarly study.

On the other hand, our denomination for over one hundred years had a clear position based on clear Bible passages. This position was reaffirmed at every ordination of elders with the reading of 1 Timothy 3. It was resoundingly reaffirmed at the 1990 session of the General Conference. The people who say that we have never taken a position on women's ordination are bearing false witness.

6. "Hundreds of churches" have elected women elders, and "more than a thousand women" serve as local elders.

For perspective, how many churches are there in the NAD? Four thousand? four hundred? And only, say, 500 of them have women elders. How many elders are there altogether? Perhaps 15,000 or more? So maybe 12% of the NAD churches have women elders, and these women elders make up only about 8% of all elders. Not so very many after all!

And strange to say, these low figures are almost the same as were being cited five years ago at the time of the Indianapolis General Conference session! It's as if, at the grassroots, the pro-ordination movement has run out of steam. Perhaps this explains the stridency of the pro-ordination leaders, knowing that if they fail this time they may never get another chance.

The tiny but articulate minority clamoring for women's ordination contains some well educated people who for years have gravitated to important positions and who know how to communicate both fear and encouragement. It is natural to feel good when persons of this stature seek your support and call you "enlightened" and "progressive." Conversely, it would only be natural to dread the mischief these influential people could invoke if they decided to do so. One of them has already threatened "to expose the political chicanery, corruption, exclusiveness, and medieval theology" of the NAD leadership.

They can use some pretty tough language!

But please do remember that the mass of your NAD constituency is not campaigning for women's ordination and that if you withdraw the NAD initiative before it reaches the floor of the General Conference in Utrecht, they will praise the Lord for you.

As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that a good many even of your own Conference and Union presidents have convictions against seeing women ordained.

One Union president who is opposed to women's ordination has told me that during the Annual Council session at which the NAD proposal was considered, he spoke to a top NAD official, asking that the vote be done by secret ballot. The Union president knew that some Conference presidents were likely to vote in favor of the proposal only out of fear of displeasing the Division leadership if they didn't so vote. Indeed, as you know, a number of courageous NAD Conference presidents have openly put themselves on record as opposing the initiative!

The reply of the NAD officer proved that the Union president had a point. The officer said that if the voting were done by secret ballot, you could not be sure of getting a majority.

That's right!

7. "There is no turning back. Can you imagine the havoc that would be wrought?" if we tried to turn back?

I feel impelled to ask, in all humility, "Why not turn back?"

At the first meeting of the pivotal 1901 General Conference session, Ellen G. White, freshly returned from Australia, dared to tell the delegates, "What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and build upon a different principle."

Turning back and starting over again is the very heart of repentance, and repentance is something we are supposed to be doing on a regular basis, is it not?

As the principal pastor in our North American Division, you have reminded us, in your Request, that "our objective must be fidelity to God's Word." Then why not invite us to "tremble at His Word" and together seek forgiveness for our twenty years' neglect of Bible study in respect to women's ordination?

You ask us to imagine what would happen if you did this. It isn't difficult to imagine what would happen! For one thing, there would be some spluttering from our articulate liberals, some idle threats of lawsuits (which would all come to nought under the First Amendment), and even a few tragic apostasies.

But what I imagine most readily is the great cry of rejoicing that would ascend to heaven: "Thank You, God, for leaders who operate on Bible principles rather than on political expediency, for giving us a Moses rather than an Aaron!"

With such a courageous call to faithfulness to Scripture, what a revival of Bible study would take place! As a result of such study, how homes would change, the Sabbath be kept holy, and Adventists once again dress and entertain themselves like real Adventists. Brother McClure, do it. Don't be intimidated by those people with Ph.D.s who are pushing you, cajoling you, wheedling you into supporting women's ordination. You may not have a Ph.D., but you do have the Bible.

8. It is "ecclesiological hairsplitting" (a) to allow women to perform baptisms and marriages while (b) denying them ordination, and then calling both positions "Scriptural." Our position is "clearly untenable" and is "seen by many in this division as discriminatory, unethical, and even immoral." "We appeal to you to put yourselves in our place."

I thoroughly agree that calling these two positions "Scriptural" is untenable—for neither position is "Scriptural."

But how did we get into this "untenable" situation?

As you know, this plan, whose provisions you deplore as untenable, was skillfully designed by our own denominational administrators to win a majority vote, first from the Role of Women Commission in 1989 and then from the Annual Council and General Conference. Participants with convictions virtually all the power of an ordained minister would vote for the motion in order to get what they wanted, while those who believed that women should not be ordained as ministers would also vote in favor of the motion, in order to deny women ordination as ministers.

The original single motion was divided into two motions for presentation at the Indianapolis General Conference. The part denying ministerial ordination to women was approved 3:1, as was anticipated. But on a different day, when many of our overseas delegates were not present, the part about women as local elders was brought up.

Many overseas delegates testify that they were deluged by North American delegates smiling sweetly, doing everything they could to get across the point that North America had helped them vote against ministerial ordination and so now they must return the favor by helping North America vote in favor of local-elder ordination.

So (before you became its president) it was our own Division, North America, which worked hard to establish the present position.

What should the North American delegates have done in Indianapolis to avoid such a "hairsplitting," "untenable" position?

How about a simple thing like this? Encourage our overseas people to follow the Bible, or, as you put it, to manifest "fidelity to God's Word."

9. Young women who "believe" they have a "call from God" are studying in our seminaries but are "made to feel inferior" when not given full recognition.

Inasmuch as we now unwisely expect to seek evidence that a "call" is genuine, even when a man is involved, seeking evidence in the case of a woman hardly represents gender bias.

The Bible tells us that God never changes, and the Bible tells us that God long ago wanted an elder to be "the husband of one wife." Inasmuch as no woman can ever be the husband of one wife, we know that God doesn't call women to be ordained ministers.

He does call women, however, to a variety of other careers. If a woman feels that God is calling her to spiritual service, and if she is willing and able to make the necessary preparation, let us help her in every appropriate way to find a suitable career, even though we know in advance that it cannot be the ordained ministry.

You worry that the young women you're talking about are being made to feel "inferior." I cannot imagine who is making them feel inferior. God says women are equal to men, only that they are called to different roles. Perhaps it is the contingent in our church demanding that women be ordained that is making these young women feel inferior.

10. It is "very difficult" to provide a "logical" defense.

It may well be difficult to refuse the ardent proponents of women's ordination, but The Desire of Ages, p. 330, assures us that "in every difficulty He [God] has His way prepared to relief." Our heavenly Father has a thousand ways to provide for us, of which we know nothing. Those who accept the one principle of making the service and honor of God supreme will find perplexities vanish, and a plain path before their feet.¹

Let the Bible do the job for you! Read down through 1 Timothy and stop at 3:2, where the Bible says that a bishop or elder must be "the husband of one wife." It's a passage that we have read in our churches for over a century, so no one can fairly label you a fanatic if you read it now. Some articulate people want us to cut it out of our Bibles today, but I want to encourage you, Elder McClure, to be true to your own ideal of fidelity to God's Word.

Remember, for what it's worth, that the majority of the NAD's constituents—hundreds of thousands of good Seventh-day Adventists—have no desire to see women ordained contrary to Scripture. Most of all, please remember that God's messenger wrote in the Youth's Instructor for August 18, 1886, that when we "learn the simple art of taking God at His word," we will have solid ground beneath our feet."