Many assume that anyone who opposes the ordination of women to the gospel ministry is either a male chauvinist or an oppressed woman who has been brainwashed by decades of male dominance. If so, then this article represents an exception to the rule. I have long accepted the moral superiority of women in many of life's situations and continue to admire their contributions to the human race and the church. And I deeply deplore the injustices to which many are still subjected.
But admiration and appreciation do not answer the current question about the validity of ordaining women to the ministry. To answer that, the church must consult the Bible, its authority for doctrine and practice. The Bible may not spell out the answer to every one of the church's questions, but with reverent, careful study the church can find the principles and practices God would have it follow.
This approach is particularly cogent for Seventh-day Adventists. We continually declare that the Bible is the only source for our beliefs and practices.1 By doing so, we commit ourselves to some awkward, uncomfortable, demanding doctrines that make few concessions to contemporary public opinion. If we succeed at solving our current question in harmony with scriptural teachings, we will strengthen our international unity and build a stronger church. If we fail, we could undermine our integrity and weaken our worldwide witness.
Beginning with the Creation account, we will survey some of the principal Biblical passages that impinge on our topic. We hope to discover whether the Bible supports the idea of female ordination or denies its validity.
Created equal but different
In His inerrant wisdom the Creator decided to populate this earth through self-propagating human beings. To that end He "created man in his own image...; male and female created he them" and told them, "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. 1:27, 28). The more detailed account in Genesis 2 reveals that the initial creation was a two-stage process: God made Adam first (verse 7), and then Eve (verses 21, 22). She was not an afterthought. The All-wise One intended the two-stage creation to enable man to realize his own loneliness and insufficiency, his need for a partner. "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him' " (verse 18, N.I.V.). And so God formed Eve, the first woman, from Adam's own structure.
Scripture reveals that Satan brought about our first parents' fall by seducing Eve, who then persuaded Adam to share in her transgression (chap. 3:1-13). Because of Eve's initiative in disobedience, her childbearing became a source of great pain, and in addition, she was subordinated to her husband (verse 16). Throughout history that twofold sentence has brought much suffering to women and much cause for shame to men. Man's selfishness and insensitivity has made his partner's burden much heavier.
But Genesis does not teach that man is superior to woman or woman to man. They were created equal but different, and for differing though complementary purposes. No man can become a mother; no woman can become a father. Voluntary exchange of roles is contrary to the divine order, though hard circumstances may sometimes oblige members of one sex to bear some responsibilities that ideally belong to the other.
Religious roles of the sexes
The Bible establishes an all-male priesthood, or ministry, both within and outside of the family. When sin came into our world the Lord appointed Adam and his successors to be the priests of their families. "In the beginning the head of each family was considered ruler and priest of his own household."2 Consequently, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other heads of families served as priests for their family units. Later, as population increased and society became more complex, a specialized priesthood was appointed for full-time religious service that was not restricted to family ministry. Aaron and his male descendants were set aside for that holy purpose and continued to fill that office until their successors disqualified themselves by bringing about the Saviour's death.
Our Lord certainly foresaw that, as a result of His crucifixion, the Jewish priestly system would end. He could have taken that opportunity to break the mold of an all-male ministry if He had wanted to. That He did not do so speaks clearly against any sexual change and in favor of continuing the pattern of male priesthood. Jesus took care to appoint twelve men, "designating them apostles that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach" (Mark 3:14, N.I.V.; see also Matt. 10:1-6; Luke 6:13-16). That act showed the trend that marked His thinking from the early days of His ministry. He gave awesome spiritual authority to those same disciples while He was still with them (Matt. 18:18, 19; John 20:19-23). When the time came for Him to return to His Father's side He confirmed the appointments, not on-a temporary basis, but "even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20; see also verses 16-19; Mark 16:14-20; Luke 24:45*49; John 20:19- 23; Acts 1:1-8). The days of the Levitical priesthood had passed; the apostolic age was about to dawn. But in each age men filled the priestly roles.
The early church followed its Founder's example. Judas' death had left a vacancy. After the ascension the 120 prayed the Lord to show them His choice (Acts 1:24) as they cast lots for one of two candidates. The choice fell upon Matthias, "and he TTOS numbered with the eleven apostles" (verse 26).
As the church grew, it needed more spiritual leaders. The apostles could have appointed some of the many faithful and capable women if the Holy Spirit had so indicated. But they did not take that course. Instead, they called Paul and Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and others and, with the possible exception of Silas, ordained them to carry the spiritual leadership of the burgeoning church (see chaps. 9:15-17; 13:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).
While the Old Testament depicts a strongly male-oriented society, it also records some ofcthe achievements of a few notable women, among whom we may list Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, and Huldah the prophetess. But that is thin coverage for four thousand years! More over, not one of them"was called to be a priestess.
There were also many faithful and able women who associated with Jesus. Chiefest among them was Mary His mother, chosen for the holiest task of all. But she filled it unobtrusively during her Son's childhood and young manhood and never, by any stretch of an ecclesiastical imagination, laid claim to ministerial status! There was "Anna, a prophetess, . . . which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day" (Luke 2:36, 37). There were "Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance" (chap. 8:3). As far as we know, none of these were offered ministerial responsibilities or carried out such functions.
After the ascension of their Lord, noble-minded women contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world. Among the better known were Tabitha, or Dorcas (Acts 9:36), Mary the mother of John Mark (chap. 12:12), and Lydia (chap. 16:14, 15, 40). Of special note is Priscilla, wife of Aquila (chap. 18:2; Romans 16:3, 4; 1 Cor. 16:19). But, hard-working, capable, and honored as she was, Scripture gives no hint of her having been ordained to Christian ministry. Neither does the mention of "Junia" in Romans 16:7 lend support to the suggestion that there was a lady apostle. The correct reading of the name is masculine, Junios, as The New English Bible makes clear: "Greet Andronicus and Junias my fellow-countrymen and comrades in captivity. They are eminent among the apostles."
In short, while Biblical writers justly honor the women who courageously supported their faith, they do not ascribe ministerial or apostolic status to any of them.
Paul's approach
We now turn to passages in the Pauline Epistles that are often cited in support of women's ordination. Please remember that neither Paul nor those to whom he originally wrote were primarily concerned with this question.
In 1 Corinthians the apostle stresses the inspired nature of the counsel he gives. He states that he declared unto his readers "the testimony of God." His preaching was "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" to the end that their faith "should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (chap. 2:1, 4, 5). He claims that "we speak the wisdom of God" (verse 7), and states that "we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God" (verse 12), while recognizing that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (verse 14). Those claims apply not only to his second chapter but to the entire Epistle.
In chapter 11 Paul responds to the church's question of whether women should veil their heads in church. He gives his counsel in the setting of first-century Greco-Roman customs, and it cannot be totally transferred to our own day. Nevertheless, his answer touches on some basic principles that relate to our topic, and these merit consideration.
From the beginning of his response the apostle establishes a chain of authority: God, Christ, man, woman (verse 3). The reference to the relationship between God and Christ is reassuring; it sets a pattern for the connections that follow, namely, those between Christ, man, and woman. It places the counsel firmly in a Christ-centered setting. How fully men and women model their conduct on that of our Father and His Son determines how acceptable the outcome will be. "As the church does not experience dishonor by being dependent on Christ (see Eph. 1:18-23; 3:17-19; 4:13, 15, 16), neither does woman by being dependent on man." 3 And, we might add, neither does man by being dependent on woman in other spheres. Who can quarrel with that concept?
While a superficial reading of 1 Corinthians 11:7, "The woman is the glory of the man," can raise one's hackles, a careful study of Paul's intent can enrich married life for both partners. Seeking to solve the local question concerning the covering of heads in church, the apostle analyzes the ideal husband-wife relationship. Man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26, 27). According to the Genesis account, woman was created from substance taken from Adam's own body (chap. 2:21-24). Paul carefully emphasizes that the fact that all men, apart from Adam, are born of women keeps the relationship in balance (see 1 Cor. 11:12). This takes the sting of inferiority out of the man-woman relationship. Each is inextricably indebted to the other; neither can continue to exist without the other! That is the message these verses give for our guidance today.
A cluster of verses in 1 Corinthians 14 is often used to keep women out of the pulpit. I doubt such an application of Paul's counsel is valid. His discussion of the problems arising because some were speaking in unknown tongues during church services forms the context of verses 34 and 35. Speaking from the floor and not from whatever represented the pulpit in those days, such speakers often interrupted the orderly conduct of worship. Paul wished to see that disorder eliminated. Observing that the God they were claiming to serve "is not the author of confusion, but of peace" (verse 33), he implied that the interrupters should keep quiet and let public worship proceed in an orderly fashion.
Apparently interruptions had also come from women who had not fully understood what was being taught or who rushed to add their own contributions to the babble of discussion. In the interests of peaceful worship Paul tells them, "If you want to inquire about what is being taught, do not shout aloud your questions, but ask your husbands at home" (see verse 35). In the noisy conditions at Corinth, with the babel arising from their speaking in tongues, that seems sensible advice. But the apostle's further comment in the same verse, "It is a shame for women to speak in the church," reflects the well-nigh universal custom of his day that discouraged women from participating in public discussions. But, it should be noted, the counsel was not given in relation to female ministry. It has no discernible connection with women's ordination today.
Another passage we must consider is 1 Timothy 2:11-15. As the context shows, Paul is instructing Timothy in the most commendable ways of conducting worship services (verses 1-7). In verse 8 he uses the definite article to identify men as a distinctive group in the church "the men" (N.E.B.). In several early manuscripts the definite article also appears before the word for "women" (verse 9), indicating that they too are being treated as a distinctive class. In keeping with first-century custom, women were not expected to play leadership roles in church services. They were therefore admonished to be discreet in dress and conduct (verses 9-11).
To this instruction the apostle adds, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over ... [a (not "the" man, but to be in silence" (verse 12). In Paul's day it would have been unseemly for a woman to "teach" if a capable man were in the congregation. If no man was available, as was probably the case in Philippi, a dedicated, competent woman did serve as leader (see Acts 16:14, 15, 40). But, it should be remembered, Lydia most likely led in a domestic situation. Her example did not establish a pattern for regular congregational settings.
And we, nearly two thousand years later, should acknowledge the tremendous distance we have traveled beyond the situation that prevailed in apostolic times. We do not "suffer" a woman to teach. We call her, authorize her, support her, welcome her, to that responsible position. We gladly acknowledge the vital contribution she makes to the church's strength. But, once again, that is not preaching. Neither is it ordination.
Lest Paul's ruling (verse 12) should appear arbitrary, he provides Biblical authority for his stance by citing the relation of Adam and Eve to spiritual leadership (verses 13-15). His point is that the Creator, seeing the human race in its sin-marred setting (Gen. 3:8-11), knew that humanity would function best when men and women each fulfilled their distinctive roles without trying to usurp the other's functions.
"All one In Christ Jesus"
Whenever the question of ordination for women is seriously considered, Galatians 3:28 is cited in its favor. We should, then, give this verse serious, open-minded attention. But very few scriptures yield their full message in isolation; they need to be considered in their context. We should, therefore, give this verse the benefit of its setting so that we do not distort its meaning.
In his Epistle to the Galatians Paul proclaims freedom from dependence on Judaistic legalism to those who accept salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. His reasoning reaches a peak in the closing verses of the third chapter, especially in verses 26-29.
Paul argues there that legalism, by its very nature, is exclusive. In contrast, faith is inclusive, ready to give the embrace of salvation to all who allow it to function in their religious experience. "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (verse 26). The outward ceremony that signified the inward miracle is baptism. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (verse 27). Baptism signifies that we have indeed "put on Christ," or "have been clothed with Christ" (N.I.V.).
Reasoning from this, Paul states that from the time of baptism, those who are "in Christ Jesus" (verse 28) are no longer subject to the limitations that are traditionally imposed by race (Jew or Greek), by social status (slave or free), or by sex (male or female). Genuine acceptance of Christianity removes those racial, social, and sexual barriers that have hindered unity, and all Christians who are truly "in Christ Jesus" are "one" in Him. National barriers fall down, social distinctions lose their significance, sexual conflicts fade away. A common love for and allegiance to the Lord, and common dependence on Him alone for redemption, bring all people to the same level in respect of salvation.
But the verse does not say that racial, social, and sexual differences are abolished. A Caucasian remains a Caucasian, a Polynesian remains a Polynesian, and an African, an African. In Paul's world a slave remained a slave unless he was freed by a happy circumstance, which might have no connection with his religion. In 1985, acceptance of Christ does not automatically waft a convert from rags to riches. Neither does baptism eliminate sexual distinctions: a man remains a male, a woman remains female. From the Christian perspective, none of the three listed categories—or any category, for that matter—can nullify the unity brought among members of diverse groups as they become Chris tians. The overriding factor is "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Verse 29 emphasizes this message: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." And that message concerns salvation, and salvation only.
So, rightly considered, Galatians 3:28 has no direct relevance to the topic of ordination for women, and it should not be cited in its favor. Converted men and women can, and should, have sanctified respect and affection one for the other, for they are of equal value in the sight of our Lord, who died to redeem members of both sexes. But the fact that both sexes are saved by grace does not inaugurate a body of Christian priestesses! We should remember that we specifically have no inspired successor countermanding the Pauline and other Biblical declarations. We need to exercise great care not to nullify or warp their inspired counsel (see Rev. 22:18, 19).
Ordaining women: un-Blbllcal, unwise
The church was still young when Paul wrote. It was functioning in a pagan society that had little sympathy with Christian practices and that would have been still more antagonistic if women had played prominent roles in the church services. The church needed to establish itself and to develop its organizational pattern still further. Under those circumstances, assigning women prominent speaking responsibilities would have handicapped the church.
Such a situation is a far, far cry from the opportunities for leadership that are open to Christian women now. Those opportunities run from cradle roll and kindergarten to adult Sabbath school superintendence and teaching positions, from personal ministries leadership, both on and off the rostrum, through wide-ranging youth leadership, speaking opportunities, and to the office of head deaconess. Those having a willingness to serve and public speaking talents or any of a variety of abilities can exercise their gifts with incalculable benefit to the church and with deep satisfaction and fulfillment for themselves.
But not one of these channels for service is linked with ordination to the gospel ministry. We should acknowledge that the scriptures we have just considered do not authorize ministerial status for women. It is doubtful that that idea had even crossed the mind of either Paul or his fellow Christians. Any reason advanced in favor of such a move must come from outside the Bible, for it presents none in its hundreds of pages. And if, in the almost two thousand years that have passed since the canon was closed, the church has had no scriptural mandate to change its style of ministerial selection and service, why should it now be urged into a course on which Scripture is silent?
Any reasoning from the general to the particular needs careful handling. A careful administration should listen to reactions from a sizable portion of its constituency and from both sides of the question on so important a matter as ordination. Masculine and feminine gifts, in spite of present-day unisexual trends, still display inbred distinctions based on God-designed differences.
These should not be ignored or swept under any committee table. In theory it might seem admirable to turn a blind eye to these differences; in practice they exert a considerable influence on congregational reactions to male versus female preachers. A large though not very vocal section of the church believes that the masculine nature and gifts are better adapted to the preaching ministry than are the feminine. These words of warning, then, merit serious consideration:
"A neglect on the part of woman to follow God's plan in her creation, an effort to reach for important positions which He has not qualified her to fill, leaves vacant the position that she could fill to acceptance. In getting out of her sphere, she loses true womanly dignity and nobility. When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his equal." 4 "In their efforts to reach positions for which He [God] has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing." 5
Very practical questions face a confer ence that employs a woman as a full-time minister for one of its churches. Those questions should be answered before a call is extended to a potential candidate. If she is already married or contemplates marriage, what will be her relation to her husband and any family that is formed? How will she handle pregnancy, child birth, and subsequent child care over an extended period of time? How will the local church fare when its female pastor is homebound? Must the church find a substitute minister until its pastor can return to work? What image of parent hood and ministry, will be projected under such circumstances? And if she is married and her husband has to move elsewhere, what happens to her pastoral position? Does she remain by her flock and away from her husband, or does he tailor his career to hers and cease to bear his Adamic responsibilities?
Until recently the philosophy of ministerial ordination was based on the Lord's calling whomsoever He would into His service. The potential candidate responded to his Master's invitation to service without looking too far into the future or insisting on a self-deter mined pattern for ordination. The desire for ordination has not always been the criterion for suitability for ordination. Church leadership frowned upon self recommendation and clearly told the anxious inquirer to leave the matter "in the hands of the brethren," The philosophy behind such counsel rests on the conviction, based on experience, that the church is well able to discern those to whom the divine call has clearly come. History confirms that very few, if any, worthy candidates have been ignored. A multitude in the past century and a quarter have served while awaiting the call, and given full proof of the procedure's wisdom.
In the light of such experience, the to-be-or-not-to-be of women's call into the ordained ministry should be left to the church, without the church's being subjected to a promotional campaign by a few vocal potential candidates. We, for our part, must be sure of God's will on so significant a matter, and should not be pushed into a decision on which the church on earth is not yet united.
1 "Fundamental Beliefs," No. 1, Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual (issued by General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1976), p.
32.
2 Ellen G. White, The Story of Redemption
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub.
Assn. ,1947), p. 50.
3 The SDA Bible Commentary (Washington,
D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1980), vol.
6, p. 754-
4 Ellen G. White, Testimonies (Mountain View,
Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1948), vol. 3, p.
484.
5 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain
View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1958), p.
59.
