Participants: Pr. Jim Howard
Series Code: WOHII
Program Code: WOHII000009A
|
00:14 Well good morning. It's a bless- ing to be with you all today
00:18 and I have to tell you just how grateful I am to be able to be 00:22 here and humbled, actually, to be part of this symposium. 00:25 I came into California yesterday and it was beautiful, beautiful 00:30 blue skies, not a cloud in the sky and I hear you don't have 00:33 clouds here in California, is that right? No clouds. Fantastic 00:37 It's a bunch of fog at winter time and I suppose that's ok 00:40 because I come from Michigan and there's lots of snow out there. 00:44 A whole lot of it. I've got to head back there. I came in 00:47 yesterday and I'm heading back today because I'm in the middle 00:50 of a series I'm preaching on the book of Revelation and so we've 00:55 got guests that are waiting for us back there and the meetings 00:57 are going really well. We've already seen the power of the 01:01 three angels' messages just blow people away. We have a life 01:05 changing message, I'm so thank- ful for it. Over and over again 01:08 people come and say, Wow the thing we like is that it's 01:11 wonderful to hear messages that are straight from the Bible. 01:13 You help us to see the truth that's right there in the Bible. 01:17 There's one couple that's coming to our meetings and they told me 01:20 how they had tried going to this mega church in the area 01:24 but they weren't really getting anything out of it and by the 01:26 fourth night she had recommitted her life to Christ and he had 01:30 committed his life to Christ for the first time he said. And so 01:33 we're just so thankful for it. Night after night they just 01:36 keep commenting about how wonderful it is to study the 01:38 Bible. And that's why we're here isn't it? To study the Bible, 01:43 above all else we want to be true to the Bible. We want to 01:47 affirm women in their vital work in ministry, we want to strive 01:51 for unity in the church, but we know that the best way to 01:55 accomplish these and all of our other goals, as a church, is to 02:00 be faithful to the Bible, and all else will be added unto us. 02:04 And with that in mind I'm just going to ask that you bow your 02:07 heads and I'm going to ask the Lord's blessing on our time. 02:16 Loving Father in heaven, we're so grateful for this privilege 02:19 and opportunity to talk about your church, and we want Lord to 02:26 be faithful to your Word and the direction we take as a church 02:30 So please Lord give us wisdom and discernment. We all have 02:34 blind spots and we need your help. So guide and direct us 02:37 this day we pray, in Jesus' name. Amen. 02:42 Well the topic that I have been asked to speak to you about 02:46 today has been referred to as the third option 02:50 in the discussion surrounding women's ordination. And surely 02:53 there may be somebody who's wondering today, what is the 02:56 third option? Well let me give you the Readers Digest version 03:00 and then we'll get into a little more detail as we move along. 03:03 In essence there have been two traditional views in the SDA 03:07 church surrounding the issue of women's ordination. Those 03:11 who are not in favor of ordain- ing women to the gospel ministry 03:14 and those who are in favor of ordaining women to the ministry. 03:17 On the General Conference Theology of Ordination Committee 03:21 Study Committee on which I had the privilege of serving, those 03:24 who are not in favor of ordain- ing women were Group 1. 03:27 Those who were, were Group 2. That's the boiled down version. 03:30 When we speak of the 3rd option we're speaking of a 3rd view 03:35 that came out in the General Conference Theology of 03:38 Ordination Study Committee and here's how the Adventist Review 03:41 recently summarized the position of this 3rd view in an article 03:46 posted to their website on Sept. 23, just a couple of weeks ago 04:22 So what we find in this descrip- tion of the 3rd Group is that 04:26 from a theological standpoint they see the pattern of male 04:29 leadership in the church and much the same way as Group No.1 04:32 those who are not in favor of ordaining women to the Biblical 04:35 office of the elder or minister. However, they essentially teach 04:39 that while it's God's ideal for men to be ordained ministers 04:43 it isn't a moral issue. So God is ok with us straying from that 04:47 ideal. Now before I really dive into the views and reviewing 04:53 them with Group 3, let me say that I have a deep respect 04:57 for those who provided this 3rd option to the Women's Ordination 05:01 discussion. I actually believe they provided some very valuable 05:04 contributions to the discussions There are some wonderful and 05:09 very dedicated people who took a lot of time to put together the 05:12 Group 3 summary and I hope to be fair to their views as I'm 05:16 making this response. This is not about us and them. Group 1 05:21 vs. Group 2, vs. Group 3. Because in this conversation 05:26 brothers and sisters, there is only US whether we like it 05:29 or not, we're all in this together. We're grappling, we're 05:32 studying, we're praying for God's will to be done and as the 05:36 angel frequently would tell Ellen White, we need to press 05:39 together, press together, press together. While we never want to 05:43 give up our convictions, we also don't ever want to give up on 05:47 each other. So whatever constructive criticism that I 05:51 may have to share today about someone else's view, its purpose 05:55 is not to separate but to keep chipping away at truth so we can 05:59 come to it together. Now just so you know, I don't consider 06:03 myself a definitive authority on this topic. I know you probably 06:07 came to hear one but I'm not that. But I've thought quite 06:11 a bit about this third option and I believe there's a lot 06:15 at stake for the church if we were to accept it's 06:17 recommendation. So, as we dive into the review let me just 06:22 point you to some helpful resources. I wanna make sure you 06:25 know that there is an official website for the Theology of 06:28 Ordination Study Committee. It's at AdventistArchives.org. 06:32 and you have to do a little clicking around but you can get 06:35 to the TOSC as we sometimes refer to it, Theology of 06:37 Ordination Study Committee papers. The June papers section 06:42 gives you the summaries of position 1, 2 and 3. They're 06:45 called summaries but they're 50 pages so go figure. The real 06:49 summaries are called The Way Forward for Positions 1,2 and 3 06:52 and they're little over a page each. Now I also want to point 06:56 you to the fact that there's a section in that website and it's 06:59 called Papers Commissioned and Submitted but not presented. 07:04 And if you go into that folder, it has a paper that's entitled 07:09 Group 1 response to Position Summary No.3. And that's gonna 07:13 go in much more detail than what I have time to do with you today 07:16 and I hope that you will go and read that paper. Now I'd like to 07:20 do next is read from Group 3 Way Forward paper that's their true 07:25 summary paper and read exactly what they state is their 07:31 viewpoint. And there are 4 key points that are listed in this 07:35 Way Forward paper and I'd like to spend a little time on each 07:38 one, but especially on the 4th or final point. 07:42 So let's get started with Point No. 1 in the Group 3 07:45 Way Forward Paper. It reads like this. 08:03 And to this we say, Amen. One major benefit that has come out 08:08 of this study on the Ordination of Women is that it has 08:11 highlighted the incredible need that exists in the church 08:14 for women to be engaged in the soul winning work of the church. 08:17 Ellen White states in Testimon- ies to the Church, volume 9, pg 128 08:42 And so yes, we need to provide encouragement and education 08:46 to those women who want to dedicate their lives to the 08:50 service of God. And I should hasten to add that for those 08:53 of us who many not support the Ordination of Women to the roles 08:57 of Elder or Minister, we should not for a moment fault our 09:02 sisters who have taken these responsibilities because they've 09:05 only taken the opportunities the church has afforded them. 09:08 And we need to remember that God has used them, they've served 09:12 admirably and we need to be sensitive to the fact that for 09:15 for some of us while this issue is very academic, to others 09:19 it is life changing and career involving. So when it comes 09:24 to providing opportunities for women to serve in the church 09:26 we agree whole heartedly with Group 3. Now their second point 09:44 Again we say amen with the 3rd view, with one exception. 09:49 This 2nd point rightly affirms men as spiritual leaders in the 09:53 home, emphasizing that that leadership should be loving 09:56 service rather than a dictatorial bossing around. 09:59 So far, so good. The only difference I have with this 10:03 statement is that it refers to the distinct leadership role 10:05 of men in the home as something that has only been in existence 10:09 since the fall of Adam and Eve. Now this second point 10:13 is actually in harmony with Group 2, those who are in favor 10:17 of Women's Ordination. Now I know we've already had a couple of 10:20 presentations in the Symposium on this, so I'm not gonna spend 10:23 an inordinate amount of time on this but I'd like to say a few 10:26 things about this. I don't fault people who feel that the role 10:30 distinctions between men and women didn't come until after 10:34 the fall because I personally know that it can be a little 10:37 confusing when you read the statements by Ellen White 10:40 particularly. But I personally do believe that men and women 10:45 were different before the fall. I think the reason that role 10:50 distinctions existed before the fall is that men and women 10:53 have always been different. I don't believe that role 10:56 distinctions were a punishment but a beautiful symmetry in 11:00 which the sterner virtues of men and the sweeter graces of women 11:05 were each to be utilized in the best way possible. Now don't get 11:10 mad at me because I believe men and women are different. 11:14 Just talk to any relationship counselor, and of course Ellen 11:18 White concurs. Notice how she talks about the father. 11:21 Listen closely to this. 11:34 So there you have it. Ellen White says that the father 11:37 is the lawmaker because of his manly bearing and sterner virtue 11:42 Now just from a basic reading of the Bible I always viewed this 11:46 role of the husband and father as protecting and leading and 11:50 in a self sacrificing way, guiding his family to have been 11:54 established before the fall. And my reasons for this Biblically 11:58 were simply that Adam always seemed to be given the ultimate 12:01 responsibility for the fall even though Eve sinned first. 12:05 In the first few chapters of Genesis we discover that God 12:08 created Adam first, a point that Paul will later reference, when 12:12 he talks about leadership roles in the church in 1 Timothy 2 12:15 We discover that God came to Adam first after eating of the 12:19 fruit, even though Eve was the first to eat it. And, also 12:24 the man is the one referenced as leaving father and mother 12:27 and being joined to his wife. Then in the New Testament 12:30 when you go to Romans 5:12, Paul says that sin entered into the 12:35 world through one man Adam which would be a strange thing to say 12:39 if Adam didn't have leadership responsibility in Eden 12:43 since again it was Eve and not Adam who was the first 12:46 to eat the fruit. Now some argue from Gen 3:16 in which the woman 12:51 is told that her desire would be for her husband and he shall 12:55 rule over you that this was when male leadership role began. 12:58 But it seems to me that each of the curses in Genesis 13:03 were simply distortions of some thing that existed before the 13:07 fall. Childbirth already existed in Eden but after sin 13:11 it would be painful. Tilling the ground already existed in Eden 13:16 but after sin it would produce thorns and would have to be 13:19 by the sweat of the brow. And male servant leadership 13:23 already existed. A distinct role already existed in Eden 13:26 but now it would be made difficult by the proud hearts of 13:29 both men and women. Now having said all this there's one 13:34 statement that I had to wrestle with by Ellen White I'll read it 14:04 At first that confused me but after taking time to consider 14:08 this statement I understand that it is saying that the submission 14:12 taught by Paul in a marriage relationship was actually 14:17 unnecessary before the fall in its fullest sense. Because as 14:22 she says if they hadn't sinned they would ever have been in 14:26 harmony with each other. She says sin had brought discord 14:31 it is only when there is no harmony, when discord enters 14:36 that submission the in sense of surrendering your ideas and 14:40 judgment or your plans becomes necessary. It isn't that man did 14:44 not have the role as priest or leader of his home before sin, 14:49 it's just that perfect harmony between he and Eve before sin 14:53 made the need for submitting or surrendering when in disagreement 14:56 unnecessary because they never disagreed! Then recently 15:01 a friend sent me a statement that to me is one of the 15:04 strongest I've read in referring to men as spiritual leaders of 15:08 the home, even before the fall. And this particular statement is 15:11 in the context of another institution that existed before 15:15 the fall. And that is the Sabbath. It's in Child Guidance 16:04 Isn't that incredible? It says it right there. That the Sabbath 16:09 is the time to go back to Eden and it says that in perfect Eden 16:14 the father was to serve in a beautiful self-sacrificing sense 16:18 as the priest of his household. It then goes on to describe how 16:22 in this current life we have things get so busy that fathers 16:26 get separated and don't spend enough time with their families 16:28 and Sabbath is a way to help reconnect the family. 16:31 So in light of all the inspired evidence, while we appreciate 16:37 the third option's affirmation of loving, sacrificial male 16:40 leadership in the home, we would not necessarily agree 16:43 that the role distinctions between men and women began 16:46 only after the fall. The dynamic of those role distinctions most 16:50 certainly did change. But the existence of role differences 16:54 themselves were every bit as much a part of God's perfect 16:57 plan as the biological diff- erences that existed between 17:02 men and women from the beginning. Now the third point 17:06 on the Summary Statement of the third option states this: 17:15 Again we agree with our friends in Group 3. Christ is the only 17:19 head of the Church. Of course we also recognize that God 17:22 appointed spiritual leaders of His people throughout history 17:25 and we don't want to get so crazy with our idea of Christ 17:29 being the head of the Church that we ignore the fact that He 17:33 has appointed spiritual leaders throughout history making it 17:36 sound like God doesn't do that and I don't believe the 3rd 17:39 Group is doing that at all but I have heard some that have 17:42 made that claim. We should readily acknowledge that priests 17:46 apostles and elders have all been entrusted by God with a 17:49 certain measure of authority but this authority is not to be 17:53 abused, not to be something where we lord over others 17:56 and every human leader among God's people is duty bound to 18:00 work as an undershepherd who willingly submits to the 18:04 leadership of the true and only true shepherd Jesus Christ. 18:08 And I think that Group 3 would agree with those sentiments. 18:13 So far I can agree with much of what has been suggested by Group 3 18:17 The foundational difference however, between Group 3 and the 18:20 other Groups, the other 2 Groups is in the 4th and last point 18:24 of their Summary Way Forward document and I'm gonna read that 19:51 So, this 4th point and the ultimate recommendation of the 19:55 3rd Group that follows blazes its own trail as it were, and 20:00 it becomes quite different from either of the other 2 Groups. 20:03 So how should we relate to the 3rd Option? I mean for decades 20:08 the Church has had these two views. One says that the Bible 20:11 doesn't allow for the ordination of women ministers and the other 20:14 says that it does. Now what the 3rd Option appears to be saying 20:18 is that it doesn't really matter all that much what the texts 20:22 have had to say on the topic. If you read the Position Summary 20:25 for Group3 you will find that it really doesn't walk through 20:29 the pertinent texts on Women's Ordination as if to offer new 20:33 insights on those texts. Instead it says that the Bible does 20:37 teach a male ministry similar to Group 1 but that it isn't 20:42 mandatory because this whole thing is just a non-moral 20:46 organizational issue, a policy issue if you will. 20:50 And their study has led them to believe that Biblical 20:53 instruction on organizational matters need not always be 20:57 followed. This is the central claim of the 3rd Option. 21:00 And I may not have worded it just right but I think I'm 21:03 pretty close. So let's consider the claim. There's a lot in this 21:07 claim so bear with me and when we get to the end, I'm gonna 21:10 toward the end I'm gonna summarize it for you. 21:11 So what evidence does Group 3 give that Biblical instruction 21:17 is open to adaptation. Well, several Biblical examples are 21:21 given in the full position summary on the TOSC website 21:25 to support this point. You won't find it in the one page summary. 21:28 And the first scriptural support offered by Group 3 to suggest 21:32 that women maybe ordained is the example of Israel asking for a 21:37 king. You heard about that mentioned in the Adventist 21:39 Review article. Now the 3rd option logic here is that even 21:44 though it wasn't God's will for Israel to have a king He did 21:48 allow it. And they conclude that the reason He allowed it 21:51 was only because it was an organizational issue and not a 21:55 moral one, like for instance the 10 Commandments would be. 21:58 So why wouldn't God's allowance of a king give us permission to 22:02 ordain women. Well, first of all I think there's a difference 22:06 between civil leaders such as judges and kings and religious 22:11 leaders such as priests, apostles, elders and ministers. 22:15 A point that I also think bears consideration in one of their 22:18 other examples that of Deborah. Because civil leaders such as 22:22 judges and kings do not appear to be equivalent to the 22:24 spiritual leadership role of priest, apostle and elder. 22:27 Now secondly in 1 Samuel 12:19 the Israelites finally admit 22:34 something about their decision to ask for a king. The Bible 22:37 says, 'we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king 22:43 for ourselves' so the Israelites admitted that they were sinning 22:47 and doing an evil thing when they asked for a king. Is this 22:51 really a model that we want to follow? Third, the results of 22:56 asking for a king were disast- rous. A permanent division that 23:00 occurred in Israel, the destruc- tion of the Northern Kingdom 23:04 the loss of the 10 tribes and throughout there was apostasy. 23:07 So I just struggle to see why we would ever want to use this 23:11 example to support doing some thing other than God's ideal 23:17 will even if He did allow us to do it. Though God gave a king 23:21 to Israel He did not protect them from its inevitable tragic 23:25 results and He many not protect us either should we choose to 23:30 vary from His plan. If anything this example teaches us that 23:34 instead of looking for permission to modify God's will 23:37 we should seek His blessing by carefully obeying it. 23:42 But more a point here is this question. Does God's allowance 23:48 of a king contrary to His ideal for Israel give license or 23:52 permission to the present day Church to establish practices 23:55 that are contrary to the teach- ings of Scripture? What if this 24:00 logic re-used, trying to use it in a different framework here 24:06 with polygamy or divorce being allowed in Old Testament times? 24:12 Would we not then have to conclude that because God 24:15 allowed polygamy even blessing David and Solomon in spite of it 24:20 That this gives permission to the church to deviate from even 24:24 God's moral law today? It's simply not all that you need. 24:29 Examples like this are not all that you need in order to draw 24:32 conclusions such as what's being drawn. I don't believe. 24:35 I'm concerned about where this method would take us. 24:38 But there's an important distinction in this story that I 24:41 don't really notice Group 3 mentioning in their paper. 24:45 In 1 Samuel 8:6-7, the Bible gives this account of the story 24:50 And I'm gonna be reading a few texts to you and we will 24:53 I'm gonna have you open your Bible a little bit later 24:54 but I've got a time constraint they told me. So I'm trying to 24:57 give it to you straight from my notes. Now this is 1 Sam 8:6-7 25:21 Notice here that Israel here did not receive a king until 25:26 God Himself allowed it in response to the prayer of Samuel 25:30 the prophet. God didn't really leave it up to the people 25:34 And here I think is an important distinction. If in His wisdom 25:39 God allows a variation from His revealed will, perhaps in this 25:44 case in order for them to see the folly of this course 25:47 this is His prerogative. But it doesn't give permission to the 25:52 Church to make variations to other Biblical instructions. 25:55 to move ahead with a practice for which there is no scriptural 25:59 basis or prophetic guidance. Merely because God himself 26:03 has chosen, in rare instances, to allow variations from His 26:07 will would be for the church to take a prerogative that belongs 26:10 only to God. We can't say what God calls an exception, only God 26:16 can say what God calls an exception and only He knows why. 26:20 If we start taking that prerogative upon ourselves 26:24 it seems to me that it can only lead to Church councils 26:28 having authority over Scripture. And I just don't think we want 26:32 to go down that road. Now the 3rd option summary paper gives 26:36 several other examples besides that of king being allowed to 26:40 Israel. It explores the except- ion made for the daughters of 26:43 Zelophehad to receive an inheritance, the story of David 26:46 eating the shewbread, the example of Boaz marrying Ruth 26:50 even though she was of Moabite heritage. And we deal with these 26:53 and few other specific examples in the appendix of the paper 26:58 I told you about earlier. It's the Group 1 response to Position 27:01 Summary No. 3 and you can down load that off the TOSC website. 27:07 But rather than go into each example right here, allow me 27:11 to just say that my primary concern is not so much with the 27:16 individual examples themselves but with what seems to be an 27:20 unwarranted conclusion drawn from them that the church may 27:24 now adapt or disregard Biblical instruction without clear 27:27 direction from God and without prophetic guidance. 27:29 And the Biblical foundation that serves as a premise for the 27:34 3rd Option appears to be almost if not entirely based upon 27:39 inferences from these Biblical stories. Now certainly Biblical 27:45 examples, they help us. They help us to understand and 27:48 shed light on God's will but they can also be interpreted 27:51 in many different ways and if we're going to draw a strong 27:55 conclusion from them such as the conclusion being drawn by the 27:58 3rd Option, that we have authority to act contrary to 28:01 God's will in organizational matters we probably ought to 28:05 have some clear, inspired permission to go along with that 28:09 conclusion. And this is what I believe the 3rd Option lacks. 28:14 What Group 3 appears to do and I think this is important 28:17 is to first make a risky assump- tion that the reason God made 28:23 exceptions in specific cases cited in their paper was because 28:27 of the nature of the instruction because it was non-moral or 28:32 ritual or ceremonial or organi- zational or legal, to use the 28:37 different words that they use in their paper. Then, it appears 28:42 that a second risky assumption is made. And that is, that if 28:46 God made exceptions due to the nature of the instruction being 28:51 non-moral or ritual or ceremon- ial, or organizational or legal 28:54 that was their first assumption, then the 3rd option concludes 28:57 that any command that fits into this large, loose category 29:02 is then open to adaption by the church. Let me try to explain 29:07 what I believe the 3rd view is doing by comparing it to some 29:09 inspired counsel that does come with a measure of flexibility. 29:13 When inspired counsel is open to adaptation, or just put easier 29:19 is not mandatory, common sense can generally deduce it from the 29:24 language of the inspired instruction itself. For instance 29:28 to give some clear examples, we have Paul giving counsel in 29:31 1 Corinthian 7:26-28 to stay single. You may have read that before. 29:37 But in the same passage he says 'but even if you do marry you 29:41 have not sinned.' So Paul suggested that it could be 29:44 beneficial to remain single. That's inspired counsel. 29:47 But he also, in that inspired counsel, certainly did not make 29:51 it mandatory and my wife and I are very glad about that. 29:54 But notice that Paul included flexibility right in the text. 30:00 Right in the text. Another ex- ample is in Ellen White's 30:03 inspired counsel on diet. Listen to this from 30:07 Selected Messages, book 3, pg. 287. 30:39 Now notice in this counsel that you have some items that were 30:42 to be discarded, right? And others that could be taken 30:46 moderately as the Christian grows in their experience. 30:49 In the nature of each is clearly conveyed in the language of the 30:53 inspired instruction itself. Notice also now stay with me 30:57 here, thinking caps are on, that within the same category of 31:01 instruction, in this case diet instruction, some aspects maybe 31:06 flexible such as meat and eggs or what have you. Clean meats 31:10 of course while others are clearly mandatory. Tobacco 31:13 coffee, tea to be discarded. How do we know which is which? 31:19 Not by the category of instruct- ion because they're all part of 31:25 dietary instruction but by the language of the instruction 31:29 itself. It could turn out drastically wrong for us to 31:32 assume that every aspect of an entire category of a instruction 31:36 is somehow to be treated the same way. For instance, while 31:43 eggs and pork are both part of dietary instruction, we should 31:47 be careful not to assume that just because giving up eggs 31:50 is not mandatory that giving up pork isn't either. Right? 31:55 You must look at the instruction itself to discover whether its 32:00 mandatory or not. But I believe that this is precisely what 32:04 I'm afraid the third option is doing. When they first lumped 32:09 the gender instruction of the office of the elder or minister 32:12 into a loosely defined category of all non-moral, organizational 32:17 ritual, ceremonial, legal practices, precepts and ideals 32:21 and then second, conclude that this entire category of 32:25 instruction is flexible even though much of it including 32:29 gender requirement that Paul gave to Timothy and Titus 32:32 indicates no flexibility at all. The point here is that we should 32:36 never assume flexibility to Biblical commands. It should be 32:40 clearly stated or we could end up presuming to do things 32:45 that could be disastrous for the church. And to try and 32:50 express this point a bit further we actually have other Biblical 32:53 examples that seem to contradict the conclusion drawn from the 32:57 examples that were used in the 3rd option summary. For instance 33:01 these are examples of those who assumed that what appeared to be 33:06 a non-moral command did not turn out to be flexible after all 33:11 For instance, Adam and Eve were punished for eating a piece 33:15 of fruit. An act that certainly isn't absolute, isn't wrong in 33:19 every circumstance. That's in Genesis 3. Cain's offering was 33:23 rejected due to a slight modifi- cation in Genesis 4. And Uzzah 33:27 was punished for merely steadying the ark in 2 Samuel 6 33:30 Both of these were transgression of ritual commands that may have 33:35 appeared open to adaptation. The sons of Aaron were punished 33:39 for offering a different fire from that which they were 33:41 instructed to use in the sanctuary. Again what could be 33:44 considered a ritual, non-moral command. The last thing we want 33:47 to do as a church is to assume from these exceptions that God 33:51 has allowed in rare instances, in the past, that are given 33:57 in the 3rd option paper to somehow conclude from these rare 34:00 instances that God will now allow exceptions to Biblical 34:03 instructions ourselves today. Perhaps the most relevant 34:07 example of all that's not mentioned in the 3rd option 34:10 proposal is that of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. 34:13 Demanding that Aaron and his descendants not be the only 34:16 ones to serve as priests. The Bible says in Numbers 16:2-3 34:44 Notice that the requested adapt- ation here is an organizational 34:49 one. That's really all it is. It does not appear to be a moral 34:53 issue. Korah and his company appeared to be fighting against 34:57 favoritism, and appealing for equality in the congregation 35:00 for all the congregation is holy And then listen to what it says 35:04 in verses 13 and 14, very interesting. Is it a small thing 35:08 that you have brought us up out of the land flowing with milk 35:10 and honey to kill us in the wilderness? That you should keep 35:13 acting like a prince over us? Moreover you have not brought us 35:16 into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us 35:19 inheritance of fields and vine- yards. Moses your plan isn't 35:23 forwarding the mission. It's not getting it done. And the 35:27 vast majority of people, who do they agree with? They agreed 35:31 with Korah and his friends which mean it could easily have been 35:34 argued that in order to preserve unity we're gonna have to make 35:38 an adaptation here. But while the story seems to fit the 3rd 35:42 option's criteria for an accept- able adaptation it obviously was 35:45 not accepted. So I think we need to be careful what we conclude 35:51 from a few isolated examples when we have no clear inspired 35:55 permission to change direction. And I think we need to ask some 35:59 hard questions about the found- ational claim of this 3rd option 36:03 Do Church Councils really have the authority to stray from what 36:08 the 3rd option refers to as God's preferred will? And even 36:13 if God did make exceptions would that give the Church authority 36:17 to do so? Would we not then risk placing ultimately 36:23 tradition or church decrees above Scripture? Further, how 36:28 safe is the distinction between moral commands and organization 36:33 ideals? I'm not so sure that Biblical commands fit so neatly 36:38 into these categories. What about tithing? The ordinances? 36:43 Lifestyle teachings. Would we consider these moral and 36:49 unchangeable or open to adapt- ation? I really don't know. 36:52 But based on the guidance given by the Group 3 summary, 36:57 I don't know exactly how they would feel about it. I suspect 37:01 that they would not want to make that claim but just based 37:04 on the guidelines I can't see it Would we wanna say that 5% is 37:10 good enough for tithe. Or perhaps state that drinking 37:14 alcohol is ok in moderation. The truth is that the church has 37:19 been faced with continually increasing pressures over the 37:22 last few decades to lower its stance on many Biblical teaching 37:27 that are considered non salvation issues. But who are we 37:32 really to make this claim? Is this not a slippery slope? 37:37 Jesus said while some issues are weightier than others these 37:43 you ought to have done and not left the others undone. 37:47 The attitude of the Christians should never be how little can I 37:51 do and still make it to heaven? But because I love Jesus can I 37:56 know more and more closely follow His will. In other words 38:01 the question for us to ask is not 'Is it salvific?' Is it a 38:05 salvation issue, but is it the will of God? Now at this point 38:12 I'd like us to take our physical Bibles and I'd like to look at 38:17 the primary passage related to women serving as elders or 38:20 ministers and see for ourselves whether there's any flexibility 38:23 in the passage itself. So take your Bible and turn with me 38:26 to 1 Timothy chapter 2, 1 Timothy Chapter 2 38:34 Now, in 1 Timothy chapter 2 we see the challenging 38:42 passage beginning in verse 11. 39:14 Now there are some who claim that because Paul says I do not 39:20 permit a woman to teach here and we as a church most certainly do 39:24 allow women to teach that we are already adapting non-essential 39:29 Biblical commands. But I think the mistaken approach to this 39:34 is that the Bible does not prohibit women from all teaching 39:38 SDA's do take a literal reading of the Bible but we do not take 39:43 surface reading of the Bible. In other words, we don't simply 39:46 read a text and draw a conclu- sion without first reading all 39:49 the inspired evidence on the same topic in the Bible and the 39:52 Spirit of Prophecy. Then we let common sense and a reading 39:56 of those texts inform us, of course we take in the cultural 39:59 and historical applications but the Word and the plain reading 40:02 of the Word is foremost and prominent. In this particular 40:06 passage just some basic logic immediately tells us that Paul 40:10 is not saying that women can't teach at all. The reason is 40:13 because we already know that Paul tells the older women 40:17 to teach the younger women in Titus, chapter 2. So we know 40:22 that he's not prohibiting all teaching, just like that. 40:24 Secondly we know that it says in Acts 18 that there was some 40:29 teaching going on between Aquila and Priscilla and Apollo's. 40:32 So we know that there was some teaching going on in the church. 40:35 We know that it also says that women were told that they could 40:38 prophesy in the church. Ellen White concurs too. She urged 40:43 one female speaker that was very gifted, address the crowd 40:46 whenever you can. So Paul could not have been prohibiting 40:51 all teaching. In saying I do not permit a woman to teach or 40:57 to have authority over a man, Paul links the prohibited 41:01 teaching with having authority over a man. And a few verses 41:07 later he actually identifies, I believe, the authority of which 41:11 he speaks because as you continue reading you come into 41:15 chapter 3, the very next thing that he talks about happens to be 41:20 the qualifications of an elder which is a church office 41:24 that receives delegated authority in a church by 41:27 election or appointment and is recognized by ordination. 41:31 So he's talking about authority and then he goes into the office 41:34 that is delegated authority. And he says in chapter 3:1 42:13 Here's the qualification given for elder. Now notice that Paul 42:19 specifies in these qualifica- tions that an elder must be 42:22 able to do what? to teach. So in the context of what we see 42:27 the prohibition given to women not to teach or have authority 42:31 over a man is in the context referring not to teaching in any 42:37 place but to teaching in a position of official church 42:42 authority that is occupied by the elder or minister 42:44 and recognized by ordination. We don't need to think 42:49 that we've been adapting Biblical instruction when women 42:53 are encouraged to teach and preach. When we take all the 42:56 inspired evidence you'll find that they may do so as long as 42:59 they're not usurping the authority that belongs to the 43:01 ordained elder or minister. And this humble, non-disruptive 43:05 attitude toward authority in the church is described in the 43:08 text as learning in quietness, and what's fascinating about 43:12 this is if you look in 1 Tim 2 which, I closed my Bible, so you 43:16 have and I don't, but if you look in verse 12 where it speaks 43:19 about silence in verse 11, that Greek word is the noun form 43:25 of what is in adjective form seen up in verse 2 where it says 43:32 For kings and all who are in authority that we may lead a 43:35 quiet and peaceable life. That adjective form is called 43:40 peaceable in respect to kings and authority, its simply talkin 43:45 about not being disruptive of authority and in this case its 43:50 talking about church delegated authority and in the context 43:54 that happens to refer to the elder or minister. Now the 43:58 external evidence seems to be along the same lines as this 44:02 We don't have a single clear example of a female priest 44:07 apostle or elder in the Bible and I believe its important 44:10 I really do. I have a friend who's been trying to not only 44:15 convince me Biblically about the concept of women being ordained 44:19 to the gospel ministry which I'm very open to the discussion 44:21 we've had some good conversa- tion, it's been very helpful 44:24 but he's also been trying to convince me about monogamous 44:28 homosexual practice being Biblically allowable. And 44:32 he just has some different interpretations of Leviticus 18 44:36 Leviticus 20 and Romans 1 just to name a few. But what I 44:40 encouraged him to do, the hurdle I was struggling with 44:43 outside of just the texts themselves was I encouraged him 44:47 to consider if his interpret- ation is correct we should have 44:53 evidence of an approved same sex relationship somewhere 44:58 in the Bible or Spirit of Pro- phecy. At least one affirmation 45:02 of a same sex couple. I mean if the Bible never even was 45:06 speaking negatively about that monogamous relationship 45:08 then where are those approved relationships? You see 45:12 ultimately we can say that just because there were male priests 45:18 male apostles, male elders that settles the deal. But it sure 45:21 helps to give support when we read the passage in 1 Timothy 2 and 45:27 in Titus and we begin to piece it together it fits the 45:31 interpretation, and that I do believe is important. Now 45:35 Group 3 interprets this passage in 1 Timothy 2 similarly. This is 45:40 why they referred to the male ordained ministry as God's 45:43 preference and they recognized the consistent pattern of male 45:47 spiritual leadership in Church. But they make a couple of 45:50 assertions that I'd like to take a few moments to consider. 45:54 One is that they believe that the local elder that exists 46:00 today in the church is equi- valent to a Biblical deacon 46:02 and so that this does not relate to that at all. Now, 46:06 as far as I can tell from the Bible there is no real Biblical 46:09 distinction made between the local elder and the minister 46:12 in terms of qualifications. The role of the elder and the 46:16 qualifications for that seemed to be one and the same. 46:19 And I don't believe that the local elder can be considered 46:23 the same as our current local deacon for these reasons. 46:26 No.1 if the local elder is equi- valent to today's deacon 46:30 then today's deacon serves no unique purpose that was 46:34 apparently Biblically designated No.2, the truth is the local 46:39 elders unlike deacons often do fulfill the role as pastor for 46:43 their congregation when their pastor is gone or in some places 46:46 in the world where there is one pastor for many churches 46:49 its a far different role between those local elders and the role 46:53 of the local deacon. And No.3 rather than being satisfied 46:57 with pastors who hover over the churches in a diminished role 47:02 of local elders shouldn't we just return to the Biblical role 47:06 and the Biblical duty of the minister, elder and deacon? 47:10 Now second point that is raised in this passage that I'd like to 47:14 address from the 3rd option is that gender is just one 47:17 characteristic among many in the passage and should not be there 47:21 for considered absolute. The idea here is we don't nominate 47:25 perfect elders in all the other areas, they might not be 47:28 all the most hospitable, they might not always be the most 47:30 temperate and for these reasons we shouldn't look at gender 47:34 qualification any differently. Here's what I would say to this 47:37 No.1 if you look at the text gender is not really a 47:40 qualification. Being the husband of one wife is a qualification 47:44 being one who rules his own house well which would seem 47:48 to be talking about the priest of the home is a qualification 47:51 but being a male is prerequisite to being a husband or to being a 47:55 priest of the home. And gender also is not measured in degrees 48:01 like you see with other types of things. Gender is very 48:05 unambiguous. It's very clear. Where prohibitions are measured 48:09 in degrees we have to give room for the individual conscience. 48:13 But where the prohibition is unambiguous we should draw the 48:16 line in the same place the Scripture does. We don't really 48:18 have the authority to do other- wise. And third, being male 48:22 is not only necessary to meet the qualifications of a husband 48:26 but also to harmonize with the prohibition against women 48:29 having authority over men that was given in the previous 48:32 chapter, that's the whole connection in the passage. 48:36 Now lastly I just want to point out that the gender aspect 48:40 to this instruction is not adaptable. When you look in the 48:44 text Paul says I do not permit a woman. In the context it's not 48:50 like Ellen White, this is you know, moderation or like Paul 48:56 if you do this you do not sin. Nothing within the text itself 48:59 that tells us that somehow we can be flexible with it. 49:03 It's not mandatory. Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach 49:05 or have authority over man. The elder must be the husband of 49:10 one wife. So these reasons in addition to the fact that Paul 49:16 grounds his statement in the fact that Adam was formed first 49:19 and then Eve points us back to the distinct roles between men 49:23 and women as the real heart of what Paul is talking about. 49:26 So let me summarize my concerns here about the Biblical rational 49:31 provided by Group 3 for adapting the Biblical instruction on the 49:35 gender of elders and ministers. No.1 I'm concerned that its 49:41 based on inferences drawn from descriptive Bible stories 49:45 rather than having clear permission in the language of 49:48 the text itself. No. 2 it sugg- ests that isolated exceptions 49:53 allowed by God in ancient times and under extreme circumstances 49:57 are enough to give a broad scale allowance to a non-Biblical 50:01 practice in his last day church under what amounts to any 50:05 circumstance since they leave it up to any region of the church 50:09 to essentially decide for them- selves. Third, it confuses what 50:12 God allows in His mercy with what He actually endorses 50:16 with His blessing. Fourth, it draws conclusions from Bible 50:20 stories that are actually unrelated, or at least far 50:24 removed from the issue of women's ordination. Fifth, it does not 50:28 carefully consider key Biblical examples that could actually 50:32 contradict its conclusions, such as this story of Korah's 50:35 requested adaptation of the priesthood. Sixth, it does not 50:39 apply its logic, I don't believe in every case, such as 50:42 in God's allowance of polygamy and divorce. Seventh, it places 50:47 church councils in a position of authority over God's word. 50:50 And lastly it regards Biblical instruction as flexible when the 50:55 inspired instruction itself has given no such indication. 51:00 So now we've looked at the foundational claims I just wanna 51:03 take the last few minutes to review its recommendation. 51:06 I'm gonna read the recommenda- tion of the 3rd Option once more 51:09 In light of the priority of mission, the importance of 51:12 church unity and the principles of Christian liberty, 51:15 we recommend that denominational leadership at a proper level be 51:18 be authorized to decide based on Biblical principles whether such 51:22 an adaptation maybe appropriate for their area or region. 51:25 Now the recommendation also high lights here the priority of 51:30 mission. The priority of mission and I'd like to talk about that 51:34 for a moment giving that as a reason for why we should allow 51:37 for the ordination of women. I guess I'm not convinced 51:41 or I really don't understand what's being suggested here. 51:45 Is it necessary for someone to be ordained in order to forward 51:49 the mission? This is something that has been a question in mind 51:53 from both Group2 and Group3 since my time on the TOSC 51:57 I mean I understand the thinking of those who are looking for 52:01 equal recognition, that's another issue entirely. 52:04 But I guess I'm concerned about what this necessity for position 52:07 or ordination says to our lay people who are true engine 52:12 to finishing the work of God on this earth. When Ellen White 52:16 sees a great reformation take place in which hundreds and 52:19 thousands are seen with their Bible under their arms going and 52:22 visiting families and opening before them the Word of God 52:25 I don't think she was seeing ordained ministers. Furthermore 52:30 women who have served admirably have done so in many cases in 52:36 areas of the world church where there were no qualified men 52:38 in a position that the Church Manual calls Church Leaders 52:43 You can find that in Pgs 75, 76 of the Church Manual. 52:46 These women give management to local churches but they're not 52:49 ordained. Instead ordained ministers visit the area 52:52 periodically to carry out the ordinances and do that which is 52:57 only to be done by an ordained individual. And as I think about 53:02 whether or not there would be any circumstance that would 53:05 require ordaining women into the gospel ministry for the 53:08 furtherance of the mission, and maybe there's one I'm not 53:11 thinking of. But my mind goes to the fact that in all of 53:14 salvation history no circum- stance ever arose that would 53:18 merit an exception to the pattern. No exception was made 53:21 to the maleness of the priests. Not one of Jesus' disciples 53:23 was an exception. Not a single clear example of female apostle 53:27 or elder can be found in the New Testament. So I just don't 53:30 know what is different about our situation today. 53:32 And I'm also concerned when Group3 along with Group2 53:37 suggests that the reason we should allow each region of 53:40 the church to decide for them- selves whether or not to ordain 53:43 women is that that's what they did in the Jerusalem Council 53:47 of Acts 15. They were allowed to either be circumcised or not be 53:52 circumcised. But if you read carefully individual decisions 53:56 to be circumcised were never the issue in Acts 15. The issue was 54:00 whether or not churches should teach that the Gentiles must 54:03 be circumcised in order to be saved. And the council's 54:07 decision was NO. No church was allowed to teach that 54:10 circumcision was necessary for salvation. It was a universal 54:14 decision about the nature of salvation and every church was 54:18 to be united on that decision. Friends the church has 54:21 experienced a growing polar- ization in many areas of faith 54:25 and practice over the last few years and I don't think this is 54:27 the only that we're going to face. We just cannot afford to 54:32 to set a precedent of leaving disputed areas of Scripture to 54:36 every Division, Union Conference or a local church to decide. 54:39 We're a world church, we've got to remain united on Biblical 54:43 truths no matter how strong the pressure may be to do otherwise. 54:46 I hope you believe me when I say that I truly have great sympathy 54:51 for the 3rd Option's desire to hold together the church 54:54 that is currently divided on the issue of Women's Ordination. 54:57 I just don't think that it's noble intent will be realized 55:01 by the plan that it recommends. When reading the 3rd Option's 55:05 Position Summary with all of its references to Organizational 55:09 and ecclesiastical and non-moral those references to Biblical 55:14 teachings, these words can begin to have a lessening effect on 55:19 the weight of the words or the teachings. To the point where 55:23 it gives them a more human quality and it makes it easier 55:26 for us to view them as flexible. But we have to remember that 55:30 this is not the Church Manual that we're dealing with here. 55:33 This is not working policy that we're talking about, this is the 55:38 Bible. I just don't believe that we have the authority to adapt 55:43 or disregard inspired instruct- ion. I suspect there's a lot of 55:48 lay people who will at first glance, see some real appeal in 55:52 the 3rd Option. Let me just say that if you've ever felt 55:56 that some of those who are not in favor of ordaining women 56:00 ever come across as over confident or unsympathetic 56:05 or not the most thoughtful in their approach and I'm sure that 56:08 has been me somewhere down the line and you didn't know if you 56:12 wanted to be associated with that kind of attitude, I can 56:15 relate. But above all the voices and our own feelings and our 56:21 own fears, we've got to seek first to be true to God and His 56:26 word. In the beginning of Group 1 Way Forward Statement 56:30 we give three reasons for our recommendation. To remain 56:33 faithful to Scripture, to re- affirm and further promote 56:36 women in ministry and to preserve Bible based unity in 56:40 the church. But let's be clear. These three goals are not equal. 56:44 The truth is that the only way we will truly accomplish our 56:48 goal of affirming women in their work and ministry is if 56:52 we're faithful to Scripture. The Word of God must be to us 56:55 as it was when we agreed to Baptismal vow No. 5. The only 57:00 rule of faith and practice for the Christian. The Bible must be 57:04 our only rule. No other consideration can be allowed 57:07 to crowd in and not only for our faith but for our practice 57:11 as a church as well. Group 3 has been a valuable contributor 57:16 to the Women's Ordination conver- sation. They've affirmed 57:18 the pattern of loving, sacri- ficial male leadership in the 57:21 home and church. They resisted going down the full scale 57:25 abandonment of our methods of Biblical interpretation 57:29 but I'm afraid that in an effort to preserve the unity 57:32 of the church they could be making another dangerous mistake 57:35 It's too late in the day for us to do anything contrary 57:40 to God's Word. Let's pray. Father in heaven I'm so grateful 57:44 for the privilege and opport- unity to talk about Your Word 57:47 and Your will. Help us Lord, help us to be gracious with 57:51 one another but help us to be faithful to you. In Jesus' name. |
Revised 2015-10-19