What does the stir over ordination for women mean for the future of Adventism? Can it change the way we read the Bible, and even change who we are?

"Evangelicals today are facing a watershed concerning the nature of biblical inspiration and authority." So warned Francis Schaeffer in The Great Evangelical Disaster, the capstone of his life's work.1 The contemporary struggles seen in such great Protestant denominations as the Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church of Sweden, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Southern Baptist Convention, and the Christian Reformed Church, provide vivid examples of the relevance of Schaeffer's warning. For many decades these churches have been embroiled in what the Southern Baptist Convention refers to as the "great controversy" concerning the authority and interpretation of the Bible. The ordination of women issue has featured conspicuously in that controversy. Now the Seventh-day Adventist church is facing the same watershed.

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

The campaign to ordain women ministers in the Seventh-day Adventist church, culminating in the decision of the Indianapolis General Conference (1990) not to move in that direction, has forced the church to focus on Biblical authority and interpretation, the more critical underlying issue. The debate reveals an obvious divergence in arguments. Most opponents have appealed to Scripture, while most proponents have appealed to things like justice, equal rights, and contemporary culture.

Due to the efforts of Bible scholars like Samuele Bacchiocchi and the writers of many of the study papers prepared for the General Conference's Role of Women Commission, together with other authors, one can no longer deny that the women's ordination issue is Biblical and theological rather than merely social and cultural. Consequently, proponents finally have had to take the Bible into account. But another significant divergence now becomes apparent, involving the full or limited authority of the Bible. "In this respect," observes Gerhard Hasel, "Seventh-day Adventist theology and doctrine are at a crossroads over the role of women question."2

Full or Limited Authority?

The terms "watershed" (Schaeffer) and "crossroads" (Hasel) are appropriate, because in order for the Adventist church to ordain women to the ministry a departure from full Biblical authority is necessary. Such a departure would have serious implications for the future of Adventism. Once it is done, once the kind of interpretation of the Bible allowing for women's ordination is accepted, the Adventist church will have embarked upon a path from which it may never recover.

Did Ellen White view the Bible's authority as limited in some way to its own time? She wrote, "These messages were given, not for those that uttered the prophecies, but for us who are living amid the scenes of their fulfillment."3 The Bible itself affirms that the Old Testament prophets had it "revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you (1 Pet 1:12). The authority of the Bible reaches down through time. To say, as some do, that the New Testament's instruction that the office of pastor or elder must be filled by a man rather than a woman is culturally conditioned, and therefore is limited in authority to only the time in which it was written, contradicts both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

For the Christian believer, nothing in this world stands on the same level of authority as the written Word of God. An appeal to the Bible ought to settle every issue for the believer. If what the Bible teaches is absolute truth, then it is also just, and to submit to it is in harmony with truth and justice. What is right according to the Word of God is also just as far as God and His people are concerned, though it may run counter to cultural values.

After all, God's people are called upon to relate in justice not only to each other but to God Himself. To obey His Word is to act justly. In Christ there is no question of superiority or inferiority, for God has created men and women equal. For Christians to abide by the Biblical principle of male headship in church leadership is justified by virtue of the Father's will. It accords with both truth and justice. There is nothing unjust about practicing the counsel of God.

A house built upon sand cannot stand. Jesus, speaking "as one who had authority," said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash" (Matt 7:24-27).

Without the full authority of the Bible, the Adventist church would go the way of many mainline denominations. It could no longer claim to "have the truth" or be "in the truth" if there were no solid foundation of revelation upon which that truth stands.

Two Alternatives

Those who deny full authority to the Bible have only two alternatives left: the authority of the church expressed through its theologians and/or administrators, and the assumed authority of the Spirit expressed through charismatic renewal. In the former, the theological or administrative elite determine for the church what parts of the Bible it may take as authoritative Scripture. In the latter, religious experience and excitement, rather than the objective written Word of God, determine the faith. The first leads to a Catholic understanding of the nature of the church, and the second to a Pentecostal understanding.

Perhaps this is why proponents of ordination for women in the Seventh-day Adventist church have done their best to keep the discussion in the social and cultural arena rather than face the fact that it is a Biblical and theological issue. Waving the socio-cultural flags of justice/injustice, superiority/inferiority, and human equality, is an attempt to win the sympathy vote. Recognizing women's ordination as a Biblical-theological issue would inevitably expose the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist church also faces a crisis concerning the authority of the Bible and its interpretation.

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Danger of Cultural Approach

The apostle Paul outlined the qualifications for leadership of the church, including the specification that "the overseer [pastor/elder] must be . . . the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2). If Adventists conclude that what Paul says was culturally conditioned, that it reflects his patriarchal culture and therefore does not apply to our time, they can do the same with other texts. It would be logical to conclude, as most evangelicals do, that the Sabbath commandment also was conditioned by Jewish culture and does not apply to modern Christians. Given such an approach, Adventists could also conclude that Genesis 1–11 represents a primitive cultural view and therefore cannot be accepted as history.

If we read the Bible that way, what would we do with 1 Cor. 6:9, where Paul says, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral . . . nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God"? If Adventists conclude that "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2) was culturally conditioned and was authoritative only for Paul's time and place, they can easily conclude the same for 1 Corinthians 6:9. If Paul was mistaken about women in ministry, it is logical to allow that he was mistaken about homosexuality.

But, as Charles Colson has perceptively observed, "Homosexuality could not survive as a valid 'alternate lifestyle' in a culture that took gender distinctions seriously."4

Adventist Christians ought to sense danger when the "fallen" becomes the ideal, or when the sin-conditioned exception becomes the rule. This is what happens when secular ideals are accepted as normative for the church as well as for culture. But Christians must maintain that fallen ideals and sin-conditioned exceptions contribute to the decomposition of church and society, as Paul warned in the first chapter of Romans.

Simple observation indicates that those denominations which accept practicing homosexuals into membership and ordained ministry, without regeneration and transformation, have reached the point where sin rules in the church and the ancient prophecy is fulfilled: good is called evil and evil good (Isa 5:20). How long would the Seventh-day Adventist church avoid similar apostasy if it were to adopt the kind of Bible interpretation that leads in that direction?

Impossibility

It is not possible to believe in an inspired Bible and at the same time conclude that Paul's counsel to Timothy concerning qualifications for ministry was in error. Believing in an inspired Bible is inconsistent with the idea that Paul's view on this matter was conditioned by a male-dominated culture and thus mistaken. To hold that Paul was mistaken gives more authority to human reason and culture than to the inspired, infallible Bible.

Events have vindicated critics before. One major Protestant denomination that has ordained women pastors for years on the basis of the cultural principle, is now supporting homosexual congregations and ministers on the basis of that same principle. Some Adventists have assured me that the Seventh-day Adventist church would never do so. But one can have no confidence in such assurances. The Episcopal Church, which by ordaining women has thrown away the theological arguments prohibiting homosexual priests, is facing that issue for its July 1991 convention, and has already knowingly ordained practicing homosexuals.

Divergent ways of interpreting the Bible have been at the center of both debates. Proponents of the ordination of homosexual priests claim that "isolated biblical texts cannot be applied directly to the 20th century and that people should look to the Bible's overriding themes of justice and love."5

Open Door

The "culture-conditioned" principle of Bible interpretation flings wide the theological door. It can happen in the Seventh-day Adventist church, and it will happen unless we are vigilant. In fact, the campaign for support of homosexual lifestyle has already begun in our ranks.6 No doubt proponents of this perversion are breathlessly waiting to see if the church will adopt the kind of Bible interpretation that will make its acceptance possible.

What would happen to a church where membership and ministry were denied to those who smoke, use drugs, and drink alcoholic beverages, but not denied to homosexuals? How long would such restrictions last viewed on the same basis of justice, human rights, and cultural norms that have been used in arguments for the ordination of women?

Presupposition

The "culturally-conditioned" approach to Bible interpretation rests on a presupposition that has already proven disastrous among Protestants—that the Bible is more a product of human thought than of divine revelation. Such a presupposition leads to a cultural, humanistic interpretation of the Bible, which not only alters the shape of the church and its ministry, but eventually, if not checked, leads to the church's destruction.

Of course this will be vehemently denied, and many of those who view the Bible in this way will loudly proclaim belief in its full authority even while they limit its authority in practice by insisting that such passages as those quoted above are not to be considered universally applicable.

Adventist Presuppositions

Historically, Adventists have come to the Bible presupposing that it is a unified whole, believing that when all the parts are carefully studied it is possible to arrive at a unified system of truth, sometimes referred to as a "chain of truth." On the other hand, the acceptance of multiple systems of interpretation (hermeneutical pluralism) rests on the belief that there is no underlying unity or harmony to the Bible and that it can be interpreted in many different yet equally truthful ways.

One of the presenters at the 1974 Bible Conferences posed a perceptive question for the church's scholars: "In endeavoring to communicate God's Word to 20th century man, are we reliable transmitters of that Word, or is there a danger that we may tend to transform the Word instead? Or stated in another way, Do we proclaim the Word in such a way that it speaks its own message—God's message—or may we unwittingly at times allow 20th-century culture and our own preconceptions to modify the gospel we proclaim?"7

If Adventist presuppositions concerning the nature of Biblical revelation and inspiration are right, if Adventist principles of interpretation are right, then we can have confidence in the doctrines that emerge from careful application of them to the Biblical text.

Pluralistic hermeneutics would result in a radical recasting of Adventist identity. Seventh-day Adventist believers would disappear into the grayness of contemporary pagan society. The prophetic element in Adventist theology and life would disappear, as would unabashed evangelism. The inevitable consequence for the church would be fragmentation, and the Adventist church of the next century would be virtually unrecognizable. Only by employing consistent principles of interpretation can the Seventh-day Adventist church avoid the fragmentation that would destroy the unity of the last-day church and reduce its message and mission to incredibility. It is the certainty of the Adventist witness to Scripture that has been so powerful and captivating evangelistically.

Which View?

Of course the bottom line is, Which view of Scripture and its interpretation will prevail? We cannot maintain divergent views on basic matters while at the same time insisting that unity amidst doctrinal diversity is possible. It can never be simply a matter of agreeing to disagree, because diverse ways of seeing and interpreting the Bible influence the very message to be preached to the world.

Voices in virtually every denomination today would like to convince others that unity amidst diversity, or theological pluralism, poses no threat. However, alert and thinking constituents are not buying that idea, for they know that in reality it is a giant step toward liberalism. If no one view is right, then no one view is wrong, either.

COERCION OR CONSENSUS?

The Seventh-day Adventist church has usually made decisions affecting the church's faith and life only after reaching consensus through much prayer, together with deep and lengthy study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. We are now faced with a method foreign to Adventism: coercion. Evidently some supporters of ordination for women are prepared to replace with coercion the church's traditional search for Biblical consensus in resolving such issues.

The movement toward ordination for women is part of the spirit of the age. Biblical Adventism is not part of that spirit of the age; hence it is viewed as an enemy and a threat which must either be eliminated or radically altered. There is no question but that the more radical supporters of women's ordination, were they to gain the power, would create an atmosphere in which it would be extremely unpopular and even professionally dangerous for anyone to oppose their agenda.8

Coercion Begun

Such moves have already begun. One example is the recent implementation of a standing threat by Adventist feminists to accept tithes into a special escrow account until the church agrees to ordain women pastors. The threat to withhold tithe failed to intimidate delegates to the Indianapolis General Conference session, who overwhelmingly opted to follow the teaching of the Bible on this matter. Adventists who for 150 years have found it necessary to contend for their Biblical faith in the face of intimidation from evangelical quarters, including the threat of being labeled sectarian and heterodox, were not about to cave in under such pressure by a special interest group. It is hard to believe that they will succumb to the acting out of the threat of withholding tithe.

Coercive methods are based on political power, not on study and submission to the Word of God.

FEMINISM

In what ways does feminism influence the campaign for women's ordination regarding the issues of Biblical authority and interpretation?

Reinterprets Bible

First, feminism reinterprets the Bible, discounting every element thought to represent patriarchal culture. Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, often quoted as an authority by advocates of women's ordination, believes that the Bible must be rewritten from the feminist perspective.9 In her view, that which is valid in the Bible is only what accords with the Christian community's understanding of its self-identity. In practice, this means that if the church of the 1990s in North America sees the ordination of women as part of its self-identity, Biblical prohibitions don't apply.

All of this is based on the premise that the Bible is not God's revelation but the human product of the believing community. This premise determines the feminist view of the Bible as fallible and encourages the principle of skepticism when reading it.

Reconstructs History

Second, feminism reconstructs history, both sacred and secular.10 Feminists do not accept the Bible's account of events as true history. According to the feminist view, the Biblical data are not reliable by themselves. They must be united with the "vision" (imagination) of the reader, who then goes beyond the data to a kind of intellectual re-creation of the history. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, carefully choosing some of the information the Bible gives and reconstructing the history according to what "should" have happened.

Using such reinterpretation and reconstruction of history, what does the feminist interpreter do with 1 Timothy 3:2, "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife"? Acceptable data are: "the overseer," understood to mean bishop/pastor/elder, because that role is desirable for women; "above reproach," because women are considered spiritually accountable in that role. Unacceptable is the identification of the overseer as a "husband," which clearly implies male gender. In fact, the Greek behind "husband of one wife" may be literally translated as "man of one woman." The Greek word is aner, which means a man or husband—a male. So feminists either give "husband of one wife" a gender-inclusive interpretation ("married to one spouse") or simply ignore it, since it does not fit the feminist reconstruction. The feminist interpreter simply pretends it is not there!

Thought Conditioning

Whenever anyone is heard addressing God as "father-mother" or as "divine parent," feminist reinterpretation and reconstruction are operating. You, the innocent hearer, are being conditioned to think in feminist rather than Biblical terms.

In many instances the church is capitulating to culture, has swallowed feminist propaganda hook, line and sinker, and is now in the process of reinterpreting what the Bible says about role distinctions. It is in danger of abdicating its responsibility to uphold the Bible's teaching that men and women have different roles that are equally important.

What is needed now is not a change of words but a change of heart. The Christian church cannot afford to accept secular culture's definition of who men and women are. Nor can its theologians and scholars legitimately impose that secular definition on the Bible by changing its language.

CONCLUSION

Critical Issues

Biblical authority and interpretation are the critical issues at stake for the Seventh-day Adventist church today. As painful as it may be, perhaps we can be grateful that the women's ordination question has served to call our attention to these more foundational issues.

How the ordination question is finally settled will determine the direction the Seventh-day Adventist church takes in the years ahead in its theology, doctrine, ethics, mission, and lifestyle. It will have serious implications for preaching and evangelism, as well as for theological education and ministerial training. Therefore, we must not view it flippantly or as a matter of indifference.

Some say that it is morally wrong and reactionary to oppose change. Often proponents of change are vehement in their appeal to religious freedom, to the "direction" or the "trajectory" of the Bible, and strongly criticize their opponents for bringing Biblical specifics to bear on issues. Some claim ordination for women to be a human right and scorn its opponents for distinguishing between a human right and the will of God.

Have our presuppositions been changing, even without our knowing it? Adventists used to believe there were absolutes that would always be true and dependable, that could be counted on, no matter what. If we can no longer measure faith, morals, and ethics by an objective absolute standard, everything is up for grabs. Biblical teaching becomes relative and faith subjective.

Adventists have traditionally turned to the Bible for determining what is truth and proper practice. Shall we now turn to personal experience and culture instead? Have we begun to lose confidence in the written Word of God to the point where many of us are ready to accept human experience as the basis of truth? Are Adventists really ready to ordain individuals to the gospel ministry on no more authority than their sense of call and their claims to giftedness, even in opposition to the authority of the Word of God? Are Adventists beginning to "sacrifice the objective truths of Scripture on the altar of subjective experience"?11

Doctrinal Unity

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a mission- and evangelism-oriented church whose basis for unity is doctrinal, not functional. Our mission and our doctrine rest upon the Bible as the written Word of God. Obviously for such a church, doubts concerning the historicity and authority of the Bible undermine mission and evangelism. We can peacefully maintain diversity of function, but doctrinal diversity leads only to division.

Theological diversity within a message- and mission-oriented church makes political activity inevitable. There will be a struggle for dominance, such as is currently taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention. What other way can the full authority of the Bible be maintained? Those who are determined to follow the Bible will stand up and be heard, supporting the election to important offices of those who uphold that authority. Fairness is not the issue when the full authority of the Bible is in jeopardy. Bible believers in every denomination have history on their side when it comes to the devastation caused to evangelism and the growth of the church through abandoning full Biblical authority.

Crossroads of Faith

The "watershed" or "crossroads" faced by the Seventh-day Adventist church is more a matter of faith than of reading the Bible differently. It has to do with believing what the Bible clearly says. First Timothy 3:2 is not ambiguous. It does not require special principles for interpretation. It is not symbolic language. It is clear prose and unmistakable in meaning. What the Word of God says ought to be final, even if what it says is not comfortable.

The above portrayal would be bleak and depressing for the future of Adventism if it were all there is to the story. What has been described has happened, and is happening, to other Christian denominations. But it does not have to happen to the Seventh-day Adventist church!

There is hope, and it is most glorious! The promise is that "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms."12 Also, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true."13

The church will not fall; it will remain true to the Word of God! But that will not happen without the "word of their testimony"—the faithful witness, in word and action, of God's people to the Bible as the only standard of doctrine and basis of reform. The very struggle for Biblical faith makes the church strong: "The remnant that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process."14 We can be confident that when leadership and laity see the full implications of the women's ordination issue, involving Biblical authority and interpretation, they will have the will and the courage to stand by the Bible.

Here is the future of God's church: "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. . . . No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. . . . And they will reign for ever and ever.

"The angel said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servant the things that must soon take place.' 'Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book'" (Rev 22:1-7).