An Examination of the Biblical Basis for the Ordination of Women

Part 2

By Dan M. Appel
1063 Southridge Drive
Auburn, California 95603

dan.appel-moose@wavecable.com

530.392.3428
An Examination of Some of the Most Prominent Arguments Against the Ordination of Women

Recently a nationally known television personality in Adventist circles spoke at some length on
the subject of the ordination of women in a public forum. His remarks were televised, have
traveled far and wide on the internet and been discussed in a whole spectrum of public and
private settings. It would be very easy to view his remarks as nothing more than an emotional
polemic and to dismiss them out of hand. His arguments, though, bear careful and thoughtful
scrutiny because they are the major arguments put forth by the Church’s leadership in the dark
and middle ages and even today when it is argued that women should not be ordained to gospel
ministry.

Because many of the textual basis used by those opposed and in favor of ordaining women is drawn
from the writing of Paul the Apostle, we need to remind ourselves to use good hermeneutics as we
seek to determine just what the Bible, and especially Paul, meant in certain places and instances. As
Peter said so eloquently, “ . . . our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
speaking . . . as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand . . .” (2 Peter
3:15-16)

Using the conservative Historical-grammatical Method, it is fair to try to determine what of

Paul’s statements are personal and cultural and what are based on sound theology. Even when he is
talking about clearly held beliefs we need to ask which are his opinion and which are a clear “thus
says the Lord.”

The New Testament statements most often used to combat the notion of ordaining women are as
follows:

Colossians 3:18-20 - Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

This passage sounds clear-cut, and if it was the only text from Paul we had on the subject, it would be
pretty clear that in the family wives are to subject themselves to their husbands.

But, Paul spoke in other places on the same subject where he takes the opportunity to clarify what he
intends.

In Ephesians 5:21-33 Paul says, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

The identical word is used in both Ephesians and Colossians. Here “subjection” is a two-way street
required of both spouses in a marriage. Paul describes what he intends in Ephesians 5:33 when he
says that each one should love his wife as he does himself and the wife should respect her husband.
The meaning of the subjection Paul admonishes wives to have for their husband is not blind
obedience, but respect- something not given because it is deserved or demanded, but because the
person offering it chooses to do so. Men are challenged to give up themselves (their pride, power
and desire to control) for their wives as Jesus gave up himself for the church. Love always gives up
it’s desire to dominate and serves. Paul clarifies his meaning when he says that husbands are to
spiritually lead their wives to God by giving up themselves and becoming servants in love to lead
them to a relationship with God. In this setting, the “subjecting” Paul advises for men is much greater
than that he advises for women.

This is far from the power and pride of position that characterizes many who wish to use this passage
to exert their predominance over women.

Another passage often used by those opposed to the ordination of women is 1 Corinthians 11:1-16,
where Paul says, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you
remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But
I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her
husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered
dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors
her head - it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she
should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a
veil. . . . (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was
man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her
head, because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor
man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all
things are from God.) Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her
head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to
him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If
any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of
God.

This passage must be considered as a whole.

First of all, Paul says that what he has delivered to them on this subject is part of, literally,
the Jewish traditionary laws (paradosis), the Jewish traditions handed down orally from Moses time to
the Pauline present which illustrated and expanded the written law. Paul was still keeping many of
these non-biblical traditions because they were a part of his religious culture not because he believed
that they came from God - although he tried to excuse them by appealing to religious grounds like any
good Talmudic rabbi would.

If we are going to be honest about what Paul intended, we must admit that the issue in this passage is
hair - the hair of the Christian. Anything he says about the relationship between men and women is by
way of illustration - based on tradition and Paul’s opinion based on those traditions. After stating his
opinion that the head of every woman is her husband, he goes on to state that any woman who prays
or prophesies without her head covered, might as well have her head shaved. In fact, he goes on to
say that if she is not going to wear a veil she might as well shave her own head.

Most in today’s religious world, even those in very conservative circles, would say that what Paul says
here about hair here was cultural, based on his times, and not normative for the Christian. No one I
know insists that their wives and daughters veil their heads in church. And, if they do not veil their hair,
I have never heard of them trying to shave their wives head, or advocating that she do it herself. It is
therefore disingenuous to make his aside illustrations a standard for whether or not women should be
ordained..

Titus 2:2-6 - Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in
steadfastness. Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or
slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their
husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands,
that the word of God may not be discredited. Likewise urge the younger men to control
themselves.

First of all, it should be obvious from this passage that the issue is not whether women should or should
not be ordained. Rather Paul is admonishing all concerned to live lives that will not discredit God or the
church in the eyes of the world. In a culture where men ruled the women that were their legal chattel,
Paul is concerned that women not use their freedom as followers of Jesus to bring discredit on the church -
so they should be respectful of their husbands.

1 Peter 3:1-6 - Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they
do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see
your reverent and chaste behavior. Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair,
decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with
the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. So once
the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their
husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and
let nothing terrify you.

Even a careless reading reveals that this passage is not about ordination of women or even the place of
women in the larger scheme of things. It is about winning souls for Jesus.

Peter is writing to women whose husbands were not Christ followers and he suggests that maybe through
their respectful behavior they can win them to Jesus. It is a voluntary submission or respect to someone
who is not a follower of God for a purpose, not because God or even the church demands it. Sarah chose
to relate to Abraham and to win him to a relationship with God, Peter says, and so can you too if you are
willing. (This is an interesting insight into who originally, way back in Ur of the Chaldees first became
acquainted with God in Abraham’s family. Sarah’s choice to respect Abraham apparently won him to
God just like any other wife has the opportunity to win her unbelieving husband.)

1 Timothy 2:11-15 - Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to
teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet
woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness,
with modesty.

This passage may be one of the most rationalized passages in all of scripture. Most commentators dance
through these verses like Fred Astaire. Let’s just let Paul say what he says and ask ourselves if this is
what the larger context of the rest of the Bible teaches or if this is another of those hard to understand
Pauline sayings that were based on his opinion.
Does any thinking Christian really believe that the Bible teaches that only way they women can be saved
is by having plenty of babies? In addition, does God really intend that women learn obediently in total
silence and never teach anything to any man. Finally, is it the message of scripture that Eve and all her
female descendants are the source of all the bad that has happened in this world so this is her lot in life
and she should get used to it!

If a person truly believes that Paul was basing his statements on God’s intent and that it is normative, then
they should be willing to practice and advocate everything in this passage. If we don’t believe that
everything Paul says here is an accurate picture of God’s will, then it is not reasonable to pick bits and
pieces and apply them to the subject of ordination.

Many sincere, well meaning Christians down through the centuries have used the Bible to justify
their desire to “be the boss.” The strongest human drive is the drive to control others. It is
convenient to be able to find a Bible verse that justifies it. Unfortunately, the Bible when a
person just reads Scripture with an open mind, it does not teach that women should not be ordained. On
the contrary, it was God’s original intent that his people restore the equality that was in the Garden of
Eden before the Fall. He set in place leaders who he hoped would make it happen, and intended that his
church would illustrate the restoration of the equality between men and women that comes when our
sinful humanity has been redeemed

Maybe it’s time we finished the work God gave his Church and honor the female side, the heart, of the
priesthood of all believers.

To review, if you are going to take the Bible passages as literally as many wish, then you have to
take it all that they say literally. You cannot pick and choose your way through them using some
of what Paul and Peter said and ignore the rest.

How Did We End Up in This Mess?

The subject of the ordination of women was not a major issue in early Adventism. Women held
many responsibilities in the church hierarchy equally with men, a female prophet spoke and
wrote authoritatively in and for the church and was credentialed as if she was ordained - even
though she never felt the need to be formally ordained because her ordination, she believed, was
from God. Women led out in church services, preached, evangelized and were generally
accepted in roles that were unusual in Victorian America.

There were apparently instances where women were licensed to preach and were considered by
those who worked with them as ordained - even though we are not aware if they did nor not go
through a formal ceremony.

As time went on, though, in a society dominated by men where women were often chattel and
were not considered equal or physically or mentally capable enough to deserve a vote in national
or local elections, women were increasingly relegated to second-class status. To support this
situation, well-meaning but misguided men developed theologies to defend their position that
were as egregiously wrong, hermeneutically, as those developed to defend slavery. Emotionally
they were attractive to those proffering them, but Biblically they were very weak.
Eventually, during the Women’s Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, some women of the
Adventist Church began to agitate for a change. Unfortunately, the basis for many of their
arguments was social rather than Biblical and the church was very slow to change. On the other
side, the same tactics and arguments used against abolition and women’s suffrage were used to
discredit the idea and it was reduced to a slow simmering volcano that occasionally raises it’s
head - generally around General Conference times.

The issue was made worse by a set of circumstances that virtually destroyed any meaning of the
idea of ordination itself.

A number of years ago, the Adventist Church faced a difficult dilemma. The Church had a
two-tiered system of setting aside individuals for pastoral ministry. A person went through a
period when they were “licensed (eventually called commissioned),” sort of a time of
professional probation, then when they were judged to be ready, were “ordained.” The church
claimed the same tax privileges for each of them. The IRS ruled that if individuals were entitled
to the same tax benefits, they had to be allowed to perform the same duties. In short order,
commissioned or licensed pastors were allowed by the church to perform anything an ordained
person was.

This created a second awkward situation. We had commissioned women in many areas of
church service clear back to the late 1800s. Suddenly, by IRS ruling, these commissioned
employees were qualified to do anything ordained ministers could do.

This created the theological equivalent of the Keystone Cops as church administrators scrambled
to figure out what to do and those on the fundamentalist side of Adventism sprang to find some
way of holding on to their two-tier - male and female - distinctions in the church. Soon we were
left in a position that made a mockery of ordination for everyone involved. “

Because of the widely and forcefully held diversity of opinion on the subject, the Church has
continued to “ordain”men to ministry and has chosen to “commission women.” Both commissioned
and ordained individuals can fulfill the same responsibilities, perform the same functions, lead and
direct the same activities, programs and departments and take advantage of the same tax and
employee benefits. The two words have become absolutely synonymous - their meaning and choice
for use determined solely by whether they are being applied to a man or a woman. The semantic
hairsplitting that leads to the distinction between the two different classifications is demeaning to both
genders; it degrades the whole idea of ordination; and it creates an artificial distinction, not based on
scripture.

At some point we will either have to say that the ordination of female clergy is truly a moral issue
and refuse to bow to government pressure and penalize all of our commissioned individuals by
not allowing them the legitimate tax advantages our ordained clergy enjoy, or we should realize
that the issue is primarily a cultural one and set aside our personal prejudices and vote to ordain
women.

There are parts of the world where ordaining women may never be practical - culturally it will
probably always be anathema. There are other areas where the majority of the church may
consider it culturally and theologically acceptable - where the majority feel that there is
legitimate reason to ordain women. If it is one of those basic areas that define who we are, then
we should not budge and compromise. If on the other hand it is not, then we should be willing to
allow others to see things differently than we do and not attempt to impose our will on them. In those
cases, it should be a matter of personal choice not church mandate.

One thing neither side should be willing to allow this subject to do is to divide our church any longer.

As Augustine said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things love.”