False reasoning Led to the CUC decision

by (Pastor) E. Bruce Price

God’s people are being urged to continue to pray as they have never prayed before since the news of the action of the Columbia Union Conference spreads around the world and especially as the influence of this is threatening to spread elsewhere. The Columbia Union Conference is not some insignificant foreign language entity on some far-flung continent. It is one of the largest Union conferences in the great North American Division. In its territory is found the General Conference headquarters of the world church of Seventh-day Adventists and many of its officers live within this Union. The implications of this decision are enormous, both for the unity and structure of the world church and also for the CUC itself. If it as a Union can vote to defy the decisions of the world church, how can it or any entity in the world church now discipline any conference, church or member who decides to reject its decisions on doctrine or church procedure?
The question is then asked: “How did this Union, with the General Conference president personally present, overthrow his counsel and vote to reject the present decision of the world church concerning the Ordination of Women?”
I got the answer when a dear overseas friend of mine forwarded to me by email a copy of the video recording of the presentations made by a Ph.D. scholar Darius Jankiewicz before the vote was taken and obviously helped to incite the members and delegates with his intellectual and emotive presentation to cast their votes in rebellion.
I then forwarded this presentation by email to another friend of mine who is also a Ph.D. scholar (“Dr B”) for his assessment of the presentation. The name of this Dr, I will not disclose. Our focus must be not on the messenger but the message. While we cannot agree with the unfortunate result of Dr Jankiewicz’s presentations in the CUC, we must still ask, “Has he some ‘new Biblical light’ that should alter the decisions previously made by the world church?”
I have asked Dr. B. as briefly as he can and in simple language, to assess the presentation and conclusions Jankiewicz drew by his material. I will now share with you his reply. I have added the emphasis and underlining:
“Hi Bruce, As requested, here is my brief review of the presentation by Dr. A on the history of ordination.
I found the part on the history of ordination of interest and I think that the discussion of ministry as service is a helpful reminder of what true ministry is about. There were, however, a number of features of this presentation that were seriously deficient and which, taken together, are fatal to Dr Jankiewicz’s conclusions. I will group these deficiencies in two major categories: hermeneutics and fallacies of relevance. I will take the issue of hermeneutics first.
Hermeneutics or the science of interpretation, deals with how we approach Scripture. As a Seventh-day Adventist with a high view of Scripture, I accept only those principles of interpretation that are to be found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. For example, 2 Timothy 3:16 means that Scripture is inerrant in its teachings when all parts of Scripture relevant to a particular issue are brought together in harmony. If this were not the case, Scripture could never be profitable for doctrine and it could never be used to correct error. Without the benchmark of the inerrant teachings of the Bible, truth and error are meaningless concepts in relation to doctrine.
If this principle had been faithfully followed in this presentation, Jankiewicz would have been forced to arrive at a quite different conclusion. He might simply have short circuited his speculations and asked the question, “Is there any gender-specific instruction in Scripture relevant to the issue of women’s ordination and can this be harmonized with other relevant parts of Scripture?” 1Timothy 3 contains just such gender-specific instruction but the question was never asked and so a proper review of this chapter was not undertaken. This is a serious deficiency that seriously compromises the conclusion that women’s ordination is consistent with Scripture.
Two things that Jankiewicz did during his presentation indicate that he was aware that there were passages of Scripture that were problematic for his position and that this problem for his position needed to be addressed somehow.
First, Jankiewicz raised the issue of the fundamentalist conception of Scriptural inerrancy, which is essentially verbal inspiration, and implied that the Seventh-day Adventist church had imbibed fundamentalism during the period 1920-1950. In the context of the presentation, the clear implication is that the position of the church on ordination during that time is open to question. As Ellen White is quite clear that Scriptural inspiration is thought inspiration and not verbal inspiration, (unless God is speaking directly), it is not fair dealing to imply that the case against women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist church might rest historically on an inadequate view of inspiration that was absorbed from fundamentalism and never discarded.
The second thing that Jankiewicz did was to suggest that we needed to move beyond “proof texts,” implying Seventh-day Adventist reliance upon passages that have been separated from their context or the wider context of Scripture. What then does it mean to go beyond “proof texts?” However inconvenient “proof texts” may appear to a certain position, they remain part of Scripture and, if they have been properly described and explained in comparison with other relevant passages, are authoritative for belief and practice. In this context, to go beyond “proof texts” is to deny some parts of Scripture their due weight (see 2 Timothy 2:15), meaning that some parts of Scripture cease to have the force for us that God intended. If applied universally to our doctrines, going beyond “proof texts” would mean that no doctrine held by the church could stand and the hope of doctrinal unity would vanish once and for all.
During the nineteenth century, some prominent church leaders wrestled with the issue of whether there was an absolute ban on women speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35). Through a process of comparison of Scripture, they discovered that the ban was not absolute and pointed to passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:5 to show that women may exercise a speaking ministry in church. The position they developed arose from engagement with and harmonisation of the Scriptural passages under consideration.
On this issue, the church took a path that was faithful to the overall teaching of Scripture. Yet, the church has never been convinced in the same way, that Scripture leaves the door open for women to fill all offices within the church. If there are no real but only apparent difficulties for this position, let us follow the example of some nineteenth century leaders and have engagement with the text and a meticulous process of comparison, rather than a slide into a questionable and dangerous hermeneutic.
In relation to fallacies of relevance, there was significant stereotyping in the presentation and irrelevant conclusions. It is implied, if not openly stated, that Seventh-day Adventists may have bought into the sacramental model and tradition of ordination of Roman Catholicism, where gender is crucially important. Similarly, am I to understand that pastors are largely control-oriented with a largely secular understanding of authority? Ellen White’s “unwarrantable importance” attached to ordination is invoked but not fully explained. Ellen White was actually countering the view that the laying on of hands conferred some special powers. Ordination is “an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God” AA 161.2. Thus, almost the entire discussion of the sacramental model was irrelevant to the discussion of ordination in the Adventist context.
Let us admit that authority can be misused but let us also understand that it is unavoidable that the role of gospel minister confers authority. The authority is delegated by the church and is to be exercised as Christ intended. The God who confers spiritual gifts also gives gender-specific instruction. Until we can see a compelling Scriptural case that giftedness is all important to the exclusion of gender in this issue and that Scripture teaches an unrestricted egalitarian conception of all spiritual gifts, then we must resist all emotional appeals to our pity on the basis of some supposed disadvantage, either to individual women or to the mission of the church generally.
When we look at church governance in the Christian world that ranges from papal rule with its rigid hierarchy, to outright congregationalism, with variants in between such as the Anglican and Presbyterian models, the governance structure of Adventism is a stunning achievement. A representative form of church governance that has created a world church with distribution of responsibilities and authority shows a divine hand has created our church. It is stretching credulity to suggest that such a structure rests in any way on a sacramental model of ordination or a deficient understanding of authority.
The issue of women’s ordination has assumed such proportions for some that they will have it even at the cost of the world church—an unimaginable disaster. What an irony that an argument that parades as a gentler, more defensible view of authority in the church, is striking at the very heart of the authority of the worldwide church. If there were no other ways to evaluate this presentation than its likely impact on the world church if adopted, there is sufficient reason to reject its conclusions. When this reason is added to the deficiencies outlined above, the only prudent thing to do is to have nothing to do with it.” Note the above statement of Dr. B: “the governance structure of Adventism is a stunning achievement” and then adds “…shows a divine hand has created our church.” We have been greatly blessed as a church, but only as we have accepted the authority of the Bible and followed the divine counsels we have been given. May God help us to remain faithful to these precepts and continue to pray to this end.

Note from Ingrid Wijngaarde
I inserted the title and disclosed the name of Jankiewicz. Pastor Price didn’t.

Invalid Arguments in the Debate
I do strongly reject the proposition that other churches can hold a mirror before us when it comes to the emancipation process, i.e. they do it better than we.
Our church is extremely female friendly.
Women can do almost anything, hold almost any position in our Church. There is no respect with God when it comes to proclaiming the gospel message and receiving salvation. But everyone in his and her right position.
The only four positions that are exclusive male positions are president, ordained pastor, elder and deacon, are Scriptural based and if God does not want women to have those positions, women and men should accept His counsel.

Eve was made a help mate to Adam in a perfect situation, i.e. the pre Fall world. God did not said, I will make her to be as Adam; no, He said I made them both to be one – man is a team of male and female -, and I give her the responsibility to help Adam to fulfil his duty to Me,. and Adam to help her to fulfil her duty to Me. Isn’t that something! Eve got huge and meaningful responsibilities too!

Are women not blessed? On the contrary! They both got the commission to fulfil the earth; Adam got the duty of treasurer of the earth; Eve got to be the treasurer of the family. Both duties complementing each other in a perfect world. This set order didn’t made her less important; it made her co-heir of glory! Had sin not stepped in, this would be the condition we would be found ourselves in, right now!
After the fall God didn’t change this perfect order. he left Adam in charge and Eve his help. He warned them for the consequences of sin, being disharmony and suffering. In fact we see this set in right after the eating of the fruit. The attitude of blaming others for our faults began right away.

Later on, when God established His Congregation of Saints – up till then he had called individuals - He appointed the tribe of Levi to be His priests, cause when everyone else stood idle, they made a courageous stand for the Lord. Though all the people of Israel where announced to be a holy nation and peculiar and His heirs (Deut 7:6; 14:2), only Levites were appointed and anointed as priests. Those who dared to contest this order got a clear cut answer. Everyone of them! Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown; Nadab and Abihu; Meriam; Uzzah; Jerobeam stand out as God's warnings of Grace! Those instances were reported for our benefit that we ay learn a lesson – God is the one that set the order. God will appoint who He will!

What good will it do for a woman to crave for a blessing of others and miss out on her own blessing? God has a special blessing for you too, my sister!
What good will it do to serve the Lord in your own way, do a perfect job by bringing multitudes of people into the Church, but be left out?

The first thing men and women ought to do is to watch out for their own salvation. And then, because they are saved by grace unto perfect obedience to the Lord, they will go out and bring in more genuine obedient sheeps in His fold.

Rebellion unto destruction
This women ordination controversy has an deeper aim and a deeper impact.
It is not about emancipation and giving women what they deserve; it is about subordination and contesting authority. when the GC says, “we are not used to do things this unilateral way,” she is saying let us abide by the set rules. Those rules is that constituency on the highest level decide on basis of Bible study under praying, weeping and fasting, led by the Spirit.
With the adherents of women ordination we see stern faces and iron foreheads. Not the most Christlike traits.
But those same women pastors would want their congregations also to abide by the set rules. Who are they to think that they can freely withdraw themselves from the set structures of the Church and expect the members to abide. This controversy will end at the diffraction of our Church and the lost of many souls! Woe him of her who will have to give account to that!

As I see it the so called emancipation process follows five stages.
1) women ordination - commissioned pastors have full authority as ordained;
2) in those liberal societies next step in worldliness is calling cohabitation marriage and pastors blessing cohabitants in secret private home ceremonies and by that giving the wrong signals that they can call right what God has called wrong. They are even more gracious than the Lord;
3) next thing you see is that those thus "married" take up Church positions as elders, youth leaders and delegates to further disseminating wrong in the congregation – truly a diabolic scheme!
4) Thus the stage is set for allowing (married and practicing) homosexuals to be members and as it has already happened, to be youth leaders;
5) allowing homosexuals as pastors, despite of all the clear Bible passages that give evidence that the Lord abhors the practice.

And when this all has gone, everything else will go.
No message of reproof for "we all are all holy." No value judging, we don't like that! Unity in error instead of unity in truth!

Beware of the false prophets!

(Ingrid Wijngaarde, 24-10-2012)