North American Division Request to the World Church 
          Presented by Alfred C. McClure, July 5, 1995
  President, North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists

	We come before you this afternoon to make a very important request
of the world church in session. The topic is one which has generated
intense discussion in recent months. Much has been written, both
formally and informally. We have received hundreds of letters on both
sides of the issue; we have read each one carefully and personally
responded to most. We have studied and prayed and listened, to each
other and to God, seeking to know His will, for we have no other
agenda. We humbly ask that you give us a hearing today, that you
suspend the views you may have brought with you, and that you
prayerfully seek ways to help us address a dilemma.
	First, we want you to know that the North American Division is very
much a part, a loyal part of the Seventh-day Adventist world Church. We
have an unshakeable commitment to church unity. We're every bit as
supportive of the mission and unity of this church as we are pleased to
see it evidenced in other parts of the world.
	I want to assure you, we do not wish to cause a problem or embarrass
or divide the body of Christ. We abhor anything that would bring
dishonor upon this church that we love. You see, our concern is linked
to mission, and it is in that setting that we come to you today.
	I also want to assure you that our support of the world church is not
linked in any way to this issue. Whatever the outcome today, we will
continue to be a responsible part of the world family and carry the
share of the load that we have been blessed by the Lord to provide. I
am a servant of this Church and I will do everything in my power to
keep us together. So please understand, please understand that this is
not an ultimatum, no, but rather it is  a heartfelt appeal for
understanding and recognition of what we see as a significant
missiological need.
	As a world community we have agreed on a body of doctrine that is
non-negotiable. The central beliefs of this church are anchored
securely in Scripture and are not open to amendment. They are clearly
stated in the 27 Fundamental beliefs and we would ardently resist any
effort to tamper with those beliefs. In the matter of theology we see
no alternative to global uniformity.
	However, in order to accomplish our mission in a large and diverse
world, there are some things of a non-doctrinal nature which we allow
to be done differently from one division to another. That list is a
long one and I will not rehearse it here. You are acquinted with those
issues. We are only asking that, where it is helpful to the mission of
the Church, freedom be given to each of the world divisions to make
such a decision.
	The early church discovered that there are areas which are clearly
ecclesiological. That is, those matters which are not required in
scripture but which relate to how the church functions. In our church
these are shaped by broad biblical principles, by the Spirit of
Prophecy, and are agreed upon by the body of the church as policies. It
is to these kinds of issues we are speaking  Jesus referred in Matthew
18:18 when he made that dramatic statement to the leaders of the
Church, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
	One further observation before we get to the heart of the matter...
You will see from the wording of our request that we are not asking
other parts of the world church to do as we do. Our objective is
unswerving fidelity to God and to His Word, while still recognizing
diversity within our unity. We believe it is important to grant to each
member or region of "the body" freedom to do that which will enable its
mission. And rather than weaken fabric of church structure, we believe
it will strengthen it, because this will establish a precedent that
anytime there is a proposed deviation from the normal practices of the
church such a request will come before this body.
	My fellow delegates, we believe that gender-inclusive ordination,
while perhaps not appropriate in some places, will be helpful in North
America.  There is a generation of bright and devout young people
coming on the scene--tomorrow's leaders--the majority of whom believe
it is right, and who will be seriously disillusioned by a negative vote
today from their church.  We are simply asking you to let us address it
with the members and leaders within our division to see if they agree.
	More than a decade ago, the General Conference in Annual Council voted
to ordain women.  In 1984 the General Conference voted that--in
divisions where it was acceptable--women could be ordained as local
elders.
	
	Here is the wording of that action:
	VOTED, To advise each division that it is free to make provision as
it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local
church elders.  (1984 Annual Council Committee minutes, page 48)
	
	Since that time hundreds of churches in North America have elected
women as local elders with more than 1,000 now serving as ordained
elders of local churches.  There is an uncounted number outside the
North American Division.  Incidentally, in many of those congregations
it would be a paralyzing blow to deprive them of those leaders.
	This action by the General Conference Annual Council to vest in its
divisions the authority to make a decision on ordination was truly
precedent-setting.  It has not caused a significant problem for those
parts of the world where the practice is not followed.  It has
permitted North America and some other parts of the world to address
what many see as a serious need for accomplishment of mission in their
territory.  And it has recognized the vast range of gifts that God has
given to women as well as to men.
	We believe it is not the intent of the world church to reverse that
decision.  It would be an indefensible position to say to those women
who have served nobly, some for more than a decade, that their church
no longer recognizes their gifts or their ordination.  Our sisters and
wives and mothers who stand with us in ministry deserve to have the
same acknowledgment of their call which the church confers on their
male colleagues.
	Some of you may be struggling with a concern over theological
implications.  I too was unclear of this matter for some time.  But
after much study and reading and praying and listening I must tell you
that I am a convert to this position I am presenting.  If we believed
for a moment that our request constituted a compromise or that it was
even a prelude to a compromise, under no circumstances would you find
it on this agenda.  But when Scripture makes no such gender
distinction, how can the church which takes its faith commitment from
Scripture, continue to make that distinction?  In fact, when the Holy
Spirit gives ministry gifts to His church, we believe it is that
church's obligation to acknowledge and affirm those gifts.
	
	And we have clear statements like this from the pen of our prophet:
	The refining, softening influence of Christian women is needed in the
great work of preaching the truth...  Women who are willing to
consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be
appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the
necessities of the poor.  They should be set apart to this work by
prayer and laying on of hands... This is another means of strengthening
and building up the church...
	I want to make sure you understand the motive of the North American
Church in making this request.  You may rest assured that it is not
driven by any kind of feminist agenda.  Our motive is simple: God has
given lavish spiritual gifts to His church irrespective of gender; we
need all of those gifts to fulfill the gospel commission, and it
violates no scriptural teaching that the rite of ordination be extended
to anyone who meets the criteria.  Gender is not one of those criteria.
	We are not asking those divisions to join us where it may not be
acceptable.  We are simply asking that you grant to each division, on
this matter, the same permission you granted them on the matter of the
ordination of local elders. We believe it is a responsible request.
	Now, in closing, allow me to speak pastorally for a moment. There are
many who fear that if this permission is granted it will divide the
church. I do not believe the church is that fragile. But I assure you
that whatever our decision here today, there are some who will be
profoundly disappointed. Some may fear the worst. Some may even give up
on their church--whichever way the vote goes. My fellow believers, we
must not allow this issue to divide us.
	There are some who would draw a line in the sand and tell us that the
liberals are in favor and the conservatives are against. I would submit
to you . . . that is an artificial and erroneous distinction. The issue
we are deciding here today is not who is conservative and who is
liberal, but rather, under the prompting of the Holy Spirit, what we
believe is God's will for His church at this moment in history. And
that may be different from what was right for the church five years
ago.
	Godly men and women have debated and disagreed for centuries on
decisions the church has face. We must use this moment to model, for
all who are watching, how mature Christians may strongly disagree and
still leave the debate with their arms around each other. Whether you
vote today with the majority or with the minority I hope you will see
it as your role to be a healing voice so that Jesus' prayer for unity
in His church may find fulfillment in our day.
	In the next few moments you will hear from two highly respected
Adventist scholars. I want to ask that you listen prayerfully, asking
God for the gift of discernment to know His will. There is much riding
on this issue. In the discussion that follows, those who differ with
us, let us not attack--let us listen to and respect their opinions. Let
it only be said that when the church came together in Utrecht around a
potentially divisive matter, that the Holy Spirit had His way, that God
made clear His will to the body, and that the church came from the
debate stronger, better able to accomplish its mission, and more
closely united than ever before in its history.
	
                              -end-