Support for the North American Division (NAD) Ordination Request 
                        Assigned Topic: 
   Why I am in favor of the North American Division's Request
         Presented by Raoul Dederen, professor emeritus
          SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University
                                
                                
Transcription of a verbal presentation made to the 56th General
	Conference Session,
Wednesday, July 5, 1995
	I suppose that by now you are quite confused, you have heard a very
honored Christian tell you that after studying the Bible, carefully
studying the scriptures, he has come to the conclusion that this was a
very commendable motion to support to this assembly. Then you heard
another very honored and sincere Christian tell you that after studying
the Scriptures, he has come to the opposite view. No wonder you are
confused.
	I'll tell you why the confusion is there. The confusion is there very
simply because there is not a single statement in the scriptures to
this issue.  That's why the confusion is there.  As you noticed,
neither Dr. Damsteegt nor Elder McClure was able to quote a statement
in the scripture saying that women should not be ordained to the gospel
ministry.
	What is it that has been happening?  What has happened is very simple,
and I hope that we are open enough to listen to what the spirit may
have to tell us today.  And that is, we have been acting on the basis
of influences.  We read certain texts that we regard as truthful, and
rightly so, and out of those texts that do not deal with the issue that
we are concerned with, we draw conclusions that we think apply to an
issue that the Bible is not concerned with.  Now we do that quite
often, and although we do not hold any monopoly as Seventh-day
Adventists.
	The very reason why we are in this confusion and the differences exist
among us, is that some insist on very specific passages of the
scripture, and rightly so. And others among us, not denying those
specific passages in the scriptures, want us to also look at the
principles that flow from the development of scriptures.
	Let me give you an example.  How often it happens, even outside the
Seventh-day Adventist church, that someone will come to us, quote a
specific biblical passage, and say, "Do you believe that?  Is that the
word of God or is it not?"  And then he or she will quote the passage
saying, " We are not saved by the absorbance of the law but we are
saved by grace.'  Do you believe that?"
	"Yes, but there are principles in the scripture that explain to us..."
we say, and then we start developing [the argument]. We are getting
away from the specific statement.  Or we meet the person who says to
us, "Jesus Christ nailed at the cross the ordinances that condemned us,
so therefore, we should not be keeping the seventh-day Sabbath."
	That's fixing it on a specific passage, and forgetting the rest of the
scripture, which we call upon immediately by saying, "Now wait a
minute, this text is to be understood in the context and in the overall
revelation of scriptures." I have been around this question long enough
to know, and I'll be able to show it to you if you want to ask for
questions afterwards, that this is where the main difference is.
	How can we reconcile?  That is our issue today.  How can we reconcile
the views of those who stick to certain biblical passages, which, by
the way, do not exist, and those who look at the overall principles of
scriptures to understand those passages that some regard as addressing
this issue of ordination to women to ministry.
	The task I have been asked to address here, the task that has been
entrusted unto me, is to explain why I do believe, as a student of the
scriptures, that ordination of women to the gospel ministry is not in
contradiction with the scriptures.  And this is what I have been asked
to do and plan to continue to do.
	The basic, the most powerful argument and consistent argument used
against the ordination of women to the gospel ministry is what is
called, "The Order of Creation." They go back to the book of Genesis 1
and 2, and they will draw out statements that indicate that man existed
before woman.  Man was created first, and  woman was taken out of man,
therefore man holds a precedence in that certainly, but also in
leadership. How shall we apply that to ordination? Then we move to the
third chapter of the book of Genesis, and if we read Genesis 3 when
after the fall God pronounces a judgment, you notice that the judgment
falls equally upon the man and the woman on both of them.
	But then comes the statement that is used by those who want to insist
upon the headship of man over woman.  And there is no doubt about it in
my mind there is a change that happens before the Fall that relates
specifically to the man and woman, husband and wife, and after the Fall
between the man and woman.  I read in Gen. 3:16, a well-known 
statement, to the woman God said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in
child bearing."  That has to the do with the home, not the church. "I
will in pain shall you bring forth children." That is also in the
context of the family that "your desire shall be for your husband that
he will rule over you." It is the husband/wife relationship. I wonder
how wise it is to use the husband/wife relationship as a model for the
same kind of headship to the man/woman relationship in general, that it
is to say, whether in society or in the church.
	That is the principle which I believe happens to be at stake.  As we
listen to what the book of Genesis tells us, there is no doubt about
it. I would like, however, to mention to you that in the view of Ellen
White, this did not exist at the beginning. She tells us for instance
in Testimonies to the Church, volume three, page 484, "When God created
Eve, he desired that she should possess neither inferiority nor
superiority to man. But in all things she should be his equal.
[audience heartily applauds]. I wish you would not applaud. I wish that
the spirit of reverence and seeking the spirit's guidance will help us
listen to the Scriptures.
	Ellen White tells us that in all things she [woman] is equal, so we
cannot speak of an order of creation.  We can speak of an order of the
Fall. There were radical changes occurring after the fall, however,
(this we where some of us disagree) after the Fall, 2,000 years later
comes the redemption in Jesus Christ our Lord.
	And in Galatians the third chapter, the apostle Paul is telling why
some of us are using the law to obtain salvation; why everyone should
understand that no man is justified by the law; for it is then faith
that one is righteousness; and that the righteous shall live. Then he
comes to the conclusion in the distinction that the Jews draw before
the coming of Christ who came to lead us to salvation. Those
distinctions have disappeared.
	We come to a well-known passage, maybe the passage is too well-known
to still have much effect among us,  but I ask God that we listen
reverently to what the Apostle Paul is saying. Paul tells us that what
Jesus Christ has brought about is a new understanding of the human
relations on the national level. Repairing the damages of the Fall the
cross has brought down the wall of separation on a national level or as
Paul says, "neither is there Jew nor Greek."
	The same thing happens on the social level, "there is neither slave
or free."  And even on the gender level, "there is neither male nor
female for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I wonder why my colleagues
who do not share the views that I am expressing here, do not call our
attention to the fact that in this passage, Paul is not using for man
and woman the same words that he is using in all the other passages
that we have heard. He does not use "aner" and "gener." He uses (and
any student of the scriptures know it) [At this point the tape was not
clear]"??" and "??," two very clear words that speak of male and
female. He doesn't say now there is no husband or wife.
	Of course, Paul continues to believe that as a result of the original
sin, within the family we still have the distinction between husband
and wife, and the husband in the leadership position. And this is what
I believe he is doing in 1 Cor 11 under the influence of the
understanding of Gen. 3, he tells us, indeed, that head of the woman is
her husband, that the head of Christ is God.  And then he adds
afterwards, a few verses down, 1 Cor. 11:8-9, "Man was not made from
woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman
for man." He is using the terms that are translated continuously in
Scriptures as "husband" and "wife."
	I believe that it is invalid to use the Biblical model of the headship
of the husband over the wife as the model to be imposed as a the
general relationship existing between all men and all women, including
in the church.  But I will tell you finally, that I do not believe
personally, I do not believe as some have claimed, that the Old
Testament of subordination of women to men which we see in the New
Testament, especially in the context of the family, is strength for the
argument that this is simply a reflection of an outmoded way of looking
at women in an ancient, male-dominated world.
	That is not the issue. I am not willing to accept the validity of this
argument.  It is in the Scriptures, and because it is in the Scriptures
I accept this as God-revealed Word.  And at the same time, why I am not
prepared to say that this ought to be repudiated because it is a
question of a male-dominated, way of looking at men/women relationship.
 I feel that scriptures more fully considered can give us an answer to
the question.
	With the possible exception of 1 Timothy, the majority of the passages
dealing with men and women, deal with relationship between husband and
wife, even the famous passage that was read to you a moment ago in 1
Tim. 2.  It is interesting that my colleague stopped at one verse, and
he did not read the next. I would like to read it to you. In 1 Tim 2 I
read, "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to
keep silent."
	But at the same time, the same apostle tell us in 1 Cor. 11 (were the
same argument is being used) that woman should be asking questions of
her husband.  I suppose in the Christian church the liberty given by
the gospel to men and women probably disturbed very much a certain
number of women, especially in Corinth and Ephesus, ...[no sound for a
space]... an object of embarrassment with their behavior to the
apostle.
	For reasons made known to Paul, under inspiration no doubt, and
reasons grounded in the community, Paul exhorted the women not to teach
over men.  Tell me, have we followed the instructions? Can you assure
me that in none of our divisions, we have not transgressed that
specific statement: "I permit no woman to hold authority over man or to
teach?" Did we not let women in teaching capacities even in Sabbath
school level, even superintendent of Sabbath school.  I think we ought
to be aware of what we are doing, We seem to have a certain dimension
of the verse that we are willing to accept and the other one that we
should forget about.
	The same thing [can be said] about elders in the passage in 1 Tim 3
that was quoted here with a great amount of fire, "They ought to be
husbands of one wife; he should manage his own household while keeping
his children submissive."
	Are we really following God? Tell me can you assure me that in all our
worldwide church we have only married elders? Are you telling me that
we never bring into the eldership single men? widowers? or men that are
married with no children? We ought to be careful as to how we
understand the text. We ought to listen to the what Scriptures are
assuming, not necessarily prescribing. I fully agree with Gerard
Damsteegt when he said the training of children and holding of a
household is an excellent preparation for the office of elder.
	But this is not an absolute criteria even among us, so why do we make
one aspect of this qualification while the others we can do without. 
We do not even follow the instructions in 1 Cor. 11 dealing with women
how they should behave in the church. We have decided under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit that this is to be understood in the sense
that Paul intended it to be understood for all generations.
	"There is neither Jew nor Gentile." That was very difficult to change
in the church. You know it from the study of the book of Acts. There
was a covenant, there were promises, there was circumcision, how could
they [Gentiles] do that?  And through the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
thanks to the ministry of Paul, the early church made progress on that
point.
	How about "neither slaves nor free?"  Much less progress was made on
all that because (as my colleague said) we need a statement in the
Scriptures in order to do what we do. On what basis of the Scriptures
have we decided that we should be anti-slavery? Can you tell me? The
Old Testament and the New Testament mentioned slavery, Jesus accepted
slavery, the apostle accepted it, they never raised a finger against
it.  Not once, they fought the state of submission to their masters,
even Christians.  Jesus used the relationship of the master and the
slave in his parable without raising any question about it. We have
decided that there should be no slaves anymore.  Where is the Biblical
statement?  What do we do?  We go for the principle.  And that is
right.  Neither Jew nor Gentile.  Neither slaves nor free.
	And with time, I think we can understand neither men nor woman, also.
Since there is so much confusion, I am not telling you, I dare not tell
you, some people have said this is the teaching of the Bible.  I am
sorry, the Bible does not explicitly address the issue of ordination of
women to the ministry.  I would like to see the statement.
	Since there is no concluding statement in the scripture, since
exegesis of those passages is so divergent, what to we need to do? We
need to bring this into the church.  The church is to decide,  just as
the church did in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. Remember the issue?
Circumcision.  That was the issue in those days.  How serious it was. 
We may think it was just a secondary issue. But it was the very heart
of the Jewish covenant relationship. There were specific passages that
could be quoted by those who want to stay literally to the Scriptures,
specific passages regarding circumcision that here is  a sign of
alliance forever and ever to all generations until the end of  time.
	There were also other passages that sowed the seeds and said that one
day the time would come [Abraham's descendants would come] from among
the nations, not just Jews; that the eunuch would even find room in
God's gospel.
	So the there were two groups of passages, the literal statement and
the spirit of the Scriptures.  So what did they do? They brought it
[the issue] to the church in Jerusalem. At the council of the church
they debated it, the text says in the book of Acts. This is what we are
doing here, that we should be guided by the Spirit and try to maintain
the unity, as my colleagues preceding me clearly said, the unity of the
church is unquestionably a revealed doctrine. May God help us to
understand that and be guided by His spirit.
	
                              -end-