Adventist Review wrote the article:
Adventist Urged to Study Women's ordination for Themselves
where President Ted Wilson urges readers to investigate the questions for themselves. In front of the committee are three views to Women's ordination:
Position No. 1 emphasizes the biblical qualifications for ordination as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and the fact that never in the Bible were women ordained as priests, apostles or elders. Therefore, it says, the Adventist Church has no biblical basis to ordain women.
Position No. 2 emphasizes the leadership roles of Old and New Testament women such as Deborah, Huldah, and Junia, and biblical passages in Genesis 1, 2 and Galatians 3:26-28 that stress all people are equal in God’s eyes. Therefore, it says, the biblical principle of equality requires the Adventist Church to ordain women to positions of church leadership wherever possible.
Position No. 3 supports Position No. 1 in recognizing a biblical pattern of male leadership in Israel and the early Christian church. But it also emphasizes that God made exceptions, such as the case of granting Israel’s desire for a king. It says women’s ordination is a matter of church policy and not a moral imperative and, therefore, the Adventist Church should allow each field to decide whether or not to ordain women.
Truly, there have been churches and conferences that have ordained women as elders without biblical support. It has been based primarily on extra-bibical support. I would agree, if we continue down this road of Evangelical Feminism, (1) it will transform our Biblical hermeneutic into postmodern 'cherry picking', (2) it will lead to splits and acceptance of homosexuality as clearly seen in events happening in other 'Protestant' denominations, and (3) without a 'high view of scripture' and a 'biblical hermeneutic' we are no different that other denominations.
I agree that in addition to a 'plain reading of scripture' we must compare scripture with scripture to gain the whole picture. Yet, the interpretation in Position 2 is masked with a postmodern evangelical feminist hermeneutical lens, which does not allow for the plain reading of scripture. This hermeneutic is the same as the one used to support homosexuality within the church. We see evidence of this interpretation today. Slippery slope one.
Clearly, Position 3 is not a good idea because, as we know, when Israel when contrary to the wishes of God, the end result was not apostasy; example -ask for a King, the nation goes into apostasy. Our policy must be based on Biblical principle. Slippery slope two. Hmmm...
Position 2 and 3 are obviously slippery slopes, so why put ourselves into danger?????
Ahhh... the shaking, indeed.
