I was in Nigeria, working with the the Board of Missions (now the WMS) when the General Assembly made the decision to ordain women as teaching and ruling elders, and my memories of that first debate are all secondhand. I have a much clearer memory of the second debate in the early 1980s (often referred to as the “liberty of conscience” debate).
Our church has been blessed with many fine ministers as a result of the 1966 decision. I count a number of these women as my friends. Yet, I think that decision led to several unintended consequences. I regret the disappearance of that strong leadership by laywomen, which was a blessing to our church pre-1966. Once the barriers were removed, many women working in various capacities in the church began (for understandable reasons) to pursue ordination to ministry of word and sacrament. Many assumed that any woman moving into a position of leadership in the church for which they would receive a stipend would naturally take steps to qualify as a minister of word and sacrament. Several people (all women ministers) asked me why I wasn’t taking courses towards ordination. I found this baffling. I have never felt a call to the ministry of word and sacrament, although I feel strongly called to a life in mission. I believe Christ calls us all to fulltime discipleship; He doesn’t call us all to be ministers.
But those He does call — and I believe He calls both women and men — are now treated equally by the church. That was the great achievement of the 1966 Assembly.
That decision also made it possible for me — and hundreds of women like me who are active in their congregations — to become ruling elders. As an elder, I try to follow the example of the elders (including a few women) whom we knew in Nigeria. In that church, ordaining someone as an elder is a mark of great respect, and elders take very seriously their role as spiritual leaders. We can learn from them.
Those who had opposed the decision to ordain women persisted in their belief that to do so was contrary to scripture and they led the liberty of conscience issue two decades later. They, as well as some younger ministers who hadn’t been part of the assembly debates of the 60s, said that they could not, in conscience, take part in the ordination of women. Since the ordination of ministers is done by the presbytery those who continued in their opposition regularly didn’t show up when a woman was to be ordained. The question was whether ministers — who promise to obey the laws of the church in their ordination vows — could opt out in this particular instance on the basis of conscience.
After a big commission, and big assembly debates, in which several speakers said that forcing ministers to go against their conscience was forcing them out of the church, the decision was that the matter had been decided and everyone had to fall in line. A few people probably did leave. The problem with this kind of debate is that it does nothing for healing the divide between left and right.
I am glad that the issue of women’s ordination is behind us and that the church made the decision it did. Now, of course, (even though the discussion is currently on the backburner), we agonize over another question of eligibility for ordination — that of openly gay or lesbian persons. There are some parallels between the two debates, although I would not want to push the comparison too far. But in both debates one side bases its argument on basic justice and upholding human rights, while the other responds that worldly standards are not relevant, for the church is governed by another, higher, set of standards based in scripture. One side maintains that what scripture says on the subject must be seen in the social context of the time. The other maintains that the Bible is God’s truth for all time. Thank God both sides keep on talking to each other.
I know that these are issues of immense personal importance to many in our church. But my own concern is that we spend too much time on them and in the process let the church flounder and the cries of the world go unheeded. That is why I rejoice that the issue of women’s ordination, at least, was resolved, and give thanks for the gifts ordained women have brought to the church.
