General Assembly 2012, the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada
The Ordination of Women
Do Complementarians Still Belong in the C&MA?
A question I have been wrestling with for some time now is this: Is the C&MA in Canada still welcoming to those who have a complementarian viewpoint on the matter of women as elders? Until recently, I would have answered, “Yes,” but recent changes have led me – and other like-minded colleagues – to wonder if that opinion is merely wishful thinking. This paper represents my efforts to track some of the historical changes that have led me starting to think this way.
First of all, the minutes of the General Assembly, 1982, state, “It was moved and seconded that the Board of Directors of the Canadian C&MA establish a study commission whose purpose would be to study the question of whether or not a woman is biblically qualified to occupy the office of a church Elder, and that this study commission be charged with the responsibility of submitting, for ratification, a policy statement concerning this issue to General Assembly of 1984, and that it be referred to the Committee on General Legislation. Carried.” [1]
I believe this was the start of what has become, for this denomination, a very difficult journey. This ‘study’ was subsequently prepared and presented at the 1984 General Assembly but because of the varying strong opinions on the matter, the heart of the issue was deferred until 1988.
General Assembly 1988 was the very first assembly I attended, as a recent high school graduate, and the first time I was introduced to this issue personally. The minutes of the General Assembly in 1988 describe the very heated debate on the issue that I witnessed – a debate that ultimately led to the passing of the following motion. “It is recognized that the historical and biblical pattern has been that elders in the church have been men. The weight of evidence would imply that this pattern should continue. Carried” [2]
Subsequent to the 1988 General Assembly, this previous statement was inserted into the Manual of the C&MA as part of a document called The Role of Women in Ministry. This statement remains unchanged to this day but the Board of Directors has ruled it out of order and removed it from the Manual. They made this decision sometime after the 2000 General Assembly saying: “The Board of Directors of the C&MA in Canada has ruled that the Position Statement “The Role of Women in Ministry” is inconsistent with legislation adopted by General Assembly (specifically, the Local Church Constitution). Consequently the Board has directed that the statement be removed from the website until such time as the General Assembly considers it appropriate to engage in a full discussion and debate on the issue.” [3]
The justification for the Board of Director’s decision to call this Assembly-approved document ‘out of order’ seems to be that they wanted to align our manual with a decision by the General Assembly in 2000 that declared, “The church may, by a two-thirds majority of the members present at a duly called meeting of the membership, choose to have women serve on the Board.”[4]
This decision in 2000 is described as our best attempt after almost 20 years of debate to “move towards unity and vitality within the denomination, while at the same time … defer(ing) to fellow believers who are Biblically convinced of positions different from our own.” [5]
I can appreciate that the Board of Directors wanted to avoid an apparent contradiction between the updated constitution and an earlier position statement but a reasonable question, from a complementarian viewpoint, is this: How is the statement on the Role of Women in Ministry out of order in those churches who have, based on their Biblical position, not chosen to have women serve on their boards? I agree that for egalitarian churches, these differing statements in the Role of Women in Ministry and the Local Church Constitution are problematic, but for those who aren’t egalitarian, how is it fair or proper that an Assembly-approved statement that answers well this very important question for our complementation churches should simply be ruled out of order? Is the Board of Directors within its rights to make this ruling on behalf of all churches without Assembly’s consent?
I appreciate the Board’s intention of wanting to return to this matter at some appropriate future date but what is someone to think in the meantime? No one visiting the national website today is able to see that there remains in this denomination two sides on this issue– and, effectively, no new workers licensed in the last two to ten years have been introduced to a document that the highest governing body of our denomination once passed. That is unfair and one sided.
To date, the General Assembly has not “considered it appropriate to engage in this discussion.” Some may interpret that as an obvious change of values among our constituents but I wonder if it is more likely because most complementarians didn’t know about the Board of Directors’ ruling until this discussion on ordination made it apparent. (Perhaps I’m wrong.)
It appears that the Board of Directors is ready to bring this issue to the table now because of the following recommendation in their Report to General Assembly 2012 which reads:
Board Recommendation #7
That the General Assembly instruct the Board of Directors to carry out over the next two years an analysis that will identify the necessary pathways to the implementation of the amended ordination policy. [6]
Based on the current trend of decisions, it is logical to assume that this kind of recommendation would necessarily lead to a motion to remove the Role of Women in Ministry document, which, in turn, would lead to another round of 1984-2000–like debates on the question of women as elders, beginning perhaps as early as 2014.
Colleagues of mine with an egalitarian opinion have asked me why I am so concerned about this issue right now, just weeks before Assembly 2012. The reason has to do with the Board of Directors’ intention to introduce legislation that would affirm ordination of women.
At a glance, the revised ordination policy appears to be something that I could and should support. The policy infers that ordination would ultimately serve solely as a means to better identify, support and hold accountable those whom God has called to serve in fulltime ministry. That is something that I, even as a complementarian, would want for both men and women.
So the problem comes, not in the revised policy per se, but in the decisions the Board of Directors have had made to ‘prepare the way’ for this change.
As it has been redefined by the Board of Directors, ordination would ‘no longer’ be an affirmation of both calling and function but only calling. Specifically, the new policy that is before Assembly 2012 reads, “Ordination does not grant authority to supervise the sacraments. That authority is granted by the Portable Official Workers License. Ordination does not grant authority to be a senior pastor. General Assembly sets any such parameters.”
Perhaps that is indeed the best place for such a decision to be made but my frustration is that in the interim the Board of Directors has made the decision for us – first by ruling the Role of Women in Ministry document out of order – and second by removing a critical statement regarding the role of women in ministry.
Until 2007 the Licensing Policy of the C&MA in Canada stated, “Women in Ministry: As the New Testament speaks of the ministry of women as part of the life of the local church, The C&MA in Canada offers credentials for those who qualify for ministry. … Women are eligible for a variety of ministries with the exception of senior pastor, ordination and administration of the ordinances. [7]
In 2007, this statement was removed by the Board of Directors, likely in order to line up its policies along the 2000 decision to allow some churches to elect women as elders. This decision represents a shift in the basic understanding of most of our constituents – a shift that the Board of Directors highlighted in their recent videos. [8]
For those churches that have intentionally chosen to remain complementarian, this change represents far more than a simple ‘adjustment’. Rather, it indicates that an intentional effort is being made by policy makers to align our denomination with an egalitarian viewpoint at the expense of the many women and men who choose to remain complementarian. Why? Because although the removal of this exception clause does indeed pave the way for the ordination of women, it also paves the way for women to be hired as senior pastors – which by default in this denomination makes them members of, and in fact the chairs of their elders boards.
While this may be acceptable practice for egalitarian churches, it is not for those who chose to remain complementarian on theological grounds.
So what am I to think? Is there still a place for me, and those who believe as I do, in the Alliance in Canada? Two decisions that the Board of Directors has made in recent years that would cause me to doubt my welcome:
1.) The Position statement on the Role of Women in Ministry has been suspended (ruled out of order)
2.) The exception clause restricting women from serving as senior pastor has been removed from the Licensing Policy
These decisions represent, I assume, a need to align our denomination around the General Assembly’s decision in 2000 to allow local churches to elect women to serve as elders, but there is seemingly no corresponding effort being made to ensure that unity with those churches that remain complementarian is maintained.
If this is a denomination that deliberately chose to make room for both views, why is every support for a complementarian viewpoint being systematically removed or replaced by egalitarian ones? If the C&MA is to continue to be a denomination that welcomes both egalitarians and complementarians then there must be legislation and or policy kept in place for both.
So what am I – and others who think like me – to do?
1. I need to think long and hard about the ordination question. It is incredibly difficult for me to not to support the document as it is currently written. I want to be able to support it because I do believe that women are called to serve in God’s kingdom and should be both affirmed in their calling and held to the highest standard of accountability – just as men are. But there are warning signs in this process that are very troubling. For example, the Board of Directors has suggested that both “historical and current policies and practices” would seem to clear the way for ordination of women. Interestingly, history shows that as early as 1928 the question of ordination of women came up in the Third Annual Conference of the Western Canadian District where it was noted that the “Alliance Position” recognizes the ministry of women “by setting them apart as deaconesses,” [9] but “does not ordain them as ministers of the gospel”. [10] (History has a funny way of speaking both ways.) Also, as far as current policy is concerned, by suggesting that the decision in 1988 was a mere anomaly in our history that the 2000 decision corrected once and for all [11] speaks very poorly of a complementarian position that has existed in the church – not just for 19 years but for thousands of years. (Again the fact that senior pastors are by default elders in the C&MA cannot be overlooked.)
2. There seems to be a lack of will among our denominations leadership to bridge the uncomfortable divide that the 2000 General Assembly accepted. The fact is, this issue is not decided. There is no clear majority in favour of egalitarianism and yet recent policies seem to favour it. Perhaps some significant effort should be made at this year’s assembly to point this out and protect complementarians from what appears to be an agenda of ‘defeat by attrition’.
3. Well, frankly I’m open for suggestions. I am not prepared to simply walk away or roll over on this issue. Neither do I want to become angry and aggressive about this issue when there are other more pressing concerns we should be focusing on together. (The fact that only 33% of our churches have an intentional disciple-making process in place [12] and the fact that between 2006 and 2011 we have increased out total number of churches in Canada by only 1 [13] are much more pressing matters for us to collectively focus on.) So I am passing this on to others in an attempt to add to the discussion in a way that will lead to positive and effective actions that will help us maintain the dynamic unity that exists between complementarian and egalitarian brothers and sisters in the C&MA.
This is a time for careful words and I offer this letter in a spirit of grace for your input.
Sincerely,
Allan Langlois
June 21, 2012
[1] Second Biennial General Assembly of the C&MA in Canada p. 60
[2] Sixth Biennial General Assembly of the C&MA in Canada p. 79
[3] http://cmalliance.ca/files/ROLEOFWOMENINMINISTRY_832.doc
[4] Local Church Constitution, 2000 Article VIII – Section 1
[5] Final Report of the Committee on Legislation – 11th Biennial General Assembly of the C&MA p. 189
[6] Reports to General Assembly 2012 p. 78
[7] Manual of the C&MA 2006 and earlier
[8] See http://www.allianceassembly.com/ordination - Video 3: Ordination and Senior Church Leadership 0:00-0:45
[9] A decision made in 1914 (Rebirth by Lindsay Reynolds p. 25)
[10] Rebirth, by Lindsay Reynolds p. 230
[11] See http://www.allianceassembly.com/ordination - Video 3: Ordination and Senior Church Leadership 5:12-:5:44
[12] Report to General Assembly 2012 p. 3
[13] Reports to General Assembly 2012 p.10
--------------------
The most recent FAQ stated, “Q. Why don’t we take the time at Assembly to discuss whether women can be Sr. Pastors before we decide who can be ordained? The Board of Directors has concluded that these two issues are not related and so the Board is not bringing this issue forward at this time.”
I struggle to agree with this answer and here is one reason why: It is commonly understood that in order to be ordained in the C&MA, a person must first be licensed. That said, In 2007, the BoD changed the licensing policy removing the following statement, “Women in Ministry: As the New Testament speaks of the ministry of women as part of the life of the local church, The C&MA in Canada offers credentials for those who qualify for ministry. … Women are eligible for a variety of ministries with the exception of senior pastor, ordination and administration of the ordinances.
If these issues were truly mutually exclusive, can it not be argued that the BoD should have removed only the word “ordination”, or perhaps the words “ordination and administration of the ordinances”. By choosing to remove the phrase “with the exception of senior pastor” as well, it can be assumed that the BoD of 2007 concluded that these two issues were very much related.
Perhaps, based on the current policy the issue is unrelated, but many in the C&MA have longer memories than that and would see this previous ‘related’ action of the board, as well as the decision to rule out of order the role of women in ministry document, as “driving an egalitarian agenda.” (another question that was asked but not responded to with a more helpful yes or no answer).
I appreciate the opportunity for an ongoing dialogue and disagree that this issue as entirely unrelated from the larger complementarian/egalitarian discussion.