A couple weeks ago, I was required to attend the Houbach Lecture at Pacific Union College, the subject of which was to inspire us to go out and teach others about Jesus—a noble cause. During the lecture, however, it struck me that I felt uncomfortable with the idea of proselytizing Adventism. Not with the idea of telling people about Jesus, but with the idea of trying to convince people that Adventism is the best way.

From a doctrinal perspective, I am wholeheartedly Adventist. From a cultural perspective, I am somewhat less enthusiastic, and one of the main reasons is the position of women in our church. We are simply not given equal status, and I am not thinking only about ordination. In discussions I have participated in, the blame for not ordaining women is generally foisted on our non-North American brethren. I can see that this is probably true to a certain extent, but this evasion of blame tends to ignore the existence of sexism in our own enlightened North American congregation.

The lack of women’s ordination is a large contributor to my discomfort with our church. The idea that only one sex can enjoy the full benefits of pastorship has ramifications disturbing beyond compare. This implies that God created one sex to be leaders and the other to be led, which is justification for abuse of all kinds. However, this is not an idea that can be supported by the Bible.

For one thing, aside from the fact that the creation account given in Genesis does not in any way support a predestined headship, the Bible is replete with women leaders. Our own illustrious denomination was essentially founded by a woman—which was also mentioned in the lecture—so it is an immense logical inconsistency that women cannot be officially ordained. Some women are slipped in the side doors, so to speak, but always to family counseling positions, positions that apparently are better suited to our cultural perceptions of women.

The attitude presented in some of our Adventist publications is completely archaic. Several months ago, there was an article the Pacific Union Recorder about how a man needs to be more attentive to his wife’s efforts to keep the house nice. I was appalled on several levels. First, it made the statement that a woman’s identity is closely tied in with her house. This is true to an extent I’m certain, because no one likes to live in a pigsty, but the implication was that the sole source of identity for a woman is in her home, an idea that is condescending and reductive.

Second, the author exhorted husbands to help obligingly with a few household chores, which sounds good on the surface. However, the fact that a husband has to be told to help with the house disgusts me beyond belief. Where is it written that women clean and men deign to help "the little woman" when it is convenient? Life is entirely an equal opportunity affair, house cleaning included. The third and perhaps most disturbing aspect of this article was that a married woman close to me seemed to agree with the article and was entirely unaware of its implications.

Obviously, sexism has pervaded many aspects of our lives. There are still very few women science and math professors, though there are many varying factors involved with that. However, the fact remains that there are still certain types of leadership positions that are genuinely male dominated. We have several women in prominent leadership positions here at Pacific Union College, of which I am very proud, but it doesn’t seem that female leadership should be anything out of the ordinary. It shouldn’t even be an issue. Men and women should be given positions based solely on their abilities, and not based on any preconceived ideas of what male and female roles are.

My point is that we have reached a dangerous comfort zone where we think all our gender issue problems have been solved. This lackadaisical attitude breeds an insidious brand of sexism that is more pervasive, and therefore much more dangerous. Ideally, we should not have to worry about gender issues, and we should have already claimed Paul’s words that all are "equal in Christ." However, this is an imperfect world and there are some things that have to be fought for in order to be changed.

This article first appeared on May 3, 2001, in the Campus Chronicle, the Pacific Union College student newspaper.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE