WOMEN IN MINISTRY

For the Churches of God, General Conference

Note: This document was prepared by the CGGC Commission on Church

Vocations in the early 1990s. Though it was not officially adopted by the CGGC
Administrative Council as official policy, it has served as a valuable resource on
the topic of women in ministry. August 2012
 WOMEN IN MINISTRY
For the Churches of God, General Conference

Introduction
The Churches of God, General Conference faces an immediate shortage of
pastoral candidates to serve in existing churches and projected new churches.
The Commission on Church Vocations oversees the recruitment, preparation, and
continuing care of those persons who respond to God’s call to vocational
ministry. The Commission has recently completed an intensive study of the
standards for ministerial credentials. In addition to clarified standards the
Commission also published a “Readiness for Ministry” profile that offers
guidelines for personal and professional maturity for pastoral candidates.1
The issue of women in ministry has not been addressed directly in the
Commission’s review of standards and guidelines for maturity. Both of the 1990
documents assume that women ARE considered legitimate candidates for
ministry. The forward to the “Standards” document opens by saying: “God calls
men and women to the Gospel Ministry…” (p.2). The first sentence of the
“Readiness” profile states: “The Churches of God believe that God calls men and
women to serve the church as pastors” (p.3).
Yet there has been no public discussion regarding women as the source of
candidates for the shortage of ministers. There is no evidence of the intentional
recruitment and encouragement of women in the denomination to enroll in
approved educational tracks leading to licensing and ordination.
The Commission on Vocations senses the need to address the issue of
women in ministry to stimulate denomination-wide dialog and education. It must
state a theological position on the issue that is consistent with biblical authority,
as well as the historical and present character of the General Conference. It

1
Cf. the documents: “Standards for Ministerial Credentials” and “Readiness for Ministry”
published by the General Conference in April, 1990. The standards were adopted by the 46th
Session of the General Conference in June 1989.

Women in Ministry 2
For the Churches of God, General Conference
must identify the reasons why women are not being encouraged to consider
pastoral roles. It must also determine why those women who do consider
vocational ministry are unsure about the propriety of their calling, and often feel
unaccepted by clergy and laypersons.
This paper represents an initial statement of the issue, the problems in
the General Conference, and the theological considerations which will provide the
foundation for future discussion on attitudes toward women in ministry. It is the
Commission’s desire to address this concern as candidly as possible, and to state
a position representing the consensus of the denomination.
The paper briefly summarizes the issue of women in ministry and the
factors inhibiting women from ministry in the General Conference. The main
section applies a theological method called the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” to the
present situation in the Churches of God.2 This section suggests a biblical
hermeneutic that provides a common foundation for future discussions of the
immediate issue and other concerns which depend upon resolutions consistent
with Scripture’s authority. It also reviews some historical research concerning
female ministry in the denomination. The paper concludes with some positive
recommendations for denomination-wide education concerning the
appropriateness and need for women to consider and pursue pastoral ministry.

The Issues at Hand

The primary issue quite simply is whether it is or is not permissible for a
woman to serve as the pastor of a church. If it is, then ordination is the
appropriate recognition of that ministry. If it is not, then ordination and
appointment to meaningful pastorates are not relevant concerns.3

2
This theological method is explained in the appendix.
3
It needs to be noted here that the issue of women in ministry is NOT necessarily an issue of
modern feminism. It is a popular misconception that any woman pursuing ministry embraces the
kind of strident philosophy that would simply reverse roles with men, placing them in
subservience to women. Nor do all women necessarily wish to blur the created male/female
distinctions into a kind of “unisex” identity. Women who seek the pastoral office (and the men

Women in Ministry 3
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 The General Conference is not contemplating this issue in isolation from
other churches. Women in pastoral ministry continues to be one of the
prominent issues throughout the entire Christian church. The Roman church
denies women the opportunity to serve as priests. This policy fosters increasing
anger among Catholic women and men, especially in the Western Hemisphere.
Numerous mainline Protestant denominations have deliberated the issue and
opened ordination to women. The United Methodist, Presbyterian, U.S.A., and
United Church of Christ represent these open churches.
Evangelical churches, like the General Conference, represent a spectrum
of responses. Some are still in the process of deliberation. The Southern Baptists
have ordained women, but then do not allow them to minister. Others have
remained firm in the stance that women should not be allowed into the pastoral
office. Most independent groups, such as the Independent Fundamentalist
Churches of America (IFCA), refuse to allow women to become pastors. At the
other end of this issue are various Pentecostal, Holiness (such as the Church of
God, Anderson), and Charismatic groups who have ordained and permitted
women to fill the pastoral office for most of their history.
As stated in the introduction, both the “Standards” and “Readiness”
documents of the General Conference ASSUME that women are viable candidates
for the pastorate and for ordination. Therefore, it would seem that the
denomination has resolved the basic issue. But this resolution does not seem
evident in the present, or past, experience of the Churches of God. Some current
statistics will substantiate the discrepancy between the denomination’s stated
policy and actual practice.
The discrepancy is documented in a review of women’s concerns written
for a 1990 self-study conducted by Winebrenner Seminary, the seminary
supported by the General Conference. The self-study team observed that:

who support their effort) are responding to God’s call. They seek to allow that call to work
through the sexual, racial, and cultural diversity that characterizes human experience.

Women in Ministry 4
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 The Churches of God has licensed women since 1859 and ordained
them since the late 1800’s. However, the number of women
ministers has always been small, with few of them filling full-time
appointments. The 1990 directory shows that only seventeen of the
510 persons holding credentials are women. Of these, four are
serving parishes, one is a General Conference staff person and
eight have retired status. 4

Of the eight ordained women who have retired, only one of them was involved in
her own parish ministry. One was a single foreign missionary. The others are
wives of pastors who shared their husbands’ ministries. Furthermore, in the past
five years only two women from General Conference churches have enrolled at
Winebrenner Seminary as full-time students in courses leading to ordination.
The self-study summary concerning Churches of God women concluded
with a most important and problematic statement. It is a statement of the most
immediate problem facing the denomination as it seeks to encourage women
toward pastoral roles. The team observed that “while the denominational policy
does permit women to enter the ministry, some local pastors and laypersons are
outspoken in their opposition to the ordination of women.”5 This vocal
opposition is strong enough to inhibit women from pursuing the pastorate, and
leaves many persons questioning the appropriateness of ordaining women.
The underlying (and more volatile) issue which the denomination faces
regarding women is the continuing influence of persons who deny or discourage
women from pursuing professional ministry. Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld
observe that “in some denominations and religious organizations the ‘women’s
issue’ has become a battleground and even (though few would say it out loud) a
test of orthodoxy.”6 Such may be the case in some areas of the General
Conference. Where that can be admitted, it must be done in a context of careful

4
J. Harvey Gossard, coordinator, “Self-Study Report: Prepared for Association of Theological
Schools in the United States and Canada” by Winebrenner Theological Seminary, Dec. 1, 1990, p.
58.
5
Ibid.
6
Ruth A. Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987)
p. 401.

Women in Ministry 5
For the Churches of God, General Conference
and open dialogue. Some critical questions need to be raised about the issue
and the objections from this group. Such questions are:
 What is the basis of this denial?
 Is it founded on a clearly-stated biblical/theological argument?
 Does such theology represent the consensus of the General Conference?
 Does the denial, in whole or in part, rest upon traditions of Western
culture that enforce a male-dominated hierarchy, which in turn
perpetuates female subjugation?
 Might that cultural influence also perpetuate many other forms of
prejudicial belief and action?
 Is there a need to educate persons concerning the stated biblical
interpretation and theology of the denomination and discuss attitudes and
opinions that contradict that authority?
 Is there a need to call some persons to correction regarding their
theological position on this issue, and to repentance regarding their
attitudes and actions?
The following section explains the theological basis for the denomination’s
openness to women in ordained pastoral ministry. It represents the rationale
behind the opening statements of the “Standards” and “Readiness” documents
mentioned at the outset of this paper.

Women in Ministry: Consistent with General Conference Theology and History

The Churches of God openly state their commitment to the primacy of
Scripture as the authority for their theology. We Believe leaves no question
concerning the importance of the biblical justification for any belief or action in
the Churches of God.
We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of
God, our only rule of faith and practice… Inspired of God or “God-
breathed” means the Holy Spirit lifted the understanding of the
speakers and writers above human limitations to give the Scriptures
divine authority… God was guiding in such a way that the written

Women in Ministry 6
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 truth was his word. It is thus the infallible authority in everything
Christians believe and do.7

Therefore we must begin with the biblical texts that address the role of
women in ministry. The intent of this paper does not permit discussion of every
possible text. We will address those passages which are most frequently used by
persons discussing this issue. Prior to the interaction with specific texts we will
summarize the interpretive principles employed in our deliberation.

SCRIPTURE AND WOMEN IN MINISTRY

Interpretive Principles
There are some basic scriptural references which are used in every discussion
of women and the pastorate: Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 & 14:34-37;
and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Certainly other portions relate to this concern. Most
writers cite passages from the Old Testament which illustrate the roles or
integrity of women. They do not fail to refer to the Gospel records concerning
Jesus’ attitude toward women. But the epistles contain the central teaching
concerning the church, its ministry, and the people who are to be its ministers.
Yet there is a serious problem, especially among people who agree that the
Bible is God’s infallible Word, and that it should be the final rule for faith and
practice. Various individuals can read the words of the same text and derive
totally different meanings and applications from that passage. This is often
evident in the discussions of women in ministry.
The variations arise because people have different methods of interpreting
the words they read. Scripture speaks to us through our interpretations, and
those interpretations are influenced by presuppositions and priorities that cause
us to come to particular understandings and applications. This paper does not
allow an extended discussion of the discipline of biblical interpretation. Readers

7
We Believe, p. 17.

Women in Ministry 7
For the Churches of God, General Conference
should consult the excellent texts available for that study. 8 We must focus on a
particular presupposition regarding one’s approach to Scripture that has a crucial
effect on decisions concerning women in ministry.
That presupposition concerns the “flat view of Scripture” versus the
“prioritized view.”9 One must note at the outset that a commitment to either of
these views has nothing to do with one’s belief in the inerrancy, infallibility, or
final authority of the Bible.10 Willard Swartley explains that the “flat view”
causes readers to assume that “all texts are of equal significance to us and must
be harmonized into one, rational, propositional truth.” Such a view leads to the
disregard for the cultural and historical contexts which shaped the meanings of
different texts. Other writers refer to this as making Scripture speak univocally,
i.e. with one voice at all times in all places.
The “prioritized view” represents interpreters who acknowledge a diversity
within Scripture. These readers believe that there are fundamental moral and
theological principles which are to be given “priority over specific statements
which stand in tension either with these principles or with other specific texts on
the subject.”11 Alvera Mickelsen explains that the interpreter should “identify the
highest norms or standards taught in the Bible. These highest principles must
take first place in our considerations and have top priority in all we do.”12
Swartley, Mickelson and other “prioritists” generally focus on Christ as the key
to the most important norms. Mickelsen argues that the key principles “were
emphasized by Jesus Christ… and were often plainly stated as the highest

8
Winebrenner Seminary employs the following texts in different courses: Douglas Stuart, Old
Testament Exegesis (1980) & Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis (1983), both published by
Westminster Press; J. Robertson McQuilkin, Understanding and Applying the Bible (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1983).
9
The former term is found in Willard Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women, (Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 1983), 23. The latter term has been derived from the statements of Swartley
and other writers who concur that some portions of the Bible maintain more direct authority and
relevance for application than other passages.
10
In fact it is safe to say in light of the conservative commitment of all the writers in Bonnidell &
Robert G. Clouse, eds., Women in Ministry (Downers Grove: IVP, 1989) that a belief in inerrancy
and infallibility will not resolve the issue; cf. Swartley, p. 26.
11
Swartley, 23.
12
Alvera Mickelsen, “An Egalitarian View” in Women in Ministry, 177.

Women in Ministry 8
For the Churches of God, General Conference
standard.”13 Swartley draws a similar conclusion from his Anabaptist heritage.
He contends that “the Gospels in their direct witness to Jesus Christ are to be
taken as final authority.”14
Other Old Testament and New Testament teachings should be tested against
the basic norms affirmed by Christ. When the reader faces a passage shaped by
the demands of a specific cultural/historical situation the principles found there
should be tested against more broadly stated concepts. This procedure allows
interpreters to address the ambiguity which besets the original setting of a text
AND the ambiguity surrounding their present context of application. As Swartley
observes:
First, as human beings we are subject to particular influences from
our culture and history. We tend to use the Bible to reinforce what
we believe. While none of us can fully overcome this problem, it is
possible to correct wrong notions by serious and sustained study of
the biblical text and by following a method which helps us hear the
text on its own terms.
Second, it must, however, be candidly noted… that the
reason Christians disagree on these issues is because the Bible
itself gives mixed signals, especially on the surface of the text. This
is due not to the nature of God but to the fact that divine revelation
comes into and through history and culture. The various writers of
the Bible reflect the cultural practices of their times and write to
and for specific situations. For this reason, any proper
interpretation of a given biblical text must take into account the
historical and cultural setting of both the writer and the community
for which the text was written.15

This paper will employ the “prioritized view” in its interpretation and
application. It also assumes two other fundamental principles of interpretation.
First, Scripture must be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Second,
proper interpretation is ultimately the work of a community of believers rather
than one person or small group.

13
Ibid, 178.
14
Swartley, 23.
15
Swartley, 203.

Women in Ministry 9
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 The guidance of the Holy Spirit is a basic presupposition, but one that
should not be overlooked. We Believe states clearly that “proper interpretation
of the Scriptures comes from the Holy Spirit” (18). The Spirit inspired the
composition and canonization of the Bible, and he continues to give life to the
written text. God’s Spirit illumines believers’ understanding and causes them to
identify personally with the truth being communicated. The Spirit enables
believers to discern the message of a text and its appropriate application in
contemporary settings. Scripture and the Spirit work in constant harmony. There
is never a time when the Spirit would prompt someone to act contrary to the
Bible. But there is no right understanding of Scripture without the influence of
the Spirit in the hearts and minds of people.
That influence must be proved at the corporate or congregational level.
The illumination and application of the Bible does not belong to single, privileged
individuals. Swartley accurately describes the communal process of interpretation
which churches ought to depend on.
The unique authority and rule of God in Christ which is set forth in
the Bible can become apparent only in the voluntary faith and
obedience of the responding community… God gives special
insight to individuals as they read and study the Bible. These
insights are to be tested in the community (1 Cor. 14:29; 2 Pet.
1:20, 21). This testing of interpretations ultimately needs to involve
the whole people of God- individuals, study groups, congregations,
conferences, denominations, and wider church.16

The Churches of God recognize the importance of this principle too. The
writers of We Believe observe that the Holy Spirit must actively guide the church
in the unity of the entire body. “Therefore, we understand that the
interpretation of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is subject to the
collective understanding of the body (Ephesians 4:1-19)” (18, emphasis
added). The unity of the body begins with the consensus concerning how

16
Swartley, 236. The communal hermeneutic is developed ably by John Howard Yoder in an
essay title “The Hermeneutics of Peoplehood.” See John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom
(Notre Dame: UNDP, 1984), 15-45.

Women in Ministry 10
For the Churches of God, General Conference
theology will be done and how the Scriptures will be understood. Hence, readers
are reminded that these preliminary discussions are vital to the decision
concerning women in ministry.

Key Texts in Women’s Issue

As stated above, Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 & 14:34-37; and 1
Timothy 2:8-15 are the primary texts used in the discussion of women in
ministry. Of these four, Galatians 3:28 and 1 Cor. 11:2-16 are more general
teachings. The other two are more specific in their directives. They are the
subjects of intensive exegetical and historical analysis. Our treatment here
begins with an interpretation of the general passages and allows their principles
to inform the discussion of the more ambiguous texts of 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2.
Paul told the Galatians “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer
slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ
Jesus” (3:28). The verse proclaims the new order of life which believers enter
when they identify with Christ.17 Entrance into this new order is not restricted to
any particular social, racial or gender group. This is the interpretation held by
virtually all who read it.
There are some who apply that principle to all of the areas of life within
the new order. They contend that the equality which Paul asserts relates to
every kind of human relationship. This was a critical principle in Christian
arguments against slavery in the United States. More recently it has formed the
foundation of many applications that contend that female subordination in the
home and in the church should give way to mutual service and authority.
This line of application is supported by the text of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
At the heart of Paul’s teaching is the principle that both sexes should be allowed
to pray and prophesy in the public meetings of the church. This is apparent from
the references in verses 5 and 13 that indicate that women were praying and

17
Similar statements are found in Romans 6:4ff and 2 Corinthians 5:16-21.

Women in Ministry 11
For the Churches of God, General Conference
prophesying. Paul discusses some outward signs of distinction between men and
women, but the head coverings and shaved heads were specific to the context of
Corinth. They do not communicate the same things in contemporary Western
culture; therefore, they should not be expected.
The “prioritist” interpretation of these two passages holds that the apostle
was teaching about the ultimate goal for the church while recognizing that the
implementation of that order would be a gradual process. This is the observation
of Krister Stendahl in his assessment of the New Testament teaching on women
in ministry.
It should not be such a strange idea for us that the full
consequences of the new life in Christ are not immediately drawn
and applied… If we are right in describing the statements of 1
Corinthians 11:11-12 and Galatians 3:28 as pointing beyond what is
actually implemented in the New Testament church, then they
must be allowed their freedom; and the tension which they
constitute must not be absorbed or neutralized in a comprehensive
and hence harmonized “biblical view.” 18

Stendahl’s conclusion has been embraced by others since he penned it in

1958. Writers like Willard Swartley and Alvera Mickelsen agree that the mutual
service and ministry that results from full equality is the objective of the new
community formed by faith in Christ. The biblical passages which qualified the
exercise of that ministry by women are the product of cultural and historical
situations that would not have understood or tolerated such a dramatic transition
in social and gender roles.
When Paul enjoins the women of Corinth to “be silent in the churches” he
was probably addressing a form of action that was causing the church to create
more cultural problems than necessary. Perhaps Paul wanted the women to
refrain from excessive exuberance in their participation, since ANY female
involvement in public worship was a dramatic difference from other religious
customs.

18
Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 35.

Women in Ministry 12
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 Similarly the women at Ephesus in Timothy’s church were told to “learn in
silence and full submission” (2:11, NRSV). This did not deny them the general
principle of equality and participation. Aida Besancon Spencer offers a detailed
analysis of the situation at Ephesus in her book, Beyond the Curse: Women
Called to Ministry. She argues that women were not barred from learning, but
their education was to take place in a manner that did not violate educational
customs of the day. She concludes that Paul was giving authoritative instructions
that were not limited to the first century, but they were also not to be enforced if
social and spiritual conditions changed.
In summary, in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul has employed an analogy
between Eve and the women at Ephesus, both of whom were
misled. When women anywhere, including Ephesus, grow beyond
a resemblance to Eve in this respect, then the analogy is no longer
valid. Ultimately Paul was teaching equality through Christ who
humbles all. The difficulty has been that women everywhere have
been compared with the woman at Ephesus. 19

Spencer carefully studied the particular situation of the church at Ephesus.

Her historical details cannot be absolutely confirmed from the pages of the Bible,
but they are corroborated by extra-biblical materials. She has provided a very
plausible interpretation of Paul’s instructions. Her interpretation explains the
meaning of the injunction to learn in silence and maintains that women were
intended to be active in ministry in the church. Spencer also explains that this
particular injunction has ongoing validity, but is not intended to be a universal
prohibition. It is only applicable when women (or men) are misled concerning
biblical faith and practice. When persons demonstrate competent learning of
correct teaching they should not be restrained form any ministry in the body of
Christ.
Spencer’s argument makes good sense of the passage. It demonstrates a
careful analysis of history and culture in the original setting, and in the

19
Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1985), 94.

Women in Ministry 13
For the Churches of God, General Conference
contemporary setting of application. It is a positive example of the “prioritized”
view of hermeneutics. This paper asks that the “prioritized” view be accepted as
the consensus within the denomination. In light of that interpretive decision the
paper also asks that the Scripture be understood to direct the church toward
complete equality in all ministry. Those passages which seem to indicate
otherwise speak to particular problems which may or may not be relevant to
contemporary experience.

TRADITION AND WOMEN IN MINISTRY

It is impossible to survey 2000 years of history in the scope of this paper.
But it is important that readers be aware that the issue of women in ministry is
the subject of much careful historical research. One will find references
mentioned below that will permit further study and evaluation of this important
theological influence.

General Church History

Ruth A. Tucker and Walter Liefeld have collaborated to publish the most
recent and most readable historical survey of women and ministry. Daughters of
the Church establishes the active involvement (often leadership) of women in all
forms of ministry. The text covers the issue “from New Testament times to the
present.” Its main focus is on women in the Western church tradition, especially
the Protestant tradition in its conservative expression. However, Tucker and
Liefeld include a chapter on the non-Western church which helps one develop a
sense of the global concern for women in ministry.20
Daughters concludes with the observation that “women have had far more
involvement in the church’s mission and other ministries than has generally been
realized.” Furthermore the authors point out that “the equality and freedom of

20
Daughters, 329-358.

Women in Ministry 14
For the Churches of God, General Conference
women discerned by many in the New Testament record seems to have
diminished as church organization and hierarchical structure increased.”21
Such observations force one to confront the possibility that restrictions on
women’s involvement have been, and may continue to be, the result of improper
interpretations of the Bible. The study of church history allows one to see that
the church has been remarkably elastic. It has adapted to a variety of cultural
situations in ways that are radically different from New Testament practices.
These changes are defended as being consistent with Scripture and directed by
the Holy Spirit. But they also bear evidence to ways of doing theology that
permit God to be a dynamic agent in the life of the church. History will also
reveal those traditions where restrictions on female pastors resulted from
theological methods that refused to allow God to speak in contemporary settings.
The authors caution readers that definitive conclusions concerning women
in any period in history must be reserved until further work is done. This is an
important encouragement to those discussing the issue in the General
Conference. Careful analysis of the Churches of God will need to begin with the
general survey made by Tucker and Liefeld. Anyone who chooses to follow their
survey will want to continue with a more detailed study of the 19th and 20th
century context of American Protestantism where the denomination finds its
primary heritage.

American Church History

The bibliography of Daughters offers a wealth of books, dissertations, and
articles addressing the propriety and activity of women in ministry.22 There is
another less-extensive but equally helpful bibliography at the end of Women in
Ministry.23

21
Ibid, 435.
22
Ibid, pp. 511-540.
23
Clouse & Clouse, pp. 241-247.

Women in Ministry 15
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 Two works which help clarify the context of the Churches of God are a
24
study by Janette Hassey and a work edited by Donald Dayton. Hassey’s book
establishes a general context of women in conservative churches in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries.
Dayton’s editorial work brings to light tracts which offered a biblical case
for women in pastoral and preaching roles. These were early attempts at dealing
with past and present historical and cultural details in understanding and
applying the authority of Scripture. The General Conference does not have a true
“Holiness” background, but its character was certainly influenced by churches
that represent that heritage (like the Methodists and the Church of God,
Anderson).

The History of the General Conference

Historical resources are scarce within the entire denomination. The most
comprehensive study available is C. H. Forney’s History published in 1914.25
Forney’s history includes material concerning the involvement of women during
the early decades of the Churches of God, but it is scattered throughout the
large work. Happily his record was condensed in a series of articles for The
Church Advocate by Marilyn R. Kern, who also documented women’s involvement
from the annals of the Advocate itself.26
Kern’s history testifies to the existence of influential women in the ministry
of the General Conference during the first fifty years. But it also reflects the
tragedy of historical documentation that ignored the role of women in every area
of human endeavor. Kern observes that “many of the contributions of women to
the Churches of God in the early days are lost to history because of the obscure

24
Donald W. Dayton, ed., Holiness Tracts Defending the Ministry of Women, (New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc., 1985) & Janette Hassey, No Time for Silence: Evangelical Women in Public
Ministry Around the Turn of the Century, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986).
25
The General Conference has commissioned a new history which is yet to be completed.
26
Marilyn R. Kern, “Women in the Churches of God: the first fifty years,” The Church Advocate,
January – May, 1977.

Women in Ministry 16
For the Churches of God, General Conference
status of women generally.” 27 Her words are echoed by Tucker and Liefeld in
Daughters of the Church:
In many instances the role of women in the church has not been as
noteworthy as that of men… But frequently women have been
overlooked even when they made outstanding contributions. “As
so frequently happens in the writing of history,” writes Patricia Hill,
“the women have simply disappeared.” Their role in religion down
through the ages has been flagrantly neglected. And it continues
to be neglected, despite the longstanding appeals to historians to
do otherwise.28

Kern’s study illuminates the significant women who helped start churches,
and who opened their homes for meetings and for itinerant preachers. It also
notes the dates when various elderships granted the first preaching licenses to
women. The first of these was granted by the West Pennsylvania Eldership in
1859 to Martha Jane Beecher. Beecher received two licenses from West
Pennsylvania. The first was an “exhorter’s license” (1859) and the second was a
“preacher’s license (1864). She later moved to Iowa, where she preached for
the Eldership in 1866, though she was not granted a license until 1878.
There is evidence that the Michigan Eldership licensed a woman in 1859
and another in 1868. Indiana licensed Elizabeth McColley in 1863. Illinois
recognized Annie C. Newcomer in 1873. Kern summarizes the credential issue
observing that “by the turn of the century, at least thirty-four more women were
licensed to preach in twelve Elderships.” But she includes the significant detail
that “it would not be until 1923 that the East Pennsylvania Eldership would
ordain its first woman.”29
Kern’s effort uncovered two important voices favoring women in ministry
in the early history of the denomination. The first was Ellen Stewart. Stewart
lived in Ohio. Her formal affiliation with the Churches of God is uncertain. She

27
Kern, Advocate, Feb. 1977, p. 4.
28
Tucker and Liefeld, p. 13.
29
Advocate, May, 1977, 7-11. More research of every conference’s Eldership sessions might
locate other women licensed during this period. A complementary project would be to research
the credentialing of women in the various conferences in the period 1925-1990.

Women in Ministry 17
For the Churches of God, General Conference
was of the opinion that denominationalism and church membership were
hindrances to genuine “Church Union.” Nevertheless she was a frequent
correspondent in The Church Advocate.
Some of Mrs. Stewart’s concern focused on the involvement of women in
preaching ministry. She was articulate in her expression and also very capable in
her interpretation and application of Scripture. Stewart raised issues that are still
open subjects in contemporary discussions. Concerning the texts of 1 Cor. 14:34
and 1 Tim. 2:12 she argued that Paul “plainly shows that he allowed women to
prophesy; which according to his own definition, was to speak to edification,
30
exhortation and comfort.” Her concern was to refute the wrong interpretations
of those texts which were used to stifle the teaching gifts of women. She did not
have access to the documentation of Aida Spencer, but her analysis of the texts
is not much different.
Stewart was also concerned with the meaning of the personal experiences
of women, including her own. She raised the question concerning the
experience of the call: “what shall a woman do if she believes the Holy Spirit
moves and commands her to go and preach the Gospel?” And she was quick to
acknowledge that the permission for women to preach must “be right and
according to the spirit of the Gospel.” Stewart understood that Scripture gave
place for women to preach, but the text needed to be affirmed in the
contemporary experience. She understood that the Spirit would be the agent to
evoke that affirmation.
Ellen Stewart did not simply argue that males should permit women to
preach. She contended that if the leaders of the church were convinced that
Scripture and the Spirit confirmed the valid right of women to preach, such
conviction “involves still another duty, - that of defending that right.”31 Stewart
raised the sensitive issue of advocacy. If men (and women) believe an issue to

30
Advocate, March, 1977, 7.
31
Ibid, 7 (emphasis added).

Women in Ministry 18
For the Churches of God, General Conference
be true, simple assent is not sufficient. They must act on that conviction in ways
that will put it into effect.
In later correspondence Stewart continued her clear defense of women in
the preaching ministry. She was not without opposition. Kern documents some
correspondence between Stewart and William Johnston in Maryland. Johnston
wrote a detailed letter citing a number of biblical references and drawing
inferences that women are to be excluded from formal ministry. Stewart
responded by pointing out Johnston’s arguments from silence and his misuse of
the term ‘man.’ Johnston believed that it always indicated male persons, but
Stewart corrected him, noting that the term was the standard reference to all of
humanity. Many of the biblical texts to which Johnston referred should be
understood as inclusive of males and females.
The other important voice raised for women in the early years came from
C. H. Forney. His efforts to articulate the history and theology of the Churches of
God are well-known. Kern’s research indicates that he had no serious problem
with admitting women to the pastoral ministry. One indication of that approval is
the fact that he did not make a formal statement against it. Granted, this is an
“argument from silence,” but in this case it seems to be a significant omission,
especially since Forney documented the credentialing of women throughout his
History.
Earlier, John F. Weishampel had used the pages of the Advocate to deny
the validity of women in ministry.32 His argument was in response to letters
from Ellen Stewart. Forney, in contrast, concluded that Stewart “argued her side
of the question (women’s preaching) with skill.” He later included her
autobiography in his “Bibliography of the Churches of God” which according to
Kern “would indicate that Forney considered her a Churches of God minister
even without a license.”33

32
Advocate, April, 1977, 9 & 10 (see “footnotes”).
33
Ibid, 11.

Women in Ministry 19
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 Forney also commended a positive statement concerning women in
ministry in 1875. He quoted a paragraph from the Baptist Union that was based
on the quotation of Joel found in Acts 2, “Thy sons and thy daughters shall
prophesy.” The article contended that:
Modern churches have erred sadly in neglecting this decree of the
Lord. Women have been treated as ciphers; silence rather than
active service has been imposed, and the largest and best part of
our Christian forces thus wasted… They constitute two thirds of the
church of Christ, and ought to enjoy every possible facility for the
development and use of their powers in saving souls. To devise
ways and means to this end should enlist the best talent of the
church.34

The statement itself shows a remarkable openness to women in ministry.

Forney’s introduction indicates his agreement with its theme.
We note with pleasure the fact that a healthier sentiment is
beginning to prevail with reference to the work of Christian women.
We have a paragraph before us… which would have been less
popular fifty years ago than it is now. It is one of the most
sensible items on the subject that we have read for a long time.35

Unfortunately there is not a companion, or a series of companions, to

Kern’s history. The denomination is left without easily accessible accounts of
other women who have been credentialed. One would have to study the pages
of numerous Eldership and Conference minutes to document such action. It also
lacks a good historical analysis of why the Churches of God did not “devise ways
and means” to encourage women into ministry; and why male leadership has
been at least reticent, and at most openly opposed, to “defending the right” of
women to pastoral positions.

EXPERIENCE AND WOMEN IN MINISTRY

34
Advocate, May 1977, 10.
35
Ibid.

Women in Ministry 20
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 Our present experiences should not be excluded from theological
reflection. The contemporary emergence of women in roles traditionally held by
men is such an experience that cannot be overlooked. If women can function
equally with men in the realms of art, hard science, economics, law, medicine
and politics why can’t they also function in the pastorate? It would seem that
when most modern societies allow women to compete for and fill virtually all
vocational roles, the church should be leading the way to such equality rather
than hindering it.
In the United States the conservative wing of Christianity has an audible
voice in the realm of social practices and moral values. On one hand
conservatives argue for the biblical mandates of justice and love to permeate
society, yet they have been some of the most vocal about denying women the
right to exercise their spiritual gifts freely and fully in the church. As Tucker and
Liefeld point out, “Today the absence of women from positions of responsibility
in a contemporary Christian church or organization constitutes in itself a message
to our generation.”36
Some will argue that the Bible stipulates that only males should fill church
leadership. Yet careful exegetical and historical research reveals that the New
Testament Scriptures are ambiguous about the issue. Simple Bible interpretation
does not resolve the issue. History fails to support the male-only view by
documenting instances of competent female ministry. In fact history indicates
that a traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 is wholly inaccurate. Tucker and
Liefeld draw their study to a clear summation, writing

Contrary to a popular contemporary supposition, no examples were

found of heresy or other evil effect of women’s ministry that were
the clear, sole result of the sex of the instigator. Cults have had
their share of women members, but the leaders have usually been
men. The proportion of cults originated by women is fewer than
has been claimed. The major heresies of the early church were, of
course, launched by men. It is impossible, therefore, to prove from

36
Tucker & Liefeld, 448 (emphasis theirs).

Women in Ministry 21
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 history that women are more easily deceived than men, as some
think 1 Timothy 2:11-15 teaches.37

More recent experience corroborates this statement. Jim Jones led

hundreds of followers to their deaths in 1978. In the mid-1980s male leadership
was involved in the sexual immorality that marred the reputation of conservative
Christianity. There have been no females who have brought equal moral
disrepute to the Christian ministry in the same time span.
During the past fifteen years seminaries have struggled to attract
students. The traditional supply of young men moving from college to seminary
has dwindled to a trickle. Student populations are made up of large numbers of
second career people. Moreover seminaries have seen an increasing number of
women enter their degree programs. These women consistently prove
themselves capable in all of the academic and professional demands of ministry.
Women have also become accomplished members of faculties in every
theological discipline.
All of which leads back to the immediate experience of a pastoral shortage
in the Churches of God. The question is obvious: Why aren’t women being
recruited, trained, credentialed, and placed in open pulpits? It is possible that
God is not calling them. It is also possible that women who sense the divine call
are intimidated by individuals who denounce the basic policies upheld by the
denomination. It is possible that women who sense God’s call never have it
confirmed by local congregations who understand that women are legitimate
candidates for ministry according to Scripture, tradition and experience.

A REASONABLE PROPOSAL FOR WOMEN IN MINISTRY

AND A CALL TO FURTHER DIALOG

This paper has attempted to explain the theological foundation for the
stated policy concerning women in pastoral ministry for the Churches of God. It

37
Tucker & Liefeld, 435-6.

Women in Ministry 22
For the Churches of God, General Conference
has examined some primary biblical texts concerning women in ministry. It has
reviewed the history which has shaped the traditions of the denomination. It has
also acknowledged some of the issues raised by contemporary personal and
social experiences. There is more that could be said in each area of theological
influence.
Other persons will need to study the nature of interpretation. They will
need to affirm or reject the “prioritist” method suggested above. They will also
need to evaluate the exegetical studies of the passages from Galatians, 1
Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. Perhaps other studies exist which clarify the
historical and cultural concerns raised by Swartley, Mickelsen, and Spencer.
The General Conference needs to appoint persons who will document its
history. We have a distinctive story to tell, but it must be researched. It needs to
be told with a sensitivity to the larger stories told by American Christianity and by
the church that has grown since the 1st century of the Common Era.
Diverse members of the Churches of God need to observe and discuss the
social shifts that have taken place in the United States during the past thirty
years. They need to articulate their own experiences with the changes in male
and female roles. They need to discern where those changes reflect rebellion
against God, and where resistance to change might indicate a similar rebellion.
No claim is made to have exhausted this complex issue. Rather this paper
has raised points from Scripture, tradition and experience which lead toward a
reasonable conclusion and a positive recommendation. The conclusion is that
there is no clear reason to prohibit or discourage women from responding to
God’s call to pastoral ministry.
Scripture establishes a general principle of full human equality in the
worship and ministry of the church (Gal. 3:28). Those passages which have been
understood as prescriptions against female pastors (1 Cor. 14:34-5; 1 Tim. 2:11-
15) can be interpreted as cautions against improper action and insufficient
preparation. Our final authority in matters of faith and practice can be

Women in Ministry 23
For the Churches of God, General Conference
interpreted accurately to allow women all the privileges and responsibilities of
church ministry.
The history and present policy statements of the Churches of God
indicate that the tradition of the denomination favors this egalitarian
interpretation. Women have been credentialed since the middle of the 19th
century. The current standards for credentials acknowledge that the divine
call does not discriminate regarding gender.
Contemporary experience proves that women are capable of handling
virtually every profession open to men. Athletic competition is the most
prominent area where the genders have not reached equality, but even that is
not true for every sport. Certainly females have demonstrated competence in the
kinds of professional activities needed in the pastorate. They have demonstrated
their competence as pastors in and out of the Churches of God.
The theological position for the General Conference that makes sense of
the Bible, history, and the present cultural ethos is one that permits and
encourages women to prepare for and fulfill the pastoral calling. This position is
recommended as the consensus for the denomination. Initially church leadership
must determine if that consensus will be accepted in the individual conferences.
That determination can only be made through dialog. Ellen Stewart articulated
that fact in 1852 when she wrote:
If there are no female preachers in the Church of God in
Pennsylvania, there are two in Ohio, and some in other parts of the
country, and there have been some in every age, why not discuss
the subject then, so that, if right, it may be tolerated and
encouraged, or, if wrong, put down at once.38

Hence the recommendation from this study is that the General

Conference Commission on Vocations and the corresponding commissions
in local conferences take the following steps:

38
Kern, Advocate, March, 1977, 9.

Women in Ministry 24
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 1. Circulate this statement of theological method and proposal for its
application concerning women in ministry.
2. Schedule opportunities for discussion within local conferences,
followed by similar discussions by representatives from all
conferences of the Churches of God.
Assuming that the consensus can be accepted, the denomination will need
to:
1. Educate congregations concerning the validity of women in
vocational ministry.
2. Encourage women to be sensitive to God’s call in their individual
lives, and to seek the confirmation of that call from their local
churches.
3. Identify and recruit female candidates who can pursue the
educational requirements for ministerial credentialing.
4. Give proper care to those women who are in preparation and
maintain a program of support to those who have already entered
vocational ministry.
The Churches of God do not face the question of women in ministry alone.
Many other denominations and independent groups are presently struggling with
it. For many of them the restrictions are flatly stated in the codes and
constitutions of the institution, which makes their dilemma easy to identify.
It is more difficult in the General Conference. Our policies affirm women,
yet our practices discourage them. Our situation is like the problem of racial
prejudice in the United States. The laws grant full freedom to every person, but
it is frequently understood that those laws are superseded by actual practices
which maintain clear lines of segregation.
We find ourselves with the opportunity to be a witness to other groups.
We can admit longstanding biases and we can take concrete steps toward
denominational unity. And we can permit the Spirit-endowed women of our
congregations to share the ministries to which God calls us.

Women in Ministry 25
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 APPENDIX:
A PROPOSAL FOR CONSENSUS ON THEOLOGICAL METHOD:
THE WESLEYAN QUADRILATERAL

The need to address the issue of women in ministry illuminates another

concern within the denomination. The Churches of God needs a consensus
regarding its theological method. That is, they need a common form for
interpreting Scripture and allowing its authority to speak intelligibly to concerns
from history and contemporary experience.
The text of this paper employs a method that may be of help in future
discussions. It is a method that acknowledges Scripture as its primary source of
authority, but it also recognizes the influence of tradition, experience, and
reason. Theses four sources have been used in the conversation of theology
since the emergence of classical teachers such as Irenaeus, John Chrysostom
and Augustine.39 But present studies refer to it as the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,”
named after the 18th century evangelist, denominational founder, and
theologian, John Wesley who used these four sources in his own preaching and
teaching.40
Recent works in systematic and historical theology have established the
validity of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a useful and competent method for
theology.41 This appendix summarizes the method in hopes that it will be
considered as a consensus in the Churches of God.

39
Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), vol. 1, The Living
God, p. 330.
40
The last title is one that is lifted more frequently as new critical scholarship emerges analyzing
Wesley’s writings. He did not publish formal works in Systematic theology, so his methods are
more difficult to discern. Albert Outler is frequently recognized for his efforts to uncover the
theological competence of the Methodist founder.
41
Oden’s work, mentioned above, gives a thorough summary of the quadrilateral method, cf.
Living pp. 330-354. It is also the basis of reflection in H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, & Holiness
(Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1988), pp. 55-94. The latter is the primary text for systematics classes
at Winebrenner Seminary. The quadrilateral is also the subject of discussion in Clark Pinnock,
Tracking the Maze (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), pp. 170-181. It is the subject of
historical analysis and contemporary application in Donald A.D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan

Women in Ministry 26
For the Churches of God, General Conference
Initial Dependence on Divine Revelation
Before one can prioritize the sources there is one crucial presupposition
that must be acknowledged. Christian theology, wherever it is derived from,
depends on the personal revelation of God’s self to humanity. We would have no
perception or understanding of God apart from the knowledge granted us
through the general revelation of creation (cf. Ps. 19:1-6, Rom. 1:19-20) and the
special revelation of the spoken message and the person of Jesus Christ (Jer.
1:4-10; Heb. 1:1-2).
Thomas Oden explains that “each phase of the fourfold approach to the
study of God hinges on the central premise that God has made himself known.”42
Clark Pinnock affirms that premise and goes on to elaborate the manifold ways in
which God has affected that personal disclosure.

Revelation according to the Christian story encompasses historical

actions, verbal disclosures, and personal encounters. All of these
are included in the process whereby God unveils truth about God’s
character and purposes to the believing community, a process in
which God always respects their freedom.43

The Churches of God affirm the presupposition of divine revelation. The

doctrinal statement, We Believe, explains that “We believe God wants us to know
him and has revealed himself in various ways.”44 For Christians the Bible is
always the normative source of the record and evaluation of that revelation.
Scripture is the touchstone for recognizing and responding to God’s continued
direction for his people.
The task of theology is to discern how God is directing believers now.
That task means painstaking interpretation of Scripture. It also means trusting

Quadrilater: Scripture, Tradition, Reason & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).
42
Oden, I, 330.
43
Pinnock, p. 171.
44
Churches of God, General Conference, We Believe (Findlay: Churches of God Publications)
adopted by the General Conference in session, June 1983 and 1986, p. 9)

Women in Ministry 27
For the Churches of God, General Conference
the living guidance of the Holy Spirit as he moves in present experience. The
transition from Scripture to experience can be monitored in history by studying
those traditions which have perpetuated the truth of Scripture. The task of
theology also means trusting the Holy Spirit to work through human reason to
bring full articulation and application of what God is revealing about his person
and plan.

The Primacy of Scripture

The Quadrilateral method can be misconstrued in such a way that
Scripture is perceived as an equal or lesser authority in comparison to the other
three influences. But when the method begins with the presupposition that
Scripture is the norm of revealed communication it maintains the Bible as the
final authority for any teaching or application. Tradition, experience and reason
can only contribute insights and suggestions which need corroboration from the
biblical texts.
The recent works cited above all approach the Quadrilateral method with
the initial affirmation that Scripture will never be superseded by the influence of
the other sources. Each of the authors refers to the fact that the Bible is the
unique source of the story of God’s program of salvation.45Clark Pinnock offers
the clearest definition of the Bible as the primary source of theological
communication:
The authority of the Bible is lodged primarily in the fundamental
witness it bears to God’s disclosure of himself in history that is
carried down to us in these words. The Bible points us to the story
of salvation and facilitates it coming alive in our experience as it is
mixed with faith. Thus, Scripture is the written fixation of the
apostolic witness and, therefore, the foundation of the Church. The
divine revelation first encountered in the mighty acts of God in
history is now actualized by means of certain writings that serve to
perpetuate its authority and function as foundation and standard in

45
cf. Oden, p. 337; Thorsen, pp. 127-130; Dunning, p. 57.

Women in Ministry 28
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 the Church today and in the future. God continues to reveal himself
by speaking to us in Scripture.46

As the Churches of God discuss the validity of the Quadrilateral method

there needs to be complete understanding of this initial element. In no way does
the method impugn or impinge upon the conviction regarding the inspired,
infallible, and hence, final authority of the Bible. Persons listen for the guidance
and direction of God in the words of Scripture. The Quadrilateral does not impair
their hearing. It acknowledges that the influences of tradition, reason and
experience shape what we hear and how we respond to God’s voice in concrete
actions.

The Conversation between Tradition and Experience

Hearing and responding to God’s voice is the nature of our contemporary
experience of faith. As believers living in the final decade of the 20th century we
face global social, economic, and political situations that differ radically from the
context of the early New Testament era. We believe that the character of God in
holiness, justice and love remains the same, but the shape of his activity through
the life of the church will look different.
We monitor the change of that shape by reflecting on the history of its
development. We study the history of the church as it spread out in its
missionary activity from Jerusalem and Judea into the uttermost parts of the
earth (Acts 1:8). That history helps us understand the development of important
doctrines, such as the Trinity and the nature of justification by faith. It reminds
us of the various practices that have taken place in different churches, like the
manner of observing the Lord’s Supper, the mode of baptism, and the multitude
of practices that have been used in personal devotions.
The doctrines and practices of the past and the present are all founded on
some interpretation of Scripture. They were, or are, relevant expressions of the

46
Pinnock, 172.

Women in Ministry 29
For the Churches of God, General Conference
experience of believers’ faith at specific points in history. They are the
TRADITIONS which shape the present and future identity of groups of Christians
as they worship God and witness their experience of faith. Tradition is an
inevitable source of theology. No person or group is able to come to the text of
the Bible and to the task of theology without some previous understanding that
has been shaped by the teachings and practices of other people.47 Tradition48 in
the words of H. Ray Dunning “is understood not as something separate from
Scripture but the continuing task of reinterpreting the biblical message and may
even be recognized as the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit.”
The influence of tradition is plainly evident in the Churches of God. The
denomination’s tradition regarding women in ministry will be explored in the
following section. For now it can be illustrated from the text of We Believe. The
introduction mentions statement of faith written by John Winebrenner, C. H.
Forney and the General Elderships of 1925 and 1959. The 1959 work was a
“Bible-based declaration” intended to “set forth in order things most surely
believed.”49 Clearly all of the statements comprise a tradition of biblical
interpretation and application which have given the General Conference its own
identity.
It is the historic interpretive tradition that gives the Churches of God their
most obvious distinctive, the ordinance of feetwashing. Actually there are two
elements of tradition involved in this particular teaching. First, John
Winebrenner, and later C. H. Forney, rejected the Catholic, Lutheran, and
Reformed conception of Sacraments. They used the term “ordinance,” taken
from biblical language found in Exodus 12:14 and 1 Corinthians 11:2. Yet it is
also grounded in the Zwinglian-Anabaptist interpretation of ordinances which
developed early in the Reformation.

47
See the summary of this by Dunning, G, F, & H, pp. 81-83.
48
Dunning, 82.
49
We Believe, 4.

Women in Ministry 30
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 Second, Forney’s discussion of the five characteristics of an ordinance (cf.
We Believe, p. 32) reveals a different interpretive method than other groups
who also observe ordinances, but deny the validity of feetwashing. Millard
Erickson represents the baptistic tradition which views ordinances in the same
manner as the Churches of God. But most Baptist groups only observe Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper. Erickson explains that those two rites were enjoined by
Christ in a ‘universal setting.” In contrast, he explains, “the footwashing incident
in John 13 is not put into a general or universal setting… (Jesus) does not
indicate that the practice is to be perpetually performed.” Erickson concludes
that humility was the lesson Jesus taught in John 13, and humility is taught
elsewhere in the New Testament without reference to footwashing. Therefore,
footwashing is not a permanent ordinance in Erickson’s perspective.50
The point here is that both Forney and Erickson hold the same high view
of biblical authority. Both agree that the practices of the church should be
viewed as outward signs rather than actual means of grace. But there is a
variation in their interpretive tradition that leads to the observance of different
rites. It is an issue of tradition.
A person from the General Conference might invite Erickson to participate
in a feetwashing observance. And he might come and share in a manner that
persuades him of the validity of the practice as an ordinance. He might study
Forney’s argument in The Philosophical Basis of the Ordinances and conclude
that the Churches of God had a better method of interpretation than his own
Baptist heritage. Erickson might change his mind, and his own EXPERIENCE
might be a determining influence in that transition.
Contemporary experience constantly dialogues with historical tradition. It
serves to convince persons of truth or convict them of error.

50
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 122. While the General
Conference refers to the ordinance as “feetwashing” most groups who do not practice it refer to
it as “footwashing;” cf. EDT, s.v. “Foot Washing” by H. A. Kent, Jr.

Women in Ministry 31
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 Truth needs to become personally convincing by being confirmed in
individual experience, when the faith of the whole church becomes
real for me in my own life today. Daily life provides experiential
confirmation of the reliability of the truth of the Christian story.51

Sometimes experience confirms the timeless validity of a teaching and its

applications. There are certainly situations when a tradition must be upheld in
the face of experiences that contradict the character and plan of God. On other
occasions personal experience nudges believers toward the conclusion that God’s
truth might be more appropriately applied in a new way.

The Statement of a Reasonable Faith

Believers listen for the word of God in the Scriptures. That listening
process involves them in a conversation between their own experience and the
experiences that represent the traditions of other faith communities. But
sometimes it seems that there are three voices speaking simultaneously saying
entirely different things. How is a person or a congregation to make sense of all
the input? God has gifted us with a fourth source of theology, the human faculty
of understanding, analysis and organization we call REASON.
Since the late 18th century a number of philosophers have argued that
humans could solve all their problems simply by careful use of their reason. They
denied the reality and the necessity of any supernatural revelation that
communicated information regarding the living of life. The classic Christian
tradition continues to dispute this, but that does not mean a dismissal of the
importance of rational activity. It does mean that reason must be granted its
rightful, albeit limited, place in the task of theology.
Reason provides theologians with the ability to make “critical analysis of
all that has been asserted in order to avoid self-contradiction, to take appropriate
account of scientific and historical knowledge, to credit appropriately new
information and empirical data, and to try to see the truth as a whole and not as

51
Pinnock, 178.

Women in Ministry 32
For the Churches of God, General Conference
disparate parts or incongruently separable insights.”52 In short, reason is the
faculty that lets us make sense about what God is saying to us and what our
experience requires form us.
This section is titled “The Statement of a Reasonable Faith.” That means
that when we decide what a biblical text means and we allow it to direct our
thinking and actions the correspondence must be something we can understand.
When the cultural context of our lives changes through political transitions or
technological development, reason allows us to compare the new experiences
with the past traditions and decide which is right or wrong, which enhances life
lovingly and justly and which offers developments at the expense of greater
moral and spiritual values.
Reason cannot create the elements of information in our theological
conversation. It can only help us keep track of who is speaking, what he or she
is saying, and how it relates to the messages coming from the other voices. The
function of reason is clearly evident in the introduction of We Believe. The
editors explain that Forney intended his early statement to be used as “an
outline for instruction in the blessings of the Christian faith.” The term “outline”
reflects the human need for careful organization and logical development. The
intent of “instruction” implies the coherent, convincing presentation of important
influence of rationality on all forms of human communication.
Elsewhere in the introduction the writers refer to the efforts of the
Consultations of Doctrine which caused the statement to be “written, edited,
evaluated, and rewritten.” Two of the guidelines for that composition were that
the document be “concise” and be “a document for laypersons, non-technical,
free of theological jargon and preaching.”53 Such instructions set some
parameters on the kind of reason that should be evident in this communication.

Summary

52
Oden, 339.
53
We Believe, 4-5.

Women in Ministry 33
For the Churches of God, General Conference
 The Wesleyan Quadrilateral offers a basis for future theological discussion
in the General Conference. It reminds us to begin with the careful selection and
interpretation of relevant biblical texts. They are the final authority for our
understanding and application. The method also allows us to give proper
consideration to the traditions that have shaped us and to the present
experiences to which we must respond. The Quadrilateral acknowledges that
the careful application of reason holds our analysis and application together.
This method does not solve our theological problems. It provides a
“grammar” that allows us to speak so that everyone can understand as we try to
solve our problems. It is explained here and employed in the main text of the
paper in order to stimulate consideration for its continued use in the
denomination.

Women in Ministry 34
For the Churches of God, General Conference