n e w c h u r c h l i f e : m ay / j u n e 2 0 1 5
that. This topic will receive further consideration as we move ahead on the
first motion.
The final motion, about considering removing the gender restriction to
the M.Div. program, was an outgrowth of the discussion regarding gender and
inauguration into the priesthood.
The letter published last fall affirming our policy of inaugurating only men
into the priesthood drew a strong reaction in many quarters. Apparently a
number of people expected a change in policy and were surprised and deeply
disappointed that we had not done that. In response, there was a letter-writing
initiative to the Board to give voice to people’s concerns and sadness about the
policy.
This motion was explained in terms of the opportunity for women to enter
into related fields other than the General Church priesthood. Many women
have a strong love of serving the Lord and we need to look at additional
practical ways for feminine abilities to bring life to human uses. The MA
degree, which was designed to provide graduate level instruction in theology
and has been very useful for teachers at the Academy and in our elementary
schools and others, is not a recognized degree for entrance into various uses,
such as becoming a chaplain in a hospital.
An important point here is that a number of Board members strongly
affirmed that the decision to inaugurate into the priesthood rests with the
Executive Bishop (with appropriate counsel, of course). This motion was
not an attempt to overturn our governance or in any way challenge the New
Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine series on governance.
In initial discussions some serious concerns have been voiced about how
this could be provided for without adversely affecting the current M.Div.
program. It is a professionally oriented degree program specifically designed
to prepare men to serve as priests in the General Church. All the instruction,
assignments and interactions in the classroom are focused on this and lead to
inauguration to the priesthood. So to introduce students who are not in that
vein could significantly diminish the primary use of the Theological School.
However, even with that and other concerns, I want to honor the Board’s
request by exploring this further. Perhaps there are ways to provide for
additional uses without adversely affecting the central use. I will be engaging
with the Theological School faculty and the normal college administrative
decision-making process to look thoroughly at all aspects of this.
240