PrayFirst.ca

Response to Egalitarian Position

It is worrisome, to say the least, that our denominational leadership is prepared to overlook the clear and vast weight of Scripture on the distinct roles of men and women to allow exceptions to become a rule. Should we accept the kind of exegetical gymnastics given in the support of the ordination of women it will become a pattern, and we open the door to further deviation.

The Founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance chose to focus on a clear, appealing and unifying issue: the centrality of Jesus Christ as Saviour, Sanctifier, Healer and Coming King. The trend of his day was to theological liberalism which undermined foundational biblical truths leaving authority, both divine and biblical, clouded by uncertainty. The result was hurtful dissensions and fractious divisions in Christendom seriously undermining the ministry of the church.

We are moving in that direction again. Approving the ordination of women, and related issues, will do us serious harm. At a time when popular culture disregards the church, when immorality rises, false religions flourish and true spirituality spirals into chaotic confusion, what are we doing to ourselves? How will the new role proposed for women, questionable at best if biblical authority matters, enhance our ministry? What are we saying to a society where the leadership and dignity of men is increasingly belittled and undermined? At a time when family life is crushed by infidelity, divorce and weak male leadership we propose to aid and abet the problem!

This is a time to seriously call men, young and old, to holy leadership and true, spiritual commitment. Let us raise the bar to those demanding biblical standards for pastors, elders, professors, missionaries and for all who aspire to be leaders among us.

There is a reason why the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation speak loud and long to men! Surely, it is not a cultural oversight by the Sovereign and Omniscient God that so much of the Bible references men. God is not blind-sided by culture or relevance. Yes, the Fall has tragically twisted relationships and its curse persists. But there is a distinct, satisfying and vital role for men and women, clearly stated and illustrated in the Scriptures, which we neglect, re-interpret or remove at our peril. Popular opinion, selfish ambition, crippling rebellion always challenge God’s authority. The Church of Jesus Christ must demonstrate that it adheres unreservedly to the principles of His Word.

We dare not countenance the fallacious view that anything that distinguishes or differentiates the roles of men and women undermines the equality of value of either men or women. God has blessed most churches with strong, capable, godly women. I grew up with six of them in my family and none of them would want what is being proposed. In more than 50 years of ministry with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and a wholesome relationship with many hundreds of women parishioners, few, of which I am aware, appealed for this change.

This is a highly divisive subject rooted in feminism and in a culturally tainted interpretation of truth. It flies in the face of biblical instruction and illustration. Someone described the modern evangelical movement as trying to be so relevant that it has become irrelevant. The ordination of women will do nothing positive for our denomination in terms of the glory of God, our reputation for biblical fidelity and our founder’s concept of avoiding secondary issues. We have enough on our plate just trying to combat worldliness, selfishness, indifference and complacency. When will we learn that God’s ways are not always our ways, nor His thoughts ours?

Arnold Reimer, August 2010

---

THOUGHTS ON THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN

Of all the issues we have grappled with and changed since 1980, I can think of nothing more divisive or dramatic than the proposed plan to ordain women thereby opening the pathway for them to be Senior Pastors. Though it follows the progression of issues such as women Elders, it is a quantum leap away from biblical teaching and practise. The example of such interpretation of Scripture has worrisome implications for our future:

1. It undermines (fearfully) our Statement of Faith which affirms, “The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God . . . . They constitute the DIVINE and ONLY RULE of Christian faith and PRACTISE.” (Capitalization mine.)

2. It implies that exceptions, even in Scripture, carry the weight of rule and the general will of God.

3. It assumes that culture and popularity have the right to impose change on our interpretation and practise of Scripture.

4. It revises the theological interpretation by Church Fathers who struggled to understand, to own, practise and proclaim the will of God for the Church down through the ages.

5. It is happening, arguably, at a time of spiritual decline, cultural accommodation, and widespread neglect of godly disciplines.

6. It adds to the popular impression that the church, its role, positions and practise, is weak and confused; worse, that our God is lite on absolutes and open to relativity.

7. It suggests that our early history and practise, in the context of initial development, can be used as reason to establish policy and regulation in the present situation.

8. It seriously threatens us with division, distrust and unrest as congregations struggle to understand what is happening. Some, perhaps many, will assume we have forsaken the faith once delivered, and will go elsewhere to seek a place where biblical standards are upheld.

9. It is a fearful truth that sometimes God gives us the desire of our hearts but sends leanness to our souls.

I appeal to our leaders and constituency to give serious second thought to the above issues, and, to where the proposed action will lead us. It is not as though we are walking a new and unknown path. The United and Anglican churches, to name two, have gone before us in this and other issues. We can examine the by-products of their decisions. Increasingly, male leaders, supporters and attendees, are decreasing. Finances, membership and influence are at an all-time low. The blessing of God, vital acts of the Holy Spirit and wise decision-making seem absent or at least clouded. Spiritual decline and cultural accommodation are evident.

Will this be the Alliance twenty years from now? Of course, other things have been at play among them; but, why open any door, that could lead us down that path? How can we possibly read the Scriptures with its preponderance of evidence and not know that God has chosen men, with all their flaws, to be His instruments of leadership in the Church?

Ancient Israel and more recent history prove that rebellion against, or deviation from, God’s plan and purposes result in judgment of one kind or another. God has the last word but we may well be putting ourselves out from under the umbrella of His blessing.

It has nothing to do with the value and blessing of womanhood in those many important roles of ministry they have carried so admirably. It has a great deal to do with God’s authority over us, His will for His people and our understanding and faithful obedience to His Word. Because His ways are “past finding out” and “higher than our ways” we must tread very cautiously when making such a sweeping change as this issue suggests.

Arnold Reimer, May 9, 2012

---

Response to the Proposal by the BOD regarding the Ordination of Women by Ed Drewlo www.secondwindministries.ca/, June 2012

For a variety of reasons, regrettably, it will not be possible for me to attend Canadian Assembly in Winnipeg this summer. But having served in the Alliance as a pastor for most of my adult life, most recently in a variety of church pastoral transitional ministries in the West, I feel compelled to voice my response to an initiative that definitively moves our Denomination in a new direction. I have written a couple of times about this issue most recently on May 23, 2012. (This latter occasion was in response to the papers on Ordination and the Ordination of Women published by the Board.)

I am grateful for the opportunities the Board had given to respond and dialogue about this issue including the Forum of the C&MA Canada Web-iste, as well as on Twitter and Facebook. I appreciate the commendable effort that has been made by the Board to communicate electronically and by video about their views and understanding of the issues. Steve Kerr communicates with candour and passion. But with all due respect, I can’t help but conclude that the presentation of the Board misses the obvious point of this discussion and controversy: women serving in authority in church leadership.

I think it is wrong that the Board minimizes the significance of this issue by dwelling on the technical aspects of our practice in which they imply that there is no substantial difference between licensing and ordination. This pragmatic approach, I feel, undermines the importance of the authority of Scripture which is so foundational to everything Christ’s work and mission is all about. In fact the video presentations had no reference to biblical authority whatsoever regarding direction on this important matter; instead the appeal to move in this new direction is being made on the basis of how our practice has evolved in the Alliance in its rather short history.

I realize that our Alliance started out as a missional movement fuelled by the full significance and preaching of the Gospel under the anointed ministry of our founder, Dr. A. B. Simpson. In the early days, the Alliance did not attempt to be a church denomination but rather an “alliance” of like-minded people concerning the all-sufficiency of Christ bound together in a “society” who sought to establish “branches” for the sake of promoting the Alliance’s message and mission. And it is true that there are examples of notable women who served and led at this time. But the point is that until 1980 the Alliance did not consider itself a church denomination. That decision was made at its first Assembly in Winnipeg that year!

As a missional movement, prior to that time, there was less concern about church structure but by 1980 a concern began to emerge about matters of church leadership and government. One example of change regarding polity was that Assembly decided our local gatherings should be called “churches” instead of “tabernacles.” Another example was that our Local Church Constitution should reflect the fact that these local churces be led by an “Elders Board” instead of an “Executive Board” and thus more in keeping with the proper biblical designation and meaning of church leadership.

As a missional movement, Simpson’s larger concern was to preach the Gospel so that as many as possible could experience its hope and healing. Obviously, women being spiritually gifted in all kinds of ways, he thought, should also be effectively employed in this great endeavour. But it is telling that even in those missional days of our development, Simpson, by conviction stopped short of the actual ordination of women.

The point that I am seeking to emphasize in this short response is that we are no longer at a place in our history where we can merely take a pragmatic approach to this important issue. If we are serious about being a church of the New Testament that seeks to come under the authority of the entire Scriptures, then we cannot afford to ignore the gender issue in general, and especially as it relates to church leadership.

In recent years, I have come to the conclusion from study in the Scriptures and relevant literature, that there is some difference between God’s larger kingdom work and the work of the church. In my view, the rule of Christ in His kingdom throughout the world is being accomplished especially by Christians of both genders working in many different spheres of endeavor. But the church is the special work of God’s Spirit in which He is working to redeem a particular people to Himself for the sake of eternal fellowship in His presence. It seems to me that the church is at the forefront of God’s kingdom work but is much more particular — it is the fellowship of God’s people who have become believers in Christ’s atoning grace for the forgiveness of their sins, have been baptized into His body, and share together for prayer, instruction, mission and sharing together in the life of Christ as portrayed in the Communion ordinance. And there is a structure for the local church that has been outlined for us in the New Testament — especially in the Epistles.

So I conclude from looking at the Scriptures that ordination is about much more than the affirmation of one’s calling to ministry in some form or another. Rather, ordination is that special calling, as demonstrated in the lives of the Apostles, and others, like Timothy and Titus who became pastors in the early church, to lead and have a significant measure of spiritual authority to teach, to instruct, and to guide the flock of God (1 Peter 5:1-4). Ordination, in the way we have come to understand and use the term in our times, based on Scripture I believe, is essentially about the calling of God for local church leadership. Whatever the opinion of the Board, I believe we need to come to a conclusion about the meaning of ordination on the basis of what we believe God is saying about its significance in Scripture, not merely on the basis of our own historical development.

And if we conclude biblically that ordination is significant in terms of local church leadership, then we also cannot ignore what God is seeking to say to us through His authoritative Word concerning the similarities and differences regarding gender. Men and women should celebrate all that they have in common and submit to one another in Christ as outlined in Ephesians 5 for example. But we should not let the world squeeze us into its mould of thinking there really are not important differences of function — in marriage and in the church. I realize this latter issue is a big one, but I don’t think we in the church should skirt the theological issues involved and simply come to a pragmatic conclusion about which most of us may well end up feeling some sense of unease.

My vote would be a definite NO to the proposal to change the word “men” to “persons” at this time. If we want to be genuinely biblical in these days, let’s take the time to think more seriously about the biblical meaning of ordination and gender. Let’s not sacrifice a bias for what is really true on the altar of pragmatism. Let’s think deeply and prayerfully about the implications of moving too quickly in a direction which may, in the end, lack a significant measure of true wisdom.

---

WOMEN AS ELDERS: Biblical Option or Pragmatic Choice?

by Bert Warden

There is a crisis in ecclesiology in evangelical circles at this turn of the century and it is becoming more and more apparent. Namely, pressure is being exerted upon the church both externally and internally to allow women to serve as elders. Some would maintain that this is nothing to be concerned about, but let us see.

 

Societal pressures -- militant feminism

Externally, today’s society, spurred on by militant feminism, is saying that since men and women are equal, the church has no right to exclude women from eldership.

What right society has to dictate how the church should be governed, I cannot fathom, but in any case this same pressure is being exerted upon the family. Marriage is a 50/50 relationship it is said, so wives do not have to be in submission.  Conversely, husbands have no right to exercise authority over their wives and/or their children.

The problem is that in the eyes of militant feminism, any semblance, indeed every vestige of male ascendancy, is to be eradicated from our society. Patriarchy is the great archenemy. Indeed in some circles even the idea of God as our Heavenly Father is being challenged.

 

Pressures from within the church -- egalitarianism

Internally this pressure has created a real problem for the church. We do not want to appear to the world as bigoted and narrow by excluding women from doing anything. Hence among us there are many sincerely convinced egalitarians who are saying, "Yes, we are not being fair, why should not women be permitted, yes even welcomed, to serve as elders in our church After all, many women are more talented and gifted and mature than their husbands. Why neglect this great potential asset?

Reinforcing the above is the argument that women for decades have been serving as senior pastors in some Pentecostal and Holiness denominations, many of them with great blessing on their ministries. But since when have talent and giftedness or blessing and success been criteria for appointing elders in the church?  None of them are mentioned in Scripture as qualifications for holding that office.

Don't get me wrong.  In no way do I believe that God is going to "zap" any church that appoints women elders, but that does not indicate His approval.  In His grace he often blesses us in spite of ourselves, a fact for which we can all be thankful!

 

No scriptural basis

The great stumbling block to this proposed magnanimous and egalitarian view of church government is the silence of the Scriptures on the subject. There is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that the idea of women elders was ever considered. Besides that, the witness of church history and the weight of centuries of sound Bible exegesis concur. Whence then this new revelation?

Out of the few passages of Scripture which can be used to support it, two of the favorite ones are Gal. 3:28 and Joel 2:28-32. The former is probably the most relied upon, but if one carefully studies the context it becomes clear that the "neither male nor female" inclusiveness here mentioned had nothing whatever to do with the functions or offices of either sex.  It had everything to do with each being valued equally and accepted by and belonging equally to Christ (3:29), nothing more, nothing less.

To adduce the legitimacy of female church leadership from these and other scattered biblical inferences and incidents of women in leadership, e.g. Deborah, is an illusion. To accept it for merely pragmatic reasons is, to say the least, to dishonor the plain teaching of God's word.

 

The cultural argument and the "new" hermeneutic

There is no way that female leadership can be inserted into a biblical ecclesiology without assuming that the biblical norms supporting male leadership are merely cultural, the product of the particular times in which the Bible was composed and therefore not applicable to all times and in all circumstances..

Such reasoning says that the passages in Timothy and Titus with regard to the appointment of men only as elders was merely reflecting the culture of the day and need not be considered as binding today. Likewise it is even reasoned by some that the idea of the husband being the head of the home is also out of tune with present reality.  This is the "new" hermeneutic which has sprung from the "new" view of inspiration, that the Bible is "authoritative" but not infallible. I say "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. ----To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah. 8:16,20; see also 2 Tim.3:16)

 

The argument from Bible typology

One big stumbling block to egalitarian ecclesiology is found in Ephesians 5:22-33, a key Christological statement of the New Testament. This sublime passage encapsulates God's ideal for the church and for marriage. It links the headship of the husband in marriage with the headship of Christ in the church. Would the Holy Spirit liken the eternal relationship of Christ with his church to the earthly relationship of a husband with his wife if this latter were a merely cultural idea and therefore subject to change?

It is worthy of note that the Christian teaching on marriage and the family in the New Testament, mainly enunciated by Paul, was far and away superior to the practices in the culture of his time and to a lesser degree even better than the Jewish practices he had been brought up with. His teaching is God's unchangeable ideal for the marriage relationship.

In this Ephesians passage the headship of the husband over the family is firmly established and is akin but not equal to the headship of Christ over the church. As the latter headship is unchangeable so is the former. But firmly established also are the duties and obligation attached to the husband's headship, loving his wife and giving himself for her as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. There is no room here for domination or dictatorship.

 

The slippery slope

So what conclusion shall we come to?

If we break with the biblical concept of the husband's headship in marriage by asserting that such teaching is merely cultural we do violence to the analogy regarding Christ's headship of the church. Do we dare do that?

If we set at naught the plain teaching of the New Testament, and appoint women elders on the shaky basis of Bible inferences and incidents, again using the "cultural" rationale, do we not also in this case abrogate the plain teaching of the Word of God?

What then is there to stop further erosions to the Bible's authority? Maybe its condemnation of the homosexual life style is also merely culturally based. Sad to say I have already heard that idea broached by one well known Christian. And where will it stop?

The pressure is on. One evangelical denomination and then another, is caving in and deciding that women can be appointed as elders. The inevitable corollary is the appointment of women as senior pastors. Will this trend become a landslide, with those of us who hold out against it being labeled as intolerant bigots, the new "fundamental extremists" of the modern era?

 

Church history --- the rich legacy of women in ministry

Down through the ages of church history and continuing now, women have had and do have marvelous ministries in the church. The New Testament itself makes clear that women prayed, prophesied and taught in the early church. Christian women of means ministered to Paul and the other apostles, as their earlier counterparts had ministered to Jesus during his time on earth. Later on some of the great missionaries were women. Others have contributed largely to the inspirational literature and hymnody of the church, founded and served in Christian institutions, and on, and on.

Christian women, besides being the indispensable helpers of their husbands and nurturers of their children, have done all these things and left an indelible and godly heritage to the church, but overwhelmingly they have not been elders. And I doubt today that most women would even have thought of the idea until provoked by the feminist furor that has come upon our culture.

---

Should women become pastors?

By John Piper

The Bible draws a connection between the home and the church. Just as there is a role distinction at home—where the husband is called to lead the family—there is also one at church.

At home men are proving their fitness to be elders (pastors), and at church they are the ones who are given that role. Paul says explicitly, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12). And those two functions—teaching and exercising authority—are the functions of the elder.

It's not a problem for a woman to minister in hundreds of ways in the church, but the office of leadership and teaching of men is preserved for spiritual and godly men.

Why didn't Jesus choose women as some of his apostles?

The Twelve are all men. That was intentional, because they are all given incredible authority to found the church. They are like pastors, only they have more authority than pastors.

But Jesus did call women, and he called them into significant ministry. Read the beginning of Luke 8 or see the role of women at the Resurrection. Jesus broke significant taboos in the way that he elevated the role of women. It was counter-cultural to have Mary sitting at his feet learning like a rabbinic student at the feet of his teacher. And it was counter-cultural for him to have women so closely attending him, providing for his needs, and for him to be so merciful to the women of the street.

Jesus was pro-woman to the max. But he did not choose women to be apostles. That wasn't because he was enslaved to his times. It was because, in coherence with the rest of the Bible (Genesis 1-2, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Timothy 2), he believed that it would be healthy for the church and the family if men assumed the role of Christ-like, humble, caring, servant-leaders, and if the women came in alongside with their respective gifts to help carry his leadership through according to those gifts.

So I sympathize with any confusion on this matter, and I pray that the Lord would give you light to see that it's really not very complicated: God has ordained that in the home and in the church men assume a special role of responsible leadership and teaching.

©2012 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission.

All material is copyright by each author (c)2012