At Assembly 2012, as the
church discussed the ordination of women, I was struck by the contentiousness
of the issue. Let me re-phrase
that. As MY church - the church I love
and belong to – as WE discussed the ordination of women, I was distressed at
the entrenchment of the ‘sides’ being drawn up between egalitarian and
complementary viewpoints. Distressed,
but not surprised.
I am not surprised for two
reasons. Firstly, because the division
was not over the ordination issue per se, but rather over the unspoken but very
real authoritative nature of ordination.
This matter was not permitted to be debated because top leadership had
earlier deconstructed it, and we were informed prior to Assembly that
ordination conferred no authority and no special rights whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of many that
the whole point of ordination was to do exactly that. So at the core, it was not a black and white
decision. Issues that divide always seem
‘gray’. Perhaps that is because the
devil’s strategy is to divide (so he tries to confuse), and the Lord’s strategy
is to cause us to exercise spiritual gifts and faith (so He sometimes allows
that).
But also, I am not
surprised because one side (egalitarian) believes they are fighting for
justice, and the other side (complementarian) believes they are fighting for
truth. It is impossible for us to
reconcile both justice and truth if they are seen to be in conflict with each
other because each is the supporting argument for the other. Truth and justice are two sides of the same
coin. In many ways it defies logic that
we’ve arrived at a point where they seem to be competing arguments.
Surely this ought not to
be. The Lord does not desire strife or
disunity. We of all people on the earth
ought to know that, because we’ve read Christ’s high priestly prayer and we
know how He desires unity among His people.
Better yet, the Lord always goes before us and ‘sets the stage’. So He had earlier made it very clear that we
need discernment. He had made it obvious
in arranging four (!) strong candidates to allow their names to stand for
president. That is not merely a hard
decision, it is a clarion call to His church to get very serious about
discernment. “OK” you say, “But how does
a call to discernment provide that discernment?”. Funny you should ask, because He also
provided that we should get a crash course in EXACTLY THAT through David
Chotka’s instructions during the concert of prayer! Even better, He provided that Franklin
prophesy to us about the importance of God’s Word in leading to action in both
humility and justice. All at the same
Assembly, all prior to the vote.
The reason there is ‘sides’
to this issue is then only seen as one exercises discernment and considers
God’s Word, the application of that Word (justice) and does so with and in
humility. In His sense of humor, God
even provides that the clearest answer is found in that same high priestly
prayer. John 17:17 says, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is
truth.” This statement confirms
both David Chotka’s and Franklin’s statements on the centrality of God’s Word
as the guiding principle in understanding both truth and justice. Even better, it also clearly articulates that
His Work in us (sanctifying us) happens BY His Word, the truth. Best of all, in this single statement THE
truth (the person of Christ) tells us that we’ll know the truth (that is, have
discernment) by applying His Word (the text).
God’s truth can and will sanctify us – it can separate us from the
worldliness around us and separate us from error. That’s obviously key in any issue of
discernment and key in any issue of disagreement.
So let us apply that truth
by examining each side in light of it:
Is the ordination of women
a matter of justice? After all, that’s
what the egalitarian viewpoint argues.
Surely if I frame the argument in that light I must join them in that
fight for justice, because God is clearly about justice. We might know that ‘instinctively’, but the
real acid test is His Word. To that
point, even the most casual read of the Scripture will impress anyone with
God’s desire, intention, and LOVE of justice.
Ps 33:5 is only one of hundreds of Scriptures with the same theme. It says, “The
LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing
love.”
Surely then, God’s
household ought to be just, and we His church ought to be just!
There are many good books
on justice, every commentary and Bible dictionary has a definition. Better yet, we could do a word study on the
Hebrew and Greek words translated ‘justice’ to understand how God defines
it. In this present context however, we
serve ourselves better to look at what is intended by justice. For all of the verbiage in definitions
ultimately lead up to this; Justice
concerns itself with restoration to God’s original plan, design or order. “Justice” is not justice unless it does
exactly that. So it is justice to
eliminate sin (for sin had no place in God’s original plan). It is justice to right a wrong (for it is
only wrong in its distortion of or opposition to God’s design). It is justice to correct error (for as God is
right, His creation should reflect Him).
It is justice to straighten what is ‘bent’, for God’s order must be
restored.
So when we look at
ordination we must ask ourselves what ordination is, and if we are doing justly
in the manner we’re applying it.
Fact of the matter is that
ordination is actually not Scriptural.
It does not exist in the Bible.
It is merely man’s determination to acknowledge God’s gifting and
call. It is my opinion that on that
basis David Chotka had it right when he motioned that we should abolish the
practice of ordination altogether.
Unfortunately, his motion was soundly defeated; Assembly ruled that we affirm
ordination, and should continue to practice it. But what was affirmed?
In a position paper
entitled “The Meaning of Ordination”, the Board of Directors reiterated the CMA
manual, “Ordination is the solemn
observance whereby representatives of the church corporate, together with the
Elders representing the local congregation, set apart and charge those men
whom God has called already and equipped for ministry, through the laying on of
hands and the offering of prayer for spiritual enduement.” That particular position paper then deconstructed
each term used in the above.
The question then turns to
‘can a woman be gifted by God’ and ‘can a woman be called by God’, for if so,
then ordination as Assembly has defined it must be applicable. The answers to
both of those questions are obviously affirmative. The document, “The Role of
Women in Ministry”, written by the Board of Directors as Appendix IV in the CMA
Manual and adopted by Assembly in 1984 and 1988 and amended in 2004, says as
much in it’s preamble. “From its inception the Alliance leadership
has interpreted Scripture to affirm the woman’s right in the apostolic church
to be the channel of spiritual gifts for the edification of the local assembly.” Unfortunately and without approval from
Assembly, that document was deleted from the Manual about two years ago.
Assembly 2012 was then charged
with the following (taken from another Board of Directors position paper
entitled, “Discussion of Ordination & Licensing”, “At the beginning of what is called “autonomy,” that is when the
Canadian Alliance established its own identity; the question of women as elders
was raised. This question arose again at subsequent Assemblies and as a result
a task force was appointed to bring in a report, which they did in 1988 at
General Assembly in Saskatoon. The resulting Assembly action was ambiguous and
so in 1998 the issue was again brought to the floor of General Assembly and the
following actions were taken.
Women could serve on The Board of Directors
Women could serve on District Executive Committees
Women could perform marriages, conduct funerals,
supervise the rites of baptism and communion
The issue of women as elders was referred to
Assembly 2000.
At General Assembly 2000 in Calgary it was decided
that women could be elders in a local church if the church voted to do so by a
2/3’s vote. In subsequent years the Board of Directors began to deal with the
question of fully honoring and equipping our women workers. In 2008 General
Assembly discussed at Round Tables the question of “How may we more fully
empower women in our churches?”
Going further, this same
document said, “Women may be senior
pastors now even though they are not ordained. Through the past thirty-two
years (since autonomy) the Canadian Alliance has moved to various “spots”
throughout its history on this issue of whether or not the position of senior
pastor is limited to men, as well as various other rules on ordination and
licensing….Current policy does not forbid women to be senior pastors.
Further, a close reading of the definition of ordination helps us to understand
that, in Alliance policy and practice, ordination is not directly connected
with senior church leadership. Local churches, under the authority of the
District Superintendent, chose their senior pastor and thus ordaining women
would not change any practice that is in place right now in reference to
who may or may not be a senior pastor.”
That in mind, another
document was put out called “Ordination FAQ’s”.
It stated, “The District
Superintendents execute the ordination process and, under the President, have
power to interpret how it is to be implemented. The Superintendents, at the
request of the President, have consulted with each other and have agreed
that should Assembly grant permission for women to be ordained.”
From this we can understand
that according to the Board of Directors and President Pyles, ordination was
nothing more than a formal recognition of an existing call. A series of videos put out by the Board Chair
(Steve Kerr) cemented that understanding.
You should know that this is the egalitarian position – women should be
restored to full and absolute equality with men in the Kingdom of God.
On the other side then is
the complementarian viewpoint. In the
complementarian position men and women are equal before Christ as sinners and
equal in the Kingdom, yet have different roles.
After all, the Trinity have different roles (Father, Son, Spirit), yet
they are equal and in perfect union - one
God. The complementarian viewpoint is
fueled by Scriptural text that details the positional nature of both triune God
and His creation. 1Cor 11:3 encapsulates
this most clearly, “Now I want you to
realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,
and the head of Christ is God.”
Having this understanding, and
knowing the order of creation prior to the fall as man first, and woman as
help-mate for the man, it is more than disingenuous to appoint women to
positions of authority in church leadership because their husbands have
spiritual authority over them. So a
women in spiritual authority over men is not totally factual, because her
husband has (spiritual) authority over her.
The church is then governed by proxy leadership and the roles of
man/woman are reversed.
That such should never
happen is clearly seen in both the original ‘Role of Women in Ministry’
document and historical global church for the last 2000 years. These facts lend a rather tremendous weight
to the hermeneutic that informs the complementarian position. It should not go unnoticed that there were NO
documents or videos put forward with a complementarian viewpoint, so the
discussion was informed by one side only.
Faced with the
deconstruction of the meaning of ordination, the documented voice of DS’s, and
an absence of any documents or media to inform otherwise, Assembly voted to
change the definition by substituting ‘persons’ for ‘men’. It was a very passionate and prolonged
debate. In the end Assembly chose to
approve the substitution by a majority vote, 380 to 281.
One may argue that with
such a result the debate is not over.
Certainly as this news is carried into the local church, many members
not being previously informed will now engage in their own heated debates. I however, will simply acknowledge that
Scripture does have a DOCUMENTED example of the same principle at work (that
is, two strongly Christian sides hotly debating each other and the
result).
This example is found in
Acts. Paul had asked Barnabas to join
him in a mission trip to revisit and strengthen the churches planted
earlier. According to the end of Acts
15, they had a sharp disagreement over who could be part of that trip because Barnabas wanted to take John-Mark with them,
and Paul did not because of historic precedent. Imagine that – two mature believers in Christ,
full of the Holy Spirit both, and they CAN NOT AGREE on something so basic as the
qualifications for ministry! It makes
you wonder how to avoid that kind of disagreement, and it is natural to ask if
one side was right and the other wrong.
The
Scripture does not tell us directly WHY Barnabas wanted to take Mark with
them. Perhaps it was because John Mark
was his cousin (part of the family).
Perhaps it was because Barnabas wanted to see John Mark fully restored. After
all, Barnabas had once brought Paul to the apostles to show him repentant and restored
to Kingdom service. Certainly with his
history we can understand that Barnabas was only acting in character! An encouragement to those with changed hearts
wherever and whenever they might be found.
Even so, Paul was unwilling because of John Mark’s history. That the Scripture does explicitly say. Perhaps Paul felt Christ’s words in Luke 9:62
had to be enforced; “No one who puts his hand to the plow
and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” And so you have a tension. That tension – between restoration on one
hand and literal obedience to the Word of God on the other - would cause
Barnabas and Paul to part company. And Barnabas’
name (though mentioned 28 times prior) does not come up again in the book of
Acts. Though Barnabas is never mentioned
negatively in Scripture, Paul goes on to evangelize Europe and Asia and write
large sections of the New Testament Canon.
You
can come to your own conclusion on that fact if you’d like.
