Discussing Ordination of Women

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.