Oppression of Women???

At the Together for the Gospel Conference, the speakers put together a statement of faith, of which you can read a non-authorized transcription here (i.e. they are going to put out a final statement later this week).  Rhett Smith is burned up about articles 16 and 17, which are:

Article XVI

We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the chuhrch, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.

We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical dinstinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

Article XVII

We affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God's pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We acknowledge that the staggering magnitude of injustice against African-Americans in the name of the Gospel presents a special opportunity for displaying the repentence, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel. We further affirm that evangelical Christianity in America bears a unique responsbility to demonstrate this reconciliation with our African-American brothers and sisters.

We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.

Among other things, Rhett says:

Here's what I am confused about: Article 16 and 17. In article 16 they state that only men can be called to the Biblical office of teaching and then they say this, "We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women." And then in Article 17, speaking mainly on the oppression that African-Americans have experienced in the name of the gospel they say this, "We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel."

How is it that in Article 16 they can discriminate against women, but then in Article 17 say that any discrimination is betraying the gospel. It's just ironic to me that these articles are back to back as well. Of course they didn't say gender discrimination. And if women in ministry is not culturally conditioned or oppressive, then how come they don't say that slavery is not culturally conditioned or oppressive. Doesn't Paul in Colossians 3:18-4:1 tell not only women to submit and obey their husbands, but also for slaves to submit and obey their masters. Same text. But somehow in this confession they have seen fit to think slavery was culturally conditioned and oppressive and completely wrong, but they can't go that far with women. The continued oppression and discrimination of women is okay.

Before I interact with this I do want to mention that, though I really don't know Rhett, we have had a bit of interaction through blogging and I would consider him a friendly acquaintance, and I hope he feels the same way about me.  And, I understand that he and I may be on a panel together at this year's GodBlogCon so I'm looking forward to meeting him face to face.  But I do think he is wrong here.

Regarding men and women in the church I would take the complementarian position and it looks to me like Rhett would take the egalitarian position.  As far as that goes, I think Rhett's argument is one of the better arguments on the egalitarian side.  But I think it falls short for several reasons.

1. He is comparing apples and oranges.

Slavery, and by extension, racism, denies basic human rights, in the former case treating certain races as in-human, and in the latter treating certain races as inferior-human.  Slavery and racism denies the imago dei, that all human beings are created in the image of God.  By virtue of being created in the image of God all races and all individualls share basic human rights.

The T4TG article XVI affirms the essential equality of men and women, affirms the complementarity of men and women in the body of Christ (as opposed to making a statement of superiority/inferiority), and disavows the oppression of women.  In other words, there is nothing here that denies the equality of men as created in the image of God.

This article does deny to women the right to serve in one particular ecclesiastical office - that of teaching elder (I am using my own presbyterian tradition's language for that office).  We presbyterians and the T4TG folks may have wrongly interpreted the Scriptures in this regard and thus our position may be in error, but it is wrong to equate this position with slavery/racism.  The reason is that the Bible is clear that the right to serve in ecclesiastical office is not a fundamental right given to all human beings by virtue of their creation in the imago dei.  Again, we may be wrong in how we understand the Scriptures in this regard, but the books of I Timothy and Titus make it clear that ecclesiastical office is not open to all people by virtue of creation.

2. There is an assumption here that prohibition from office equals oppression.

Again, the T4TG statement affirms the complimentary relationship of men and women in the church, and specifically denies that the prohibition of women from a particular ecclesiastical office constitutes oppression. 

Yet Rhett assumes and asserts this without proof.  It assumes that an authority structure in and of itself constitutes an oppressive structure, yet where is the proof of this?

3. It forgets the Pauline rationale regarding the prohibition of women from the teaching office.

As I said, I do think Rhett's argument is a strong one, though I disagree with it.  He points out that Colossians 3:18-4:1 tells wives to submit to their husbands and slaves to submit to their masters.  He seems to think that Paul is acquiescing to culturally conditioned authority structures where  women have the same relationship to their husbands as slaves have toward their masters.  And, though Rhett doesn't spell out his reasoning, I think it would go something like this - "we all know that slavery is wrong and since the 'submission' enjoined of wives here puts them in a "slave" relationship with their husbands this is also wrong." 

In other words, female submission is an artifact of an unbiblical patriarchalism in the same way that slavery was an unbiblical cultural artifact. 

I don't know where Rhett would go at this point but I think you can usually go one of two ways.  You could say that Paul wasn't endorsing the submission of women to men, he was just telling women how to make the best of a bad situation where they were powerless.  Or, you could say that Paul was simply parroting the cultural views of the day, views that we now know were wrong.

But in this regard the "culturally conditioned" track doesn't work.  It doesn't work because there are places in the Scripture where Paul offers specific rationale for his teachings on women and leadership in the church.   I Timothy 2:12-14:

¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

In verse 13 Paul locates this prohibition in the order of creation, not the practices of culture.  In verse 14, he locates the prohibition in the fall.

Now, I am open to debate whether or not I, or the T4TG folks, rightly understand these verses.  But I do want to point out that, in Paul's own self-consciousness, he was arguing for this position based on theology, not culture.  I suppose one could argue that Paul is like the so-called modernist Christians who thought they were merely reading the Scripture when in fact they were reading it through culturally conditioned lenses. In other words, Paul's own patriarchal conditioning may have caused him to fashion an errant theological justification for his views. 

But if we go that route then we have to get into arguments regarding the nature of inspiration, which is beyond the scope of this post.  For now, I'm taking the approach that the Word of God is inspired, that though these words were Paul's words, they were also fully God's words, and that we have to assume that God had an agenda in inspiring these words that went beyond any cultural conditioning Paul may have had.

Similarly, in I Corinthians 11:3 Paul grounds his views of women and men, not in culture, but in theology:

³ 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.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

In other words, man is the "head" of woman in the same way that God (the Father) is the "head" of Christ.   There are thousands of resources you can go to on what "head" means here but for now I am just pointing out the parallel.  The relationship of man to woman is to parallel the relationship of God the Father to Jesus Christ.

And again, my point here is that, at least biblically, the culturally conditioned argument just won't work because Paul self-consciously argues on theological grounds in these matters.

4. In submitting and deferring to the Father, Jesus was not oppressed by the Father, neither is woman necessarily oppressed in submitting or deferring to man in matters of ecclesiastical authority.

One of the forgotten elements of Christology is that, in His earthly sojourn, Jesus submitted to God the Father, was limited by God the Father, and was under the authority of the Father.

Theologians speak of the trinity in two ways - the ontological trinity and the economic trinity.  "Ontological" refers to being, "economic" refers to function.  Ontological refers to who they are, economic refers to what they do.

As to ontology, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are full equal with God in being, in who they are.  As to economy, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are different in what they do.

In His earthly sojourn Jesus submitted to the Father.  In John 5:19 we see that Jesus could not act on His own initiative, He could only do what the Father did.  In Philippians 2:1-11, we see that Jesus humbled Himself and became obedient unto death.  To whom was He obedient?  It was to the Father. In the garden Jesus had to submit Himself to the will of the Father, and forego His own desires.

All of these examples raise many deep questions and are profound mysteries.  At this point we could go into all kinds of discussions about the two natures of Christ and how the ways they coexist in the one person of Christ, but to keep on track with the current discussion I simply want to point out that nowhere in the Bible is Jesus' submission to the Father portrayed as oppression on the part of the Father.  In fact, I have never heard anyone else suggest that submission = oppression in the case of Jesus and His Father.  I have never heard anyone raise the point that, in limiting the exercise of Jesus' gifts and powers, that somehow the Father was oppressing Jesus.

Yet that is precisely what is being argued by Rhett and others.  That limitations to ecclesiastical office necessarily constitute oppression of women. 

Of course, a good comeback is that men (i.e. the male of the species) are not like God and don't relate to women the way that God relates to Jesus.

This is true.  But I am not arguing the point that men treat women badly and have done so throughout history, I am arguing the point that the prohibition of women from ecclesiastical office does not equate to oppression.  The prohibition of women from the ecclesiastical office of teaching elder is biblically based, at least partially, on the authority/submission relationship of God the Father to Jesus.  And the point is that an authority/submission relationship does not assume the oppression of the one who is submitting.

5. The "culturally conditioned" argument is ultimately self-defeating.

If we say that we ought not to accept the prohibition of women from the office of teaching elder because that position was culturally conditioned, on what basis are we negating it?  We are negating it on the basis of our own cultural assumptions.  And then we must ask on what basis do we assume that our own cultural assumptions are correct? 

Who's to say that modern day egalitarianism is superior to the alleged patriarchalism of the biblical times.  If it is assumed that patriarchy has historically led to oppression, what has egalitarianism historically led to?  Has anyone ever heard of some of the great egalitarian movements of history like, oh . . . , say the French Revolution, or maybe Communism?  Some of the most oppressive movements in history have been some of the most egalitarian movements in history.

My point in this is that any culture, whether it is patriarchal, monarchical, matriarchal, egalitarian or what have you can become utterly oppressive and we've got to be careful in throwing around the "culturally conditioned" argument when it comes to exegesis. 

Having said all of that, again I will say that prohibiting women from serving as teaching elders in a church does not, in and of itself, give evidence of an oppressive stance toward women.  Nor does an authority/submission structure where there is male headship necessarily oppress women. In fact, I argue that the prohibition of women from a teaching office and the male headship structure are biblical.

What I haven't done is address what I think is behind Rhett's concern and many others, and that is that men often do oppress women.  But that is due more to the innate sinfulness of man than a particular ecclesiastical structure.  And that is an issue I hope to address in a future post.

Hat Tip - Adrian Warnock

Related Tags: Current Affairs, Politics & Society, Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Church, Women, Women in leadership, Leadership, Elders, Teaching Elders, Ecclesiastical, Together for the Gospel

Comments

[joel hunter]

I think the trouble with Art XVI is the final claim: We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

The clear implication is that anyone (like Rhett) who does not hold the complementarian view (as they define it) damages the witness to the gospel. But this seems prima facie false. It is quite conceivable that even a complementarian could hold that in extraordinary circumstances (one could imagine several scenarios) that it would be quite legitimate for a church with few means or few male spiritual leaders to have a woman as their teacher and shepherd, if only temporarily. On the other hand, if this carries the supposed force of a "creation ordinance," then exceptions are no more legitimate than, say, sex-change operations.

OTOH, Art XVII states: We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.

This is true to the gospel. I think it is quite right to draw the implication that anyone who holds racially prejudiced or bigoted views does indeed "betray the gospel." I think history bears out the truth of this and I can think of no legitimate exceptions for a church to constitutionally exclude anyone from fellowship on the basis of race.

One might respond that as a matter of fact some communities are so racially homogeneous that there are no people of color within the church. But that is historical and geographical contingency, not a matter of principled intent. That is what makes the two articles so uneven. Art XVI simply doesn't belong in a confession of faith because it implies that egalitarians necessarily damage the witness to the gospel...and that's not biblical. As a result, I think Rhett is right to worry or complain that this statement does lend cover to cultural stereotypes (nuclear family is a "real" family; single moms or dads are out-of-order) at the expense of grace. As Michael Bird pointed out on his blog, there is a deep irony of a conference called Together for the gospel that excluded the partipation of half the body of Christ that is supposedly together for the gospel!

[Elijah]

Great article. Good response.

[Kaffinator]

David, excellent analysis.

Joel, which church “confuses the issues”? The church temporarily struggling under a paucity of male leadership? Or the church that abandons its responsibility to raise up male servant-leaders into their biblically-appointed roles? Article XVI only speaks to the latter.

As an egalitarian I suppose you are concerned (rightly) that men and women share equal status. By arguing that women and men should both have access to leadership roles, do you mean to you imply that spiritual leadership is based on status?

[Nikolai]

I'm wondering how exactly men like Rhett explain clear and detailed instructions by apostle Paul prohibiting women not only to teach but even speak in church meetings (that would obviously imply any church meetings, not only those on the Lord's Day). Perhaps I should go and ask Rhett himself? :-)

[joel hunter]

Kaffinator, the either/or question you raise isn't really relevant to the point I was making, nor do I think Art XVI is aimed at either case you mention. Of course, if one is a complementarian, it makes perfect sense that the ordinary constitution of the church will consist of male leadership (with perhaps the occasional "liberal" church "permitting" women deacons). I was speaking of unusual, extraordinary, hypothetical circumstances (which have occurred from time to time due to famine, disease, and war) in which it is conceivable that women leaders are both necessary and desirable, with no corresponding "damage" to the "witness" of the gospel, even within a complementarian economy. IOW, even for a complementarian, I think it is unwise to absolutize these "roles" and "differences" in a confession of faith and link them inextricably to the gospel itself.

Further, I think Rhett raises a legitimate question about the unevenness of the application of the Colossians text to Article XVI and XVII. I don't think David's response (#1) addresses the substance of Rhett's point. One of the points of this text (and 2 Cor 5 and Gal 3) is that the gospel creates a new Israel, a new community, a new corporate witness that challenges and subverts the violent and unjust ordering of all world systems.

I never said I was an egalitarian, but I certainly will come to the defense of my fellow laborers in the gospel, faithful servants of the Lord, who are egalitarian. The article in question says that these brothers and sisters are damaging their witness to the gospel. Not only is that statement, I believe, false, but I find no warrant to draw such an inference from the Scriptures. In other words, I think it's indefensible biblically; although I am sure that political or cultural defenses could be offered (which might be more compelling).

So my beef with this statement is not its complementarianism per se, it is the fact that it brings complementarianism within the heart of the gospel. That is unprecedented specificity and inscribes a degree of exclusion into written historical record (although T4G, like 'evangelicalism', has no concrete ecclesiological identity). I am troubled by that.

As Michael Bird pointed out, any space-consuming male couch potato was welcome to join T4G, but a woman serving in Christian ministry (university fellowship and mission, foreign missions, college lecturer, university professor, discipleship, etc) was not invited. "We brothers"..."stand together for the gospel." The sisters must be doing something else.

[cavman]

As one of the 'liberals' that 'permit' women deacons, I'd say we still have male leadership. The Session, which is the authority Christ has placed over the church, is comprised solely of men. The diaconate, servants not leaders, is mixed.
As the Proverbs 31 woman, they care for the household under the authority of the Session w/out violating male headship.
As for oppression.... all I can think of is the scene from "Life of Brian" when one zealot felt he was oppressed because he couldn't have a baby- which is nobody's fault, even the bloody Romans. I am growing very weary of egalitarianism. But that's just me.

[cavman]

As one of the 'liberals' that 'permit' women deacons, I'd say we still have male leadership. The Session, which is the authority Christ has placed over the church, is comprised solely of men. The diaconate, servants not leaders, is mixed.
As the Proverbs 31 woman, they care for the household under the authority of the Session w/out violating male headship.
As for oppression.... all I can think of is the scene from "Life of Brian" when one zealot felt he was oppressed because he couldn't have a baby- which is nobody's fault, even the bloody Romans. I am growing very weary of egalitarianism. But that's just me.

[pgepps]

I am no egalitarian, but I have been persuaded that sound exegesis of Paul's comments in the Epistles does not lead to an "all times and all places" command that women should not be ordained. I think arguments that treat Paul as a de facto misogynist, though, are completely out-of-court; Paul was writing as someone chosen and directed by God Himself for the task, and his letters would not be preserved for us as part of the canon if they had any taint of error in them.

However, the rationale of Ephesians 5 is clearly more fully realized than the exceedingly cryptic one in 1 Tim 2, and accessible to us in ways that other related passages (such as 1 Cor 7, where we have to supply the contents of the letter Paul is responding to in order to render the reply consistent) are not. In Eph 5, we have the following basic features:

1) mutual submission as the essential feature of *all* Christian relations in the church; *all* believers are to submit to *all* other believers (that is, consciously putting their interests and desires ahead of our own).

2) women are to submit to their own husbands (and to all other believers; presumably Paul is ensuring that the particularity of the marriage relationship is not lost in all that submitting--i.e., "If you have to submit to every believer, you can't very well be a domineering wife").

3) husbands, already commanded to submit to all other believers, which would include their wives, are also commanded to love them in a very particular way: that of Christ; and the mode of Christ's love Paul intends is particularly described, not in terms of *power over* but in terms of *sacrifice for* the beloved. The particular, special duty of Christian husbands is to be the first to sacrifice their interests in favor of those of others. Lead? Yes. Lead in submission, not by demanding it, but by *DOING* it.

4) children and slaves are commanded to "obey" parents and masters, which is not used of either wives or husbands, here.

I think Eph 5 is the paradigmatic passage, in which the Pauline Biblical theology of Christian relationships is developed, and which should form the key for interpreting the related passages.

With that in mind, then, Paul's refusal to prioritize social change over spiritual transformation (most prominently with regard to slavery) leads to his directly instructing believers not to challenge, but to submit to, those unbelievers or even other believers who were upholding social norms--he never clearly endorses or refutes those norms.

Nonetheless, the when we see books such as Philemon (regarding slavery), the example of the apostles in taking women among their number, and the explicit teaching that in Christ ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic status not only do not ultimately but are specifically prohibited immediately from causing preferential treatment among the Body--see the famous "neither bond nor slave, Jew nor Greek, male nor female" passage as well as (leaving Pauline Biblical theology for a moment) the anti-partiality passage in James and Peter's insistence that God is not partial--when we see these things, I think we should realize that, to the extent the Biblical vision of Christ's Body is realized, such worldly social conditions will require less and less accomodation within the Body.

I find no reason in Scripture that qualified women should not be ordained. I was persuaded into this position by exegetical argumentation, and I am open to persuasion in the opposite direction.

Nothing in the T4G statement helps to rescue this issue from the layers of gobbledygook in which it's been slathered, recently, however.

Cheers,
PGE

[dcypl]

David,

Thanks for your post, it's a shame that this has come up following a seemingly positive conference, (I'm in Australia, so perspective is limited to what I can read on blogs etc.), its a hot topic that we will never all agree upon, nor will we ever convince others to think just like we do. None of us are 100% right on everything.

I hope everyone remembers that as they comment.

[David Wayne]

Hey, thanks for all the comments everyone. I went out of town for the day yesterday after posting this so I wasn't able to interact as the comments were flowing in.

Here's a couple of knee jerk responses to all of this.

Peter, I appreciate your exegesis, although I still believe that women's ordination is prohibited.

Cavman - I don't think ordaining women as deacons makes you a liberal. One of the interesting things I have seen lately is that Andreas Kostenberger, who is deeply involved with CBMW, the complementarian organization, has come out with a paper saying he believes that women deacons are allowable. Also, Redeemer NYC, Tim Keller's church, has women deacons. I think the main issue is whether or not women are teaching or having authority over men, and some evidently have a setup where a woman deacon would not be in that role.

I hope this doesn't shock anyone too badly if I say I agree with the substance of Joel's point. I think Joel and I will probably disagree with the particulars of women in the church but I had the same questions when I thought about the statement later. I am in wholehearted agreement with the T4TG position in and of itself, but I also think the brothers need to offer some rationale as to how this damages the witness to the gospel. I think I'm actually going to write another post on this issue.

[joel hunter]

David, as you are preparing your next post on this issue, please consider that both http://michaelfbird.blogspot.com/2006/04/together-for-gospel-not-quite.html>complementarians and http://www.ochuk.com/?p=988>egalitarians find the inclusion of Art XVI as something defining what is required to be "together for the gospel" troubling.

There are two distinct issues that I probably muddled in my comments: (1) how this issue ascends to such a confessional priority, even over more historically salient and theologically primary areas of disagreement (nothing was said about baptism, e.g.); (2) what rationale can be conceived whereby one would deny seats at such a conference to the women serving on church staff, while any man, regardless of pastoral or ministerial noninvolvement, is given those seats?

[joel hunter]

Oops, sorry. One more thing. Do the writers, signers and endorsers of the T4G statement honestly believe that someone like John Stott has damaged his witness to the gospel? It's possible, of course, but that's a very serious charge. I wonder if that's a fence we really want or need to build.

[cavman]

Paul,
How does it work (Eph. 5) if all believers are submitting to all other believers?
Given that one of the examples given is that of the family "wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ"; are we to think that Jesus also submits to the church?
I suggest a much better way to view this passage is that Paul is giving 3 examples of what he means, 3 types of relationships in which someone is in authority and something is under authority.
The world errs by thinking this means there is something intrinsically better about the one in authority, & that the one under is somehow inferior.
But each person is in authority in some relationships, and under authority in others. One person may submit to his boss at work, yet his boss may submit to the same man at church because the employee, not the boss, is an elder (another relationship Paul could have pointed to).
To say all should submit to all sounds great (we're all equal) but is essentially unpracticable and unbiblical (must I submit to my daughter????).

[cavman]

Dave,
I don't think I'm a liberal either. Some others may make that claim- but they are using appeal to tradition, not Scripture (in my estimation) to make it. I am clearly a complimentarian. but that does not mean one has to apply it as it has historically been applied, if we see from the fulness of Scripture that those applications were not in accordance with Scripture.
The other hot topic regarding women deacons is the word 'ordained'. Keller does not ordain them. But if we look at the biblical use of the term, there is nothing in it that restricts ordination to men. Though there is plenty to restrict the office of elder (teaching & ruling) to men. Does that distinction make sense?

[jane]

"this biblical dinstinction" What is a dinstinction?

[Rhett Smith]

I am looking forward to meeting you this summer as well. I respect your thoughts and opinions on this issue. Obviously we disagree on some positions, but I appreciate the dialogue and postings.

[Jeremy Pierce]

One way it damages the message of the gospel is that egalitarians tend to link egalitarianism to the level of the gospel. They say the gospel removes the distinction entirely except for basic biological differences in who bears children, tying Gal 3:28 to gender roles rather than simply equality in the face of the gospel. It's possible that they just mean that a perspective like that undermines the gospel.

The other thing that it does is it destroys role relations in the Trinity. Part of the gospel is Christ's submission to the Father's will, and part is the self-sacrificial love of Christ for the church as her head and husband. You remove that when you call it "the heresy of hierarchicalism" if you take I Cor 15 seriously and admit that Christ's submission to the Father is eternal, as many egalitarians do.

I do think egalitarians can avoid saying those things, though, and that makes it false to say that egalitarianism always involves something that undermines the gospel. What would be more accurate would be to say that egalitarianism's implications can undermine the gospel if they're clearly seen and accepted, while admitting that not every egalitarian accepts such implications.

[jim]

Two comments:

1.) Would someone please show me in scripture where it explicitly says a darn thing about ordination...that's something tacked on later to the way we do church.

2.) Other than one post from Jane, no women have commented here. Maybe if you actually let some women talk and exercise some spiritual leadership in your circles and in your congregations you'd begin to see the gifts they bring to the table.

[cavman]

Jane,
I think you are referring to my post. If so...
There are 2 distinctions I make.
First, between the biblical reality of male headship, and the at times unbiblical, corrupted practice of male headship.
Second, between the biblical use of the word ordain (to set apart for service) and the ordination to a particular office (pastor/elder or deacon).

Jim,
We see the ordination of the priesthood in Exodus 28 & 29. Some Bible may translate it consecration. Only men were to be ordained to that particular office. The other offices in the OT are prophet & king. They were anointed w/oil to consecrate them as well.
In the NT we see elders and deacons similarly set apart, Paul mentions with the laying on of hands. The Pastor/elder would be a position of leadership, particularly through teaching (a prophet, priest, king). But a deacon is an office of service (even though some deacons like Stephen & Philip may also be great communicators/evangelists).
Unfortunately, some people get hung up on this word (ordained) like it is a magic, special thing which automatically prohibits women. This means the concept of ordination, rather than the biblical teaching on particular offices, determines who may serve in particular offices. That confusion takes place on both the left & right (in my opinion) with the left openning the door for women too wide, and the right keeping it completely closed.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Jim, you're offering a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that women aren't gifted for teaching or exercising authority in any sense. The complementarian view is that women are not to be made elders or to take authoritative positions over men. That leaves plenty of room for exercising gifts of teaching in groups that don't include men, even groups that include males who are not yet men. It also leaves plenty of room for exercizing giftedness in matters of authority that don't involve authority over men. So the spiritual principle of recognizing the role distinctions that match the relations among the Trinity does not at all amount to not allowing women to exercize their gifts. Anyone who offers that argument against complementarianism either doesn't understand the complementarian view or is deliberately misrepresenting it.

As for Jane's comment, that looks to me to be a simple joke regarding the typo in the material David quoted (which was only one typo among many). She doesn't know what a dinstinction is. I don't either.

[jim]

I'm afraid I can't buy the argument against women's ordination based on the distinct roles of the three persons of the trinity, because I see it as a misinterpretation of the trinity.
It seems as if that understanding dangerously teeters on the brink of modalism.

The classic statement of the trinity that does the best job of holding both the unity and the uniqueness of the three is 'perichoresis' in which the three mutually indwell one another : "reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes." (Hilary of Poitiers, Concerning the Trinity 3:1). This is a far cry from the hierarchicalism that is being proposed here.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. [I Cor 15:24-28, NET]

There's no way around this. The Father elevates the Son back to glory, except that the Son is still subjected to the Father even in the very end when he's glorified.

See also Philippians 2 and John 13-17. There's nowhere in scripture that the Father submits to the Son, the Son sends the Father, the Father images and represents the Father, or anything like that. The role distinctions in the Trinity are anything but reciprocal if by reciprocal you mean exactly the same on all counts. What could make sense of all these things if not equality of nature but difference of roles?

How any of this has anything to do with modalism is beyond me. Modalism doesn't distinguish between the different persons. If anything it's toward the other end.

I'm a bit suspicious of this "envelop one another" imagery. It seems to have the reverse import of what the biblical texts imply.

[jim]

"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves." John 14:9

"And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one." John 17:21

"That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us." 2 Cor. 5:19

"There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties." Westiminster Catechism.

I like the language of the catechism: God is a relationship of three unique persons yet equal in power and glory; as this is essentially describing who God is at the very core of God's being (ontologically that is). The difficulty comes for us when we begin to speak economically about God and God's work of redemption.

By perichoresis I am attempting to express something similar to the writting of Princeton Prof of Theology, Daniel Migliore, who says "All of the suffering of the world is encompassed in the affliction of the Son, the grief of the Father, and the comfort of the Spirit" Each person of the trinity is equally and fully involved in the redemption of the world all working together with one another in order to achieve the purpose of redeeming the world.

In contrast, I still can't see how the language of complimentarianism doesn't in effect set up a Big God in the Father vs. little God in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And of course the language of subordination that then evidently follows in speaking about the role of women in the church.

I guess I prefer to focus on the immanent trinity when it comes to speaking God as our for relationship amongst the community of faith, whereas it is clear the preference here is to speak of some reductionist form of the economic trinity. Somehow you've got to reconcile the two and I think the language of perichoretic activity of the triune God in the redemption of the world is the best attempt to do just that.

[jim]

Ooops! the first line in the last paragraph in the comment below should read "when it comes to speaking about God as our for relationships amongst the community of faith" Sent it out before I reviewed it a second time.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

Hi,

Yes, too few women have commented here. I am presently researching Brethren women who taught and preached. Brethren women have the advantage of the same education as Brethren men. So they can teach, but only outside of the church. They do not fuss about a 'teaching office' but believe in the priesthood of all believers.

My great-aunt, one of the first women in Canada to teach Greek at a university, brought up in the Brethren and married to a Brethren preacher.

My husbands great-aunt, taught at Toronto Bible College, preached in the churches in Macedonia and taught at a Swiss Bibelschule. A Brethren woman who preached and taught the Bible to men. She preached during the war and was an encouragement to the soldiers, lost her brother in the war. A Brethren woman preacher.

Sally Ironside, cousin of Harry Ironside, a Brethren preacher, she was deputy director of Scientific Information for Canada, in London during the war. A Brethren woman and leader, but not in the church.

My sister, a gold medal classicist, taught Greek to Anglican ministers in Hong Kong. Former director of the Hong Kong Institute of Education and now on the board of a leading theological foundation. A Brethren woman leader trained in theology and Biblical languages, not wanted by the Brethren.

My own Greek teacher, a Brethren woman, not wanted by the Brethren.

Grace Irwin, Christian author, honorary doctor of divinity, MA in classics and M. Div. Greek teacher, and minister, wanted by men to lead their church. Now 99 years old. A mentor to the women in our family.

My niece, with two older sisters who are pulished scientists, now at seminary in the States. Another Brethren woman. Who will mentor her?

The church will lose its capable young women if they do not recognize them.