Not all issues are the same. Throughout the debate on women's ordination, the CRC declined to define the issue as rising to the level of the confessions. Those who were advocates for the ordination of women were not ever charged with violating the Form of Subscription as far as I know. Precisely because this was not a confessional issue, it has been possible for the denomination to live with a local option on women's ordination. The doctrine of original sin is not like this. The condemnation of all unchastity is not like this. These issues are explicitly addressed in our confessions. On these issues, we have an authoritative, confessional interpretation of what Scripture teaches. Those who have signed the covenant for office-bearers are supposed to exercise our theological and intellectual freedom within the bounds of the confessions.
The debate about women's ordination was always about how to interpret Scripture on an issue that was not definitively settled by our confessions, and even in the midst of disagreement my experience of the CRC debate was that those who disagreed nonetheless recognized each other's genuine intention to honor Scriptural authority. That's still my experience. This is reasonable, because there are passages of Scripture that speak positively about women as prophets and worship leaders and images of God and other passages of Scripture that speak negatively about women as preachers and leaders in the church. Which passages should control the interpretation of which? That's a fair question, and even though I am absolutely confident in my interpretation of these passages, I respect those who reach different conclusions and honor their need to be obedient to Scripture as they read it. There is no similar ambiguity in Scriptural teaching about fornication, and suggesting that a defense of fornication is somehow analogous to a defense of speaking God's word while female is rather offensive.
So could we please not confuse the conversation by appealing to women's ordination as if it is a precedent for every other debate in which the denomination engages?
An Old-Testament colleague of mine at Calvin recently published a piece about Biblical understandings of marriage that might be helpful: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/05/13054/.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Not all issues are the same. Throughout the debate on women's ordination, the CRC declined to define the issue as rising to the level of the confessions. Those who were advocates for the ordination of women were not ever charged with violating the Form of Subscription as far as I know. Precisely because this was not a confessional issue, it has been possible for the denomination to live with a local option on women's ordination. The doctrine of original sin is not like this. The condemnation of all unchastity is not like this. These issues are explicitly addressed in our confessions. On these issues, we have an authoritative, confessional interpretation of what Scripture teaches. Those who have signed the covenant for office-bearers are supposed to exercise our theological and intellectual freedom within the bounds of the confessions.
The debate about women's ordination was always about how to interpret Scripture on an issue that was not definitively settled by our confessions, and even in the midst of disagreement my experience of the CRC debate was that those who disagreed nonetheless recognized each other's genuine intention to honor Scriptural authority. That's still my experience. This is reasonable, because there are passages of Scripture that speak positively about women as prophets and worship leaders and images of God and other passages of Scripture that speak negatively about women as preachers and leaders in the church. Which passages should control the interpretation of which? That's a fair question, and even though I am absolutely confident in my interpretation of these passages, I respect those who reach different conclusions and honor their need to be obedient to Scripture as they read it. There is no similar ambiguity in Scriptural teaching about fornication, and suggesting that a defense of fornication is somehow analogous to a defense of speaking God's word while female is rather offensive.
So could we please not confuse the conversation by appealing to women's ordination as if it is a precedent for every other debate in which the denomination engages?
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
I always appreciate your clarity, David.
An Old-Testament colleague of mine at Calvin recently published a piece about Biblical understandings of marriage that might be helpful: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/05/13054/.