In 1976 a Report to the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod advocated the ordination of women to the diaconate. It failed, however, to consider the meaning of ordination. This strange omission should be remedied, for it would be most unfortunate, were the synod to decide to ordain women without considering what ordination is. A previous paper contested the view of the diaconate which the above mentioned Report held forth. Here the subject is ordination. The following material is roughly divided into three sections. The first section takes us the Scriptural teaching and includes arguments from the works of George Gillespie. The second and shortest section of the three briefly disposes of the liberal ecumenical movement. Third, because it comes from a sister church, a Report to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church will be examined.
1
The Scriptural material can well begin with some Old Testament anticipations. Frequently in the Old Testament an anointing with oil was the method of inducting someone into a particular office. Anyone not so anointed was guilty of a grave offense, if he dared to execute that office. Saul and Uzziah are two examples. If, not, the New Testament provides some means for inducting a person into an office the Old Testament ceremony must be regarded as an anticipation of the New Testament requirements. Hence it is profitable to glance at the Old Testament method and its significance.
The examples of Saul and Uzziah, as well as the directions for anointing partially explained in Exodus 30:30-33, show that something was conferred on the recipient that he had not possessed before. This something was in one case the authority to act as a priest, and in another case the authority to act as a kind. God prohibited anyone from so acting without being anointed.
In the New Testament anointing has no place. To be sure the Messiah is the Lord's anointed, but Jesus never had holy oil poured on his head. Paul in II Corinthians 1:21 also refers to a figurative non-literal anointing. In this verse Paul may have had only the apostles in mind; but it is possible, because of the following verse, that he meant an anointing of every believer. That such a figurative development of the idea of anointing should have occurred is not surprising. In fact, the figurative use is quite clear in I John 2:27.
Nevertheless, since the New Testament also speaks of inducting elders into their office, it would be perverse to limit the anticipation of the Old Testament to Jesus as Messiah plus a general anointing of all believers. Since there are distinct offices both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the anointing in the Old Testament is best understood as anticipating New Testament ordination. This would help to support the idea that ordination confers authority upon the ordained.
The Old Testament also provides for induction into office by the laying on of hands. In the case of Jacob and the two sons of Joseph, the laying on of hands is not an induction into office, but the bestowal of a blessing. Number 8:10, however, inducts the Levites into office by this rite. Similarly in Numbers 27:18-23 Moses appointed Joshua as his successor by the laying on of hands. By doing so Moses "put some of [his] honor upon him... and gave him a charge." That God may have given the Holy Spirit to Joshua before Moses ordained him is irrelevant to the point at issue. The point is that there was a public ceremony of induction, without which Joshua could not have officiated. The induction may not have given him the Spirit, but it surely gave him the authority to act. Someone may boggle at the anointing with oil, but who can fail to see here an anticipation of the ordination of New Testament elders?
It is the New Testament that concerns us. The one man who most fully worked out the New Testament doctrine of ordination was the Scottish commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, George Gillespie. The argument will not show considerable dependencies on Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Against the Ceremonies, and Miscellany Questions. The pagination comes from the 1844 Edinburgh edition of Gillespie's works. At the climax of the Reformation, the age of the Westminster Assembly, this young man exhaustively examined the Scriptures and applied them to refute Romanism, Erastianism, and Socinianism alike. It is to be feared that Gillespie's scriptural analysis is not well known in this present decadent century.
Since it is the Socinian view of ordination, rather than the Romish or Erastian view, that troubles us today, only short references to the latter two will be made. For example, against the Erastianism of a certain Mr. Hussey, Gillespie writes, "Civil governors cannot be the elders mentioned by the apostle Paul, except Mr. Hussey make them bishops and invest them with the power of ordination' (Aaron's Rod Blossoming, II ix; p. 124 col. 2). Aside from the application to Erastianism, the sentence quoted refers to a certain power of ordination, i.e., a power conferred by ordination. What this power is must be ascertained if one is to understand the Presbyterian doctrine of ordination.
On the following page Gillespie denies that elders are "without any power or authority of government." The source of that authority and its conferral are matters that must be determined. Gillespie at the place indicated continues for a column or so to show that elders have authority to rule. He adduces Hebrews 13:7, "Remember them that have the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God." The idea of ruling can be supported by other verses, such as I Timothy 3:4-6, 12. and 5:17. But as these will be more carefully examined later, there is no need to quote them here.
Prior to the assertion that elders have authority to rule, it is logically necessary to show that the New Testament identifies something for the elders to rule over. That something is the visible, organized church. "The Scripture is plain that a visible, ministerial church is the body of Christ" (o. 136, col. 2). Scripture supporting this are: Romans 12:4, 5 "Even as we have many members in one body,... so we who are many are one body in Christ;" I Corinthians 10:17, "Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body;" and similarly I Corinthians 12:12-28. To which may be added Luke 19:14, 27, "His citizens hated him... saying, We will not have this man reign over us... But these mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me." This passage, which may at first puzzle a person studying ordination and church government, Gillespie uses as the answer to the rhetorical question, "Dare any say that the Lord Jesus shall not govern the Church of England and reign over the same?"
More obvious in their reference to an organized church over which Christ reigns through his stewards are Acts 2:36, I Corinthians 15:24, II Corinthians 10:4-6, Ephesians 1:21-23, all of which assert Christ's lordship over his church and kingdom. A kingdom requires laws, officers, and courts. Since this is true of earthly kingdoms, how much more so of Christ's kingdom! Christ's kingdom is not of this world; nor is justice administered by swords and staves and torches. But it is a kingdom none the less. To deny the laws and officers, is to deny the kingdom, and to deny the kingdom is to deny the King. Mr. Hussey, on the contrary, had said that the visible church is not the body of Christ, nor is Christ its head, nor does the kingdom have any officers except the Holy Spirit. Against Mr. Hussey Gillespie appeals to Romans 12:4, 5; I Corinthians 10:16, 17; and I Corinthians 12:12-28. But since the kingship of Christ is not questioned in the present controversy, it is hardly necessary to quote these additional verses.
If now it be admitted that elders are rulers in the organized church, one of The Sins of the Ministry of Scotland is "Entering the ministry without trials and receiving ordination... sometimes without or against the mind of presbytery." Since exercising the office without ordination is a sin, it is important to understand the significance and proper method of ordination. With his view of an established religion, Gillespie wants "Princes... to provide that men of those ecclesiastical orders, and those only which are instituted in the New Testament by divine authority, have vocation and office in the church." This includes deacons, as it clear in the context, for on the next page he says, "Deacons were instituted by the apostles [to held the poor], besides which employments the Scripture hath assigned neither preaching nor baptizing nor any other ecclesiastical function" (Against the Ceremonies, Chap. VII, Digression 1, pp. 160/1, and 161/2).
Some exception may be taken to Gillespie's denial that deacons should neither preach nor baptize, for although the activities of five of the original seven are not described, the other two did in fact preach and baptize. However, with respect to ordination, Gillespie on these pages says, "Now, beside the apostles, prophets, and evangelists, which were not ordained to be ordinary and perpetual offices in the church, there are but two ecclesiastical orders or degrees instituted by Christ in the New Testament viz., elders and deacons."
Again speaking of the prince (p. 162, col. 1) Gillespie says that the prince "should cause, not one disdainful prelate [to examine and ordain], but a whole Presbytery or company of elders to take trial of" the candidate. That is to say, an election of a candidate by the congregation, which Gillespie is strong to enforce, is nonetheless insufficient. There must also be Presbyterial action; and this seems to apply to deacons as well.
With the thread of Rome on his mind, and with the episcopal policy of Charles I before his eyes, Gillespie is anxious to maintain the Presbyterian principle of congregational election. For this reason he sometimes seems to lessen the emphasis on ordination, or at least on the imposition of hands. Because of this anti-prelatical concern, which might have induced him to abandon ordination altogether, as was the result in the Reformation's left wing, Gillespie's insistence on ordination, as in the preceding quotation, is all the more important to us today.
Thus, in spite of his Reformation opposition to Romish ordination, Gillespie asserts its necessity as well as the necessity of election. The Ceremonies (p. 161/2) states, "The outward calling is made up of election and ordination... Let the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul be read, how ministers were elected and ordained..." Acts 1:15, 23 show election by the congregation; and Acts 6:2, 3 show the same in the case of deacons.
Whether Presbytery's doing something with its hands refers to ordination or to raising their hands in a voting procedure has occasioned some confusion. The participle in II Corinthians 8:19 is almost surely an election; yet the same verb in Acts 14:23 rather clearly refers to ordination, for its subject is Paul and Barnabus, who certainly would not have elected local elders. But this confusion does not arise in some other verses because they use a different verb.
To explain: Neither teinein nor anateinein occur in the New Testament. In classical Greek these verbs mean stretch or strain. There is no hint of raising hands, though anateinein can sometimes mean to vote. Hence cheirotonetheis in II Corinthians 8:19 can mean a show of hands in voting. But Acts 6:6, 8:17, and 13:3 have a completely different verb: The phrase is epithentes tas cheiras. Clearly this is not hands raised in voting, but hands laid upon the candidate for ordination. Ordination therefore was not election by the congregation, but an act of the apostles.
Gillespie is right in supporting election and prohibiting patronage, prelatic assignment, and any ignoring of the desires of the congregation. While so arguing he may seem to cast a shadow on ordination itself. Nevertheless he says clearly, "The act of ordination standeth in the mission to the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function with power and authority to perform the same; and thus are pastors ordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the word, minister the sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical discipline among them. For 'How shall they preach except they be sent'" (Ceremonies, p. 165, 1).
Note well that ordination confers authority to preach, administer the sacraments, and exercise discipline. A presbyterial or congregational rite that does not convey this authority is not an ordination service, and should not be so called. Or, conversely, persons chosen for non-authoritative functions are not to be ordained.
Presumably in an over-reaction against Romish superstitions, Gillespie shows little enthusiasm for the presbyterian act of the laying on of hands. After the preceding quotation he adds, "Unto which mission or ordination neither prayer nor the imposition of hands, nor any other of the church's rites is essential." Today, few Reformed presbyters would approve of omitting prayer. But perhaps in a time of insurrection or riot, an ordination by presbyterial vote only would be considered valid. But the omission of the laying on of hands could be excused only by reason of some great disaster that would also excuse the omission of prayer. In this light one may accept his statement, "The essential act of ordination [is] a simple deputation and application of a minister to his ministerial function with power to perform it. This may be done... by word alone, without any other ceremony..." The example of Christ sending out the seventy is given as evidence.
While one may guess, from silence, that Christ did not ordain the seventy by laying his hands on them, the instance is irrelevant because it occurred before the resurrection. Christ and the original twelve observed the Mosaic rituals, which are not binding upon us; and negatively they were not baptized with the Trinitarian formula, nor did they observe the Lord's Supper before its institution, both of which of course oblige us today. The normative example for this age, with respect to ordination, is the apostolic action of the laying on of hands. Gillespie says this rite is "permissible," but not necessary. "This rite," he says, "shall with our leave be yet retained in the church." Unfortunately he adds that although the rite may be retained "with our leave," the Church "hath full liberty either to use any other decent rite... or else to use no rite at all."
Surely this is not the Reformed view or the Puritan principle. The Bible teaches that we should do all that God requires and no more: We should neither add to nor subtract from the prescribed elements of worship. Surely a Reformed theologian must deny that the Church can do anything or omit anything by its own leave. If the laying on of hands is to be omitted, it would have to be during riot or insurrection, or other circumstance when the Lord's Supper also would have to be omitted.
In admitting that the laying on of hands is proper, decent, and permissible, Gillespie refers to I Timothy 4:14 - a passage which says more than he desires to say. Paul's instructions here, which, if not wholly concerned with the organization of churches, are at least the apostolic norm for ministerial conduct, nor only mention the laying on of hands, but assert further than the grace of preaching authority, by the prophetic act of election, was given to Timothy with the presbytery's laying its hands on him. There may be some doubt whether or not the prophecy mentioned was the presbyterial election, but there can be no doubt about the presbyterial ordination with the laying on of hands. The verb does not mean a raising of hands in voting, but the laying of hands upon (epi) Timothy.
If Gillespie, in our judgment, does not sufficiently esteem the laying on of hands, he most emphatically supports ordination. The Miscellany Questions, (chap. III, p. 16, col. 1), says,
"If it were an intolerable usurpation, in a man's own family, if any man should take on him the steward's place to dispense meat to the household, not being thereunto appointed, how much more were it an intolerable usurpation in the church... Suppose they be well gifted, yet they may not preach except they be sent... This sending needs be ordination, not the church's election; a people may choose to themselves, but they cannot send to themselves."
In the next column he continues, "There are five necessary means and ways which must be had and used by those who look to be saved: (1) calling on the name of the Lord; (2) believing on him; (3) hearing his word; (4) a preaching ministry; (5) mission or ordination. If the first four be perpetually necessary to the end of the world, so must the fifth be; for the Apostle layeth almost as great necessity on this last as on the rest... There can be no ministerial office without a mission or ordination."
One of Gillespie's opponents had argued that no ministerial or ecclesiastical sending was in view in the New Testament, "for then none could be an instrument to convert another but a minister or preacher sent... therefore... the Apostle speaks of a providential sending, by giving men gifts, and working with them in their use and exercise." To which Gillespie answers, "in Christ himself... his having the Spirit of the Lord upon him was not his mission, but is plainly distinguished from his mission and ordination to his office which he had from God; Luke 4:18, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me...' The dunamis or ability of gifts to the office is one thing; the exousia or authority to it is another thing" (page 17, and the argument continues for another column on page 18).
Ordination therefore is not simply an apostolic function to cease with the first century. Preaching is ordinary and regular. Therefore mission or sending is too. The Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 shows that mission is perpetual, and thus sending likewise. To the same effect is Luke 12:42. Since the illustration describes the work of a steward, its lesson is not applicable to all Christians. The immediate application is to the disciples or apostles themselves. The extended application is to future stewards. They are to be held more responsible than lesser servants. Verse 43 shows that the warning remains in effect until Christ returns. The steward of the parable and the minister of a church hand therefore been appointed with authority. The connection between a steward and a bishop is made in Titus 1:7.
To this someone objects that since probationers preach, ordination is not necessary. The reply is that they do not preach regularly, ordinarily, or ex officio. They preach occasionally, without ministerial office. And even so, they must have been licensed. Note too that the seven deacons, after they were elected, were ordained by the apostles; and though we do not know much about their activities, those mentioned in Acts included evangelism.
That ordination is requisite to the preaching of the gospel and that it confers authority may be inferred from Hebrews 5:1-4. "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained... that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin... And no man taketh this honor unto himself..." The Socinians, who took a low view of ordination, restricted the application of this passage to the apostles. But this low view, or, rather, denial of ordination fails to note that the priesthood was ordinary and continuing. Therefore the passage applies the the ordinary and continuing Christian ministry, and inference reinforced by the completely general statement of verse four. When this verse says that no man taketh this [King James] honor unto himself, it need not, it hardly can mean, "this Aaronic honor." There is no demonstrative pronoun here - just the article; and hence the meaning can be and likely is honor as an abstract noun, any ecclesiastical honor. Even if someone contentiously insists that the article serves a demonstrative, and thus refers to the Aaronic honor, nevertheless the whole passage applies to the New Testament ministry. Not only is the epistle addressed to Christians, but one may also argue that if the lesser Aaronic honor required ordination, then a fortiori the greater honor of the New Testament ministry cannot be had without ordination. Scriptural analogy also is given in Romans 13:7, I Timothy 3:1, and more pointedly in I Timothy 5:17, "Let the elders that rule well be counter worthy of double honor."
Another passage in Hebrews also advances the argument. Chapters 6:1-2 lists some elementary teachings, such as might be required of catechumens before baptism or even before a church was organized. One of these elementary points is ordination, clearly necessary to the organization of a church. This in addition to repentance and faith, ordination ranks as an elementary doctrine.
Ordination should be distinguished from the bestowal of the Holy Ghost as described in Acts 8:17-19. The deacons in Acts 6:3, 6 were first perceived to be full of the Holy Ghost, second elected, and third ordained. Later I Timothy 4:14 shows that ordination is an act of presbytery. I Timothy 5:22 warns against laying hands suddenly on some attractive neophyte. And Titus 1:5 by the words "in every city" shows that ordination is regular and ordinary. Such was not the case when Simon Magus wanted to buy apostolic power with money.
That ministers are the regular and ordinary officers of the church bears emphasis. Ministers of the gospel are called shepherds, entering by the door and not breaking in; they are called angels, ambassadors, and rulers. But men do not give themselves the position of ambassador or even of shepherd. They must be appointed and sent. Luke 12:42 has already made this point with reference to stewards. Paul calls himself a steward in I Corinthians 4:1, and calls all bishops so in Titus 1:7. Ministers are therefore servants; they invite guests to the wedding feast. But clearly no one can properly invite guests to a lord's wedding feat, unless the lord had previously appointed him. Paul was so appointed: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle" (I Timothy 2:7), in which phrase we note that Paul was ordained a preacher as well as an apostle. He repeats this in II Timothy 1:11. Preachers therefore are to be given authority to preach by ordination.
Preachers are permanent and regular officers of the church. Paul and the New Testament refute the position of the Socinians and Anabaptists because II Timothy 2:2 commands generation after generation to appoint faithful teachers. Paul does not refer to any and all Christians, he does not even have all gifted Christians in mind. Aptitude is one thing; calling and authority are something else. There is more to the calling of pastors than the church's electing them, for , as Gillespie says, "Those unto whom the power of ordination belongest do also commit unto them that which they are entrusted with: 'the same commit thou'" (Luke 12:48).
Ordination, authority, and the submission of the congregation go hand in hand. The latter, the submission of the congregation, presupposes an authority in the pastors. That the Scripture requires submission is clear in I Thessalonians 5:12, 13 "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves," and in Hebrews 13:17, "Obey them that have the rule among you and submit yourselves..." The same submission is implied in the minister's right to receive remuneration (I Corinthians 9:7, 9, 11, 13). What will the Socinians and Anabaptists do? If ordination is not necessary, will they pay salaries to all who preach; or, to avoid such Scripturally enjoined expense, will they prohibit preaching altogether?
There are other passages which reinforce these main lessons; but these are sufficient to conclude this Scriptural section by asserting that ordination confers authority to teach, and that therefore the New Testament is violated if women are ordained.
2
The second section of this paper may be made very brief because the ecumenical movement does not acknowledge the Bible as the infallible norm for either theological doctrine of ecclesiastical practice. Its procedures, however, may serve as a warning to any who may wish to disregard Scriptural restrictions.
Two periodicals only need be consulted. The Churchman (Vol. 88 Oct-Dec. 1974) and the Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Vol. 10, 1973). Whatever authority The Churchman accords to the Bible in its defense of ordaining women, it also appeals to "the promptings of the Spirit" especially when a solemn synod is assembled, of which its first example is Vatican II. "Catholic bishops, under the guidance of the Spirit, could change this triadic order" and are today "in the process of recognizing other orders... of non-Roman and even non-episcopal ministers as apostolic..." (p. 262). The articles in their entirety place authority in the Church, rather than in the Bible. The Church changes itself. Thus though The Churchman spends many pages advocating the ordination of women, I hope Reformed Presbyterians will remain unimpressed.
The Journal of Ecumenical Studies is more interesting. J. Massyngberde Ford guesses that "Luke 8:1-3, 10:38-42... may reflect the role of deaconesses within the early church," and "whereas the twelve all appear to be male Jews... one cannot make the same assumption about the seventy or seventy-two disciples whom Jesus commissioned" (pp. 672-673). The role of Mary at the wedding in Cana "may be of symbolic and theological importance and may represent such behavior of Mary as typical." In fact, "it may well be that Jewish women converts [from paganism] rose to influential positions in the synagogue." And it may well be that J. M. Ford is highly imaginative.
Those who argue for the ordination of women give themselves the liberal benefit of any doubt. After discussing Priscilla, Dr. Ford writes, "it is possible that... the word diakonos alludes to both men and women deacons. One cannot dogmatically argue that only males are addressed." And, "Romans 16:1 very strongly suggests an active and authoritative position of women ministers" (p. 678). Why not say, Romans 16:1 hardly event suggests authority and one cannot dogmatically argue that diakonos refers to ordained women deacons?
More frequently, however, not even this much authority is accorded to Scripture. On I Corinthians 11 Dr. Ford says, "Firstly, one notes that the teaching contained in I Cor. 11 is the personal opinion of Paul, not dominical teaching; e.g. thelo (I wish, v. 3)." In opposition to such lax exegesis consider the very verse she mentions: "I would have you know," or "I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ." Is the headship of Christ nothing more than a culturally conditioned personal opinion of Paul? Is it not rather authoritative theology?
Again, "I Cor, 11 must be based on a literal interpretation of Gen. 3, which exegetes could not accept nowadays... Paul gives no indication whatsoever that women are precluded from any of these [gifts in I Cor. 12-14], even apostleship or administration" (p. 680). No indication whatsoever? How about I Corinthians 14:34, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law"?
This verse, which should settle the whole matter, causes Dr. Ford no difficulty whatsoever. "These verses are placed after verse 40 in D, G... There is therefore some justification for arguing that they are an interpolation" (p. 681), Some justification? How much? For arguing? Where is the argument? Dr. Ford seems to think that a transposition of verses in two uncials, against page 46, Aleph, A B K Psi, and plenty of cursives, so conclusively proves this to be spurious that the Church is authorized to abandon its agelong practice of ordaining men only. Could it not better be argued, that if Christ had wanted women to be ordained, he would have chosen at least one woman as a disciple? Or, after the resurrection, one woman as an apostle? Or even one woman as a deacon?
She assures us that Phoebe was "a minister, diakonos, of the church at Cenchrea... Most importantly, however, is the word prostatis... Our Conclusion would be that the deacon Phoebe is in a position of authority and responsibility." (pp. 674-677) (On this point see the companion paper on The Ordination of Women.)
On a passages that corroborates I Corinthians 14:34, Dr. Ford writes, "With regard to I Tim. 2:9-15, one may note again... the fact that Paul expresses his own wish (boulomai, v. 8, and 'I do not permit', epitrepo, in v. 12), not that of the Lord" (p. 682).
Must we then say that "I wish men to pray" is merely a personal wish? And when Paul says "I do not permit a woman to teach," does he lack apostolic authority?
To make this poor argument a bit more palatable, Dr. Ford mistranslates the verse, as "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have supreme authority, but to be modest." The verse actually says, "I do not permit a woman to teach nor have authority over a man, but to keep quiet."
Dr. Ford, by inserting the word supreme, wants to allow women an authority, though less than supreme. But is, as has been shown, she allows for women apostles, how can she deny them supreme authority? Then she tried to make the word teach mean formulate doctrine. The women can teach, but only the bishops can make creedal decisions.
But let us say sharply against all this baseless imagination that the verses contain no such ideas.
Finally in her Summary Dr. Ford delivers this astounding assertion: "Even if Jesus were a male by his incarnation... the Spirit of God is thought of as the feminine principle in the Deity" (p. 691).
The conclusion of this second section may well be that the demand for women's ordination is just one more element in the apostasy of the large denominations and the decline of our civilization. It was certainly not initiated by any reverent and scholarly study of the Biblical text. No one would even have thought it up apart from the liberal women's movement. Wherever this new idea occurs in relatively conservative churches, it must be explained by the influence around us, most viciously exemplified in drug addiction and the murder of babies, seriously enough exemplified in crimes of violence, sexual abominations, and disregard of property rights, and least disturbingly but more profoundly exemplified in the rejection of Biblical inerrancy by hitherto conservative scholars and seminaries: this moral collapse engulfs all church members and infects their opinions however slightly and unwittingly. The demand for the ordination of women is one result.
3
The third section of this paper now considers an example of this deleterious influence in a denomination that has boasted loudly of its Reformed theology. It is Report 44 to the 1969 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church. On page 643 the Report gives a curious argument relative to the ordination of deacons in Acts 6:1-6. Quoting verse 6 the Report says, "The way the passage reads in the original makes it appear that the entire congregation did the laying on of hands, though there are interpreters who hold that only the apostles did the laying on of hands. We shall not try to settle this question."
But it is of some use to settle this question; nor is it hard to do so. The Report quoted only verse 6. In this verse the praying and the laying on of hands are immediately dependent on the word apostles. It is grammatically possible, though rather forced, to take the participle praying and the verb laid as referring to the congregation. What settles the matter, however, is verse 3, which the Report failed to mention. The verse says, "Then the Twelve... said... look ye out seven men... whom we may appoint over this business." The multitude of disciples were to choose seven men; but the multitude could not ordain them; it was "we" the apostles who delegated authority to the seven.
Acts 13:3 is something else again. Here certain prophets and teachers, explicitly inclusive of Barnabas in verse one, obviously inclusive of Saul in verse two, are commanded by the Holy Ghost to lay hands on Barnabas and Saul. Since all of these, especially Saul, had already been ordained, the passage describes, not an ordination service, but a commissioning to a particular task. It is repeated today whenever a mission board prays and lays hands on an already ordained man as they send him out to Africa or Asia. This passage is therefore irrelevant for establishing the doctrine of ordination.
The passages in I Timothy 4:14 and II Timothy 1:6 have occasioned debates that are more ingenious than instructive. That the presbytery laid hands on Timothy is not inconsistent with Paul's being present and having done so with them. Whether it was the presbytery of Lystra or of Ephesus, and in particular what deep theological difference it makes, is all a matter of guesswork. The important point is that this presbyterial ceremony conferred a gift on Timothy, which Paul now exhorts Timothy to exercise. This gift can be no other than the authority "to rule well... especially... in the word and doctrine" (I Timothy 6:17). Nothing in these two epistles permits the reduction of this event to a mere commissioning for a limited missionary tour.
The Report to the Christian Reformed Synod (pp. 647-648) urges that God have Timothy gifts of wisdom, eloquence, or whatever characteristics are useful in the ministry, before he was ordained, and that the ceremony did not confer these gifts. So be it. But why suppose that ordination confers wisdom and eloquence? And if it does not, why suppose that it confers nothing? The Report's argument is defective, for ordination confers the gift of authority to use gifts of wisdom and eloquence in the preaching of the gospel. The Report misses the issue. Therefore one must disagree with at least one of the Report's conclusions, viz., "The gift must not be understood as some indelible character conveyed to Timothy by the imposition of hands, since Timothy is told too that he must use and cultivate his gift." The logic of the since-clause is doubly faulty. First, and exhortation to use a gift does not imply that it cannot have been given by the imposition of hands. Indeed the opposite is the case. "Now that you have received the gift at my hands, Timothy, make use of it." Then second, giving a gift by the laying on of hands does not preclude it from being "indelible." If anyone dislikes the historical origin of the term indelible, we can more literally call it a permanent possession, no doubt withdrawable on account of great sin, but otherwise a life-ling authority to preach. Contrary to the position of the Report that "There is no indication in Scripture that an authorization or appointment symbolized and confirmed by the laying on of hands was necessarily to be for the life-time of the person appointed/" (p. 649), one must ask, was Paul's gift of apostleship and Timothy's ordination to preach intended to be valid for only eighteen months or two years?
The Report contains other peculiar assertions. For example, in arguing that Christian ministers are not an exclusive priesthood, and that the kingship in Israel does not convey political authority on contemporary elders - all of which is true - the Report states, "If the Lord found it necessary to warn against a coercive authority on the part of Old Testament kings, how much more sensitive ought we not to be concerning coercive authority today?" (p. 652). There is considerable confusion here. For one thing, although God charged the Israelites with sin for rejecting the system of judges and desiring a king, he nonetheless gave the kings coercive authority; and this was reaffirmed in the New Testament. But any application of such material to elders, whether to support or deny authority, is mistaken, for elders are not civil rules. Nor does the priesthood of all believers mitigate against the prerogatives of the ministry. What seems to be operative several times in this Report is an over-reaction against Romanism. The Papacy may be the Anti-christ, as the Westminster Confession says; but nonetheless most of what Romanism says about the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and even some things about ordination are true.
The apparent intent of the Christian Reformed Report, not exactly to abolish, but at least to minimize orderly church administration, depends here and there on obviously bad logic. Consider: "Does the fact that a 'disciple' in the broader sense was permitted to baptize, according to Acts 9, imply that all the 'disciples' in the broader sense could likewise administer baptism?... There is nothing in the book of Acts which would rule out an affirmative answer to the question." The reference to Acts 9 indicates that the Report has Ananias in mind. Although the text does not explicitly say that Ananias baptized Paul, it is so likely that it may be taken for granted. But was Ananias a "disciple in the broader sense"? To be sure, all Christians could be called disciples, but it by no means follows that Ananias was not an elder or deacon. The fact that God spoke directly to him is enough to conclude that nothing in the chapter "would rule out a negative answer to these question." The Report's arguments from silence do not support its assumptions and conclusions. Yet there are two more arguments from silence on the same page (p. 666).
Even the conclusion on the following page attacks a straw man. It says, "We may well agree with G. R. Beasley-Murray when he says, 'To insist that the Apostles personally conducted every baptism in the primitive Church is an absurdity that no one, so far as I am aware, has asked us to believe.'" Beasley-Murray is quite right; and for that very reason the Report is quite wrong. No one asserts that the Apostles personally baptized every first century convert. Our contention is that baptism is to be administered by ordained officers.
A further silence the Report brings up is in I Timothy 4:13 and II Timothy 4:1, 2. The Report notices that among the duties Paul enjoins, baptism is "conspicuous by [its] absence." True enough, baptism is not mentioned in these verses. But should the absence be called "conspicuous" or significant? Noe that the Lord's Supper is absent too. The Lord's Supper is conspicuous by its presence in I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:20ff.; and one would think that baptism is sufficiently conspicuous in Matthew 28:19, not to mention Acts 2:38 et passim.
It must be concluded that the Report uses something better than silence when it appeals to Jewish customs. A priest was not the only person who circumcised infants, nor did every family need a priest to celebrate the Passover. It is another matter, however, whether this implies that unordained laymen should baptize and administer the Lord's Supper. The Report with Regard to Office, acknowledges that I Thessalonians 5:12, 12 and I Corinthians 16:15, 16 speak of men who had some degree of prominence, to whom, Paul says, the church members should submit. Submission certainly gives the impression that such men, and others who labored with Paul, had received authority.
The New Testament period may have been "fluid," in the sense that the many congregations established developed at different speeds, and to different degrees of organization. It is certainly true that the evidence and even the instruction relative to administration in the New Testament is "scanty" (p. 674) in comparison with the theological content of Romans, or even with the moral problems in Corinth. But we totally reject the Report's poorly disguised suggestion that the New Testament "includes such a variety of obscure, ambiguous, and even contradictory statements." We particularly object to the accusation that Scripture contradicts itself. One need not, however, hesitate to say that the "tunnel period," i.e. the formative period in the first century, exhibits diversity and "the later epistles reflect some changes in emphasis as compared with the early ones" (p. 674). This would be normal, as Paul's early successes in evangelization led to a subsequent amount of instruction in organizing particular congregations. One can even acknowledge that "up to the year 100 AD the organization of the local church was not a matter of paramount concern." Several times the Report uses the word necessarily, or, here paramount, to obtain a degree of plausibility while evading the main question. Ordination may not have been a matter of "paramount" concern; but it was a matter of concern, even at the date of the epistle to the Romans, for the idea, if not the word, occurred in Romans 10:15. Because of a verse like this, and a certain number of others, elsewhere exegeted, one can hardly approve the Report's assertion that "the changes in the concept of office which occurred during the ancient period were often subtle and obscure. What is beyond dispute is that a major change did take place during that period" (p. 647). That there were changes in the actual organizations of local congregations is indeed beyond dispute; but that there was any major change in the concept of ordination must repudiated. Paul may have added details to his earlier instruction on ordination, but he never contradicted himself. An inspired writer, through whom God breathed out his words on the written page, does not assert falsehoods. But if two assertives contradict, one must be false. For the rest, a paragraph on the fifth century (page 675) is irrelevant to the matter now under discussion.
More to the point are the remarks concerning the Reformation's opposition to sacerdotalism. The Report correctly stresses and condemns the popish claim that ordination confers the power of perming the miracle of transubstantiation. Rejection of this claim, however, does not entail rejection of an indelible character conferred by ordination, nor even of a "second class citizenship in the Church of Christ," no matter how repulsive this phraseology is; for no one can deny that the laity lack ministerial authority. The Report also correctly notes that the Reformers were preoccupied with the doctrine of grace, and not with the nature of ordination. "Yet in spite of these difficulties, it is possible, by way of implication, to draw... some conclusions" (p. 679). Indeed, though the Report is not overly optimistic at this point, it is possible to draw some implications relative to the office of deacon. At any rate, it is possible to contradict the Report's assertion that "all believers are 'ordained' priests, prophets, and kings" (p. 681). Clearly not all believers have been elected by the congregation and installed in office by laying on of hands.
The Report is once more correct in stating that the Reformer aimed to avoid both the Romish view and that of the Anabaptists and Socinians. But it seems to dismiss Luther's and Calvin's later more conservative position as chiefly an historical reaction against left wing chaos. True, the Report acknowledges that the two Reformers appealed to Scripture, but its emphasis in on "fear of the Anabaptists as disturbers of civil and ecclesiastical peace." It would be better to say that these disturbers forced Calvin to study material in the Scriptures to which previously, and because of the major concern with Romanism, he had paid little attention. Action in an historical context (p. 681) does not imply non-scriptural norms of action.
The authors of the Report may reject these criticisms on the ground that they explicitly recognize the assertions of Zwingli and the Second Helvetic Confession. Granted, granted; but some of the phraseology seems to minimize the "conservative" thrust of the "later" Luther and Calvin.
This minimizing is again found in the words "function or instrumental" (p. 682). One could say that the Romish priesthood also was functional and instrumental. The two words have an extensive application. But if the Report means that ordination is merely a pragmatic happenstance, rather than a divine command, a New Testament student must disagree. The wording of the Report is disturbing. "Although such division of labor is necessary for good order and efficiency, it does not create an essentially different order or hierarchy in the church that may be regarded as an end in itself" (p. 682). But even the Romish priesthood is not "an end in itself." And Protestant or Biblical ordination does indeed create an "order" on which the laity must not encroach. Laymen may bring charges against an elder, but the session is the judicatory. Whether this authority is called "status" or "function" or "office" is merely semantics. By any name it is a divine ordinance, reserved to those only who are so elected. The language of the Report and of R. G. Johnson, whom it quotes, raises a false disjunction: "Although Calvin views the ministry as an institution of God, he still speaks of it in strongly functional terms." How else could anyone describe the office of Kind, President, or Senator except in "function" terms, strongly or not? To use such terms does not deny the honor of the position. The Report embarrasses us by quoting Calvin's Institutes IV, ii, 4, where he seems to say that the office of apostle and prophet continues sporadically to the present day, even though "Paul gives the appellation of 'prophets,' not to all interpreters of the Divine will, but only to those who were honored with some special revelation." In view of Calvin's and all the Reformers' stress on Sola Scriptura, one cannot believe that Calvin, when he said, "the Lord... still raises up [apostles and prophets] on particular occasions, when required by the necessity of the time," meant what the words seem to say.
Because of the great doctrines of grace, for which the Protestants were being martyred and massacred, Calvin did not produce too detailed a doctrine of ordination. In his Ecclesiastical Ordinances he recommends that the ordaining presbytery should abstain from laying on of hands "because of the infirmity [i.e. the superstitions] of the times." Yet in the Institutes IV, iii, 16, he alleges that the example of the apostles should not be abandoned for "their very observance ought to serve in lieu of a precept." This latter consideration surely outweighs the dangers of superstition. The Reformers did not abolish baptism, even though several superstitious rites had been attached to it; and none of them ever dreamed of abolishing the Lord's Supper, though the mass was an idolatrous abomination. Considerations of normal routine, pragmatic usefulness, or something so vague as to be called functionalism, are inadmissible. (Compare the Report, page 686, Summary, the first paragraph.)
In conclusion, therefore, we assert, that ordination is a Scriptural ceremony by which the presbytery confers authority to preach the gospel and to rule the church. The offices involved are those of elder and deacon. Since Scripture explicitly forbids women to teach or exercise authority, it is a violation of divine law to ordain a woman.
No comments:
Post a Comment