When you diminish one of the sexes, neither flourish. But the result of the curse is that unless the Spirit transforms hearts, minds, actions, we will continue to try to fill ourselves/our relational need/our need to be right (layering laws on like the Pharisees) or superior to one another, biting and devouring one another instead of partaking in his body and his blood and allowing him to fill our gaping need.
I’m more and more convinced that human “flourishing” this side of heaven means being welcomed and drawn increasingly into Christ’s sufferings where we might experience intimacy with him and be made just like him. Then, instead of trying to fill ourselves in reference to our relationship with one another, we pour ourselves out like him.
Maybe my comments feel unrelated. I just ache for the hurt we’ve experienced and know that we need more of Christ. I’m praying for the gospel to be more real than the shame we have had heaped on us. Praying for the Lord’s tender grace to renew our hearts like oil rubbed into dry, cracked skin, keeping us soft and strong. I’m praying we might all fix our eyes on Christ and RUN this race regardless of what people standing in the sidelines might say or do. And I’m praying for him to show how he will bear fruit and be glorified even in what feels like death (John 12:24).
Kelsey, your comments are very much related, and resonate with I’m chewing on in the Gospel of John. If you read my post from today (which I trust Aimee won’t mind me sharing here), I mention how the grain of wheat in John 12 is an image of Adam/man, and the body and blood is an image of Eve/woman. We need more of Christ, yes! For, “While the inability to realize the creative potential of human sexuality [as male and female] is not peculiar to Christianity, our reading of John’s gospel has suggested that it is in the mystery of Christ that the key to this realization is offered to us” (Bruno Barnhart). https://www.aaronjhann.com/p/god-is-a-wedding-part-3
Your words are powerful and full of truth. Thank you for sharing your heart and reminding us of the importance of being drawn into Christ’s sufferings. May we all pour ourselves out like Him and fix our eyes on Christ as we run this race.
Now might be the right time to say that few men have ministered to me as much as you have, Aimee. They want you to bear the shame, but the shame is theirs.
Aimee, for many, their understanding of themselves and the women who are their neighbors has neither root nor reach. I think of my garden at this time of year and the flowers anchored in the soil and reaching up, face open toward the heavens. In seminary, our professor, an OPC minister, taught us a meaning of Ephesians 4:11-12 that masks and contradicts Paul's point. Only duly ordained ministers, men, work for the perfecting of the saints, do the ministry, and edify the body of Christ, not women. J. I. Packer calls the comma after saints "wicked" in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (2nd edition, 35). It forces a meaning on the text that is antithetical to Paul's point. When that comma is inserted, it makes it read that *only the minsters* do those things. Packer writes that it "not only hides but actually reverses Paul’s sense, setting clericalism where every-member ministry ought to be. (By clericalism I mean that combination of conspiracy and tyranny in which the minister claims and the congregation agrees that all spiritual ministry is his responsibility and not theirs: a notion both disreputable in principle and Spirit-quenching in practice)" (parenthesis Packer's 34-35). Again, the view that we were taught in seminary, Packer calls "wicked," "conspiracy," and "tyranny."
In my view, the way that many see themselves (clericalism), together with a sacramental view of their preaching, where the Spirit unites himself to their words only as "duly-ordained ministers of the gospel," has led some of them far afield and worked against love and respect for their neighbor (See Mark Beach, Calvin's View of Preaching). The distance that they put between themselves and the woman beside them who wants to serve with them is the natural outworking of how they see themselves. For many of them, the woman can never rise to whom they perceive themselves to be.
Next, their court systems for punishing the errant is an extrabiblical imposition. The Sanhedrin comes to mind. It is not the way things are done in Corinth, where the immoral brother is judged (1 Cor. 5) and restored (2 Cor. 2) by the body.
Aimee, I read your post and am sad but not surprised. I am no longer shocked by these things because the Reformed church has no theological anthropology to speak of. Their understanding of male and female rides on a few passages. Perhaps few take seriously our besetting desire to exalt ourselves, to think of ourselves more highly than we ought, to not regard our neighbor beside us as better than ourselves, to love them deeply from the heart.
Lastly, their interpretations of Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 do the work they need for them, whereas God gives us a Genesis to Revelation understanding of ourselves that leads us to know and worship *him* and set our eyes on what he has prepared for us after this brief life.
Yes, Michael Horton teaches this interpretation of Eph. 4 as well, which gave credibility to it in my own reading for too long. I think this understanding of the ministry and the preached word is just as damaging as the unorthodox views of the Trinity taught in evangelicalism. As well as the Aristotelian anthropology. These are such foundational and far-reaching errors. Errors is a generous word, though. And then the presbyterian court system...
I'm so thankful for your work addressing all this, Anna.
Yes, again, as J. I. Packer says, these views are "Spirit-quenching." Which takes my mind to the unique work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament prophesied by Joel, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." Consider the distance between what Joel says about the Spirit and what Calvin says. At the headwaters of the Reformed faith, Calvin speaks of a special work of the Spirit, the sermon, an audible Eucharist. Christ is thought to *principally* and *extraordinarily* reveal himself through his Spirit in the sermon, so that the words of the minister become the very Word of God through sacramental union. What would you call that? Reformed mysticism? And it can turn to male-centeredness. The church is where God uses only men extraordinarily. The local church takes on a masculine identity because of how the Spirit is perceived to be principally at work. It's far from what we see emphasized in the New Testament in Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, and Eph. 4. Also, how can we predict the Spirit's moves in human hearts? And yes, it heaps boat loads of shame on those of us wanting to use what God has given us in our local churches, while acknowledging that there is an order that Paul is concerned that resounds to God's glory, not our own. Actually, it brings shame to all women for what they are not.
You asked what they think of love and power, and my bet is that they love power. They may not consciously know that about themselves, but their actions show they not only love power but are having a love affair with power.
Jesus mentioned leaders who love power. It was not a favorable mention.
A conversation long ago about forbidding women to teach led to the other person saying that the men pushing this were relying on their understanding of scripture and what they thought the Spirit was leading them to believe. It was said as if that justified the doctrine. What a load of hooey. That same rationale can be, and for millennia has been, used to justify racist teaching in the church. Sexism or racism, they’re both satanic.
I’m glad you decided to write about this, Aimee. It was very helpful for me to read it today placed alongside what I just posted today. It’s taken me a while to more fully appreciate what you and others — mainly women as far as I’m aware of — have done / are doing to address anthropology as a core issue related to abuse. I’m now beginning to see more clearly why my study of John has led me to a season of more in depth study of sexuality in John. Abuse is enabled by anthropology. Ergo, addressing abuse (and all forms of marring image bearers, like this OPC example) must include addressing anthropology. Sounds obvious enough probably, but I confess the connection has been easy for me, in my embodied state as a white male, to overlook. As Anna put it in her comment, “the Reformed church has no theological anthropology to speak of.” I’ve been guilty of that as well. In my final MA paper on my philosophy of counseling I wrote that “human beings are persons created in the image of God, existing as gendered individuals in psychosomatic unity,” and then unpacked each word in that statement. But this is about all I wrote about gender at that time: “A comprehensive anthropology must account for gender.” It’s taken me 10 years to get around to that more comprehensive anthropology, in large measure thanks to your work.
I appreciate that you shared this decision. My husband and I just had a conversation on its behalf. Women are qualified in their home on spiritual matters laying the ground work of their growing sons but immediately lose those credentials as soon as they walk out of that home and enter the four walls of the church. Make it make sense…I’m to the point that it may never make sense on earth below.😔
“It’s an extreme betrayal and violation of trust when the shepherds accountable before God to love and care for the sheep leave you exposed to abuse and then use the process of church order to keep you under it. It makes you wonder what these “men of God” really believe. About love. About power. About community and belonging.”
Community and belonging, something we confess as part of the apostolic faith “I believe in the communion of the saints”
Do we really? Or only when the saints fit the mold we design for them?
This decision makes me sad. I’m not part of the OPC but I look around me searching for faithful churches who delight in the communion of the saints and am saddened that so many reformed and presbyterian denominations would rather follow rules than have the sweet fellowship and communion Jesus gifted us in his covenant.
Your comment about men needing protection from the shame they project onto women makes me think that, yes, a lot of what goes on is about protecting men from women. Which is so counter to the complementarian teaching that men must protect women! I have experienced this as well. Women are supposed to “behave,” to protect the men! So wrong. All should behave, to protect one another.
Thank you for sharing this, Aimee. It is a powerful testament to what really goes on in these situations. I have mulled over these things for a long time. My current thinking is that it’s not so much about direct misogyny, chauvinism, or fear of women, as it is about fear of not following the “rules.” It’s either fear or a desire for control and security in the form of following and enforcing a rule, and for the power one gets from that. It is Phariseeism. It is self-righteous domination.
I think this is what has been driving the “conservative resurgence” that this all seems to be a part of. It is political as well, in every sense of the word. It is about being in the world, but also being of it!
I have experienced similar things as you, albeit in a more subtle and much less public way, which was devastating enough; I can only imagine what you’ve been through. I am so sorry for what you’ve suffered! Brings to mind, though, verses on suffering for Christ’s sake. You have done this, Aimee! Please be encouraged, and keep on speaking!
Why is this happening in so many conservative denominations do you think? The Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Anglican Church of North America, and now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church . . .
If Satan can deceive a large number of people in the body of Christ to suppress and therefore render half of that body ineffective for the gospel and participation in God's kingdom, then how much easier for him to infiltrate and poison the entire body?
I used to give more benefit of the doubt for scriptural ignorance on this matter, but in many cases it seems more a matter of willful sin against the Holy Spirit.
You use the word shame a lot in a way I don't understand. If you know you are hearing God and teach, isn't that obeying God? It seems to me authentic shame would be felt when you don't obey God and don't teach. Men may use force to stop you, but wouldn't that be fear that stops you? I'm afraid they will cause me pain.
We are ALL made in the Image of God. We have a need to belong, whoever has the power and wants to stop you, needs to exclude you so you feel LONELY. That's classic attachment theory separation pain. It is evil to consciously and intentionally inflict that on an other.
It is not easy to find a place to teach. But not impossible. It may look differently than what you think you want . . and is God doing a new thing? If I believe you, about what you have said about these men, they are teaching women to not share Jesus. THAT IS INSANE!
I'm speaking to messages of shame (about our value and worth) that are projected onto women by male leaders in patriarchal churches. It's their own shame that they cannot bear to face so they project it on others and try to kill it in them.
I don't see men in churches feeling shame. I see entitled. I see ambition, competition, warrior. I do not see the collaborative I see in women. I see the typical power and force. If you see actual shame, perhaps there's some hope.
I'm sorry to hear this; the Southern Baptists get a lot of the attention when it comes to their disobedience to God and the Word in regards to regarding one another according to the flesh, but it's a shame to hear it from your Symbiotic Organisation as well.
It is sad to see a denomination prioritizing doctrinal uniformity over relational unity on these secondary issues that aren't essential to the Gospel. Keeping my fingers crossed that the PCA does not head down this same path.
The PCA is already far down the path.. it's a small denomination, so doesn't get nearly as much press as others... but the scandals around the way women have been treated or 'handled' are just as 'awful' in the PCA as in other denominations...
the problem of the church of the Laodiceans-'lukewarmness' is not nearly so visible or easy to see...
Local congregations in the PCA are every bit as far down this same path, and it's only a matter of time (and probably not much of it) before the denomination codifies those views. It's the logical consequence of a denomination *designed* to exclude women's voices.
I think Packer and Horton's view is correct, which makes this not about women per se but about the roles of the ordained and the laity.
I know you disagree, obviously, but when things like SS and SG have become defacto "unofficial-official" teaching arms of the church, I think it's best to leave that to the men charged with formally instructing and shepherding the flock to do so as I think we see being taught in Eph 4.
May the Lord bring grace and healing to the undeserved wounds brought upon you by men within the OPC (denomination to which I belong) and hold Christ's undershepherds to account for their abusive conduct toward his lambs.
Yes, that would be a different argument, one that I am familiar with. I've read and appreciate a lot of Horton's writing, and I do disagree with that ecclesial stance and interpretation of Eph. 4. But this complaint doesn't use that argument. Maybe you are pushing back that it didn't go far enough for your position b/c the ruling at GA is about the women. A layman can still teach in these capacities.
As far as I know, this ruling is in opposition to any official papers put out by the OPC on women in the church (and who can teach SS & SG):
I reread through that study paper (thank you for the link) and even the paper that the session gave to the congregation to justify their practice of having women teach these mixed gatherings (the paper basically echoes the sentiment that you and Trueman made back in 2016, which, I believe, has always been a permissible practice in the OPC).
But, you're right, the grounds made for this GA decision do seem primarily based on the gender of the teacher/leader and not on the distinction between the ordained and laity, which I'm advocating a return to and, in my opinion, would have bolstered GA's decision and not made this about women per se but about proper office functions in the church.
It is more restrictive, as you note, but I believe it's correct or at least better than opening this up for the non-ordained and feeding into this idea of "every member a minister," which has boomed over the last 50 or so years (I do grant that things like SS and SG are not as black and white as preaching and the office of elder/minister (reserved for ordained men), which is why I guess there has been no stated official position on this for the denomination---as I'm sure you know, the paper you provided is only meant for study/guidance and not the official stance of the OPC).
In the end, I think this is a very confusing decision made by the General Assembly---if I understand correctly, it basically penalizes one church for doing what any other OPC church is still free to do: women can still freely teach SS and SG to mixed gatherings but just not at your former church.
This situation is probably far from finished, and I think it will require an official denominational position on the matter. The fact that the advisory committee was split (some say 5 to 5) and that a number of commissioners had their names listed in the GA minutes via a protest likely indicates that there's much more to come on this in the OPC (and, as you know all too well, it will probably come very, very slowly).
I know we don't see eye to eye on all this stuff, Aimee, but I do respect you as a sister in Christ and have surely benefited and been sharpened from your thoughts and writings over the years.
Blessings to you and your family on this Fourth of July,
My apologies, Anna. I misread your quote of Packer (and didn't see the rest of your post where it's clear that Packer is arguing against the view of your seminary prof.). Looks like Aimee was able to see past my mishap when replying to my comment. Thank you for clarifying, though. Blessings!
When you diminish one of the sexes, neither flourish. But the result of the curse is that unless the Spirit transforms hearts, minds, actions, we will continue to try to fill ourselves/our relational need/our need to be right (layering laws on like the Pharisees) or superior to one another, biting and devouring one another instead of partaking in his body and his blood and allowing him to fill our gaping need.
I’m more and more convinced that human “flourishing” this side of heaven means being welcomed and drawn increasingly into Christ’s sufferings where we might experience intimacy with him and be made just like him. Then, instead of trying to fill ourselves in reference to our relationship with one another, we pour ourselves out like him.
Maybe my comments feel unrelated. I just ache for the hurt we’ve experienced and know that we need more of Christ. I’m praying for the gospel to be more real than the shame we have had heaped on us. Praying for the Lord’s tender grace to renew our hearts like oil rubbed into dry, cracked skin, keeping us soft and strong. I’m praying we might all fix our eyes on Christ and RUN this race regardless of what people standing in the sidelines might say or do. And I’m praying for him to show how he will bear fruit and be glorified even in what feels like death (John 12:24).
Thank you so much for sharing this, Kelsy.
Kelsey, your comments are very much related, and resonate with I’m chewing on in the Gospel of John. If you read my post from today (which I trust Aimee won’t mind me sharing here), I mention how the grain of wheat in John 12 is an image of Adam/man, and the body and blood is an image of Eve/woman. We need more of Christ, yes! For, “While the inability to realize the creative potential of human sexuality [as male and female] is not peculiar to Christianity, our reading of John’s gospel has suggested that it is in the mystery of Christ that the key to this realization is offered to us” (Bruno Barnhart). https://www.aaronjhann.com/p/god-is-a-wedding-part-3
Your words are powerful and full of truth. Thank you for sharing your heart and reminding us of the importance of being drawn into Christ’s sufferings. May we all pour ourselves out like Him and fix our eyes on Christ as we run this race.
Now might be the right time to say that few men have ministered to me as much as you have, Aimee. They want you to bear the shame, but the shame is theirs.
You are bearing the reproach of Christ.
I'm honored to know you
Likewise, Sam!
And also your new book is wonderful. I don't have as much time to read as I used to, having a real job and all, but you are speaking for so many of us
"the shame is theirs". EXACTLY!
Aimee, for many, their understanding of themselves and the women who are their neighbors has neither root nor reach. I think of my garden at this time of year and the flowers anchored in the soil and reaching up, face open toward the heavens. In seminary, our professor, an OPC minister, taught us a meaning of Ephesians 4:11-12 that masks and contradicts Paul's point. Only duly ordained ministers, men, work for the perfecting of the saints, do the ministry, and edify the body of Christ, not women. J. I. Packer calls the comma after saints "wicked" in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (2nd edition, 35). It forces a meaning on the text that is antithetical to Paul's point. When that comma is inserted, it makes it read that *only the minsters* do those things. Packer writes that it "not only hides but actually reverses Paul’s sense, setting clericalism where every-member ministry ought to be. (By clericalism I mean that combination of conspiracy and tyranny in which the minister claims and the congregation agrees that all spiritual ministry is his responsibility and not theirs: a notion both disreputable in principle and Spirit-quenching in practice)" (parenthesis Packer's 34-35). Again, the view that we were taught in seminary, Packer calls "wicked," "conspiracy," and "tyranny."
In my view, the way that many see themselves (clericalism), together with a sacramental view of their preaching, where the Spirit unites himself to their words only as "duly-ordained ministers of the gospel," has led some of them far afield and worked against love and respect for their neighbor (See Mark Beach, Calvin's View of Preaching). The distance that they put between themselves and the woman beside them who wants to serve with them is the natural outworking of how they see themselves. For many of them, the woman can never rise to whom they perceive themselves to be.
Next, their court systems for punishing the errant is an extrabiblical imposition. The Sanhedrin comes to mind. It is not the way things are done in Corinth, where the immoral brother is judged (1 Cor. 5) and restored (2 Cor. 2) by the body.
Aimee, I read your post and am sad but not surprised. I am no longer shocked by these things because the Reformed church has no theological anthropology to speak of. Their understanding of male and female rides on a few passages. Perhaps few take seriously our besetting desire to exalt ourselves, to think of ourselves more highly than we ought, to not regard our neighbor beside us as better than ourselves, to love them deeply from the heart.
Lastly, their interpretations of Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 do the work they need for them, whereas God gives us a Genesis to Revelation understanding of ourselves that leads us to know and worship *him* and set our eyes on what he has prepared for us after this brief life.
Yes, Michael Horton teaches this interpretation of Eph. 4 as well, which gave credibility to it in my own reading for too long. I think this understanding of the ministry and the preached word is just as damaging as the unorthodox views of the Trinity taught in evangelicalism. As well as the Aristotelian anthropology. These are such foundational and far-reaching errors. Errors is a generous word, though. And then the presbyterian court system...
I'm so thankful for your work addressing all this, Anna.
Yes, again, as J. I. Packer says, these views are "Spirit-quenching." Which takes my mind to the unique work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament prophesied by Joel, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." Consider the distance between what Joel says about the Spirit and what Calvin says. At the headwaters of the Reformed faith, Calvin speaks of a special work of the Spirit, the sermon, an audible Eucharist. Christ is thought to *principally* and *extraordinarily* reveal himself through his Spirit in the sermon, so that the words of the minister become the very Word of God through sacramental union. What would you call that? Reformed mysticism? And it can turn to male-centeredness. The church is where God uses only men extraordinarily. The local church takes on a masculine identity because of how the Spirit is perceived to be principally at work. It's far from what we see emphasized in the New Testament in Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, and Eph. 4. Also, how can we predict the Spirit's moves in human hearts? And yes, it heaps boat loads of shame on those of us wanting to use what God has given us in our local churches, while acknowledging that there is an order that Paul is concerned that resounds to God's glory, not our own. Actually, it brings shame to all women for what they are not.
Yes! I am so thankful for God's work by his Spirit despite mistaken beliefs and doctrines.
You asked what they think of love and power, and my bet is that they love power. They may not consciously know that about themselves, but their actions show they not only love power but are having a love affair with power.
Jesus mentioned leaders who love power. It was not a favorable mention.
And it is such a counterfeit power to sink your claws into...
A conversation long ago about forbidding women to teach led to the other person saying that the men pushing this were relying on their understanding of scripture and what they thought the Spirit was leading them to believe. It was said as if that justified the doctrine. What a load of hooey. That same rationale can be, and for millennia has been, used to justify racist teaching in the church. Sexism or racism, they’re both satanic.
I’m glad you decided to write about this, Aimee. It was very helpful for me to read it today placed alongside what I just posted today. It’s taken me a while to more fully appreciate what you and others — mainly women as far as I’m aware of — have done / are doing to address anthropology as a core issue related to abuse. I’m now beginning to see more clearly why my study of John has led me to a season of more in depth study of sexuality in John. Abuse is enabled by anthropology. Ergo, addressing abuse (and all forms of marring image bearers, like this OPC example) must include addressing anthropology. Sounds obvious enough probably, but I confess the connection has been easy for me, in my embodied state as a white male, to overlook. As Anna put it in her comment, “the Reformed church has no theological anthropology to speak of.” I’ve been guilty of that as well. In my final MA paper on my philosophy of counseling I wrote that “human beings are persons created in the image of God, existing as gendered individuals in psychosomatic unity,” and then unpacked each word in that statement. But this is about all I wrote about gender at that time: “A comprehensive anthropology must account for gender.” It’s taken me 10 years to get around to that more comprehensive anthropology, in large measure thanks to your work.
There is so much work to be done, here. But it is exciting to do!
I appreciate that you shared this decision. My husband and I just had a conversation on its behalf. Women are qualified in their home on spiritual matters laying the ground work of their growing sons but immediately lose those credentials as soon as they walk out of that home and enter the four walls of the church. Make it make sense…I’m to the point that it may never make sense on earth below.😔
It's all so revealing.
Thank you for sharing.
“It’s an extreme betrayal and violation of trust when the shepherds accountable before God to love and care for the sheep leave you exposed to abuse and then use the process of church order to keep you under it. It makes you wonder what these “men of God” really believe. About love. About power. About community and belonging.”
Community and belonging, something we confess as part of the apostolic faith “I believe in the communion of the saints”
Do we really? Or only when the saints fit the mold we design for them?
This decision makes me sad. I’m not part of the OPC but I look around me searching for faithful churches who delight in the communion of the saints and am saddened that so many reformed and presbyterian denominations would rather follow rules than have the sweet fellowship and communion Jesus gifted us in his covenant.
Yes, and what is at the root of these "rules"?
Your comment about men needing protection from the shame they project onto women makes me think that, yes, a lot of what goes on is about protecting men from women. Which is so counter to the complementarian teaching that men must protect women! I have experienced this as well. Women are supposed to “behave,” to protect the men! So wrong. All should behave, to protect one another.
Yes, there is so much projection :(
Thank you for sharing this, Aimee. It is a powerful testament to what really goes on in these situations. I have mulled over these things for a long time. My current thinking is that it’s not so much about direct misogyny, chauvinism, or fear of women, as it is about fear of not following the “rules.” It’s either fear or a desire for control and security in the form of following and enforcing a rule, and for the power one gets from that. It is Phariseeism. It is self-righteous domination.
I think this is what has been driving the “conservative resurgence” that this all seems to be a part of. It is political as well, in every sense of the word. It is about being in the world, but also being of it!
I have experienced similar things as you, albeit in a more subtle and much less public way, which was devastating enough; I can only imagine what you’ve been through. I am so sorry for what you’ve suffered! Brings to mind, though, verses on suffering for Christ’s sake. You have done this, Aimee! Please be encouraged, and keep on speaking!
The subtle messages can really mess with you. It can be a form of gaslighting. And there are all the invisible fences to figure out...
For sure. And since they are subtle or unseen, they “fly under the radar,” and are much easier to deny.
Why is this happening in so many conservative denominations do you think? The Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Anglican Church of North America, and now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church . . .
It really is scary.
If Satan can deceive a large number of people in the body of Christ to suppress and therefore render half of that body ineffective for the gospel and participation in God's kingdom, then how much easier for him to infiltrate and poison the entire body?
I used to give more benefit of the doubt for scriptural ignorance on this matter, but in many cases it seems more a matter of willful sin against the Holy Spirit.
You use the word shame a lot in a way I don't understand. If you know you are hearing God and teach, isn't that obeying God? It seems to me authentic shame would be felt when you don't obey God and don't teach. Men may use force to stop you, but wouldn't that be fear that stops you? I'm afraid they will cause me pain.
We are ALL made in the Image of God. We have a need to belong, whoever has the power and wants to stop you, needs to exclude you so you feel LONELY. That's classic attachment theory separation pain. It is evil to consciously and intentionally inflict that on an other.
It is not easy to find a place to teach. But not impossible. It may look differently than what you think you want . . and is God doing a new thing? If I believe you, about what you have said about these men, they are teaching women to not share Jesus. THAT IS INSANE!
I'm speaking to messages of shame (about our value and worth) that are projected onto women by male leaders in patriarchal churches. It's their own shame that they cannot bear to face so they project it on others and try to kill it in them.
I don't see men in churches feeling shame. I see entitled. I see ambition, competition, warrior. I do not see the collaborative I see in women. I see the typical power and force. If you see actual shame, perhaps there's some hope.
I'm sorry to hear this; the Southern Baptists get a lot of the attention when it comes to their disobedience to God and the Word in regards to regarding one another according to the flesh, but it's a shame to hear it from your Symbiotic Organisation as well.
It is sad to see a denomination prioritizing doctrinal uniformity over relational unity on these secondary issues that aren't essential to the Gospel. Keeping my fingers crossed that the PCA does not head down this same path.
The PCA is already far down the path.. it's a small denomination, so doesn't get nearly as much press as others... but the scandals around the way women have been treated or 'handled' are just as 'awful' in the PCA as in other denominations...
the problem of the church of the Laodiceans-'lukewarmness' is not nearly so visible or easy to see...
The PCA couldn't even pass a motion to require background checks when ordaining pastors.at their GA...
Local congregations in the PCA are every bit as far down this same path, and it's only a matter of time (and probably not much of it) before the denomination codifies those views. It's the logical consequence of a denomination *designed* to exclude women's voices.
Hi, Aimee.
I remember when this came up circa 2016 (https://heidelblog.net/2016/05/sunday-school-the-role-of-women-authority-and-culture/) when you and Trueman took the view that a woman can do all that a non-ordained male can do in the life of the church.
I think Packer and Horton's view is correct, which makes this not about women per se but about the roles of the ordained and the laity.
I know you disagree, obviously, but when things like SS and SG have become defacto "unofficial-official" teaching arms of the church, I think it's best to leave that to the men charged with formally instructing and shepherding the flock to do so as I think we see being taught in Eph 4.
May the Lord bring grace and healing to the undeserved wounds brought upon you by men within the OPC (denomination to which I belong) and hold Christ's undershepherds to account for their abusive conduct toward his lambs.
With love in Christ,
Hi Brandon,
Yes, that would be a different argument, one that I am familiar with. I've read and appreciate a lot of Horton's writing, and I do disagree with that ecclesial stance and interpretation of Eph. 4. But this complaint doesn't use that argument. Maybe you are pushing back that it didn't go far enough for your position b/c the ruling at GA is about the women. A layman can still teach in these capacities.
As far as I know, this ruling is in opposition to any official papers put out by the OPC on women in the church (and who can teach SS & SG):
https://www.opc.org/GA/women_in_office.html
Yes. All your assertions are correct.
I reread through that study paper (thank you for the link) and even the paper that the session gave to the congregation to justify their practice of having women teach these mixed gatherings (the paper basically echoes the sentiment that you and Trueman made back in 2016, which, I believe, has always been a permissible practice in the OPC).
But, you're right, the grounds made for this GA decision do seem primarily based on the gender of the teacher/leader and not on the distinction between the ordained and laity, which I'm advocating a return to and, in my opinion, would have bolstered GA's decision and not made this about women per se but about proper office functions in the church.
It is more restrictive, as you note, but I believe it's correct or at least better than opening this up for the non-ordained and feeding into this idea of "every member a minister," which has boomed over the last 50 or so years (I do grant that things like SS and SG are not as black and white as preaching and the office of elder/minister (reserved for ordained men), which is why I guess there has been no stated official position on this for the denomination---as I'm sure you know, the paper you provided is only meant for study/guidance and not the official stance of the OPC).
In the end, I think this is a very confusing decision made by the General Assembly---if I understand correctly, it basically penalizes one church for doing what any other OPC church is still free to do: women can still freely teach SS and SG to mixed gatherings but just not at your former church.
This situation is probably far from finished, and I think it will require an official denominational position on the matter. The fact that the advisory committee was split (some say 5 to 5) and that a number of commissioners had their names listed in the GA minutes via a protest likely indicates that there's much more to come on this in the OPC (and, as you know all too well, it will probably come very, very slowly).
I know we don't see eye to eye on all this stuff, Aimee, but I do respect you as a sister in Christ and have surely benefited and been sharpened from your thoughts and writings over the years.
Blessings to you and your family on this Fourth of July,
I believe Packer and Horton have antithetical views on Ephesians 4.
My apologies, Anna. I misread your quote of Packer (and didn't see the rest of your post where it's clear that Packer is arguing against the view of your seminary prof.). Looks like Aimee was able to see past my mishap when replying to my comment. Thank you for clarifying, though. Blessings!