An interesting rebuttal was published today @ Ordinationtruth.com. Here is the entire article:
In August, the Seventh-day Adventist theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA, voted to officially adopt a special statement. That statement claimed that Jesus’ unique Headship role somehow meant that there could be no male-headship roles by local elders in the church. In the accompanying article, guest OrdinationTruth.com author Jordy Buinsman examines the argument that Christ as unique head of the church contradicts the male-headship-office of local elder.
Buisman writes as a Seventh-day Adventist youth from the Netherlands. Does Christ as Unique Head of the Church Contradict the Male-headship Office of Local Elder?DOWNLOAD IN PRINTABLE PDF FORMATJordy Buisman
2014-10-08
Introduction
A recent argument put forward favoring the ordination of women (WO), contrasts Christ’s role as the unique Head of the church (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 5:23) and the role of an elder as a male headship office (1 Timothy 2:12 and 3:2, 1 Corinthians 11:3). The argument recently being set forth seems almost an afterthought. It was not proposed until this year.
Initially, it seems a reasonable argument. It appears biblical because it seems not to invoke speculative cultural conditions, and looks like a straightforward use of Scripture. The reasoning is as follows: “Since Christ is the unique Head of the church, any form of headship existing in the church is unbiblical, because it usurps a position belonging only to Christ. Therefore, the idea that the role of elder is a male headship role is unbiblical, meaning that the church can ordain women.” For many WO proponents, this argument seems to demonstrate that gender cannot be a biblical qualification for ordination. But is this sound reasoning? Could this settle the debate in favor of WO? Let’s explore the issues involved.
The argument does not logically follow
There is a fatal flaw hidden in the reasoning undergirding this argument, namely, that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises of the argument (non sequitur). The argument, formalized, looks like this:
Premise 1: There is only one head of the church
Premise 2: Jesus Christ is the head of the church
Conclusion: therefore there cannot exist headship in the church
This argument is not valid. There is a categorical difference between being the head of the church and performing a headship function in the church. The terms may be similar, but the two do not overlap and therefore cannot contradict. The conclusion does not follow.
A corrected form of this argument would look like this:
Premise 1: There is only one head of the church
Premise 2: Jesus Christ is the head of the church
Conclusion: therefore no one except Jesus Christ is the head of the church
That is a conclusion we all agree on. It is for that very reason that it is unscriptural, even blasphemous to proclaim yourself to be the vicar of Christ, or God on earth. However, that does not mean there is somehow a contradiction between eldership as Adventists since our beginnings have practiced it (as a male headship role), and Christ’s status as Head of the church. At most, the argument demonstrates that there can be no additional head of the church.
Nor would it help if it did follow
Even if Christ’s being head of the church somehow logically precluded any form of headship within the church, the argument would prove too much! What proponents of WO seek to demonstrate is that maleness is not a legitimate biblical requirement for headship in the church. They do not intend to show that there is no such thing as headship in the church. After all, what is included in headship? Leadership. Authority. So, if Christ’s leadership of the church is somehow antithetical to leadership roles within the church, then any and all leadership roles would be delegitimized, including women pastors/elders, which would defeat the whole purpose of those favoring women’s ordination.
More importantly, such a conclusion is not in harmony with what Scripture teaches. There is legitimate leadership in the church and the Bible affirms its existence , even commanding submission to that leadership (e.g. Titus 2:15, 1 Timothy 5:17, Hebrew 13:17). Without leadership there could be no church.
The idea is that no headship in the church also means no male headship in the church, and if the argument is correct, women could be ordained. No headship means no ordination, because without headship there can exist only laity. If one advocates changing the term “headship” to merely “leadership,” how would the church conduct itself in harmony with the requirements set forth in scripture for the office of elder?
We are glad that abolishing all leadership was never the intent of those advocating for WO. Indeed, many are leaders themselves. And yet, they persist in attempting to show that the requirement of being male to be eligible for the headship/leadership office of elder is not valid.
What will follow if we accept the argument
Were I asked to categorize all arguments in favor of WO in a logical way, I would place this argument, together with the one from Galatians 3:28 and some others, in a category called: “Arguments inviting higher criticism through the backdoor.” I’ve chosen that name, because both arguments are presented so as to sound so biblical, to appear true to the principle of Sola Scriptura, and are described as though employing the historical-grammatical method. But as they are employed, passages are interpreted so that they are in contradiction with the remainder of Scripture, which then necessitates the invocation of local culture or the employment of other approaches that subject Scripture to man’s authority. The clear meaning of the totality of Scripture is explained away in favor of a preferred interpretation of these isolated segments.
This just shows how we all have to be serious students of the Word, because if we do not go to the scriptures for ourselves to see if these things be so, we are in danger of being deceived by pseudo-biblical arguments no matter the issue at stake.
A few follow-up questions
Some would say that male headship, though evidently valid when applied to the husband in the home, is not valid when applied to the local church elder. To these I would like to ask the question: Isn’t Christ the Head of the home too? And, if you can reconcile these two truths, can you not also reconcile the notion of male headship in the church and Christ as the Head of the church using the same reasoning?
How are we to interpret the dominion given Adam over earth in light of the dominion that God has over the whole of creation? And can we not just as easily reconcile those two concepts, as we can the notion of male headship in the church and Christ as the Head of the church, using the same reasoning? Two small prepositions “of” and “in” make a world of difference.
Will we follow?
The truth concerning Christ as head of the church is as follows: Christ alone, being the Head of the church, has the authority to organize His church the way He specifies. The way Christ has chosen to organize His church is revealed in His Word. Jesus has chosen to organize His church with a specific form of leadership, that of the elder, reserved for males. Their leadership role is modeled after Christ’s role, though in a limited fashion (just as we were created in God’s image, modeled after Himself, but limited and therefore not contradictory). Their leadership is not in opposition to that of Christ for He Himself designed the office they are called to occupy and specified their being male in gender. Their leadership is in subjection to Christ, because all ordained elders within the church derive their authority directly from Christ as the true and only legitimate leader of the Church. Only when men, ordained or not ordained, go beyond Christ’s revealed will (the Scriptures) have they placed themselves above the authority of Christ, and in opposition to His headship. Those who elevate their own opinions as supreme authority, whether directly or by trying to make the Bible say things it doesn’t say, usurp Christ’s rightful authority.
May we be found in subjection to Christ, the Head of the church, and follow His complete will as revealed in the Word of God, the Bible.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: Jordy Buisman is a youth living in the Netherlands. He graduated from the PEACE school of evangelism in the UK in 2013. Playing the piano, especially the hymns, is his hobby.