WSC and God's Creation Order of Sexuality: A private thing?

(Tim) One of our interlocutors posted a comment largely made up of a statement on a few matters issued by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in California. The purpose of the statement being posted in our comments was to make the point that WSC has no desire to disengage in areas where God's Word is under attack today. Reading it, though, I came away with the conviction that even this statement is an example of the very thing David and I have been concerned about. Here is one part of the WSC statement:

Concerning the Ordination of Women we believe:

That men and women equally bear the image of God and are to serve him with all their gifts according to his specific callings to them.

That from creation, men were given authority and ultimate leadership in the family and in the covenant community.

That Christ, as he makes clear in his Word, does not call women to the authoritative offices of teaching elder (minister) and ruling elder in the church and therefore the church may not ordain them to these offices.

This summary of Scripture's doctrine of God's Creation Order of Sexuality is defective...

Nowhere does Scripture limit the application of "Adam first, and then Eve" to the privacy of the home and Church. This statement of Scripture's doctrine of God's Creation Order of Adam and Eve, man and woman, ish and ishah, is symptomatic of the problem we see with Westminster Seminary in California's two kingdom disengagement from the world. They have reduced patriarchy to a private and a Covenant Community matter. Still, putting things this way does remove some of the awkwardness of our living in this world. Go ahead and draft women into the military, make them combatants, elect them president, have them train future pastors in theology; it's not the church or the home.

But make no mistake about it: no reformer nor one single man among the Westminster Divines would recognize this statement as an accurate summary of the Word of God.

Addendum: Actually, as I think about it, I really wonder how many of the profs at WSC were satisfied with this statement? I'm betting my friends, Peter and Rebecca Jones, weren't. Yes, I know Peter's adjunct, now, but Rebecca's Ed Clowney's daughter, right?

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I doubt Bob Godfrey would put it this way. He's a wise man who's helped me much in this area of doctrine, and I doubt he would ever deny God's Creation Order of Sexuality is applicable everywhere man is man and woman is woman.

* * *

Chrysostom: Woman was not made for this, O man, to be prostituted as common. O ye subverters of all decency, who use men, as if they were women, and lead out women to war, as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overleap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs. But you reduce the head to the feet, and raise the feet to the head. You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed. (Chrysostom, Homily on Titus 2:14).
   
Clement of Alexandria: We do not say that woman's nature is the same as man's, as she is woman. For undoubtedly it stands to reason that some difference should exist between each of them, in virtue of which one is male and the other female. Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to woman, as she is woman, and not as she is a human being. But if there were no difference between man and woman, both would do and suffer the same things. As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping.... For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war (although) I hear that the Sarmatian women practice war no less than the men; and the women of the Sacae besides, who shoot backwards, feigning fight as well as the men. (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, book 4, chapter 8).

John Calvin: This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency's sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: "What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?" (John Calvin, exposition of the Seventh Commandment; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, tr. Charles Bingham, 22 vols., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, repr. 1996), 3:110).

John Calvin: Two years ago, John Knox in a private conversation, asked my opinion respecting female government. I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature, it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights just like slavery-that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them, and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God, either because He willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men, or thus show more distinctly His own glory. I here instanced Huldah and Deborah." John Calvin, "Letter DXXXVIII to William Cecil" in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge & Jules Bonnet, vol. 7, (Philadelphia, 1860), p. 46.

Comments

You're appealing to Rebecca Jones? Rebecca? Come on Tim, be an authoritative man, not one of those check with your wife pansies!!!

Also, when are you founding ClearNote Republic? Lot's of women running things in these dear United States.

Tim,

This statement was drafted and adopted by several PCA TEs including Dennis Johnson, Peter Jones, Joey Pipa, John Frame, and Steve Baugh (now OPC). I think most all of them were members of CBMW and Steve and Peter were particularly active in CBMW. Bob Godfrey was on faculty and may have been president when this was adopted. I'm not certain of the chronology -- it was pre-'97 when I joined the faculty. I don't believe there was any dissent.

Dear R.,

Have to assume they'd do better now, but if this was its origin, why did you post it? Ancient history used to defend yourself with WSC?

If so, it would be right for you to own or disown it.

And Daryl,

Yes, I'm appealing to Rebecca Jones. Unabashedly. You must not know her. Didn't the Apostle Paul appeal to Euodia and Syntyche?

One final correction: I'm "founding" nothing.

Love,

Tim, did Paul appeal to the gals as authorities? He was telling them to get along. And be careful going to Phil. 4, because some might look at verse three and see Euodia and Syntyche as "co-laborers" with Paul in the gospel and -- voila! -- there's your case for women's ordination.

And on the matter of founding a new republic, if you're not, are going to submit to Nancy Pelosi?

>And on the matter of founding a new republic, if you're not, are going to submit to Nancy Pelosi?

Submitting to an authority does not make the authority virtuous or legitimate.

>>are going to submit to Nancy Pelosi?

Already do, brother. Err, dear brother.

Love,

Dr. Hart,

That is a huge is/ought fallacy. Our job is to instruct on the correct roles of man and woman in every sphere of life, and form the Christian conscience.

And yes, submit even to those with whom we greatly disagree, while we work and pray for rulers such as we need, not rulers that are a judgment upon us.

Ken Pierce: "And yes, submit even to those with whom we greatly disagree, while we work and pray for rulers such as we need, not rulers that are a judgment upon us."

Good statement. By and large, I agree. But there are biblical limits to that submission, no?

Truth: Yes, of course.

"That Christ, as he makes clear in his Word, does not call women to the authoritative offices of teaching elder (minister) and ruling elder in the church and therefore the church may not ordain them to these offices."

Perhaps there was more context to this, some good faithful men have drafted it.

On its face, it might more completely read...

"That Christ, as He makes clear in his Word, does not call women to the authoritative offices of His church such as minister, elder or deacon and therefore His church may not ordain them to these offices."

Smiles.

Tim, if you submit to Sis Nancy, how are you being biblical? I mean, people who don't picket abortion clinics are pharisaical, you say, even if they believe abortion is wrong. So you think women in authority is wrong but you submit to a woman in authority. How is this not exactly the moral inconsistency for which you fault 2k? You have one standard from the word, but live by a different standard.

lovingly confused, dgh

Tim,

Art thou saying, "Thou shalt picket abortion clinics?"

Or art thou saying "Thou mayest picket abortion clinics, without sullying thy white clerical garments?"

What sayest thou?

>>Tim, if you submit to Sis Nancy, how are you being biblical? I mean, people who don't picket abortion clinics are pharisaical, you say, even if they believe abortion is wrong.

Again, Darryl; why do I never recognize my words once they've gotten chewed up by your keyboard? "Submit to Sis Nancy?" Where on earth did that come from? "People who don't picket abortion clinics are Pharisaical?" Where on earth did that come from?

First, they're not "abortion clinics." Clinics heal, but these places kill. Something you missed, apparently. In the future, try referring to them with some sensitivity to the blood of innocents they produce. I've found "baby slaughterhouse" or "abortuary" work well.

And "Pharisaical?" Are you aware this post was written by my brother, David? Do you know I have a brother, David? I'm the one who's close to Bob Patterson. David's the one who has a PCA congregation and wrote this post.

As I said just now under another comment you left that made mincemeat of my words and thoughts, give it a rest, please.

Still with love,

Sorry to burst your paradigm but I agree with the WSC statement.

>>Sorry to burst your paradigm but I agree with the WSC statement.

First, your not bursting anything. I fully expected this. It's boringly normal among men making a claim to orthodoxy, today. The meaning of sexuality in the world? What world? Where? Who?

My paradigm, indeed. Open your Bible and read. Read it like Calvin and Luther and Knox read it. Don't be pressed into conformity to the patterns of this evil world.

"Adam being created first, and then Eve; and Adam not being deceived, but Eve; well, it means women shouldn't be ruling or teaching elders, and they shouldn't threaten their husbands' authority at home.

But out in the world, Adam being created first and then Eve and Eve being deceived, means..."

Then silence.

Of course, given this howling silence, Reformed men then have to reduce monogamy and heterosexuality to a private thing, too, since patriarchy, monogamy, and heterosexuality are all there in the Garden, prior to the Fall. If patriarchy is able to be privatized, there's nothing stopping us from privatizing monogamy and heterosexuality, too.

And God's Creation Order becomes a private thing for Christians.

As I said before, neither Calvin nor Luther (and of course, not Knox) would even recognize this sad statement. Nor anyone across church history.

We had to wait until the third millenium to find what Scripture hadn't meant.

Under God's Word,