Speaking of the downtrodden RPs. I wonder what sort of lens we are supposed to apply to scriptures like these:
1) The Reformed church teaches that women are spiritually equal to men, and that they simply have different "roles". However, Paul enumerates spiritual gifts, and commands all (men and women) to pursue greater gifts. So, if men are spiritually able to pursue the gift of teaching, and women are not, then doesn't this therefore say that women are spiritually inferior to men, despite claims otherwise?
2) Many women are called prophetesses, and the Joel passage talks about women prophesying. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of teaching, then why do we think that women cannot teach? That would be like saying that women can play volleyball at the high school and olympic level, but not in college or professionally.
Bruce Hemphill wrote a paper asking the RPCNA to study whether women can be elders. One thing that was troubling was that the committee assigned to counsel Bruce spoke to him and at presbytery about a "Patriarchal lens" that should be applied to scripture. I've been taught all my life that scripture interprets scripture, so if scripture doesn't say to interpret scripture with a patriarchal lens, where does that come from?
Instead, scripture seems to suggest the opposite. The idea that the husband will "rule over" his wife being a curse suggests that the "patriarchal lens" men apply to scripture is part of the curse, not part of a correct interpretation of the will of God. Instead, we see suggestions of an "equality lens" in the Joel passage - that God pours out His Spirit on the noble and the lowly, without regard to position. Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28). Does Paul suggest a patriarchal lens?
This gets to one of the core RPCNA issues. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. What I mean is that Bruce Hemphill was considered an enemy by many in that presbytery, and the committee that counseled and charged Bruce Hemphill was seen as the enemy of the enemy. Yet, people were not on guard for what the committee was about to do:
1) They circumvented due process: The committee recommended that Bruce be "counseled" to request termination of his ordination within 120 days. In other words, they wanted a deposition trial, without an actual trial. Bruce was simply supposed to punish himself. In fact, when Bruce was charged and tried, one of the charges was "contempt of court" for not punishing himself.
2) They, according to Bruce, introduced a heretical view (Eternal Submission of the Son) as the basis for their rejection of Bruce's paper.
3) They introduced the "patriarchal lens" at presbytery as partial basis for rejection of Bruce's paper.
4) They charged him for rejecting query 4 of his vows (Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship...) and yet they haven't explained why he should be treated differently for his rejection while many elders and deacons are not charged or even refused office when they reject "women deacons".
So, the "friends" did go after the "enemy", but what has the church sacrificed in taking the easy road? Another rejection of due process? Tacit approval of heresy?
This is exactly what the RPCNA got when they approved the Worship Committee paper as a response to a paper against Exclusive Psalmody. The WC paper introduced "worship as covenant renewal", the "dialogical principle" and stronger liturgy. Interesting that Synod rejected covenant renewal in the Directory for Worship rewrite only to have the committee chair reassert it later in an RP Witness article.
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. (1 Cor 12:27-31a)
“It will come about after thisI guess the question that this should raise, but seems not to have is the question of whether women are included here. Women are told that they cannot be spiritually gifted to be teachers. So if we take Paul's enumeration of the gifts here: 1 - apostles, 2 - prophets, 3 - teachers (pastor/elders), this raises some significant questions:
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
“Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days. (Joel 2:27-28)
1) The Reformed church teaches that women are spiritually equal to men, and that they simply have different "roles". However, Paul enumerates spiritual gifts, and commands all (men and women) to pursue greater gifts. So, if men are spiritually able to pursue the gift of teaching, and women are not, then doesn't this therefore say that women are spiritually inferior to men, despite claims otherwise?
2) Many women are called prophetesses, and the Joel passage talks about women prophesying. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of teaching, then why do we think that women cannot teach? That would be like saying that women can play volleyball at the high school and olympic level, but not in college or professionally.
Bruce Hemphill wrote a paper asking the RPCNA to study whether women can be elders. One thing that was troubling was that the committee assigned to counsel Bruce spoke to him and at presbytery about a "Patriarchal lens" that should be applied to scripture. I've been taught all my life that scripture interprets scripture, so if scripture doesn't say to interpret scripture with a patriarchal lens, where does that come from?
Instead, scripture seems to suggest the opposite. The idea that the husband will "rule over" his wife being a curse suggests that the "patriarchal lens" men apply to scripture is part of the curse, not part of a correct interpretation of the will of God. Instead, we see suggestions of an "equality lens" in the Joel passage - that God pours out His Spirit on the noble and the lowly, without regard to position. Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28). Does Paul suggest a patriarchal lens?
This gets to one of the core RPCNA issues. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. What I mean is that Bruce Hemphill was considered an enemy by many in that presbytery, and the committee that counseled and charged Bruce Hemphill was seen as the enemy of the enemy. Yet, people were not on guard for what the committee was about to do:
1) They circumvented due process: The committee recommended that Bruce be "counseled" to request termination of his ordination within 120 days. In other words, they wanted a deposition trial, without an actual trial. Bruce was simply supposed to punish himself. In fact, when Bruce was charged and tried, one of the charges was "contempt of court" for not punishing himself.
2) They, according to Bruce, introduced a heretical view (Eternal Submission of the Son) as the basis for their rejection of Bruce's paper.
3) They introduced the "patriarchal lens" at presbytery as partial basis for rejection of Bruce's paper.
4) They charged him for rejecting query 4 of his vows (Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship...) and yet they haven't explained why he should be treated differently for his rejection while many elders and deacons are not charged or even refused office when they reject "women deacons".
So, the "friends" did go after the "enemy", but what has the church sacrificed in taking the easy road? Another rejection of due process? Tacit approval of heresy?
This is exactly what the RPCNA got when they approved the Worship Committee paper as a response to a paper against Exclusive Psalmody. The WC paper introduced "worship as covenant renewal", the "dialogical principle" and stronger liturgy. Interesting that Synod rejected covenant renewal in the Directory for Worship rewrite only to have the committee chair reassert it later in an RP Witness article.
