Men and Women: Part 2

Part 2: Releasing Men and Women in Individual and Collective Governance Today

The Covenantal view of how men and women exercise individual and collective governance is an area of profound confusion today.

Therefore, it is necessary 1) to define and defend the Covenantal view against the false alternatives of Egalitarianism and Traditionalism, 2) to carefully distinguish between spiritual gifts and governing offices, 3) to affirm the ordination of both men and women as Deacons and men as Presbyters.
 

Defining and Defending the Covenantal View Against the Two False Alternatives of the Non-covenantal View

Once the Covenantal view of individual and collective governance is brought to light, defined, and made clear, then it immediately becomes apparent that what are commonly called the Traditional and Egalitarian views are nothing but two false alternatives within a non-covenantal view of the nature of mankind and of governing authority and structure. Both the Traditional and Egalitarian views are founded upon three interrelated, fundamentally flawed presuppositions regarding a) the nature of man as being primarily individual (i.e., as male and female only, not also as collective), b) mediatorial authority, and c) the use of mediatorial hierarchies in organization. In contrast, the Covenantal view affirms a) the covenantal (i.e., equally ultimate) nature of man as both individual and collective, b) ministerial authority in contrast to mediatorial authority, and c) the use of ministerial jurisdictions instead of mediatorial hierarchies in organization.

While on the surface there appears to be substantial agreement between the Covenantal view and the Egalitarian view (see chart below), in reality there is no agreement whatsoever. And likewise, while there appears to be agreement between the Covenantal view and the Traditional view in regards to women and eldership, there is actually no agreement on this either. The reason is because the Covenantal view is founded upon a completely different set of presuppositions about the nature of mankind and ruling authority in contrast to the Egalitarian and Traditional views. Thus what Traditionalism and Egalitarianism mean by their “yes” and “no” is not what the Covenantal view means by its “yes” and its “no.” This will become clear as we obey Jesus’ command, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). This requires identifying and testing the respective presuppositions of each view against the presuppositions of the Apostolic Rule of Faith as revealed in creation, Scripture and by the Spirit. But first let us compare the conclusions of each view in terms of the questions in the chart below.

Presuppositions of the Various Views Compared

When we examine the conclusions of the Egalitarian and Traditional views in light of their respective presuppositions we discover that while they appear to differ in every aspect, both views are actually founded on the same basic flawed presuppositions. Thus Egalitarian solutions are no solutions at all for what it considers to be problems with the Traditional view. Likewise, the solutions proposed by the Traditional view to problems it perceives are endemic to the Egalitarian view are no solutions at all. Both the Traditional and Egalitarian views, each in their own way, not only justify and institutionalize male and female domination, but perpetuate the Satanic strategy of confusing and twisting the covenantal understanding of male headship in relation to human collective governance. Only the Covenantal view has the solutions to the problems that both Egalitarianism and Traditionalism attempt but ultimately fail to solve. Only the Covenantal view recognizes that solutions to the problems related to men and women as individuals in governance must be integrated with solutions to the problems of collective governance. To demonstrate this let us allow each view to speak for itself on the basis of its own presuppositions as in the following five points:

1. The relationship of man’s individual nature and collective nature. The Covenantal view holds that just as each of the three Persons of the Trinity are fully God, so both men and women as individuals each truly and fully reflect the image of God. Furthermore, the Covenantal view also holds that just as God is one Person, so the collective nature of man also truly reflects the image of God. Thus the Covenantal view holds humanity reflects God’s image in the three ways: 1) that women as individuals fully reflect God’s image, 2) that men as individuals fully reflect God’s image and 3) that the collective nature of humanity fully reflects God’s image. In contrast, while “Christian” versions of Egalitarianism emphasize the equality of men and women, it has a blind spot in regards to the unique function that men have in representing the collective dimension of the image of God in mankind. The reason is that if Egalitarianism speaks of the collective nature of mankind at all, it imagines it to be nothing more than a collection of individuals. And while “Christian” versions of Traditionalism emphasize the unique role of men in representing the collective nature of man, this is done in such a way that it mediatorially elevates individual men over individual women, failing to recognize their equal value and ability to reflect God’s image as individuals. The reason Traditionalism does this is the same as why Egalitarianism misrepresents the situation – neither view has a working understanding of the collective nature of man as anything more than the sum of the number of individuals in a room. The principle, “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” is a blind spot. They both reduce the collective nature of man to an abstract, impersonal concept rather than embracing a covenantally formed collective as a corporate person. Covenantal rites of incorporation in family (marriage), Church (baptism, ordinations) and state (inaugurations) constitute corporate persons out of many individuals. In marriage, for example, there are three different types of human persons: 1) the man, 2) the women, and 3) the corporate body or person they form together. In regards to the Church, for example, Paul says, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12:27). Two Christians in the room equals three types of persons: 1) the first individual, 2) the second individual and 3) the corporate body of Christ collectively. To the Ephesians, Paul compares marriage to the Church, confessing that this covenantal dynamic of how individuals remain individuals while at the same time they covenantally form a corporate body is a “profound” mystery. “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church” (Eph. 5:31-32).
    
2. The nature of authority and organization. In the Traditional view, men as individuals in governance are wrongly thought to have mediatorial authority, i.e., a kind of authority that lords it over women (and other men). In Egalitarianism women are regarded as eligible to function in the same capacity as elders in collective governance. The fatal flaw in both of these views is their uncritical adoption of the non-covenantal concepts of mediatorial authority, a view that inevitably leads to the ontological subordination of some persons to other persons (as in Traditionalism) or the economical elimination of all differences in function between the individual private-governance of individuals and the collective public-governance of elders. In contrast, the Covenantal view affirms the complementary nature of men and women in relation to each other as well as the complementary relationship between the individual and collective aspects of man’s nature. Affirming the equal ultimacy of the ontological nature of the individual and collective aspects of man’s nature is essential to also being able to affirm the different economical functions of individual private-governance and collective public-governance.
    
3. Male-female equality and male headship. The Traditional view attempts but fails to preserve the biblical idea of male headship. Instead it perverts it by redefining it in line with mediatorial concepts of authority whereby men as individuals are thought of as more equal than women in certain aspects. Likewise, the Egalitarian view attempts but fails to preserve the biblical idea of male-female equality. Instead, it perverts it by redefining it in line with mediatorial concepts of authority where both men and women as individuals are regarded as having equal authority, if not also equal roles, in all matters of collective governance in family, Church, and state. While we applaud both the Traditional view for seeking to preserve the role of the collective nature of man and the Egalitarian view for seeking to preserve the idea of male-female equality, we recognize that both fail in their respective goals. In attempting to preserve the idea of male headship, the Traditional view rightly rejects Egalitarianism’s gender-neutral ideology of male-female equality, but does not adopt the covenantal view of male-female equality. And while attempting to preserve the idea of male-female equality, the Egalitarian view rightly rejects Traditionalism’s ideology of the perverted view of male headship as male domination but fails to adopt the Covenantal view of male headship.
    
4. The insufficient “measure” or standard used by the Traditional and Egalitarian views. Both the Traditional and Egalitarian views, when critiquing each other illustrate the principle, “with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matt. 7:2). Because each view is based on or “measured” by a non-covenantal view of mankind, each view in turn inevitably opens itself up to be measured or judged by its opponents as promoting heretical positions opposite to what it claims to stand for. Thus because Traditionalists promote the idea of male headship on non-covenantal foundations they open themselves up to be judged by Egalitarians as promoting a heretical view of male-female equality. Likewise, when Egalitarians promote the idea of male-female equality on non-covenantal foundations they open themselves up to be judged by Traditionalists as promoting a heretical view of male headship (i.e., by defining it in terms of male domination). Each view looks at the speck in the other’s eye but fail to see the plank in its own eye (Matt. 7:3). They would both do well to consider the plank in their own respective eyes before attempting to remove the speck from the other’s eye (Matt. 7:4). Both the “plank” and the “speck” are the faulty presuppositions regarding (1) man’s individual nature as more ultimate than his collective nature, (2) mediatorial authority, and (3) the use of mediatorial hierarchies in organization.
    
5. The sufficient “measure” or standard of the Covenantal view. Only the Covenantal view provides a scripturally defensible and workable set of presuppositions that can proactively deal with the problems of gender-neutral ideologies and male domination. It does this by defining the meaning of male-female equality and male headship in a covenantal framework that enables these respective ideas to complement or complete each other rather demanding the impossible, namely, that they supplement or compete with each other in a life-giving way. This stands in contrast to Traditionalism which attempts to promote the idea of male headship at the same time it is reacting against the perverse doctrine of a gender neutral ideology that it sees the Egalitarian view as promoting. Likewise, this stands in contrast to Egalitarianism which attempts to promote the idea of male-female equality at the same time it is reacting against the perverse doctrine of male domination that it sees the Traditional view promoting under the banner of “male headship.”
    

The Relationship of Spiritual Gifts and Governing Roles in the Church and in Christian Society

Because the Body of Christ is not just an ecclesiastical institution in someone else’s society, but ultimately the new society of Christ, the pattern for administrating spiritual gifts and governing roles in the Church is the template for society as a whole as the following four points explain:

1. Spiritual gifts are given both to individuals and collectives. In an introductory comment to a discussion on spiritual gifts, Paul says, “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Cor. 12:27). Thus we understand that spiritual gifts are given not just to individuals but also to collectives. This is in keeping with God’s command that mankind rule the earth in a covenantal manner, meaning both collectively and individually (Gen. 1:26-28). Thus we understand the relationship between spiritual gifts and governing roles in the Church as set forth in the chart above.
    
2. Distinguishing between governing offices and spiritual gifts. The ecclesial offices of Presbyter and Deacon are not gifts, but collective and individual offices respectively. Likewise, spiritual gifts are not governing offices, but spiritual gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to both collectives and individuals. For clarity sake we therefore do no use the title “pastor,” for example, as a synonym of Presbyter since women may be anointed with any and all manner of spiritual gifts, including that of “pastor.” But the fact that a woman may be gifted as a pastor has no bearing on whether or not she may exercise governing authority as a Presbyter. Likewise, individual men not ordained as Presbyters may be gifted in various combinations and capacities as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers as well as having other spiritual gifts, but this does not mean they automatically may serve or ever will serve as ecclesiastical ordained Presbyters in the Church. While all men have a call to function as elders in a general sense in the Church, not all are ordained, any more than all are married or all serve in as civil magistrates.
    
3. The exercise of spiritual gifts is not limited to ecclesiastical governing offices. A business man or woman, for example, might never be ordained to a governing office in the Church, but may indeed be anointed by the Holy Spirit with various combinations and capacities of any of the spiritual gifts, including apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher. It is common practice to think of the governing offices of Presbyter and Deacon only in relation to the Church. But this diminishes the nature of these governing offices (and thus also of the Church) since eldership, for example, has a broader function in Christian society that includes the ministerial roles of elders in family and state, not just in the institutional Church. Likewise, in a general sense all members of the Body of Christ are to be servants (deacons) in every area of thought and life in which they are called to exercise governing authority regardless of whether or not they have been ordained to the ecclesiastical office of Deacon. The Church is not just an institution in society but also the mustard seed of kingdomcultural society altogether. Therefore all members of the Body of Christ are to exercise the gifts of the Spirit, not just in the ecclesiastical institutions of the Church, but also in their broader societal callings. A woman as well as a man, for example, may be apostolically and prophetically anointed as the CEO of a business corporation, or as president of a university, and so forth. Thus the overall goal of “the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12) is the advancement of Christian civilization through the Church, not just the building of an ecclesiastical subculture within the Kingdom of Man.
    
4. Church governance is the template for the governance of Christian society. The way in which the Church governs herself is the template for establishing and advancing Christian civilization. Thus how believers structure the governing roles of men and women in the institutional Church sets the course for what will inevitably be worked out in Christian society at large, for better or worse. The Church cannot but help but give rise to a Christian society. The only question is how consistently Christian that society will be. Thus while we recognize that the exercise of spiritual gifts cannot be limited to ecclesiastical governance alone, we also recognize that ecclesiastical governance shapes all governance in society in general. While we may distinguish between ecclesiastical governance and the governance of society in general, they are nevertheless organically related to one other like a mustard seed is to a mustard tree. The Church is the seed of Christian civilization.
    

The Ecclesiastical Ordination of Men and Women as Deacons, and of Men as Presbyters

While both the ecclesiastical governing offices of Presbyter and Deacon involve rule and authority in general, we respectively distinguish between the collective public-governance and authority of Presbyters and the individual private-governance and authority of Deacons (as well as of all members in general). Collective public-governance is a function of male headship. However, collective rule by Presbyters does not compete with or supplant individual private-governance and authority, but complements and completes it by providing the context for it. Therefore individual private-governance is to be exercised by all members of God’s covenant community, both men and women, in all areas of life in general and in the Church in particular. Furthermore, in regards to governance in the Church, women as well as men are to exercise individual private-governance within the context of the Church’s confession of faith as guarded by her courts in which Presbyters rule. And for those individuals so called, this includes ordination to the office of Deacon. Thus while all ordination in the Church is to a governing office in a general sense, only the ordination of men as Presbyters is to an office that facilitates collective public-governance.

Basileia holds to the following five principles in regards to the ecclesiastical ordination of both men and women as Deacons and of men only as Presbyters.

1. Failure to distinguish between individual private-governance and collective public-governance wrongly closes the diaconal office to women. We regard the reasoning in the following statement from a modern Church leader to be in error due to a failure to distinguish between individual and collective rule and authority: “In the Bible the concept of Church office always involves authority or rule…[S]ince the diaconal office, like the office of elder, involves authority or rule, we have to remember that 1 Timothy 2:12 lays down a universal prohibition that it is forbidden for women to rule over men in the Church. In that case, it is forbidden for women to have an office within the Church because office involves rule or authority. Diaconal office, involving rule or authority, is thus closed to women.” While the logic of this statement is impeccable, because its starting point is wrong, no amount of logic, however perfect, can rescue it from error. The faulty starting point here is the implicit assumption that “authority and rule” is of one kind, namely, individual in nature, and thus that only men may exercise it. However, when the critical covenantal distinction between collective and individual rule is made, we understand first, that eldership is a function of collective authority and rule. Second, we understand that the diaconal office (as well as membership in general in another sense) is a function of individual authority and rule, of which women are full participants.
    
2. Failure to distinguish between individual private-governance and collective public-governance wrongly opens up the office of elder to women. The Egalitarian view errs in exactly the same manner as the Traditional view in assuming that all “authority and rule” is primarily of one kind, namely, individual in nature. Thus when Egalitarians rightly point out that God equally commissioned both men and women to rule over the earth, they wrongly extrapolate that women may therefore serve as Presbyters. The unstated and usually unconscience mistaken presupposition here is that God created the human race only or primarily with an individual nature. However, eldership is not a function of the individual nature of man, but of his collective nature. Nevertheless, this modern but mistaken presupposition of the primacy of man’s individual nature is thought to be so basic and obvious that there is no need to question it. But that is exactly the problem. There is a need to question it because it is not biblical; the covenantal nature of mankind is both individual and collective. Thus we maintain that while both men and women as individuals are to rule and may be equality gifted in terms of the five-fold gifts and other spiritual gifts, the collective governance of elders is a function of male headship.
    
3. Romans 16:1-2 shows that the diaconal office is open to women. Diakonia (service, ministry) and the noun form diakonos (servant, minister) are used in Scripture in two ways: First, they may broadly speak of a certain quality or function of all members of God’s people. Second, they are also used specifically to speak of the governing office of Deacon. In terms of quality or function, any disciple can be referred to by the noun diakonos (Jn. 12:26) as in the case of those who minister the Word (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 3:5; Col. 1:23; 1 Thes. 3:2; 2 Tim. 4:5). At other times it is used to speak of the office of Deacon in contrast to that of Presbyter (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8). We may understand Romans 16:1 to speak of Deacon in the official sense. The present participle of the verb “to be” is used in John 11:49, Acts 18:12 and 24:10 to designate an office. Furthermore the word Deacon is used here in relationship to the Church of Cenchrea, describing Phoebe as a “Deacon of the Church of Cenchrea.” If the word “Deacon” was being used only to designate a quality or function common to all believers, then the phrase, “servant of Christ” would be expected. But Paul requests that the Church at Cenchrea formally recognize Phoebe as a Deacon, hardly something that would be necessary if Paul is only noting a servant quality or function that Phoebe performed. Servants in this sense don’t need to be publicly recognized in order to serve. Thus Phoebe, a woman, had been ordained to the governing office of Deacon.
    
4. 1 Timothy 3:11 shows that the diaconal office is open to women. Unfortunately, both the NIV and NKJV translate the Greek word for “women” in 1 Timothy 3:11 as “wives” and even add the possessive pronoun “their” which is not in the original Greek. This obscures the meaning of the passage in regards to women serving as Deacons. A clearer approach begins by noting that the context of 3:1-7 deals with the qualifications for Presbyters in 3:8-10 and the qualifications of male Deacons in 3:12-13. We therefore know that Paul is not talking about women in general in verse 11 but about either women Deacons or wives of Deacons. But an argument for this not being a reference to wives of Deacons is that no similar reference is made to the wives of Presbyters in 3:1-7. Furthermore, just as verse 8 uses the term “likewise” to relate what is now to be said about Deacons to that of Presbyters, verse 11 begins with the term “likewise.” Paul then resumes listing the qualifications for male Deacons in verses 12-13. The insertion of verse 11 into the middle of the list of qualifications of Deacons is understandable because in 3:1-7 Paul was speaking about Presbyters who are men. He then begins speaking about Deacons “likewise.” However, to clarify that unlike Presbyters, Deacons may also be women, he inserts a clarification in verse 11 about women Deacons before continuing on with the specific requirements for male Deacons. Finally, the qualifications for women Deacons in verse 11 parallels the requirements for men deacons in 8-10. Thus it makes sense that Paul inserts the statements of verse 11 at the point he does because the next specific qualification for Deacons applies to male Deacons alone.
    
5. The distinction between individual and collective governance is the key to defining the complementary functions of Presbyters and Deacons. In 1 Timothy 3:1-13 Paul lists the qualifications for Presbyters and Deacons, not their functions. Nevertheless, from the broader context of Scripture as a whole we understand that the functions of Presbyters and Deacons differ in that Presbyters exercise collective governing authority while Deacons exercise individual governing authority. While both men and women as individuals are to exercise ruling authority in general (Gen. 1:26-28), we must be careful to distinguish between that which is collective ruling authority (to be exercised publicly by Presbyters) and individual ruling authority (to be exercised privately by both individual men and women). Judicial authority, for example, is a particular kind of governing authority and is of two types. First, there is the kind of prophetic and judicial authority that Deborah, for example, exercised in an individual and private capacity. Second, there is the prophetic and judicial authority that elders exercise in a public, collective capacity. While the qualifications for exercising ruling authority are the same for men and women, the individual and collective roles in the exercise of ruling authority differ. Basically, collective ruling authority guards the boundaries of a community’s membership through the authority of its courts while individual ruling authority is to be exercised within those boundaries. To say it differently, collective ruling authority defines the context within which all right rule may occur while individual ruling authority concerns the content of obedience to God’s will in all areas of thought and life.
    

Further Applications to Basileia

Titles 

In order to distinguish between spiritual gifts and ecclesiastical governing offices, it is Basileia’s practice to avoid using the name of a spiritual gift before a person’s name as in Apostle Richard or Pastor John. Such nomenclature incorrectly implies that spiritual gifts may be considered as dynamic equivalents to ecclesiastical governing offices. However, we support and even encourage the practice of using the name of an ecclesiastical governing office before a person’s name as in Bishop William Mikler, Presbyter David White or Deaconess Susan James. 
 

Roles of Men and Women in Church Governance

Basileia distinguishes between the roles of men and women in individual and collective forms of ecclesiastical governance as follows:

• We ordain only men to the collective ecclesiastical governing offices of consecrated Abbots and Presbyters while we ordain both men and women to the individual ecclesiastical governing office of Deacon.
   
• We hold that men alone are to serve as Presbyters in Basileia’s various Presbyter Councils, while both men and women as individuals may serve in leadership roles with Deacon Councils and Missional Councils.
   
• While all Councils have a Presiding Member, not all are Heads. The only Heads of Councils Basileia has are Presbyters who are Presiding Members of a Presbyter Council. Furthermore,  the fact that a Presbyter may be serving as the Presiding Member of a Deacon Council or Missional Council does not make him a Head since these two kinds of Councils administrate individual forms of governance in contrast to collective forms of governance.
   

Roles of Men and Women in Societal Governance

Basileia distinguishes between the roles of men and women in individual and collective forms of governance in society as follows:

• We commission only men as elders of the special collective governments of family, Church, and state while we commission both men and women in their respective governing roles as individuals.
   
• We regard all forms of individual self-government in educational, vocational and associational structures as operating within the collective governing jurisdictions of family, Church and state. Therefore in education, vocation and associational structures we commission both men and women in their individual governing roles.