According to Dr. Eric B. Hare, some men grease their bodies before a fight so that if an opponent touches them, they may slip “cleanly” away.
Christian argumentation on the other hand, should be clear, Biblical, and clean. It should help the Christian, “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21) that he may “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). We should abandon loose thinking and the traditions of men with regards to God’s Word and the practices of His church.
Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that a number of fallacious arguments used by some individuals promoting the ordination of women leave the reader with a handful of grease. What is at stake goes far beyond the issue at hand—ordination—to the approach that God’s people use to understand and act on the truths of God’s Word. The following list of invalid arguments for women’s ordination illustrates this concern for faithfulness to the Scriptures.
1. Proponents of women’s ordination claim to sustain the male gender-specific role of the father as religious priest of the home, yet mysteriously claim that gender-specific male spiritual leadership is done away with because, “there is neither male nor female . . . in Christ” (Gal. 3:28).
2. Proponents of women’s ordination acknowledge husband headship, yet accuse those who believe in the ecclesiastical gender-specific position in Scripture of denying the headship of Christ at the same time.
3. Proponents of women’s ordination claim they have "sola scripture” views, and say they would happily receive any text that enjoins male gender-specific leadership. Meanwhile, they either deny the inspiration of Paul, or engage in fictional storytelling as to the reason for male ministerial leadership in both testaments—namely that God was not able or willing to change the customs of the times. When their arguments are not readily accepted, they may resort to criticizing their critics’ racial, national, educational, and social backgrounds.
4. Proponents of women’s ordination admit that Christ, while establishing the New Testament, ordained twelve persons of male gender, yet make the wild claim that those who would do the same today are misogynists (women-hating), with a latent desire to dominate females.
5. Proponents of women’s ordination believe that an ordained woman should be subject to her husband’s spiritual priestly leadership in the home, and acknowledge that the virtues said to qualify her in the church do not qualify her in the same way in the family circle, though her husband and children are members of the church.
6. Proponents of women’s ordination recognize that men should have their “children in subjection,” ruling “well” their “own household (1 Tim. 3:4), yet deny that, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much” with regards to spiritual leadership skills exercised by men in their families as requisite to leading the church (1 Tim. 3:5).
7. Proponents of women’s ordination disavow kingly authority, yet often have manifested disgust and defiance of duly elected representative church government, and manifested disdain for the committee process (e.g. TOSC). They scorn continued discussion, while they themselves remain adamant and verbose regarding the topic.
A small number of influential men will not decide this issue for the entire world church, and that is good. Let us pray for our leaders and delegates to vote to return to apostolic, primitive Bible godliness. The urgency of the times demands this in our decisions leading to, and at, General Conference Session in San Antonio, 2015.