Juan Jeanniton

Dear Fellows,

I would like to state that more than half of these paradoxes you are struggling with could have readily been prevented by reading my website
http://gfwilkinprofwomen.webs.com/, and realizing that the Bible does not assign roles of authority because of the
PERSONAL QUALITIES of the persons exercising them, but because of the nature of the relationship and function.
If any given role of authority is reserved exclusively for one sex, it is because the inherent and essential nature
and the significance and the value of the relationship and function for which it was appointed demands it, not
because one sex is inherently less gifted or talented than the other.

I have been reading from George and Dora Winston’s book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN —
and I learned this:

‘ ALL HUMAN AUTHORITY COMES FROM GOD, ITS ONLY LEGITIMATE SOURCE. IT IS DERIVED IN
NATURE AND MUST BE SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY HIM, BE IT TO A MAN OR TO A WOMAN.
Duly constituted human authority is but an extension of God’s authority. When the Lord told Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 3)
and to use Aaron as his mouthpiece (4:10-15), he said to Moses, “and you will be AS GOD to him” (v.16). The authority Moses had over
Aaron and the people was not his own but God’s authority delegated to him. And when the Lord ordered
him to speak authoritatively on His behalf to Pharaoh (6:29), He said, “See I make you as God to Pharaoh” (7:1).
Many men will grant that authority is not intrinsic to their masculine nature.
However, they feel that somehow, as men, they are invested with authority in a way that women are not.
The male sex is believed to constitute an extension of God’s authority. In this view, there is a general blanket authority of males over women.
But the Bible knows nothing of some vague, indefinite delegation of authority to the masculine half of humanity. It does provide abundant evidence
that all authority that God gives to one human being over another must be specifically delegated to a particular person in view of a well-defined
function and by definite appointment. “There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Rom. 13:1).
“Jesus answered [Pilate], ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above’” (John 19:11).
“It is the Lord who appointed Moses and Aaron” (1 Sam. 12:6). “The Lord has set a king over you” (1 Sam. 12:13). “You, O king … to
whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom” (Dan. 2:37). “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on
whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:17, 32; 5:21). “The flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28).
“Our authority [the apostles], which the Lord gave for building you up” (2 Cori. 10:8; 13:10). Kings are invested with authority
at their coronation, presidents at their inauguration, church officers at their ordination, parents at the birth of a child, a husband at
his wedding etc. Legitimate authority is the result of a specific bestowal.’ Any man who thinks he has authority over a particular
woman should be able to show when and how God appointed him to be an authority over her.’

And any MAN who believes he has authority
in any formal worship service is under obligation to PROVE when and how and what duly constituted OFFICIAL position and title wherein God has duly vested it in him. Even R. L. Dabney and all the Puritan/Presbyterian/Calvinist theologians who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith, in 1689, understood that.
“He is nothing more than a usurper unless he has been duly appointed. Any “authority” without biblical sanction is not an extension of God’s authority and therefore does not constitute a legitimate power to act.
Therefore a man should always ask himself when and how authority over a particular woman has been specifically granted him before exercising leadership over her or making any decisions concerning her. This authority and its bestowal should also have specific scriptural justification.
And if Scripture has explicitly established a woman in a position of authority over a man, she may freely accept and exercise it. She is not a usurper even if some men refuse to recognize or bow to her authority.

In fact, even R. L. Dabney himself, who was a Southern Chaplain to the Confederate Army in the Civil War, and a pro-slavery advocate wrote an article attempting to “prove”
that lay-preaching is illegitimate.

I have read pages 47-50 of the book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN.

The important points of the section where they discuss that authority is not dependent on the PERSONAL QUALITIES of the ones exercising them, they state this:

a RINGLEADER possesses power or the inclination or the ambition to act or govern or lead others by virtue of his inherent gifts and talents and sexual appetites

but a LEGITIMATE leader possess this power by virtue of regular lawful invesiture.

Authority must be lawfully conferred, power can be grabbed.

The reason why God has caused authority to lie in the OFFICE rather than constitute an essential biologically inheritable and biologically determined
quality or intrinsic ESSENCE and ESSENTIAL BEING of the PERSON or the SEX or the RACE is obvious: it is because “all human authorities, whoever they may
be or of whatever kind, are tarnished by sin and are imperfect and fallible. If every magistrate, church officer, husband, parent, or employed were to be disobeyed or deposed
at every one of his” sins or malversations or abuses, “there would be no stability left in human society. Since not all males hold office and since none of their capacities, however great,
necessarily confer authority upon them, it is evident that not all men are in a position of authority with respect to all women. So if authority is determined by function, when then determines
function?”

Well, let me show you. It is the inherent essential and properties either UNIQUE to a given relation or makes it analogical to other relations.

“THE AUTHORITY OF ONE PERSON OVER ANOTHER IS ALWAYS BASED UPON SOME KIND OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM,
RATHER THAN ON SEXUAL BEING OR ONTOLOGY. NO AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO MEN OVER WOMEN BY VIRTUE OF
THEIR MASCULINE ATTRIBUTES.

In his treatments of the term EXOUSIA as used in the New Testament, Kittel brings out the following: “It is then used of any right in the various RELATIONSHIPS similar to and guaranteed by national institution (e.g., the right of parents in RELATION to children, or masters in RELATION to slaves etc.”)20 and further, “This EXOUSIA is operative in ordered RELATIONSHIPS … is active in a legally ordered whole especially in the state and in all the authoritarian RELATIONSHIPS supported by it.”21 In these two brief statements by Kittel concerning authority, the words RELATION or RELATIONSHIP occur five times. …The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity gives further evidence that authority and submission are based on relationship. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all three of one and the Same Divine Being, essence, or substance (John 1:1: 10:30; 14:9; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19, etc.). This is called the ONTOLOGICAL aspect of the Trinity, that is, that which has to do with being. At the same time, “God is the Head of Christ” (1 Cor 11;3); this is called the ECONOMIC or FUNCTIONAL aspect of the Trinity (1 Cor 15:28, John 6:38, John 14:26, John 16:7, 13-14). There is no contradiction because the Persons are one and equal in one respect (being), and three and in authority or submission in another (function). Similarly, one human person can be in a relationship of authority or submission with respect to another without their being either superior or inferior in dignity or worth.
Some feminists have tried to escape this argument and have tried to prove that there is n authority or submission either between the persons of the Trinity or between men and women. They have usually sought to do this by seeking (in vain) for philological proof that the word “head” (KEPHALE) when referring to God the Father or to man means only SOURCE and NEVER implies authority, or by incorrectly stating the doctrine of the Trinity and insisting that any submission of Christ to the Father’s authority is necessarily a denial of His perfect Deity. Consequently, they claim that any submission of a woman to the authority of a man would necessarily be a denial of her full and equal humanity. Both Berkhof and Schreiner have clearly formulated the key to this difficulty: “There can be no subordination as to essential being of the one person of the godhead to the other, and therefore no difference in personal dignity… The only subordination of which we can speak is a subordination in respect to ORDER and RELATIONSHIP.”{23} “The difference between the members of the Trinity is a FUNCTIONAL one, not an ESSENTIAL one.”{24}

However, in recognizing that the solution to the problem of authority and submission among perfect equals is to be found in relationship and function, the traditionalists undermine their basic assumption that the authority of men is grounded in their manhood, and the subjection of women is grounded in their womanhood.
But if equality has to do with being, subordination cannot. Traditionalists have either overlooked or disregarded the fact that if authority and submission are to exist between ontological equals, they cannot be grounded in ontology but only in relationship and function. EQUALITY AND SUBORDINATION CANNOT,
BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, BE BASED ON ESSENCE. Grudem states correctly concerning the Trinity that to advocated a subordinate essence or being of the Son is to be heretical; it is Arianism. {25} TO ADVOCATE SUBORDINATION AS BELONGING TO THE ESSENCE OF WOMANHOOD IS
ALSO HERETICAL, though to a lesser degree. It is a serious theological error.” This is all true. “But both males and females can be either in authority or in submission with respect to each other depending on the relationship in which they are placed to one another, whether in the Filial, the Marital, the Civic, the Ecclesiastic, or the Work Relationship.
And where there is no relationship, there is neither authority nor submission for anybody. The Son was sent by the Father (John 6:38), and, in turn,
He sent the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). In one relationship Christ submits to authority, while in the other, He exercises it. In one relationship a woman can submit to the authority of a
particular man, while in a different relationship she exercises authority over some other man. Neither the woman’s authority nor her submission is based of the essence of her
Womanhood any more than Christ’s authority over the Holy Spirit is based on the essence of His Deity.
Failure to understand this important point has led Schreiner to state, “The arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women.” {26} But this is true only if authority is determined by sexual identity, which is an assumption we have just seen to be unbiblical. Many men, in a variety of relationships, have subordinate functions that in no way pose a threat to their manhood. And a woman can accept leadership roles in a variety of relationships without this being a denial of her femininity. There is not just one role relationship between a man and a woman based on their sexual identities but several different ones in which both can assume leadership based on their functions. By this we are not suggesting that sexual identity is unimportant. Defined in a Biblical way rather than A PRIORI, it is of prime importance. We are simply noting that sexual ontology is not the determining factor in the question of human authority and therefore of Christian ministry. In basing their major argument on the essence of sexual identity, traditionalists have begged the question and are beside the point. The manhood and the womanhood they have recovered
are not the biblical ones.

Nowhere does Scripture explicitly establish a connection between masculine traits and authority or feminine traits and submission.
On the contrary, it clearly shows that natural constitution and innate qualities can give power but never authority. A man may posses all the masculine attributes to the highest degree,
but these in themselves do not confer on him the least authority.

A little boy has no authority over a little girl simply because he is male. But Jehoash, a seven-year old boy, was anointed king when he was eight (2 Chron. 34:1).
These children had authority over whole kingdoms in spite of their limitations, exclusively by virtue of investiture. With God, there is no respect of persons but there is respect of legitimate position. Males are not born to rule; many more of them are subordinates than are rulers. Women were not born
to submit to men, because in many situations in life and in society, they have been appointed by God to lead (see chapter 6). Many men lack the temperament and natural inclination
to exercise authority. But if God has made them kings, husbands, or fathers, they must accept these responsibilities and get on with the job. Neither is a man because he is a man
any less subject to Christ, magistrates, church officers, or an employer than is a woman. And a woman is no more subject to these authorities because she is a woman.
The general biblical testimony is against the idea that God destines men to be in authority over women because of their respective sexual makeups.
God does not delegate authority to males across the board. He rather delegates it to both men and women on the basis of specific functions that they fulfill within different relationships.
We shall now observe that He does this to circumscribe human authority within certain limits.”

AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN.