From here.
Leigh Anne Williams
Staff writer
Jun 27, 2009The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) elected its first archbishop and ratified a constitution and canons at its first Provincial Assembly in Dallas and Fort Worth, Tex. from June 22 to 25.
However, the church is still seeking recognition as a new province within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the U.S are presently the only ecclesial bodies in North America recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. ACNA leaders say the new province would be defined along theological lines rather than be based in a particular geographical area as provinces in the Anglican Communion traditionally are. The preamble to the constitution says that ACNA members are “grieved by the current state of brokenness within the Anglican Communion prompted by those who have embraced erroneous teaching and who have rejected a repeated call to repentance.”
ACNA, composed largely of clergy and parishioners who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the U.S over theological issues such as the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of a U.S. gay bishop, announced its formation last December. About 260 clergy and lay delegates, including 13 from Canada, attended this inaugural assembly.
Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh was elected by the college of bishops as the ACNA’s first archbishop. “It is a great day because working together, we have been able, by God’s grace, to reunite a significant portion of our Anglican Church family here in North America,” he said before his installation.
Describing the assembly, Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), said “There was a marvelous mood of co-operation and hope there. We had allowed three sessions for the adoption of the constitution and the canons and it was done in less than two. Everything passed unanimously all the time.”
He was quick to add, however, that he was “not naïve enough to think that in future synods there won’t be discontents of some sort arising,” noting that ACNA is a coming together of a number of different groups. Along with ANiC, which says it represents about 4,000 Anglicans in 30 congregations across Canada, ACNA includes dioceses and parishes that have left The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the missionary initiatives of Kenya, Uganda, and South America’s Southern Cone. Additionally, the American Anglican Council and Forward in Faith North America are founding organizations. ACNA says it represents approximately 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes.
Bishop Harvey noted that some of the groups that have united have been out of the mainline of Anglicanism for a long time, in the case of the Reformed Episcopal Church, for more than 100 years. “The big issue that’s there, though certainly not for us in Canada at this stage, is the ordination of women,” he said. Some of the churches within ACNA are opposed to this, but Bishop Harvey said ANiC’s policy is that “any office that can be held by a man can be held by a woman.” However, he explained, that “for the sake of launching this province,” ANiC agreed to abide by the ACNA decision that no diocese would appoint woman to the episcopacy in the immediate future. Women can hold positions as priests and deacons. “I’ve spoken to all of the women priests in ANiC about the reasons for us going along with something that is not really part of our own constitution,” he said, to reassure them that this temporary agreement does not represent a change in ANiC’s position. “It was to facilitate something rather than to change a doctrine. And they have all been very supportive. They know why we’re doing it.”
Bishop Harvey said that the Anglican Network in Canada will continue to operate much as it did before becoming a diocese of ACNA. “To the average person in the pew, you won’t see any difference at all,” he said. Congregations that left the Anglican Church of Canada aligned themselves with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America and Archbishop Gregory Venables.
Bishop Harvey said that relationship will diminish as the relationship with ACNA grows. “We have assurance from Archbishop Venables that for a period of time, there may be sort of a dual relationship. We are reluctant to sever our ties with the Southern Cone … until we know a sufficient proportion of the Anglican world is recognizing this as a province.” Bishop Harvey noted that the voluntary 10 per cent tithe that ANiC has been sending to the Southern Cone will now go to ACNA, “with perhaps some money still going to the Southern Cone, in gratitude for what they have done.”
ACNA reported that nine provinces in the Anglican Communion sent representatives to the assembly: West Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya (Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi), Southern Cone (including Archbishop Venables), Jerusalem & the Middle East, Myanmar, South East Asia and Rwanda. The provinces of Nigeria and Uganda have officially recognized ACNA.
“Together, these provinces represent the Anglican Communion’s two largest provinces and tens of millions of Anglicans,” Archbishop Duncan said at his installation. ANCA leaders hope support of this kind will grow.
“The big issue that’s there, though certainly not for us in Canada at this stage, is the ordination of women,” he said.”
I would suggest that Bishop Don may be treading on thin ice in assuming that womens ordination is not an issue here in Canada. The ACoC introduced many contentious innovations into the doctrine of the Church long before it’s latest SSB initiative; WO being one of them. He may well have changed his mind on the issue of WO but he shouldn’t assume other orthodox Canadian Anglicans have as well. Like many, I am prepared to be patient for the sake of unity and to give God time to resolve this issue. However, to import this innovation into ANiC as a done deal is very disquieting to me and I expect it may be as well to many other ANiC members.
WT WO is an issue but in context of what is trying to be accomplished it can get lesser attention, for now. If we continue to pick at all the fine points there never will be a cohesive ACNA.
As the process continues I have noticed that AB Hiltz is posturing less and less. He was not even mentioned in the latest dispatches from Hayden St.
I also think Bishop Don is on thin ice, and how can he possibly say that ANiC will only restrain itself from appointing women to the episcopacy “for the time being”? If he thinks that the other bishops in our new province would permit a woman to become bishop (re: new selection process), he is very much mistaken. If ACNA is going to keep together then women will NEVER be able to be bishops because if a woman became bishop most of the rest of the Province would not recognize her Orders or any of the Orders of those she ordains. This would make unity impossible!
I hope that Women’s Ordination will not be a taboo subject in ANiC, because I think it was jackhammered through last time (in the ACoC) and at the very least there needs to be a review of what God has said on the issue!
WO has been accepted in ANiC from day one. At the conference at which ANiC was launched, it was made very clear that ANiC will ordain women while respecting the conscience of those who disagree. I trust that our ordained leadership considered what God has said on the issue before they made that announcement.
The bishop issue is different, and I was surprised to hear Bishop Don say what he did. We need to pray for our leaders and pray that God’s will be done, and remember to be charitable towards one another, no matter how strongly we feel about it, and God will help us work it out.
Winter Traveller, I don’t think Bishop Don was on thin ice to say what he did about WO. ANiC’s members are all former ACoC members – I think that most people who can’t agree to disagree on the subject of WO would have left the ACoC 25 years ago.
There are obviously still a few of us “conscience clause” people around.
Well, I guess the issue is, do you trust the ACNA leaders to honour that, or not? I know that there are a few “conscience clause” people around – what I was trying to say was that I think that most of the people for whom WO is a salvational issue, a beaking point issue, would have left long ago, when women were first ordained. Doesn’t a person’s presence in a denomination that ordains women indicate a willingness to agree to disagree on the issue?
Women’s ordination is NOT a salvation issue, it is an issue of Biblical faithfulness and of church order. I think that it is important that it is discussed in ANiC and not just assumed a priori. As Archbishop Duncan said, “It is easier to escape Egypt than to escape Egypts patterns”. Women’s ordination is one of those patterns and one which I think ACNA should reject. The Bible teaches that women and men are called to serve God in the church in different ways, and in different ministries, and I believe, based on 1 Tim. that women cannot serve as “old men” or presbyters (or elders or deacons either).
Kate said “ANiC’s members are all former ACoC members”
Is that true? I was under the impression, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, that some members came from elsewhere.
James,
Since most of the 30 ANiC parishes used to be in the ACoC, most of the parishioners also used to be in the ACoC.
Those who have joined ANiC parishes recently may well have come from outside the ACoC, of course.
David said: “Since most of the 30 ANiC parishes used to be in the ACoC…” Therefore not all parishes were in ACoC (such as REC) so is Kate, since you are answering for her, not quite telling the truth?
James,
First, Kate is quite capable of speaking for herself; I was labouring under the misapprehension that you were actually interested in the information, so I was attempting to clarify the situation.
Second, you seem to be obliquely implying that Kate was lying; I suggest you either correct that impression or apologise.
David, I’m sure Kate is able to speak for herself and I was responding to her. However since you are attempting to clarify the situation, could you inform me – since I believe some parishes who have joined ANiC were not part of the ACoC; is that true?
David,
You think I was implying that Kate was lying. Not true. A Lie is an act of intentionality which I do not attribute to her. I am simply attempting to discern if what she said was true.
James,
I think the meaning of not quite telling the truth is perfectly clear and does imply intent.
Since you say you did not mean that, perhaps you should take more care to write what you do mean: in this case – was Kate mistaken?
Is your interest in the origin of ANiC parishes a prelude to an application to join? You can research all the parishes – and with a little persistence discover their origins – Here.
Oh for pity’s sake. We have a few plants, but to my knowledge all ANiC parishes that were in existence before ANiC was founded came from the ACoC. Now James, do you have a point, or are you just trying to be a pain?
Charles, I believe 1 Timothy’s “old men” are overseers, episcopos, bishops, not presbyters. My TNIV study bible notes say the following about 1 Tim 2:12:
I’m also curious to know what you do with the existence of a female deacon in the NT. (Once I can remember where it is I will post a reference)
Even as an issue of church order, non-revisionist scholars don’t agree on this issue. That is one of the reasons I think that Christians can in good conscience “agree to disagree”
I ought to have said “parishes” above, not “members”, (in fact, that’s what I thought I had said, and is what I meant). My apologies.
Thank you David.
And once again you did not answer the question. You attribute interpretations – so I will ask your suggested question: was Kate mistaken – not lying, not even ‘not quite telling the truth’ – it is the case is it not that not all members of ANiC were former members of ANiC.
You implied as much in your # 10 posting; but I don’t want to put words into your mouth.
James – what is your point, exactly? I believe I answered your question.
Kate (# 16 & 17)
Well I am sure you probably think I am trying to be a pain. I am trying to get something (as small a point as it may be) accurate. I am under the impression that there are members and parishes who belong to ANiC who were not part of the ACoC, such some Reformed Episcopal Church parishes.
What I think is my simple question is – is that right?
James,
As Kate says, your question has been answered above.
Since you seem to have such an interest in ANiC, why not pay an ANiC parish a visit one Sunday? I believe St. Aidan’s is in your neck of the woods; I’m sure you would be welcomed.
David,
That is a total non answer.
Please refer to my posting in # 20 – am I correct in that understanding?
I see where your confusion is coming from. The Reformed Episcopal Chruch has joined ACNA, which ANiC is also a part of – but they didn’t join ANiC. We are more like sister churches at this point. So, why are you so curious about such a fine detail?
Kate,
Ah, thank you. I do appreciate your answer. And just to be extremely picky – I know, what a pain – did any REC congregations individually join ANiC?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Not to my knowledge.
I think that the level of discussion on this thread would indicate that the WO issue is not as open and shut as some might wish it to be. As a former long time ACoC member, I watched relatively minor innovations blossom into the heresy and false teaching that permeates the ACoC today. I didn’t leave the ACoC at the time because I loved the Anglican tradition of worship and there was just no other Anglican alternative. I chose to fight these innovations in situ. The establishment of ANiC was a life raft to me and to many other disaffected Anglicans which allowed us to leave these unbiblical innovations behind. If ANiC turns out to be just an ACoC Lite (sans SSBs) then it may well not endure. If you don’t believe me I can tell you that of the six members of my Anglican Cursillo group to leave the ACoC in recent years, more than half did not view ANiC as being a truly orthodox expression of the faith. Currently, I am now the only one of the orginal six who has chosen to stay with the Anglican tradition and ANiC. If ANiC fails to recognize the significance of the WO issue in Canada, I expect that it will cost it dearly.
The difference between WO and SSB is that a scriptural, non revisionist argument can be made for WO, and the same can not be said for SSB. As I said before, from day one ANiC has said that it will ordain women deacons and presbyters. We’ve all known that from day one, from before the vote to join was taken. I admit I was surprised to hear Bishop Don say he was ok with women bishops. I’m not, but if ANiC eventually has a woman bishop, I won’t leave over it. There will be no perfect church this side of heaven. If what we are doing is of God, we will endure. If not, we won’t. The important thing is that God is glorified, that we have a church where the gospel is preached and that leads people to Jesus, and that we treat each other with grace and charity, despite our disagreements (something that I know you do very well, Winter Traveller).
(I edited this comment, added a sentence. Oh, the power of an admin account, lol)
#16 Phoebe (sister/servant/deacon(ess) – servanthood, diakonia) in Romans 16:1-2. She was from the church in Cenchreae and delivered the letter to the Romans from Corinth. (KJV,RSV,NIV) The early Church needed women deacons to assist with baptisms of females as they were naked before being clothed in a robe. A man was not acceptable in that case (and culture). The Great Commission was more important than the secondary issue.
Thanks, Sienna, I was just about to come back to post.
So, Priscilla is a co-worker in Christ, and she is mentioned first. She is obviously a leader in the church that meets at her house. Phoebe is a deacon, and is to be supported in her leadership. So how do we reconcile this with Timothy, if we take Timothy as a blanket prohibition on women’s leadership?
Well, not ALL translations render Pheobe a “deacon” for starters. The word in Greek is ‘diakonos’ which usually means “servant”, the church made ‘diakonos’ a church office, so the use of the word here could mean either “deacon” or “servant”, which is sometimes rendered “deaconess.” Look up the KJV or ESV for alternate translations to the one you’re using. If 1 Timothy’s character standards for deacons are taken into account, then how may I ask, can a woman be “husband of one wife”? No SSUs in ANiC right? (Just joking
! It is most likely that Pheobe is not a deacon but a servant considering what we know about the office of deacon from 1 Timothy.
.
The problem with Study Bibles is that their explanations and categories can all to often trample over the clear meaning of Scripture for strange and outlandish interpretations that introduce all sorts of clarifiers into the clearest Biblical statements. Where does Paul talk about “teaching [in Church] only by women not properly instructed”? Or only leadership by “non-domineering women”? He does not talk about this at all, what he says is perfectly clear: “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (this in the context of public worship). In fact, the women of Ephesus were probably educated since it was a busy, civilised centre.
I don’t want to seem ‘negative’ by harping on what ways women should not minister– the Bible has many positive instances of women ministering to the Church. Pricissa/Priscilla’s ministry in welcoming people into her home to worship is a great example. Also, her and Aquila’s teaching of Apollos, who had come into Ephesus and begun teaching in the synagogue, but who needed to understand the way of God more accurately cf. Acts 18:24-28. They did not rebuke him in church but took him aside privately to explain the faith in greater depth.
Did you know Priscilla is in Ephesus? Doesn’t that mean that she would be among the women Paul is referring to in 1 Timothy (though when Romans was written she is in Rome)? Since 1 Timothy is written after Romans. This means, I think, that women can teach in settings where the church is not assembled in worship (e.g. Bible study, Sunday School, ‘secular’ teaching etc).
I’m happy to continue the discussion if you want to raise other points or if you thing my responses are rot
Sorry about the formatting, I guess I haven’t got the nack of this yet.
James,
To what direction do your questions tend? You seem to be under the impression that Kate and David are concealing critical information which you must drag out of them. I’m not sure what your questions have to do with “women as pastors”, which is the discussion going on here.
Winter Traveller (#26), if you decide that you must draw a doctrinal line in the sand (something I can respect), where do you think you will go? On the protestant side, at least, I suspect your choices will be quite limited. When you move frequently and regularly need to church shop, it is easy to make a bad “purchase” (I’ve found that it is hard to accurately discern what a church is really like until you’ve been attending regularly for several months). I’ve left a few churches over doctrinal differences. In some cases I would do it over again – in others, I look back and question my judgement. I pray that God will give you the discernment you need to make the right choice.
Charles (#30), what would you recommend in the case where there are no men available in a church who satisfy the biblical criteria for elders and deacons, and who are clearly less qualified than some of the women in the same church? (Unfortunately, I think some churches today find themselves in such a position.)
Picking up what Kate said at #27, does ACNA yet have a position on the remarriage of divorced persons? To me, the reforms on divorce were the definite “tipping point” for the pastoral need overriding the clear word of Scripture. Now, I happen to agree with that, but I do appreciate that it’s dangerous territory and a direct predecessor, if now the root of, the current crisis.
#30 I Tim. 3:11 women (RSV); …way, (their wives) = way, (deacon(esses)) (NIV) Phoebe was (not just) a servant, but a servant of the church. Jesus gave the model of a servant leader – all church leaders ought to be servants of the Lord Jesus, with a few chosen for a particular purpose. This is to safeguard the tendency of some to say, “the Lord told me” and who go off doing their own thing rather than discerning in community.
Diakonos does mean servant, but to say that Phoebe couldn’t have been a deacon because she was a woman is begging the question. Study bibles of necessity have to condense scholarship – the note I quoted simply gives the two opinions that are commonly held. The bit about “domineering women” has to do with the Greek and how it is translated. There is a thread on Stand Firm where a Dr. Pricilla Turner goes into it in some detail. I will see if I can find it and link to it. The 39 Articles say that we are not to interpret some parts of scripture so that they contradict others, and with respect, Charles, I think that is what you are doing here.
Do you really think that the NIV and the TNIV are prone to strange and outlandish interpretations? Especially when both sides of the issue are covered? The NIV has been the most used translation in evangellical circles for decades, after all.
Henry, there are some scriptural cases for divorce and remarriage. I assume that we will be following them.
Even the ESV footnotes Romans 16 to say “or deaconess”, which is simply a female deacon. Modern churches have used the word deaconess to mean a different order from deacon, but I see no biblical need for that.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016;&version=47;
In all this discussion about deacons, I feel I should point out that the key concept of diakonia is agency, not (menial) service.
The original deacons were not primarily servants of the poor, they were agents of the Apostles.
A Roman ambassador or procurator could be described as a diakonos, and, indeed, Pontius Pilate was described as a diakonos of Tiberius (although not, as far as I know, in Scripture).
The reference is John N. Collins’s book “Diakonia” Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
But is a deaconess just a female deacon? The ESV Study Bible says “Scholars debate whether Phoebe is a servant in a general sense, or whether she served as a deacon, since the Greek word diakonos can mean either “servant” (13:4; 15:8; 1 Cor. 3:5; 1 Tim. 4:6) or “deacon” (referring to a church office; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12).” The translators, obviously thought that “servant” is the better rendering in this case, so that is why “deaconess” is relegated to a footnote.
“to say that Phoebe couldn’t have been a deacon because she was a woman is begging the question”
What question does it beg? Is it the question “why”? If so, read 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Tim. 3:8-13. I think the root of your problem is that you see no point in Paul’s clear prohibition of women exercising authority and teaching in the assembled church. 1 Cor. 11 and Gen. 2 may be helpful here. Is it not enough that God has spoken, and yet we still demand “a point” before we submit to His Word?
The NIV and TNIV Study Bible notes, are unhelpful in this case because they make all interpretations seem equally valid, and equally Biblical which is not correct. The ESV Study Bible notes are more helpful because, most of the time, they sort through various interpretations and explain why one is most likely or most Biblical and sometimes come straight out in saying that some are not “evangelical options.”
I already looked at Dr. Turner’s argument and found it unpersuasive. I am a student of Greek myself, and after studying the passage in the original, I think our translation “I do not permit a woman etc. ” is correct.
“We are not to interpret some parts of scripture so that they contradict others …”
Of course we are not! However I am not doing this, nor are you– it’s just that we are both reading 1 Tim differently. Look at it like this: You say Pheobe is a deacon, 1 Tim 2:12 says women cannot teach or excercise authority over a man in the church assembled, therefore 1 Tim must mean something less than what it says or it will contradict Romans 16:1. So, you must water down 1 Tim in order to validate Rom. I say that 1 Tim means what it says (without water added), and thus Rom. most likely means “servant”.
However, I think we should move on from Pheobe to the heart of the debate. Because, I’m not sure if you’ve noticed this already, but EVEN IF Pheobe were a deacon in the full sense of the qualifications in 1 Tim 3:8-13 (with the sticky bit about “husband of one wife” temporarily held in suspended disbelief) she would not violate the prohibition expresses in 1 Tim 2:12 because the role of deacon involves neither teaching nor exercising authority! But in the case of the presbyter/elder/overseer …. (More on this later)
Warren,
“What would you recommend in the case where there are no men available in a church who satisfy the biblical criteria for elders and deacons, and who are clearly less qualified than some of the women in the same church?”
I’ve never thought about that … But are churches really in this condition? I’ve never been in one that is like that … What would you suggest?
I think (if I am going to presume to be Bible Answer Man) that in this unusual(?) case, the church needs to bring in a pastor from elsewhere, who can train those men best gifted so that they can become elders and deacons. In the meantime, the gifted women could lead all the Bible Studies and teach the Sunday School, or out of necessity, preach … Is that Biblical? I think it is.
Henry:
ACNA Canons III.2.5 state, in part: “As wholesome examples and patterns to the entire flock of Christ, all married persons to be admitted to Holy Orders shall remain married to their spouse for life, and in accordance with the vows they exchanged in Holy Matrimony. Subject to Section 6 of this Canon, no person shall be admitted into Holy Orders who has divorced and remarried.”
Other canons give the requirements for examination of divorced person requesting remarriage. It seems that the acceptability of divorce for Christians is based on the three A’s – Abuse, Apostacy or Abandonment. I would expect that a person who has remarried after divorce would only be eligible for admission to Holy Orders if the entire sequence occurred prior to becoming a Christian.
Full text can be found here:
http://acnaassembly.org/index2.php/acna/page/34
Not a chance. I just disagree with you about biblical interpretation, and I don’t think that is what Paul was saying – as I said, it cannot be a universal proscription, because of the obvious leadership roles of Pricilla and Phoebe – and because of the fact that Pricilla obviously taught Timothy.
I did find Dr. Turner’s argument pursuasive, btw. I do think that this is an issue on which Christians, in good conscience, can disagreee. Obviously the ACNA leadership, even those who don’t ordain women, feel the same way, or Bob Duncan would never have been chosen for Archbishop, as he will ordain women.
I am not watering down anything, Charles. I am simply agreeing with one set of scholars and interpreters, you with another. I could just as easily say that you are watering down Romans to agree with Timothy. Perhaps less inflamatory language would be appropriate?
Charles (#41), if one takes seriously the criteria laid down by Paul for elders and deacons found in 1 Tim and Titus, I suspect the pool of eligible male candidates is not that large and that many existing office holders do not measure up. One of my pastors from the past was very capable in most respects, but his young children were little hellions who were frequently running around uncontrolledly in the church. I always wondered what Paul would say in a case like that in light of 1 Tim 3:13. With smaller churches at least, I think there is a strong temptation to put in office those who seem outwardly competent without subjecting them to more detailed moral scrutinty (partly because those who should be doing the scrutinizing may not measure up themselves).
Just to add to the discussion… Perhaps it might be helpful to realize that not all denominations have the same status for deacons. In our Anglican circles deacons are the first step in ordination to becoming priests. In other circles deacons are charged with looking after the needy, are organized in boards, and have less authority than the elders (who are equivalent to our Wardens). Therefore, whether they are male or female would depend on the actual requirements.
I, too, do not believe that a woman should have authority over men in the church as Paul stated, not because I believe some women to be incapable, but simply because God made us complementary rather than interchangeable and gave each of us specific spheres in which we operate best. Therefore, in many denominations, especially congregational denominations, where the pastor has little or no authority but the board of elders hold the reins, this would not apply to a female pastor who would be mainly a nurturer and preacher (although for me even the preaching could contradict the instructions in the Bible). But in our Anglican church the priest has considerable authority canonically and therefore this is problematic.
Warren (33)
Your right, my choices are very limited. I expect that I would have to swim the Tiber as the rest of my compatriots have done. However, I am not contemplating going anywhere at this time. When I joined an ANiC church in Ottawa (the one with which you are quite familiar) the general consensus from the orthodox community seemed to be that ACNA recognised WO to be an issue that had to be dealt with but that it would be dealt with later; the first order issue being to pull the various diverse groups together into a new Province. While Kate apparently knew that WO was a fait accompi in ANiC from the get-go, I did not. All I expect of Bishop Don is that he recognize that this is not an insignificant nor open and shut issue here in Canada and that perhaps he might employ a little restraint until our new Province is prepared to come to grips with this issue. I and many others are patiently watching.
It was made very clear by Fr. George at the ANiC conference in Burlington (the one that was held a year before our first synod).
#27 Kate wrote:
“The difference between WO and SSB is that a scriptural, non revisionist argument can be made for WO, and the same can not be said for SSB.”
I wonder what you mean by “non-revisionist?”
The ordination of women overturns consistent Christian practice dating back to the patristic era. Isn’t that revision of the faith once received? I agree that the Biblical evidence supports female deacons, but Paul speaks clearly that women shouldn’t be in authoritative teaching roles, but Dr. Turner’s argument is convoluted and difficult to understand.
I mean, that a biblical defence can be mounted for it without ignoring vast passages of scripture.