One of the very prominent issues on the church’s agenda today is the ordination of women. Those favoring ordination ignore the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures and of church history and build their case on a few proof-texts which they interpret to their own fancy. It is a strange irony that plain Scriptures on other matters are either ignored or violated or given “private interpretations,” while at the same time whole new doctrines are built up on a few misinterpreted verses. In Peter’s language the Scriptures are being “wrested” (or distorted), (II Pet. 3:16). In some cases heretical “scholars” are quoted to support the ordination of women.

A good example of using a prooftext and of distorting Scripture is the pet verse of feminists, Galatians 3:28, which states that in Christ male and female are equal. Many things in life are equal in one respect or another, but this certainly does not carry through in every respect. A car and a tractor, for example, are equal for the fact that both have four wheels, a motor, a steering wheel and brakes, but they are also so different in other respects that the analogy becomes ludicrous. They differ too in the roles they play. This whole equality argument has become a travesty among church leaders who apparently have decided to sacrifice integrity for the sake of going along with the times.

It is egotism of the highest (or lowest) order to presume that we of this century have at last come to the truth regarding church structure and the role of males and females in society and in the church. Such new revelations are in essence not a whit different from those claimed by leaders of cults, for example, the Prophet of the Mormon Church, who in recent years claimed to have received a new revelation concerning the admission of blacks into the life of the church.

It remains an undisputed fact that the present effort toward “equality” and “liberation” has come about through the influence of the women’s liberation movement. The church instead of being a voice in society has once more become merely an echo.

One of the methods proposed by church leaders of the various conferences and synods which are making an effort to ordain women, but who find much opposition in the grass roots churches, is to put the whole issue on a congregational basis, allowing those churches which desire to ordain women to do so. This makes it appear less crucial and as representing an opportunity to exercise “brotherhood.” The ostensible intention is to respect those who definitely oppose the ordination of women, and at the same time solicit their forbearance toward those who “interpret” the Scriptures differently! The Southern Baptists, who operate more or less congregationally, took this course, passing a resolution at their 1984 convention opposing the ordination of women, but allowing churches to act independently.

But the fallacy of all this is that it defies the unity of the brotherhood. In other matters—budget, for example denominational bodies or area conferences or synods are not that generous! The account of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15) does not point toward congregationalism. There, after “much disputing,” the assembled group arrived at a final answer, issuing “decrees for to keep” in all the churches.

The point is, as we have already seen in the Mennonite Church, a woman minister ordained by a church in Illinois, presumably on the basis of local option, is now being used in various meetings of the conference, and, in fact, in the denomination. In short, once a woman is ordained she becomes a part of the whole ministerial body, forcing churches which had opposed this policy to accept her in the larger body—the conference or synod. This kind of pluralism is not supported in any way in the New Testament and represents an imposition on the large majority who do not approve the ordination of women.

This editorial is reprinted from Guidelines for Today an evangelical Mennonite publication (published at P .O. Box 565, Johnstown, PA 15907). Many of our readers may be interested in a paragraph appearing on the same editorial page which calls attention to a development remarkably similar to one in our circles. It reads:

Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites

Registration cards are coming to our FCM office weekly designating the desire to become a member of the new organization.

Incidentally, all of the major denominations now have concern groups, many of these having started a decade or more ago. It is remarkable how the concerns of the various groups coincide. The issues are essentially the same in all churches . It seems apostasy has struck Christendom in full force. Many people across the church, however, are simply not ready to go along with all the changes taking place under the argument that change is simply to be expected.

The issues are well known, but many church leaders refuse to face them courageously. The Apostle Paul, in Acts 20, had warned the elders that grievous wolves would “enter in among you, not sparing the flock” and of your own selves, “shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” This we see happening today.

There are those who have tried to cast aspersions on the FCM , trying to attribute false motives to the. word of the organization. I wish such could see the roster of those who have signed up as members, pledging to uphold the ideals and concerns of the new organization. These are by no means critics and dull conservatives. The hour is late and unless there is soon a turn in the road the Anabaptist Mennonite faith will have lost its distinctiveness and thereby its right—or need—to exist as a separate denomination.

It is time that every one becomes not only a concerned Mennonite but a concerned Christian, of whatever faith , and returns to the basics of historical Christianity. This is not time for silence. With Jude we must “earnestly contend for the faith.”

Write for a registration card and copies of the Berea Declaration, the Constitution of the Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites and other information . . .