---

  
7. GALATIANS 3:28 Part IV: ADOPTION AND ACCOMPANYING 
                       PRIVILEGES
                     


STATEMENT FROM THE SYNODICAL REPORT
 Everyone agrees that this text, among other things, declares that male
and female share equally in salvation in Christ.  But there are reasons 
to see broader implications in the text . . .

 . . . One of the many blessings that all the believers in Galatia 
received through Christ and through baptism into him was their adoption: 
"you all are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."  All the 
privileges that go with sonship were now equally theirs, whether they 
were Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female.  Women who are in 
Christ are "God's sons" and thus on a par with men.  Therefore, they 
deserve the status that accompanies sonship. [Agenda for Synod, 2000] RESPONSE 
The above statement is the fifth reason from Galatians 3 given in the Agenda for 
Synod advocating the ordination of women. This statement declares quite clearly " . . . there are reasons to see broader 
implications" than salvation ". . . in the text . . ." Yet there is a serious 
flaw in the logic of the statement. In order for the statement to be advocating 
the ordination of women, the phrases "on a par with men" and "deserve the 
status" must mean "perform the same role" as men. Even though the statement 
declares that there are reasons to see broader implications than equality in 
salvation, it does not provide any of those reasons. The statement simply states 
as fact that these things are so. When one gets right down to it, this does not 
help the dialogue. First, how do the phrases "on a par with men" and "deserve 
the status" equate to "perform the same role" as men? Second, and more 
importantly, where are the reasons that this is true? Please, do not just state 
it as fact, but rather state the reasons and in so doing help others to 
understand. As it currently stands, the statement is not an argument in favor of 
the ordination of women, rather it is merely a statement of opinion. Due to the 
fact that there are no explicit reasons contained in the above statement, if one 
evaluates the above in favor of the ordination of women it would have to be the 
result of a preconceived notion. It cannot be due to the statement properly 
defending the ordination of women because it does not contain the required 
reasons. [Response by Herb Kraker]


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
* * * *