The simple fact is that for 2000 years, the Holy Spirit moved the church to have men and women sitting separately during divine worship.I can easily guess where he gets this idea. Among the Eastern Orthodox, particularly the "old believers" there is a tradition of separating males and females to different sides of the church during the service. The women go on the side with the large icon of Mary, whereas the men go on the side with the large icon of Jesus.
There's no compelling reason to think that those practices go back 2000 years. Moreover, among the old believers, the practice is not to sit on separate sides, but to stand on separate sides. So, if this really were a movement by the Holy Spirit, Jordan should be advocating for standing, not sitting.
But let's consider his justification for the practice:
This is because in heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. There is neither male nor female, bond nor free, child nor parent. Hence, ascended worship, taking place seated in the heavenlies, involves an affirmation of God’s Family and a setting aside of the earthly family.
This justification would make sense if he left out "neither male nor female." Once that is included, the rationale for segregating the sexes during worship falls apart. If there is no male or female, there is no justification for segregation based on that principle.
Jordan also hurls accusation against Vision Forum for advocating the importance of families worshiping together:
Functioning beneath the surface with such groups as Vision Forum and the like is a form of idolatry. We read that the family is the foundation of civilization. That is a fairly ridiculous notion, since the family is a highly temporary social unit. The Bible commands that a child leave his father and mother when he marries (Genesis 2:24).This is another example of Jordan's arguments not following. The fact that a family is - to some degree - a temporary social unity does not prevent it from being the foundation of civilization. The very passage Jordan cites is one in which a member of a family is setting out to create his own family. That passage only reinforces the role that family plays in this life.
Jordan goes on to claim that Wes White and others are "opposed" to "reformation theology," which is just one more ridiculous claim, like Jodan's claim that "the notion that husbands should serve their wives and children the Lord’s Supper" was "a capital offense in the Bible; Exodus 35:2-3; Numbers 16."
Given all the ridiculous claims in the post (from beginning to end) one may wonder why I would bother responding. It seems that James Jordan is one of the leaders of the Federal Vision. If those in the Federal Vision movement consider him one of their leaders, then presumably they will be glad to hear responses to him.