Advancing Biblical Truth: Women in Leadership and the Proposed New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery
From Renee Guth, Executive Coordinator, New Wineskins Association of Churches:
Acts 18:24-26 - Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
The New Wineskins Constitution makes no explicit distinction between men and women serving in roles of leadership in the church, embracing the biblical declaration in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Women have always been, continue to be, and will always be an integral part of the New Thing that God is doing through the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC).
This unqualified commitment to men and women in all positions of leadership was drawn into question by two articles of the series, “Has Anyone Asked the Women?” on the website of Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL), a ministry of Presbyterians for Renewal. In these articles, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) is characterized as being “suspicious of women,” “glaring over their protective shoulders at women,” and as “a ghetto for women.” Has anyone asked the women of EPC? In multiple meetings and conversations with EPC leadership, I, in no way, ever felt that I had to defend myself based on gender, thought that I was treated with suspicion, or that my contributions were placed in some ghetto. I have found EPC leaders to be respectful, good-listeners, gracious, and warm. Our meetings were characterized by prayer, trustful and honest interaction, and a sense of awe at what God was doing among us.
To Rev. Anita Bell’s credit, she admits that the experience of women pastors within the PCUSA has not been all it should be. However, both NPWL articles fail to examine underlying causes to the “glass ceiling” in the PCUSA other than a pastor’s gender. There are at least two other realities that should have been discussed. The first is the promotion of feminist and womanist theologies by the denomination. This has not helped orthodox and evangelical women pastors in finding a call. Pastor nominating committees are understandably concerned about the possibility of nominating a pastoral candidate and then later discovering the candidate does not uphold an orthodox or evangelical theology. The second reality is that orthodox and evangelical women are viewed with suspicion in the PCUSA, not because they are women, but because they are orthodox and evangelical. The practice by some presbyteries and their executives to blacklist, “red-tag”, and trump-up charges against pastors who are evangelical or orthodox has been gender–blind. Although, orthodox women pastors may have greater opportunities within the PCUSA because of gender, they have fewer opportunities because of discrimination based on theology.
It is also worth noting that NWAC men pastors may be just as limited in vocational choices as women NWAC pastors in the transitional presbytery model. This observation is based on the number of congregations within the EPC and NWAC. The NPWL articles also fail to consider the possibility that most men NWAC pastors are not willing to serve in a ministry context where the full expression of the spiritual gifts of their female partners in ministry is not celebrated and appreciated.
The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) recognizes that both realignment and remaining within the PCUSA are faithful options. For those who are realigning, we have unanimously agreed that the realignment will take shape in the proposed New Wineskins transitional presbytery within the EPC. The delegated meeting in Orlando began the formation of a team who will provide resources that affirm and outline the Biblical basis for women serving as pastors, elders, and deacons.
Since Becce Bettridge (Exec. Director of NPWL) and Rev. Anita Bell have already made a case for women pastors to remain within the PCUSA, the reasons that orthodox and evangelical women pastors may choose to realign with the NWAC in a transitional presbytery within the EPC are outlined below:
1. Constitutional realities: The proposal before the EPC GA in June considers the formation of a transitional Presbytery. This presbytery will be governed by the New Wineskins Constitution and, as such, permitted to ordain and install pastors and plant new churches. Qualifications for deacons and elders will be determined at the congregational level while qualifications for pastors will be determined by the NWEPC presbytery of which that congregation is a part.
2. Transitional realities: The EPC and NWAC believe that our Lord is calling us to become new missional body. During the five-year transitional period, we will seek God together in order to discern the nature of our life together. As described by the EPC Long Range Planning Committee
3. The Biblical basis as the sole standard: The New Wineskins constitution affirms the Biblical basis for women serving as pastors, elders, and deacons at all levels of the church. Anita Bell is right, “The time has come for the church to begin to ‘think into’ a Scriptural understanding of women, called and gifted to lead the people of God.”
4. The numerical realities: Neither the EPC nor the NWAC know how many congregations there will be in the New Thing. In addition to NWAC congregations, there are dozens of other PCUSA congregations who are currently considering the EPC. Therefore the number of possible vocational choices for NWAC pastors is not known. Because the PCUSA GAs are so unpredictable, after 2008, who knows?
5. Essential tenets: Within the PCUSA, there are only two constitutionally defined ordination standards. They are the ordination of women and G-6.0106b
6. Congregational decisions: Each pastor serving in the context of a local congregation has the dual challenge of a.) shepherding the flock through the difficult discernment process of determining whether God is calling that particular congregation to remain as a faithful witness within the PCUSA or to realign with another reformed body; and b.) discerning God’s unique will for their own life and ministry. Some congregations will realign without their pastors; some pastors will be called to realign without their congregations. Both realities create new opportunities for orthodox evangelical men and women within the life of NWAC congregations in the PCUSA and in the NWEPC.
7. Other options: For orthodox evangelical pastors who believe they are being called by God beyond the current realities of the PCUSA, there are limited options. Beyond the New Wineskins/EPC transitional model, the Evangelical Covenant is the most commonly discussed alternative for both male and female PCUSA pastors exploring their denominational options.
8. A truly New Thing: Finally, there is the opportunity to be a part of a new, evangelical, missional Presbyterianism.
Contrary to what some have written on this subject, women who are called and gifted by God for ministry are neither “stuck” within a system nor within a context. God opens the doors and paves the way. Over the centuries, God has lifted up men and women who faithfully and fearlessly removed the encumbrances of ecclesiastical and social obstacles to ministry for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our heritage. Would we shrink back in any other area of Biblical teaching? The apostle Paul defended his apostleship. If necessary, orthodox and evangelical presbyterian men and women could raise up to do the same.
That being said, my expereince with men who “don’t work with women” is illustrative. About a year or so ago, a man from another denomination was starting a new ministry and announced that he didn’t “work with women”. Last week, in his office, guess what? More women than men around the table!
Another example, I co-led a workshop on forgiveness and healing to pastors and other church leaders from a presbyterian denomination that does not ordain women. Then I was invited back to teach on prayer and suffering. Now, I’m being invited to teach in one of their Bible Institutes… all to men who don’t know the Biblical basis of women in leadership. God opened the doors; I just walked in. Let’s be like Pricilla and Aquila, inviting the Apollos of our lives into our homes and explaining the way of God more adequately.
Acts 18:24-26 - Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:23 am
As long as you (New Wineskin churches) continue to support the ordination of women, you will only succeed in a continued watering-down of the EPC theological position while opening up the new constellation to the same heresies that plague the PCUSA today. I wish I could be more optimistic, but maybe it really is - all about church property. I have family members in a PCUSA church. I would advise them to leave and join the PCA who continue to refuse to ordain women.
I believe that mentioning Priscilla is taking bible verse out of context and is really a weak argument. Was it ordination of women that scripture referred to here? The acceptance for women pastors is the portal for theological confusion. I really believe that. You should in the least not press the EPC churches even harder on the subject.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Dear Russ,
The beauty of Acts 18:24-26 is that it shows a sister and brother in Christ teaching another brother already well versed in the Scriptures. Apollos continues on to Achaia greatly helping the believers there and showing through the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.
Grace & Peace,
Renee
February 26th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Dear Renee,
Thank you for your response. I really intended most to say that it wouldn’t seem right to press the EPC on ordination standards from the start, all the while The New Wineskins churches have not appreciated pressure on ordination standards - when it came from Louisville.
With God’s grace to salvation,
Russ
February 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
The Genesis of this interesting topic is clearly the two-part (so far; we have been promised more) series appearing on the NPWL website.
My initial reaction to the first article, by Becce Bettridge, the Director of NPWL, was “Here we go. The PFR talked and dithered and talked and wrung their hands for years, but did nothing. Now that a group has taken the initiative to pray, discern, pray some more, and then acted on what they were called top do, PFR decides that they need to protect us from ourselves.”
As a leader in the PFR, her fear that the most active evangelicals will leave the PC(USA) is understandable. PFR’s dwindling influence will shrink, perhaps to insignificance. Her message, however, is alarmist and distorted. At least we are now getting good stereophonic reception: Louisville comes through the other head phone singing the same tune.
The second article, by Reverend Bell was at least balanced.
To those who suspect the proposed realignment to the EPC to be nothing more than a veiled attempt to remove women from leadership, I offer a couple of thoughts.
First, remember where we are. We are coming out of a faithless and abusive marriage. The PC(USA), either intentionally or by monumental neglect, has fostered a decades-old atmosphere in which we cannot trust our leadership. The Stated Clerk exercises a situational view of his authority. Despite being repeatedly asked about them, the current Moderator swears to us that six months after the Louisville Papers were made public, she still has not read the two most incendiary documents to come out of Louisville in years.
We need to remember (relearn, if necessary) that there are those out there who we can trust. Carmen Fowler and Renee Guth, for two, have met with, talked with, planned with, broken bread with, leaders of the EPC. They are intelligent, perceptive people. I expect that went into those meetings with a heightened sensitivity, anticipating the questions that would come their way. Along with the rest of the leadership of the NWAC, they have assured us that ordination of women is a red herring that the proponents of a failed status quo will promote.
Pray, pray, and pray some more for a renewed ability to trust our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Second, for those who are concerned with the EPC of 2007, I say this.
We have been forced to leave the abusive home that has been ours for over a quarter century. Out of simple Christian charity, our cousins have opened their door to us and offered us unlimited use of the spare bedroom.
They have even told us that we may decorate that room as we see fit and have allowed us to install a separate exterior door.
We get the immediate use of the medicine cabinet (health coverage) and the larder (retirement program) so long as we pay for what we take. No mark up, no wait.
Are we really going to insist that they redecorate the entire house to our exact specifications before we accept their gracious offer?
Once again, we need to pray for healing and a renewed ability to trust.
Mac
February 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am
What does Acts 18:24-26 or for that matter Gal 3:28 have to do with the ordination of women.
Has anybody in the New Wineskins Association read 1 Timothy 2 about women having authority over men. And just who is to be considered as an Elder in the church. Why is the Association not using these verses to guide them. The Gal 3:28 verses are talking about salvation in Jesus Christ. For the benefit of those of you who are not familiar with 1 Timothy 2 I reproduce it below:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
What part of “NO” do they not understand !
February 28th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Jim,
Yes we have and what some of us see is a very troubling hermenuetical problem. The bible in clear voice prohibits women in leadership in the Pastoral letter from Paul the Apostle to another Pastor while at the same time the biblical witness describes in multiple locations (Judges for one) women in clear leadership within the nation of Israel and in the early church. So what do we do?
Do we mandate women’s ordination as the PCUSA has done? Or do we permit the ordination of Women as the Bible, and the EPC has done?
It is clear upon long and difficult study of all the applicable texts that the Bible clearly permits the ordination of women when necessary. In a church age where most of the members, leaders, and true disciples are women - what other response would the bible intend? none other than that articulated in this article.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Bill,
“the biblical witness describes in multiple locations (Judges for one) women in clear leadership within the nation of Israel ”
I think you are referring to Deborah in Judges 4. Deborah was indeed a Judge but she was not a Priest, that office was set aside by God for men of the tribe of Levi (Exodus 32). Nowhere in the history of Israel will you find a women in the office of Priest.Also, you will not find anywhere in the New Testament where women are ordained as Elders or Preachers.
The Bible does not clearly permit the ordination of women. The church for almost 2000 did not permit womens ordination. Ordination of women is a very resent event in the Presbyterian church, 1958 I believe.
As one commentator put it “… a Christian church should be pastored by godly, knowledgeable men. A woman cannot represent the Bridegroom (Christ, the Chief Shepherd) to the Bride (the Church). We need to understand the trajectory of Scripture, which begins with masculine responsibility (whether men want to or not) in the Garden ”
The authority of scripture is a major problem in the PCUSA.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Jim,
Deborah may not have been a priest, but aren’t you forgetting that for those who are in Christ, we are ALL now a priesthood–men and women? Galatians 3 is about salvation, I’ll grant you, but it tells us much more too. Paul is telling us something about the priesthood of all believers in that passage, otherwise would slaves and Greeks be banned from ordination?
Your argument against the ordination of women to teaching and ruling elder offices are well within the Reformed mainstream, but the fact that you refuse to grant fellow Reformed Christians who DO read Scripture as allowing the ordination of women to leadership in the church the same respect is telling.
Your bridegroom argument is purely speculative human logic. Strangely enough for one who is Reformed, you don’t see that your argument is also used by Rome! Should men in the pastorate also be celibate?
The narrative passages of Scripture do detail that women throughout the history of God’s people have led. That’s a biblical fact.
We also know that Paul commended women for their leadership roles in the churches and for their knowledge of God. Put two and two together here. If what I just said is true, then this DOES bring something to bear in how we interpret the 1 Timothy passage. Scripture helps us to interpret Scripture, right?
Then maybe, just maybe Paul was giving Timothy a time-specific and culturally-specific instruction for that particular congregation? If not, then you have to re-define other pretty significant accounts in God’s inerrant Word, do you not?
Basically, I can see how you arrive at your conclusions, but I also think that to do that, you have to dismiss other pretty clear narratives and implications in Scripture.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
NW types should be aware that some of the founding churches and ministers of the EPC, in the early 1980’s, were driven out of the PCUSA’s predecessor precisely because they affirmed the Bible’s requirement that officers of the Church be men.
The agreement that forged the EPC of those days was a determination by all concerned not to make the female-officer issue divisive and in-your-face. Instead, it was muted in order to allow the new denomination to form.
Tolerating those churches and presbyteries that mistakenly ordain females to office, should not be confused with anything other than what it is–toleration of a presumably minor doctrinal error for the sake of a greater good, evangelical, Presbyterian witness.
Those in the NW who wish to beat the drum of female officers as the latest and greatest thing since apple pie, as you seem to do Renee, need to look elsewhere for their organizational home.
The EPC is a wonderful denomination doing so many things so well, evangelical through and through; dissension, especially dissension on this issue, will not be welcome. It will be seriously irritating.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Jim and Robert,
I want to be clear that I do not feel any need to beat any drum to alter the beliefs of the EPC. I for one clearly understand what you have said Robert. I believe for any of us who treat scripture as God’s Word, the words in 1 Timothy, and 1 Corinthians are to be taken quite seriously. And I for one do not sweep them under the table either. As I say the witness of Priscilla teaching Apollos, of Cloe being a deacon (and others), of Ruth Judging Israel of a number of women hosting “house Churches” in all these examples there appears to be an understanding that Timothy-may- be contextual .
Jim I’m sorry if I overstated my case or if my tone was to irrenic. I spend I great deal of time writing on the internet so I become too terse out of a desire to save time.
I’m not sure I understand your secondary agrument but I do echo the “nation of priest’s” point and if we are “neither Jew nor Greek, Male nor Female” then those two texts in tandem make the Ruth example quite significant.
I believe God gives us biblical grounds for permitting this action. I agree with you that it is not an essential. I would be alarmed if the NWAC possition becomes one that appears hostile, or superior to that of the EPC possition. As a voting delegate I will oppose any action that would not show our clear sense of gratitude for the graciousness of the EPC. I am profoundly touched by the EPC even considering this transitional presbytery and if it is approved I will thank God for your charity and courage.
I affirm the EPC belief on ordination - I believe that most NWAC types feel the same way. We will of course exercise our local option vigorously.
Peace
February 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Dear Jim,
Please see my response above, dated from Feb. 26th.
I wasn’t making a case for women’s ordination by using the Acts 18 passage. I’m attempting to make a case for studying the scriptures together, being honest about our differences, and to acknowledge that evangelical women pastors have had a difficult path in the PCUSA.
Personally, I didn’t study the topic of women in church leadership until after I heard an orthodox woman pastor preach the Word. Then, without prejudice, I studied the scriptures and came to believe that the early church did call women to serve as teachers, elders, deacons, prophetesses, etc.
What this conversation demonstrates is that there are some old wounds on all sides for different reasons.
I have co-labored with men and women who didn’t believe I should be an Elder. Even so, the ministry of Jesus Christ has prospered… perhaps in spite of us. I am in awe of God!
Yours in Christ,
Renee
March 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
Toby,
“Paul is telling us something about the priesthood of all believers in that passage (Gal 3:28) , otherwise would slaves and Greeks be banned from ordination?”
Paul is telling us that salvation is from the Lord for all who God will call regardless if you are a slave, a women or a Gentile. He is not telling us what the role of women in the church will be in this passage.
You refer to “narrative passages of Scripture do detail that women throughout the history of God’s people have led” and where do you we find these passages ? 1 timothy 2 is very explicit about the role of women and it is not a generalization about a women’s role in the church. What part of NO do you not understand ?
Your idea that Paul was maybe giving a “time-specific and culturally-specific instruction” for the ordination of women in the church is the same argument homosexuals are making today for the ordination homosexuals.
One of the first things the New Wineskins Asso. wants to do is to have a Bible study for the purpose of making the ordination of women an essential in the EPC. I believe the EPC is the only Presbyterian denomination other than the PCUSA that permits women’s ordination. The EPC is wise to put all of these revolting PCUSA churches in a separate presbytery until they can determine just what are there beliefs otherwise the New Wineskin Asso. churches could take over control of the EPC.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky and let him know that I had decided against graduate school in political science and was headed to seminary and the ministry, Wendell Berry, with whom I had scraped a relationship, encouraged me to think of myself as called to a people, rather than to a career. He was asking me to consider going a *place* right out of seminary and staying there the rest of my life. I didn’t do that, but I have thought about it a lot.
I tell the story here and now just to pass along from him, without being able to claim anything for myself in this regard, the idea that having “vocational choices” might be a sign of our cultural disorder rather than a corollary of justice. If men and women are called to serve in a particular situation, that might be all we need to know, or at least it might be in a well-ordered church and culture.
MDB
March 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Dear Jim,
New Wineskins already has an essentials statement. Please read it at http://www.newwineconvo.com/documents/Essential_Tenets_of_the_Reformed_Faith.doc.
Grace & peace,
Renee
March 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
Without getting into the substance of this discussion, the Biblical study commissioned by the NWAC does not have the stated “purpose of making the ordination of women an essential in the EPC.” Its only purpose is to once again engage the Scriptures on this issue; there is no preconceived, pre-programmed outcome.
The position of the EPC, as I understand it, is that this issue is a non-essential. In other words, according to the EPC, there is not a strong enough Biblical mandate to absolutely deny the ordination of women, nor to categorically demand their ordination. Therefore, each local church or presbytery decides whether to ordain women or not.
Obviously, the NWAC is coming out of a tradition that has required the ordination of women. Indeed, the majority of us have never served in a context in which women were not ordained.
Based on that experience, I personally value the hard work and dedicated contribution to mission and ministry made by the women clergy, elders, and deacons with whom I have served. I am not alone.
Yet, even given that this is the case, the NWAC has said, “Let’s take a fresh look at the Biblical testimony and see where it leads.” My colleagues are fully open to be the church “always reforming according to the Word of God,” even on this issue in which our practice has held firm on one side of the equation for several decades.
Whether the study to be undertaken at the direction of the NWAC will solidify one side of the women’s ordination issue over the other or will agree that it should remain a non-essential, has not been predetermined and cannot be predicted.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am
renee
your web link is not working.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Jim Henkel,
Well said. Finally I guess we need to give the task force time to do their work and see what they suggest before we react to a possition that has not been taken.
Michael,
Amen. I read a good bit of Eugene Peterson in seminary. I’m 6 years at my first call and hope to make a long faithfull life here. Which is why I am much more interested in our future regarding “Lay Pastors” or “indiginous ministers” than anything else. Who has been called specifically to minister in the unique context of the the people of God right here (or right over there for that matter)?
March 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Jim (and all):
For the record, I fully agree with my good friend Bill Crawford’s assertion that the ordination of women is not an essential of the Reformed faith. I thought I had been fairly clear on that in my last entry, but who knows?
I also do not think that it is the intention of the NWAC to ‘overwhelm’ or ‘take over’ the EPC. Why do I think this? Because of what was said by ALL of the NWAC leaders at the Convocation and of all that I heard–both officially and off the record. The New Wineskins member churches that will join the transitional presbytery are just plain grateful for the hospitality and trust that they have been given by the generous brethren of the EPC. Ther’s not secret agenda there, on women in leadership or any other issue. Thanks, Renee, for making this abundantly clear for all to read!
However, the point that my last post was trying to make is that as we who DO welcome women to ordained leadership extend our fellowship and witness to those who do not, can’t the goodwill flow both ways? I don’t go around calling the people who are against women’s ordination anything but brothers and sisters in Christ. What I think that we need is the willingness of our Women non-ordaining brethren to give us the same courtesy.
Can you do that Jim? You’re a brother in Christ and we are both together in the Reformed faith. The implication that those who welcome the ordination of women are somehow on par with the revisionists or liberals in the PC(USA) is not accurate and not helpful to our mutual dialogue on this issue.
For reference, I would also refer you to the work of professor Robert Gagnon on why the biblical case for the ordination of women is not at all the same argument as that used for the ordination of homosexuals. It’s apples to oranges on that issue.
But when it comes to the essentials of the Reformed faith, I stand with all of those who cling to the faith, ‘once delivered’. Although I am staying in the PC(USA) until the last battle is over, I would be proud to stand side by side with my brothers and sisters in the EPC and with you, Jim!
March 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
PS–
That’s BOTH Jims-Watson and Henkel!
March 1st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Jim Watson,
Please go to http://www.newwineconvo.com/papers.html. On the right side look underneath “Primary Documents” to “Essential Tenets”.
Thanks,
Renee
March 1st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Let’s try this again…
Jim Watson,
Please go to the home page, then resources, then papers, then on the right side look underneath “Primary Documents” to “Essential Tenets”.
Thanks,
Renee
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Renee,
Thanks for your help in locating the “New Wineskins Essential Tenets.”
I read them and I have no problem the essentials. The constitution of the NWAC is where I find problems specifically in paragraph IV :
“Those whom the covenant community has recognized as mature, gifted, and called will be encouraged to fill positions of leadership at all levels of the church, without partiality to ethnicity, race, or gender (Galatians 3:26-29). Their responsibility, consistent with the true meaning of ordination and the Reformed affirmation of the priesthood of all believers, is to equip each member of the body for his or her God-ordained works of service.
The constitution is attempting to force scripture (Gal 3:26-29) to say something it is not saying. The context is not speaking about the role of women but, the salvation of all men (as in Mankind). As far as the priesthood of all believers is concerned I believe this concept came about during the Reformation to explain to the sinner that they have access to God without having to go through a church, a priest or the Pope.
II.C ” Every aspect of the life of the Church is to be governed by the revealed truth of Scripture, which the Holy Spirit inspired, illuminates, and applies to God’s people. ”
If paragraph II.C is to be believed then 1 Tim 2, which is speaking about the role of women in the church is inspired by the Holy Sprit and must have authority in the ordination standards of the NWAC, otherwise there are people in the church that will surely want to add sexual orientation to the constitution paragraph IV.
In my college days my mathematics professor would pose their questions with “suppose blab, blab…”. I have a suppose to ask this forum.
If I feel I have received a call from God to preach and I obtain the necessary training and I obtain a call from a church in the NWAC and I appear before the EPC Transitional Presbytery and proclaim that I do not believe in the ordination of women. Will I be approved for the ministry ?
March 4th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Dear Jim,
To answer your question above, “Will I be approved for the ministry?” Never even thought about it until you asked the question.
First thing, I would like to do is have the chance to talk with you in person. In the conversation, I would like to hear more about your comment from March 1 about “all of these revolting PCUSA churches.” This would be more important to me that your position on the ordination of women. A side note… there is not complete acceptance of the term “ordination” among NW people. In Chapter 9 of the constitution, you will see the word “certification” used as a possible substitution.
For us, the most important aspect of the transitional presbytery is the opportunity to join with EPC in exploring what it means to be a missional church in the 21st century. As I look at the work of the EPC long range planning committee, I get excited about the future that God has in store for us. The issue of women’s leadership as pastors, elders, and deacons will be one of a number of topics that we will all need to talk and pray about together. I prefer to build my life on trusting God rather than succumbing to fear.
Grace & Peace,
Renee
March 4th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Check your facts. When I looked into the EPC and attended one of their presbytery meetings in St. Louis it was CLEAR that there would be no warm embrace or acceptance of women. The Presbytery including Texas and Louisiana has made it clear they will NOT ordain women.
They also take the Westminster Confession of Faith VERY seriously. It is equivalent to scripture - better be sure you are in agreement.
PCUSA’ers be very careful what you wish for - you just might get it…
March 5th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Renee,
Could you give specific examples of orthodox and evangelical women PCUSA pastors being held back by suspicion of not being orthodox and evangelical enough and/or being flagged as too orthodox and evangelical?
Thanks.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
My pastor (of and EPC congregation) just called me this afternoon to tell me about this and to invite me to the Presbytery of the Midwest’s symposium on this issue later this month. I was on Session when we studied the biblical arguments on both sides of this issue. Despite what some posts on this thread suggest, we found strong biblical and theological arguments FOR women in ministry as well as against, and our Session led the congregation in opening the office of ruling elder to all spiritually qualified candidates regardless of sex.
I am somewhat dismayed at the tone I’m picking up both through reports of some comments in our presbytery and what I see here. Coming from several years of membership in a good evangelical PCUSA congregation (but with all the PCUSA background noise), and before that from a background in very conservative independent Bible churches, the EPC’s emphasis on unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all was a breath of fresh air.
From my own perspective, and that of my fellow elders in our church, I would very much welcome NWA churches. Their inclusion in the EPC would seems to me not at all out of line, especially with our motto and our statement of essentials.
It also seems to me that in granting liberty to congregations to ordain women to the office of ruling elder, the EPC has, in principle at least, conceded liberty of conscience regarding the eligibility of women to be ordained as teaching elders as well. I understand that presbyteries can do what they want here (subject to the authority of Scripture), but so long as congregations within the presbytery are free to ordain women as ruling elders, those same women are eligible to be included as full voting members of the presbytery. At best the EPC presbyteries which have declared opposition to ordaining women teaching elders have created a conundrum for themselves.
BTW, I think nearly everything that can be said has been said on both sides of this issue. For a good summary of the arguments and a proposed “new paradigm” I would recommend John G. Stackhouse, Jr., _Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).
March 7th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Found this entry by Harold Kurtz in another section of our weblog (made some spelling and formatting changes for clarity).
Harold Kurtz Says:
March 5th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Renee
I have been wanting to write out in brief form what I believe the Bible teaches on the equality of the sexes. Since this has come up in regard to the EPC, I have finally sat myself down and written. It is long. Perhaps too long for your web site. But I submit it to you as a possible item for consideration. Be blest! Harold
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES by a missionary Harold Kurtz
I am concerned about the status of women in the EPC for the sake of women, for the sake of men and for the sake of the EPC Church. People need to understand the Biblical rational for the equality of the sexes and for the most part, members of the PCUSA have not worked through the Biblical reasons—I believe they have normally been taught only the American cultural reasons and that is not adequate if we hold a high view of scripture.
I came back to the US after 22 years in Ethiopia to a denomination still troubled by women’s ordination—troubled by a belief in the equality of the sexes that had seldom been taught from a Biblical point of view. Most people do not realize that women were equal on the mission field long before they were given the vote and equality in their home congregations and denominations. I came back to find congregations as well as individuals troubled by the women’s ordination issue and found myself in demand from a number of congregations as well as individuals to help them understand the Biblical point of view. I like to remind people that it was the mission field that forced Paul to rethink his cultural understanding of the equality of the sexes. Anyone going into the EPC should ground themselves in the Biblical basis of equality whether they be men or women. In short form, here is what I teach.
1. You can’t make a Biblical case for equality unless you root it in the first three chapters of the Bible. You can’t do it well, at least, using only New Testament scripture. And that should be logical since we are going back to God’s original intent before the fall, before sin determined so much of human relationships.
2. In Gen. I, there is nothing that speaks to hierarchy—just, plop, they are both there, created in the image of God.
3. In Gen. 2, you get the reference to Eve being created as the “helpmate” or “helper” for Adam. Some say this indicates inferiority. The Hebrew does not. If you follow the Hebrew word through the Old Testament—you can do it with a concordance that follows Hebrew words—you will find it used primarily in the cases where the “helper” is the superior—God helping human beings. If you want to give a rank to this Hebrew word then you would have to translate this as saying that God created Adam who didn’t have a clue so God created Eve to set him straight!
4. In Gen. 2, Adam names the animals. In Middle East culture, and Ethiopia carries a great deal of that culture going back to the time of the Queen of Sheba, the cultural symbolism of this, to name someone, is to have control over them. When Adam names the animals it means that he is to take care of them, he is the shepherd of the animal world and is to protect them. Adam has a dominion role to play. But Adam does not name Eve! God brought Eve to Adam and Adam simply says, “She is bone of my bone, etc.” There is no naming here.
5. I believe the Bible is matriarchal. What follows in Gen. 2 is the statement that a man shall leave his father and his mother and go live under his wife’s mother’s roof—not the other way around of the patriarchal society—the society of sin. A woman and her children are the most venerable of the new family and yet they are the future of the race, the clan, the tribe, the people group. A pregnant woman, a woman in childbirth, a woman with young children and the young children themselves are most in danger and they are the future. The woman’s womb is the future of the tribe and therefore the woman is the one most in need of protection so the man is to move in with his wife’s family so she can be protected by her mother, father, brothers, relatives. I believe for good reasons the Bible is matriarchal. I have seen a great deal in the world of the plight of women and their children caused because the patriarchal society does not protect the most venerable in their midst and it is still one of the saddest social ills of this sin filled world!
6. Now you get sin coming into the world and the fruits of sin in Gen. 3. It is after the fall that domination comes in—“the man shall rule over you.” But this was not the original intent of God, the way that God wanted us to live together. God intended that we should live together in the harmony of God’s love and respect. That is Eden. The need for domination is sin. Here you get a very graphic description of the plight of women down through the ages—as well as men and the burdens of life we carry.
7. So, the harmony of Eden is broken, the reign of sin has come. What happens then in the Hebrew symbolism is that ADAM NAMES EVE—Gen. 3:20. The era of male domination has come with sin and it is spelled out clearly here in Hebrew symbolism circling back to Gen. 2 as if to say, “Do you get what happened here?” “Do you see that domination is the reign of sin?” This is God speaking to us and speaking clearly, it seems to me, if we take our cultural blinders away and read the Biblical text in its cultural context. As Adam and his “woman” (translated in Gen. 2:23) leave the perfect harmony of Eden, spoiled by sin and rebellion, it says, “The man called his wife’s name Eve.” This is in sharp contrast to Gen. 2:23. Male domination and the patriarchal society had arrived in the world.
8. We all see in the Gospels Jesus relating to women in a radical different way from the normal Jewish custom. There is much that could be said about that. But it is in Paul’s writings that the place of women comes to us in concrete form and that needs to be understood. I believe it needs to be understood as Paul wrestling with a cultural issue that was very hard for him, and God, in the scriptures, reveals Paul’s struggles to come to terms with the Kingdom as Jesus brought it to him and to the world. It is in that cross-cultural journey of the missionary life that Paul faces his cultural captivity, the cultural captivity of the Jewish world, and the cultural captivity of the Kingdom of God. This is one reason why the Church, for the sake of its own health, always needs to be in mission.
9. We know if we read Paul’s writings carefully that Paul was struggling with this issue as well as others and admitted that he was not always sure he really had the true insight of the Spirit. He says this in one place—I Cor. 7:40 –“And I think I have the Spirit of God.” Paul realized he was over his head in some of these things as he struggled to move out of the Jewish world into the Gentile world—the whole world that God loved. Paul was on a journey in many areas. Some places he was very definite but in others you can almost hear his brain trying to come to terms with this new understanding of the Kingdom—a Kingdom for the world and not just for the Jew. He picks up the issue of women in several places and deals with it in many cases from a Roman/Greek cultural point of view—not using the freedom of the Gospel to bring disrespect on to the community of believers–to be in the world and yet not of the world. It is my opinion that in this journey of the equality of the sexes he finally comes to that incredible high point, and final pronouncement, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.” People often accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously when I explain other sayings of Paul from the standpoint of honoring culture not declaring a Kingdom imperative. When I ask them about this clear statement of Paul’s, what I believe Biblically is the climax of Paul’s struggle with his culture, the Kingdom and the place of women, then they suddenly have a low view of the Bible in trying to explain this away!
10. It would take a book to work through all of Paul’s statements and struggles but I like to point out his statement about men and women and hair. In I Cor.—this early missionary writing of Paul’s as he is struggling with the Good News of the Kingdom as Jesus proclaimed it, in contrast to his Jewish cultural upbringing—Paul is wrestling with the women’s issue perhaps for the first time in his writings. Among other things he writes, “Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him?” Paul forgot to read his Bible! Who are the most honored men in the Old Testament? Honored by God? The Nazirites. And what is one of their main marks in the society? Long hair! Samson is the prime Biblical example. Read about them in Num. 6. “He shall be holy: he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long..” “….his separation to God is upon his head.” God shows us in Paul’s writings that it is a journey to finally bring together custom, which is to be respected, and the eternal marks of a Kingdom life style. That is not an easy task, as I learned as a missionary, to see the Kingdom, the Church, being established in cultures utterly different from the one in which I was raised—I was journeying and learning just like Paul and just as we all must do.
11. Then in that same letter, I Cor. 15, Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam. Jesus came to restore life to us—eternal life—“the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” But the reference to Adam, a man of dust, means more that the restoration of the eternal life humans lost in the fall. “Just as we have born the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” I Cor. 15:49 The last Adam, Jesus, is also a life giving spirit, Paul writes in I Cor. 15:45 John writes, “In Him was life and the life was the light of humankind. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it!” The second Adam also came to restore the lost Eden, to bring the world and human beings back in harmony with the original desire of God. And part of God’s desire is that we learn to live on the other side, the back side, the original side of life without domination. “And he girded himself with a towel….and washed the disciples feet….he said do you know what I have done to you?….a servant is not greater than his master.” “You shall not be like the Gentiles who lord it over one another.”
12. I teach this around the world when I travel. It comes up because God is calling women all over the world into leadership and the women themselves are often perplexed because they have received a message from the outside—from missionaries and other church leaders who are just passing on a culture rather than taking those cultural blinders off and reading the Bible correctly. Those outsiders, captured by their culture as Paul was until God set him free, say to them that God hasn’t called them even though that call may have come in the form of a dramatic vision of Jesus! I have been able to help many women and many churches come to terms Biblically with what God is doing in the world today—calling and empowering women.
I firmly believe we haven’t faced up to the fact that on this issue we are still held captive to the Roman/Greek culture that corrupted the understanding of Paul and the Church of the first four centuries. (Don’t forget to check the feminine name in Ro. 16:7—Junias.) Missiologically speaking, I believe the Reformers of the reformation out of which we have come, only partially freed themselves of the cultural captivity of the Holy Roman Empire—the Roman culture. New Testament speaking, they still remained too much as members of the “circumcision party” of the Roman Catholic Church and its cultural captivity. And, parenthetically, I believe what God is doing in the present explosion of the two-thirds world church is finally setting the Gospel free from that captivity and taking us back to the New Testament, first four centuries understanding of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God as Jesus proclaimed it. It is strange that for the most part the evangelical churches of the western world have allowed themselves to be held captive to the culture of the Roman Catholic Church—like the Judiizers or circumcision party of the New Testament. Thank God the Pentecostal movement has played a significant role in breaking the Roman Catholic cultural stranglehold—even though some of the Pentecostal leadership has gone back on their heritage because of the cultural pressure of so much of the evangelical world.
Well, this is an old missionary’s viewpoint of the Bible in the area of the equality of the sexes and it is a viewpoint that was forced upon him by the clash of cultures, just as Paul experienced it. That clash took away at least some of the cultural blinders from which I used to read the Bible. For that I am eternally grateful to God!
Stuart Chen Says:
March 6th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
What better framework for Biblical sexual equality, for a group that would be fundamentally missional, than what Harold has written here! Bravo! —Stu
March 11th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Jim Wastson says:
> I believe the EPC is the only Presbyterian denomination other than the PCUSA that permits women’s ordination.
This is a case where belief and fact are not necessarily the same.
The Cumberland Presbyterians ordain women.
I would be surprised if the Cumberland Presyberians in America did not ordain women. However, I’m certain the Upper Cumberland Presbyterians, as orthodox as they are, probably do not.
Those PCUSA churches that can’t accept EPC might look into joining Cumberlands (they may have been Cumberlands once). However, you will still have property issues in that case.
To my knowledge, (knowing) ordaining of homosexuals has not been tolerated in the Cumberland churches. Not that they don’t have a liberal wing with an agenda, it just hasn’t progressed as far as PCUSA. Keep conservatives in the majority and it won’t.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:21 am
In 1889, Cumberland Presbyterians were the first Presbyterian body to ordain a woman as a minister, Louisa Mariah Layman Woosley. (Wikipedia)
March 15th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I belong to an EPC church. We have women elders that also give pastoral care along with our men. Our church does not water down the Gospel or any part of the historic Christian faith. A women pastor would be welcomed in our church.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
My church is struggling with these issues now.
My personal opinion is that the decision to ignore the Book of Order so that homosexuals could be ordained broke the PC (USA) but that was the final straw of a long line of issues. The PC (USA) says the following is debatable:
Who is Jesus (Instead of God/”The” Way).
The authority of Scripture (Instead of Inspired/Infallible/Inerrant).
Fidelity in marriage/ Chastity in singlehood. (Instead of saying this is necessary).
The PC (USA) is also pro-murder instead of pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion.
As a lifelong Presbyterian and an Elder in PC (USA) church, it gives me no pleasure to say this movement is necessary but it is. There is nothing about the PC (USA) organization that stands for God’s message anymore. It is time for a change.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
On women preachers; I find here a curious historical ignorance. Opponents seem to me to have an assumption that ordination of women is a liberal idea. How ignorant. Women have been ordained in Pentecostal churches since 1914, at least. No one who is at all familiar with historic pentecostalism can say that those women were liberal. My mother was such a minister. She was more conservative than any PCA minister I have ever met. Those fellowships ordained women because of Scripture and Scripture alone.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 am
“The New Wineskins constitution affirms the Biblical basis for women serving as pastors, elders, and deacons at all levels of the church.”
So why does New Wineskins propose joining a denomination that considers something that is Biblically based as optional?
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
For good resources regarding the biblical basis for the ordination of women, and issues of women in leadership positions in the church generally, contact Christians for Biblical Equality. They have a website. Whatever side of this issue you are on, CBE has done a thorough job of researching what Scripture says about this. They have done all the homework for us. And, they are an evangelical group.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Hello all,
Following up on the discussion about the EPC & women’s ordination, I would like to make a few comments.
When I was in college, I attended an EPC congregation that had an all-male session & a mixed deaconate. When I decided to go to seminary (RTS Jackson) my pastor asked me if I would like to go under care as an ordination candidate of the presbytery. I replied that I did not. The main reason was that, as I saw it at the time, the EPC position on women’s ordination seemed unpalatable to me.
After my 1st year of seminary (I packed a 3 year degree into 4), I concluded that I DID want to go under care of my home Presbytery. What changed? I can assure you that it was not my perspective on women’s ordination. I Tim. 3 & the general Biblical-theological issue of headship is quite convincing to me.
What changed for me was the gradual understanding that, for the EPC, this is a POLITY issue, NOT a theological issue. What do I mean?
Well, the issue is simply this: the issue is a NON-ESSENTIAL. Those of you who are not familiar with what this means in practice need to slow down & percolate on it. (It took several of us in college many months of regular reflection & discussion to really get a grip on it…)
Let me phrase it this way– there are “A” issues, “B” issues, & “C” issues.
“A” issues are those issues central to salvation. They are essential (thus our 4th confessional document).
“B” issues are those that, while not essential to salvation, are essential to the Reformed faith. (e.g., God’s sovereignty in salvation & providence; “Calvinism”[i.e. TULIP]; the doctrine of the Covenant, etc.) These are the issues that make or break your ability to be ordained.
“C” issues are those that, while important to many of us, are not the sine qua non of denominational unity. These are the non-essentials.
But when I say this is a polity issue, I mean this: no church that is gung-ho for ordaining women as elders or ministers will call me to be their pastor. Fine. (I’m also not charismatic, so no charismatic church will call me, either!) And no pastor who is gung-ho for women’s ordination will seek a call at my church. Fine. (My church doesn’t ordain women. I am personally more or less okay w/ female deacons, but my session–after 6 months of weekly session mtgs– decided that they found that this wasn’t their understanding.)
That said, there are many pastors who don’t really care, & many churches that don’t really care. These churches & ministers won’t see each others’ views as determinative of them extending or seeking calls from one another. Fine.
It becomes a polity issue in this way: men who don’t believe in women’s ordination & women/churches who do need to ask themsleves these 2 questions:
a) Do I see this issue as being on par w/ an Essential (i.e., an “A” issue–salvific), or as being on par w/ a Reformed essential (a “B” issue–a central feature of the Reformed / Westminsterian faith)? Or is it a “C” issue (i.e., on par w/ charismaticism, eschatology, 6-Day vs. Framework views of creation, etc)?
b) If you can see it as a “C” issue (which is what the EPC has said that it is), ask yourself this: Can I serve in the higher courts of the church (Presbytery & GA) w/ people who disagree w/ me–people who also accept that this is a “C” issue?
That, my friends, is the issue. I personally am about as conservative as they get. Theologically, I would be comfortable in the PCA or OPC. I am EPC because I believe in the ethos & spirit of the EPC. While I am convinced in my own mind that my views on women’s ordination are absolutely correct, I also respect & admire (& will vehemently support) the ladies in the EPC who have accepted calls to be Ruling & Teaching Elders.
Some of you might find some of my exegesis offensive, & I may find some of yours silly… but I can, do, & will accept you. The question is: can you accept us?
Grace & peace,
Your brother,
-Austin.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Oh, one more thing: for those of you unfamiliar with the rationale for those of us in the “Complementarian” camp, I would like to highly recommend two references to you.
The 1st is the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. (http://cbmw.org/index.php)
The 2nd is anything written by Susan Hunt. Susan’s husband is a Presbyterian (PCA)pastor in the metro Atlanta area, & she serves as the head of the PCA’s WIC (Women In the Church). She has a series of EXCELLENT works explaining the Complementarian perspective on female roles w/in the Covenant Community. Crossway publishes most of them, but you can also order them online from the PCA’s CE&P (Christian Ed & Publications) website. (http://www.pcacep.org/Wic/index.htm)
Regarding the Complementarian perspective: I taught it to the WM (Women’s Ministry) leadership at my church as a part of their officer training this last summer. As we went through it, several of the ladies who had been HIGHLY skeptical of complementarianism came away really excited & liberated at this theological perspective.
Another anecdote: One woman I went to seminary with (yes, at RTS Jackson!) came away from a lecture on Gen 2 literally jumping for joy, crying out, “I’m so glad God made me a woman!” She had been raised in an oppressively conservative Presbyterian (OPC) church that taught what was, more or less, the strawman conservative view of submission many of you have likely been exposed to. This had made her feel miserable & 2nd class. But when she heard Dr. John Currid explain the complementarian view of Gen 2, she felt incredibly excited & delighted at finally hearing a non-fundy, Reformed view of this issue.
I plead with you all coming from the PCUSA: as you make this transition, don’t strawman your brothers & sisters who may disagree with you. My guess is that you all have not been exposed to what folks like me actually believe. My guess is that you have been exposed to the Fundy, strawman, 1950s-era false version of what we believe. Please–research what your brothers & sisters believe before writing about people “glaring over their shoulders” at female REs & TEs in the EPC.
Grace & peace,
Your brother,
-Austin.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Austin,
Thanks and amen! I fully agree with your categories for these issues.
(From one ‘occaisionally silly’ interpreter of Scripture to another!)
April 4th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Hello again,
After I wrote my last post I wrote another one, but apparently I did somethign wrong b/c it didn’t appear.
I wanted to encourage all of y’all who may be wondering what, exactly, Reformed complementarians believe to check out two excellent resources.
The 1st is the website & materials of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Their website is: http://cbmw.org/index.php. This group has done some outstanding work in regard to seeking to understand the Biblical-theological & exegetical roles of both men & women within the Covenant community. A number of well-known scholars & exegetes serve on it, including Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, John Piper, John MacArthur, & many others.
The 2nd resource that I want to commend to you all is anything written by Susan Hunt. Susan’s husband is a Presbyterian (PCA) pastor in the metro Atlanta area, & she serves as the head of the PCA’s WIC (Women in the Church). She has done an EXCELLENT job of combining the best of Evangelical & Reformed scholarship on the subject with practical experience as a Christian woman, mother, pastor’s wife, grandmother, & Women’s Ministry leader & trainer to create a series of books & materials that clearly teach the Reformed complementarian perspective.
Most of Susan’s works are available through Crossway Books (http://www.gnpcb.org/contributor/hunt.susan/books), or online through the PCA’s WIC website (http://www.pcacep.org/Wic/index.htm).
One last thought: before anyone gets too nervous about where complementarians are coming from, please take the time to actually read up on the subject. In my experience it seems that many folks get a strawman version of various positions & then set themsleves against the strawman. Complementarianism in no way lowers the status of women in the Covenant community, nor doe sit relegate them to some sort of back-of-the-bus status. Quite on the contrary, my experience with women who have studied this issue– whether coming from the “left” or the “right” (whatever that means)– is that they have come to find in complementarianism a freedom that egalitarianism, biblical feminism, secular feminism, or traditional roles provides.
Again, I commend these resources to you all, & look forward to fruitful discussions on the subject.
Grace & peace,
Your brother,
-Austin.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:34 am
>1 Timothy 2
>“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
>What part of “NO” do they not understand !
The crux of the permissiveness of this verse is not what it says, but who says it. The first word is first person, “I”. God did not say it, Jesus did not say it, the Holy Spirit did not say it. Paul said it. He did not say “The Lord says” or “The Lord has revealed”. He said “I”. Clearly the context is Paul’s perspective; the extent of which is also the Lord’s perspective is thus subject to interpretation at best, speculative at worst. It is irrefutable that the Lord put Deborah in charge. It is irrefutable that Priscilla practiced the role of “teaching elder.” But the ultimate owner of the command referenced in 1 Timothy is debatable. “Paul” does not permit this. Clearly God does.
What part of “I” do you not understand?
When men fail to answer God’s call, God calls willing women.
Oh, and also, any comparison between ordaining women and ordaining practicing homosexuals is apples to prunes. God made men, God made women. Only God is good. All things from God are Good, and all Good things are from God. Acts of homosexuality are from mankind, if not from the Evil One. God calls this an “abomination.” NOwhere in the Bible does God call women an “abomination”. That part of “NO” I understand.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Mr. Lewis stated that “They [EPC] also take the Westminster Confession of Faith VERY seriously. It is equivalent to scripture.” This statement is untrue. The EPC standards are absolutely clear and EPC practice is absolutely uniform in affirming the Westminster standards are subordinate standards to scripture.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Fascinating. I confess that this sort of discussion seemed inevitable when the NWA/EPC linkage was established. Hopefully, it won’t prove disruptive to the EPC and unsettling to those congregations that choose to leave the PC(USA).
September 15th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
This is just another reason why the New Wineskins and women should not have any association with the EPC. It will just be another long involved battle, go nowhere and in the end while males of the EPC will dominate. Women have already acheived ordiantion in many denominations for generations and it is pointless to become involved with this issue in the EPC. I recommend either staying in the PCUSA or going to one of the many denominations that ordain women. Let some of the above people continue with their outdated battle while women continue their calling in ordained ministry of Jesus Christ.