The Presbytery of the East took action today that will have a significant impact on the future of some PCUSA churches in the Northeast that wish to transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. After much courteous and respectful debate, POTE passed the following recommendation from an administrative commission:
1. The Presbytery of the East of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) will honor the Christian liberty of individual congregations to call their ministers and, therefore, will not prohibit candidates for ordination as Teaching Elders from being processed and presented to Presbytery due to their gender.
2. All candidates will be processed as set forth in the Book of Order of the EPC, the EPC Procedural Manual for Ministerial and Candidates Committees, and the Presbytery of the East By-Laws.
3. All candidates will be examined in accordance with the EPC’s specific criteria for ordination and ministerial preparation and must agree with the Essentials of Our Faith and subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith;
4. Once presented on the floor of Presbytery, candidates will be questioned as set forth in the Book of Order of the EPC.
5. Members of Presbytery will be allowed to vote their consciences in regards to their Biblical convictions concerning an individual’s ordination.
6. All members will be treated during the entire process with charity, grace and the respect due to one who seeks to submit themselves to Scripture and the calling of the Holy Spirit.
I voted for this, and believe that it is the right thing for POTE to do. Our presbytery was one of two in the EPC that had previously ordained a woman to the teaching eldership, and I think we could not refuse to consider women for ordination in the future without suggesting that there was something invalid in the one that had been done before. The decision to be open to future ordinations implicitly indicates that female teaching elders among potential PCUSA transfers will not find their gender an impediment. At the EPC Web site, there is further information about the current state of play on the issue within the denomination:
In the EPC, we currently have two presbyteries that prohibit women teaching elders, two that will not use gender as a consideration in approving ministers and candidates, two others who have a procedure in place that allows consideration of women ministers and candidates without violating conscience, and two that are still working on the issue and will have come to a conclusion by the second week of February 2009.
We are one of the two mentioned in the last sentence. I’ll let you know how things go at the last one as soon as I hear.
February 7, 2009 at 8:33 pm
David,
As much as I disagree with WO, I could not see how the POTE could at this point come out against WO. (Well, they could admit they had been wrong in the past and repent like St. Paul on the road to Damascus-GRIN).
Having allowed one lady in question to not only serve as a female TE but to be the head of the Ministerial Committee at one point (you can check) the POTE really does not have a leg to stand on.
Having said that, since the POTE has allowed (and may currently allow) a person who has publicly stated his support for Gay “marriage” (or at least “civil unions” to serve as a Teaching Elder, whether they allow females to be TE’s is almost a moot point.
Granted, with the presbyterian “equality of elders” doctrine (i.e. ruling elders and teaching elders are “equal” in ordination) then the EPC (and Faith) has long since passed the point of allowing “ordination” of women.
One thing to note, although the POTE has allowed a female TE, they have only allowed one as a “chaplain” and not as a “pastor.” That may be a “bridge” that some might be unwilling to cross.
February 8, 2009 at 2:28 am
David,
I am glad for this, one of the Pastors at Roseville Presbyterian Church that left PCUSA to go to EPC was one of the better Pastors in the PCUSA. She stood with me shoulder to shoulder in our presbytery to keep PW from getting voice and vote since they are not connected to any particular Church but only in covenant agreement with PCUSA. No other entity had that right. At the time they were insisting that because they gave the most money to the church they should be allowed the privilege. Shades of the medieval Catholic Church.
Also since there are verses that seemingly allow women pastors and others that seem not to, using good biblical exegesis, they should be reconciled. On the other hand there are no verses that either allow the practice of homosexuality and certainly not the ordination. Where in the scripture does it say gays should cover their heads when they preach or that they well prophecy (preach).
February 8, 2009 at 8:15 am
Chip Byers wrote:
Having said that, since the POTE has allowed (and may currently allow) a person who has publicly stated his support for Gay “marriage” (or at least “civil unions” to serve as a Teaching Elder, whether they allow females to be TE’s is almost a moot point.
David, is this true?
February 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Chips’ reference is to Richard Cizik, who happens to be a member of my presbytery (though I’ve never met him–not sure whether it is a matter of not wanting to associate with the peons or just not having time, though he didn’t show up this weekend either, at a time when you’d have thought he’d be free, being out of work and all). In the interview that eventually got him pushed out of the NAE job, he remarked that his view of gay marriage was “evolving,” and that he now leaned toward support of civil unions.
His remarks have not been brought up for any action in the Presbytery of the East, nor am I sure that there is cause to do so at this point. The EPC hasn’t that I know of taken a position on civil unions, though it is opposed to homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Given that, I’m not sure that Cizik’s situation is really pertinent to the subject of the post.
February 8, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I had no idea Cizik was EPC. I thought he was Assemblies of God.
February 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm
A question: How do the positions of Teaching Elder and Ruling Elder compare to the offices of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop in Anglicanism? (A deacon is ordained, but may not officiate at communion. Normally, one is ordained Deacon, serves as an assistant pastor somewhere, and is then ordained Priest within a year of that. To complicate matters further, what we call Priest is really a Presbyter. Only a Bishop can ordain a Deacon or Priest).
We had an interesting conversation about WO on the Anglican Essentials blog a while ago. You can find it here:
http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2009/02/02/episcopal-theologian-blasts-action-of-toronto-anglican-bishops-proposal-to-affirm-same-sex-relationships/
February 8, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Kate,
As someone who has been involved in both Presbyterianism and Anglicanism, let me try to hit that pitch.
Start with Deacon: Presbyterian-”Ordained” but not a “the Rev”. Primarily involved with “mercy” and “practical” ministries. Are not counted as “clergy.”
Anglican-”Ordained” with the title “the Rev.” Are counted as “clergy.” Cannot officiate at Holy Communion.(Get to “dress up-collar, stole over one shoulder, etc). Have no authority to ordain.
Ruling elder/Presbyter: “Ordained” but not a “the Rev.” Spiritual co-leaders of the congregation with the Pastor. Are not counted as “clergy. Are not usually (there are exceptions if licenced by the presbytery) allowed to officiate at Holy Communion. Participate in the ordination of other elders (both ruling and teaching) with laying on of hands.
No real Anglican equivalent.
Teaching Elder/Presbyter/Priest: Ordained and are “The Rev.” Counted as Clergy. Can perform Holy Communion etc. May (or may not) wear special clothes (collar, robes, etc). (Presbyterian only Participate in the ordination of other elders (ruling and teaching) by laying on of hands.)
Bishop: senior priest, usually in charge of a diocese (a grouping of several churches). Participates in the ordination of deacons and priests. Approve the call of a minister to a particular parish. Reviews the records of the churches under his authority.
Some have said that in Presbyterianism, the Presbytery (made up of Ruling and Teaching elders) acts in the role of Bishop.
February 8, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Yep, John, he’s one of ours, though I’m not certain how many would claim him at this point.
February 8, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Your bishop is a committee?? Lord have Mercy…. (I’m teasing, sorta…)
Thank you for the explanation!
February 8, 2009 at 7:06 pm
One more question – to an Anglican, ordained means clergy. So, a ruling elder and a deacon are ordained, but not clergy. Is the ordination permanent? Once you are ordained in the Anglican tradition, you are clergy forever unless you are defrocked. What does ordination mean, in terms of a ruling elder or deacon? Are they still considered lay people?
February 8, 2009 at 8:49 pm
In the PCUSA and I believe the EPC, as in the old UPCUSA and I believe the old PCUS, ordination as an (Ruling) Elder or Deacon is permanent, but you serve only 3 to 6 years at one time on Session or on the Board of Deacons (PCUSA Book of Order), you are and always will be laity.
If you are then re-elected to Session (or Board of Deacons), you are not ordained again, but are installed as a Church Officer.
A Teaching Elder (EPC and old PCUS) or Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA) ordination is also permanent, and you are clergy with the title of Rev.
The ordination is permanent unless you give it up or it is removed by a Ruling or Judicial Body.
February 8, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Reformed Catholic is quite right about the EPC as well as the PCUSA.
February 9, 2009 at 10:05 am
This sounds like a resolution similar to that reached by my former denomination, the CRC (Christian Reformed Church) in which each individual Classis (cf. Presbytery) could decide whether it would or would not ordain women. At the time, what I then saw as a silly compromise was actually one of the reasons I left the CRC. These days it seems like a pretty good solution.
I guess I grew up.
It’s too bad the PCUSA can’t grow up too.
February 9, 2009 at 11:08 am
David,
Thanks for the news–I just forwarded a link to the members of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery/Support Network.
As you know, some in the PC(USA)have used a fear campaign to attempt to persuade women TEs or churches strongly in favor of ordaining women as TEs that they will lose their ordination if they try to move to the NWTP/SN or to a geographic presbytery of the EPC.
That has not deterred six strong, faithful women TEs who have made the move so far, but news such as this helps salve some of the burns they received in the move.
Mac
(Stated Clerk, NWTP/SN)
February 9, 2009 at 1:00 pm
In Essentials, Unity – In Non-Essentials, Liberty – In All Things, Charity
“Truth in Love”
And it seems to me this how it should be. I gladly voted with Pastor David on this one. This is a Non-Essential within the EPC and is left up to the individual Presbyteries to decide. This has been considered a Non-Essential by the POTE since its inception and following prayerful consideration, I could find no reason for change. While I would personally prefer a male Pastor for my spiritual leader, I just cannot bring myself to deny others this choice as a matter of policy. Within the POTE, positions regarding the ordination of women vary – some churches might consider ordaining women as Pastors (“Teaching Elder”) but many would not, a larger number do ordain women to the office of Ruling Elder, but some do not, and even more ordain women to the office of Deacon, but still some churches do not.
“In Non-Essentials, Liberty”
February 9, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Viola, I agree there are verses in the NT that need to be reconciled when dealing with womens’ roles in the church, however the exegetical scope of those verses is limited by Paul. He flatly says he does not permit women to teach or hold authority in the church and roots that in Eve’s failure in the garden. That seems pretty insurmountable to reconcile away.
February 10, 2009 at 2:51 am
Praise God for this faithful and wise action of your presbytery! I long for the day that we can be together in ministry and this will go a long way toward making that possible.
RevKev,
We who hold to the validity of the ordination of qualified women have done our work on the Greek of that particular passage and we have found it no barrier to our position. Look at how Paul says, “be in authority over”. That is the key. What kind of authority does he mean?
February 10, 2009 at 10:22 am
Toby, I agree that we must carefully exegete such passages, but we must do so, as I said, bounded by the clear and broad statements of the Bible. In other words, we need to see the exegetical forest without getting bogged down with the eisegetical trees. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
To me (and I am not alone), when Paul roots male leadership within the Church in the created order, in God’s response to the Fall, and in the ontological inter-trinitarian relationships, those are insurmountable obstacles to the ordination of women to the eldership.
It boils down to this:
Any interpretation of Scripture that focuses on the semantic range of words, textual variants, and passages that do indeed need reconciling, while ignoring the very clear statements of Scripture, is suspect.
Any interpretation of Scripture that dismisses 3000+ years of very consistent Judeo-Christian interpretation in favor of a view that is only about 100 years old, is suspect.
Any interpretation of Scripture that arises from or is espoused by a denomination that has first institutionally questioned the authority of God’s Word, is suspect.
Any interpretation of Scripture that applies an inconsistent hermeneutic, specifically applying one hermeneutic to homosexual ordination and another to female ordination, is suspect.
But hey. I suspect all I have done is irritate everyone on this list. Lest I be labelled…I don’t know…a “Jodie” (!) I would invite you to take this offline with me and we can discuss it in detail.
February 10, 2009 at 10:56 am
Rev Kev,
I’m not irritated! A good biblical discussion among brothers in the faith is never tiring to me. I have many beloved friends who differ with me on the issue of ordination and gender. I would like to think that I continue to learn from those who honor God’s Word and have come to different conclusions than I on the ‘non-salvific’ issues of interpretation.
February 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm
We do have to interpret scripture with scripture. What then, do we do with the verses that say that women must cover their heads when they prophesy? (I am having a brain cramp at the moment and can’t remember where that is, even with the help of Bible Gateway). It seems to me that prophesy is the functional equivalent of teach and preach.
The semantic range of words is what gives meaning to them! I agree that we shouldn’t twist words to make them say what we want them to, though.
I disagree with you here. Just because a biblical case for women’s ordination hasn’t been made until recently, doesn’t mean that it can’t or shouldn’t be made.
February 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hi, Kate. It is not clear that NT prophecy was the same as preaching. That is why clearer texts should be used to interpret the more obscure.
Semantic range does not give meaning to words, context and authorial intent does.
I agree with you than antiquity of interpretation alone should not be determinative, but it is significant. Since the Church has always had the same Spirit guiding its understanding of the Scriptures, we should only disregard those interpretations with great care.
For instance, I wrote an article for Mounce’ Expository Dictionary on the Hebrew word “elder.” It literally means “bearded one.” Issues of estrogen deficiency aside, the word alone would seem to imply that Jewish elders were male. As the Old Israel gave way to the New, it is only reasonable to assume they saw NT elders the same way. The burden of proof is on those who say otherwise to prove it. (As a somewhat amusing aside, I waxed very long and eloquent on the point. The editors made me tone it down a bit, so the article wouldn’t cut into market share! LOL)
Finally, I can’t figure out how to block quote, so sorry for not including your remarks. I hope what I was responding to was clear.
February 10, 2009 at 3:21 pm
To blockquote – put
after it without the spaces.
I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption to make at all. Jesus changed everything, and women of “The Way” were given a hugely expanded role compared to the Judaism of the time. They were permitted to be taught (Mary learning at the feet of Jesus), the were permitted to be deacons (Phoebe), Pricilla led a house church with her husband, Paul referred to women as “co-labourers”. These were all massive changes in the role of women in religious life.
February 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Well, that didn’t work. Let me try that again.
To blockquote: Put the word blockquote between this symbol “”. Next put in the quoted text, then put the word blockquote between these symbols “”
February 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm
argh.
You put the word blockquote between the things that look like triangular brackets at the beginning of the quote, and you put the word /blockquote between the triangular brackets at the end of the quote.
February 10, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I have a love hate relationship with computer code.
February 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Kate, granted the NT certainly afforded greater honor to women than they knew under the Old Covenant. Clearly they were very important suporters of Jesus’ and Paul’s ministries. Still, it is a huge leap from there to say that they can serve as elders, especially when, as I said before, Paul forbids it in light of the created order, Eve’s deception,and the relationship between the Father and Son.
You might be suprised to know that I am willing to grant as well, that Phoebe may even have been a Deacon (as opposed to a “servant”) of the chuch in Cenchrea. I am not entirely sure that 1 Tim. 3 excludes women from the diaconate because of the language Paul does (and does not) use.
Nevertheless, Jesus did not call a single woman to be an apostle nor do we know of a single woman in the Bible who is ever called an elder. If that weren’t enough, we also do not have an unambiguous evidence that any women served the church officially in that capacity during the apostolic period. The biblical silence on this point is deafening.
February 10, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Thanks for the instructions, Kate. For some reason I cannot select text on this blog so I guess the point is moot. I am a very poor typist and it is discouraging to have to type more than is absolutely necessary!
February 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I have seen good arguments made that that prohibition was for the particular church Paul was writing to, and not meant to apply generally. (I can’t recall if it was in the Anglican Essentials blog I linked to or in the Stand Firm thread that that thread linked to).
The church hasn’t always gotten it right, though, has she? Otherwise there would never have been a Reformation.
February 10, 2009 at 4:59 pm
David,
Thanks for letting people know about POTE. I think God was honored by the end result. As a member of the commission, I started this process actually opposed to the ordination of women. However, I discovered that my view was shaped more by my own tradition than carefully examination of Scripture. When I was ordained in the POTE I was asked about this issue and I said that my conscience was captive to Scripture. It still is, I just discovered that the whole of Scripture is a better basis for deciding an issue like this rather than simplistic proof-texting.
February 10, 2009 at 5:56 pm
You’re certainly welcome, brother. I quite agree that God has been honored by this process. I appreciate the work the commission did, and was glad to vote for its recommendation.
February 11, 2009 at 7:44 am
I have always found the EPC’s almost “Don’t ask Don’t tell” policy concerning WO almost as perplexing as this new policy. No matter how one feels about the policy in and of itself this policy screams of Congregationalism not Presbyterian Polity.
February 11, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Benjamin, Your perception of the EPC is seriously flawed and you description of “DOn’t Ask Don’t tell” is bizarrely inaccurate. How does our position scream Congregationalism? Particular churches elect elders who in turn are elected and presbyters and then carry out the functions all presbyters carry out by examining candidates for ordination and voting their conscience. This is what the PCA, OPC, and any other Presbyterian denomination does. If you have a problem with our emphasis upon Christian liberty and consciences then your problem is not with the EPC but rather with the WCF. If you have difficulty with our motto< as I know many who pride themselves on their doctrinal “purity” do, then you have a problem with Puritans such as Richard Baxter and reformers such as Luther and even Calvin. Our position is a responsible evangelical approach to this issue. I would recommend you read John Stott’s “Evangelical Truth” pages 116-119 (actually the entire book is exceptional).
February 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm
No Reformed or Presbyterian denomination nor any of the men who you unwillingly bring into the discussion would agree to making Ordination standards and qualifications for the Office of Teaching Elder or Ruling Elder a matter of “liberty”, at Presbytery or at the local congregational level. What is quite ironic is that the very thing those fleeing the PC(USA) are trying to stop (local option concerning the qualifications of Ordained Office) is what they are headed to in the EPC.
As an aside “Name Dropping” is not a good or effective way to argue a point of doctrine. I could name just as many “names” that would disagree, but we are not Roman and do not hold “names” in a manner of hierarchy of authority. Also Luther, Richard Baxter, John Stott, and a majority of the “Puritans” were not Presbyterians in their polity.
Read John Knox, Zacharias Ursinus, J.H. Thornwell, Samuel Rutherford, J. Gresham Machen or any number of Reformed Men on this point.
February 11, 2009 at 2:22 pm
We do not make qualifications or standards a matter of liberty. If you read our position you would see that our standards are very clear: Scripture, WCF, the Book of Order and our procedural manual for processing candidates. The only matter we leave to “conscience” is gender because we, through our presbyterian polity, have decided that conservative evangelical presbyterians who understand the spirit of our denomination can honestly disagree on the point of women’s ordination. We state VERY clearly that all candidates must be processed through our normal process. The only way someone can disagree with this position is to say that good Christians with a high view of Scripture MUST believe only one position and if you do not you are not a good Christian and you do not have a high view of Scripture. I personally believe that position is pharisaical and spiritual arrogant. I have read all your recommendations and have a great deal of respect for most though one, who shall remain nameless, bores me. My guess is he probably is your favorite.
February 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I am dying to hear who is this man, who you evidently do not have the courage to name publicly, that is “[my] favorite”.
You do see now you are equivocating between “liberty” and “conscience”. They are not interchangeable words.
What to you is a “high view” of Scripture?
February 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm
The position says conscience. However, those I know seeking refuge from the PCUSA are doing so to escape heretical doctrine more so than church polity. I am sorry I allowed myself to drift in to polemical humor with my previous closing because I have noticed that when I speak from the position which POTE adopted Saturday and correct your misrepresentations of it you do not speak to those issues but rather gravitate to charges of “name dropping” and if someone subscribes to presbyterian polity at a proper level. Please answer just one question; Do you believe a solid Christian who is reformed and has a high view of Scripture as authoritative can support women’s ordination? I am not asking what your belief is, just rather or not a strong reformed brother who believes in God’s Word can?
February 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Well who is the guy you find boring? I am sure you will not hurt his feelings.
There is a substantial difference from believing Scripture to be “authoritative” and it being God’s Word. As I am sure others coming out of the PC(USA) can tell you.
Do you (or the EPC) subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerratncy?
February 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I do. Dude, the boring thing was A JOKE, maybe a poor attempt but A JOKE like I said already. I will now reword my question and see if you will answer it – Do you believe a solid Christian who is reformed and subscribes to the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy can support women’s ordination?
February 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm
You can find the statement here…
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
February 11, 2009 at 3:23 pm
DPC Pastor,
I do! I consider myself a modified complementarian, who affirms the inerrancy of Scripture and the orthodox Reformed faith.
I’m a strange guy I guess….
February 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm
With all do respect (and in all seriousness) and humility I myself find it difficult to reconcile Articles XIII,XIV, and XVIII of the Chicago Statement with the Hermeneutical principle that underlies the support for Women’s Ordination.
February 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Thanks Toby. At least you will answer my question. My only point is that the EPC recognizes and respects that there can be a difference of opinion on this issue by strong Bible Believing brothers and sisters in Christ.
February 11, 2009 at 3:32 pm
DPC,
I think Benjamin DID answer you. It was a no.
February 11, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Thank you Benjamin for your answer. That is why you do not like our position, not because of our polity. We believe that Christians can have an honest disagreement on interpretation and still hold to inerrancy in regards to the issue. I wish the commissions background study and supporting rationale ahd been included with tis recommendation. I argued for them to be included but lsot that vote. However, if they had been I believe you would be more open to our position.
February 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm
A modified complimentarian? I would love to hear that fleshed out.
DPC, I think the answer to your question is “Yes” with a big “BUT.” The “BUT” being that on the issue of WO, one must engage in eisegesis and apply a hermeneutic of presupposition to justify the position.
I still have seen no one seriously respond to the question of Creation, Fall, and trinitarian ontology that Paul uses to require male leadership in the Church, other than to suggest that it might have applied to just that situation. If such were the case, it is hard to imagine why Paul would use such unchanging categories to illustrate.
But hey. I was a lone horsefly buzzing around. I shall go back to lurking.
February 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Rev Kev,
Yeah… I think the egalitarian position is mostly bogus. Clearly, men and women have different calls and different roles in the family and in the world. But I just don’t see how a loyal, godly wife somehow dominates or usurps men when she preaches the Word or pastors a church.
February 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm
You acknowledge different roles and callings in the home and world but not the Church? What do you do with 1 Cor. 11:3 as a principle of male leadership in the Church that reflects the Father’s headship over Christ? What about Paul grounding his forbidding of female leadership in the Church in both the created order and Eve’s sin? (1 Tim. 2:13-14)
It seems to me if you a (functional) egalitarian in the Church, then you must be in the home as well. Conversely, if you are a complimentarian in the home, then you must be in the Church? Why? Because the models that Paul uses to describe male headship are equally applied to the home and Church.
February 11, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Again, I really don’t want to dig into this topic here.
It may well seem to you that I am a functional egalitarian. Just because you think you see something does not necessarily make it so. Just because the leading role of men in the church is the norm in no way precludes to my mind that some women can’t assist in this leadership task.
May we each be convinced in our own mind and serve the Lord with a clear conscience on this matter.
February 11, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The EPC is the only denomination I’m aware that offers a “local option” on this issue (the CRC did). Maybe they can sit on the fence for this issue, but I have my doubts. At some point, a woman minister is going to protest to General Assembly as to why her ordination is void in other presbyteries because of her gender.
I respect the EPC, but I think at some point in the following decades the GA is going to be forced to rule one way or the other on this issue. The EPC is diverse, far more so than the PCA, and that admirable trait may possibly be its undoing although I might well be proven wrong.
February 12, 2009 at 8:36 am
The Common Cause partnership is doing it. (Website is here -
http://www.united-anglicans.org/