Over at the Puritan Board, folks are discussing our actions this morning, and raise some good questions that I’d like to take a shot at answering. In particular, “Chaplainintraining,” a candidate under care in the EPC, raises the following issues:
1. No matter how much the committee states otherwise, I see this as stripping the power from presbyteries.
I don’t know how this can be. Presbyteries are still free to take either a complimentarian or egalitarian approach to women’s ordination, though it is true that complimentarian presbyteries won’t be able to impose that view on a congregation that has a woman teaching elder that is coming into the EPC.
2. The EPC considers the issue of female eldership as a non-essential, but is moving in such a way that we are now defined by a non-essential. They are talking about redrawing presby borders in such a way that each complimentarian presby would be neighbored by an egalitarian. This proves that each individual presby is now defined by a non-essential.
I’m not sure why this “defines” us. It is a practical response to a practical issue: what to do about congregations that wish to enter the EPC who have female teaching elders. We could have told them to go elsewhere, but because we consider this to be a non-essential, we chose to welcome them. Once having made that decision, we needed to set up a process for admission that would allow everyone to live and work together while respecting everyone’s convictions. There is no sense in which this binds anyone’s conscience, as I will explain below.
As for the matter of presbytery boundaries, I think Chaplainintraining is ignoring the fact that there’s a lot more going on. Given the number of congregations that have or are going to enter the EPC, some adjustment of boundaries (which are hardly divinely inspired) was going to be necessary in any case. Taking into account the presence of female TEs, and the convictions of the current presbyteries, seems to only make sense.
3. Questions were raised on why this was one-way road and that a complimentarian church could not move to a differing presby if surrounded by egalitarians. The answer was that no one is forcing a complimentarian to take on a female elder, but complimentarians would be forcing egalitarians from not taking. I understand the concept in general, but it is still catering to the left. I can see where a strong egalitarian presby could deny someone like a Wayne Grudem who is openly and strongly opposed to female ordination. They would deny someone like him because they do not want to deal with it.
To me, this point indicates an unfamiliarity with the way the EPC works in practice. The idea that a presbytery that has taken an egalitarian position would exclude a complimentarian is, I think, far-fetched in the extreme. The whole point of this exercise is that we are bending over backwards to respect everyone’s convictions.
4. We are told that this is being done in order to not bind one’s conscience on the issue. When someone pointed out that a presby would still have to vote to allow a church to move, and that if one’s conscience was bound towards complimentarian they could still not vote to allow the church to move. The response from the committee was that if you are against a female elder in every situation then you are in the wrong denomination (this is just wrong. Someone might have joined the EPC for one of their other distinctives. Maybe someone has a more charismatic view of the gifts. That could be reason for being in the EPC). So in other word’s the conscience of the egalitarian matters, but the conscience of the complimentarian doesn’t.
Wrong. No one is bound to vote in any particular way on any particular issue. Quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing a presbytery saying, in essence, we will take you in, but once we have admitted you, you have to get rid of your pastor. By virtue of being in the EPC, churches have agreed that the matter of women’s ordination is a non-essential. If you are going to contend that not only will your own church not have women TEs, but no other church may either, anywhere in the denomination, you are saying that you no longer agree with one of the items that was before you when you came in. Complimentarian presbyteries don’t have to have women TEs in their membership. Insisting that those congregations can’t go anywhere else in the denomination strikes me as manifesting an uncharitable spirit that is counter to the ethos of the EPC.
5. I think this does lead to future problems. Paedocommunion is not an issue currently, but what if it became one in the future? History would show that we should allow for those who believe in paedocommunion the opportunity to serve in a presby that would accept a TE who practices such. Really where would the line be drawn? If our Essential of Faith is the only thing that we have to agree on, then a whole laundry list of things could ultimately divide the various presbyteries.
I think this point is off-base. The issue that confronts us with regard to women TEs is not just theological or biblical, but has to do with the ministries of real, live individuals and congregations whom we have decided we will not, as a denomination, turn aside. Matters such as paedocommunion don’t involve whether a person loses her job, and a congregation loses a leader. Yes, we may have to decide whether such matters fall under the heading of essentials at some point, but I don’t think they are the same kind of issue.
6. Several people mentioned that we are suppose to strive for unity among the brethren but this recommendation divides. The response from the committee was, “No it doesn’t.” No qualification was really given. I can’t see why they would think that.
The answer was pointing to the reality, I think, because the proposals enable us to remain united as a denomination by allowing for a plurality of practices that doesn’t bind anyone’s conscience. We have never had a uniform approach to this question, and I know of only a relative handful of people who would want one. But that doesn’t mean we cannot continue to be united in faith and mission.
7. Doesn’t the CRC allow female ordination (correct me if I am wrong please)? If so, then why not join them vs. rewriting the constitution?
Chaplainintraining objected to the implicit suggestion that those who take a PCA or OPC approach to this question might be better off there, and then makes the suggestion regarding egalitarians. Enough said.
8. They are suppose to present the final recommendation in the morning. They removed it at the last second to rewrite it. So this means that we will not even see it until the morning docket and then somehow expected to vote upon it within a few hours.
The changes in question are minor.
A couple more items. “Jack T” writes:
I would note on your item #3 that a complimentarian pastor in an egalitarian presbytery is in a position of being forced, because he is subject to the discipline of the presbytery which includes women. So why can’t his church leave if they don’t want their pastor forced into such a situation? Or do EPC presbyteries not have that kind of authority over pastors?
At least potentially, every congregation is in this boat. In the EPC, every congregation has the choice of whether to have women ruling elders, who of course have an equal voice and vote in presbytery as any male ruling elder. No presbytery has the authority to prevent this, or to refuse to seat a woman RE elected as a commissioner. Quite frankly, a congregation that is unwilling to work with women in presbytery under any circumstances really is in the wrong denomination.
Finally, “Scott1″ who says he is in the PCA, writes this:
The process underscores the way in which this denomination was chartered- intentionally, to be “in the middle” meaning between confessional, biblical reformed and mainline, liberal and apostate.
This is uncharitable, mean-spirited and false. It nicely illustrates why the EPC exists.
And now let the flaming arrows fly.
June 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The Hungarian Reformed Church is in a similar situation to the EPC. For reasons of Hungarian language/culture dating back to the 1850′s and as a step considered necessary after the Communist occupation and the murder of male pastors, the church in the US and Europe has female pastors and elders. Theologically however, the church is very “conservative” in that we confess the 2nd Helvetic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. But due to this issue we have been separated from some Reformed brethren in the US.
June 25, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I, for one, am very glad that the EPC is taking this duty seriously. Both my wife’s home church and my home church have been released from the PC(USA) — one in a gracious manner, the other not — and both have exceptional female associate pastors. One church is officially within the EPC, and the second has been dismissed to the EPC and is going through the process. Both are excellent bodies of faith and will serve within the EPC well. I pray that this issue will not serve to divide your denomination any further than it already has at times.
Meanwhile, I am still among the remnant in the PC(USA). Keep praying for us!
June 25, 2010 at 5:36 pm
We certainly will, Jason!
June 25, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I don’t know whether Rev. Fischler wants to have this discussion (and if not please delete this) here but just as an addendum to Jason I just wanted to say the problem most of us have with the ordination of women to the office of Elder (both Ruling and Teaching) is not because they lack the ability but because Scripture has declared it not to be their role in the Church of Christ. 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 could not be more clear.
June 25, 2010 at 9:11 pm
I certainly don’t mind having the discussion, Ben, but I didn’t mean to either defend or oppose women’s ordination in this post. I was simply seeking to explain a proposal that allows those who are on both sides to co-exist and work together within the same denomination. The truth is that I suspect that, despite the language of “egalitarian” and “complimentarian” presbyteries, there is a fairly strong complimentarian majority in the denomination, and that a lot of folks are willing to lay that belief aside as non-essential in the interest of being able to extend a compassionate hand to those leaving PCUSA. I’ll also add that they’ve listened to the arguments on both sides and concluded that, while they don’t agree, they don’t think that those who support women’s ordination are incapable of making a case from Scripture for it (unlike, say, advocates for homosexuality, who can’t make a biblical case, and so resort to personal experience for their support).
June 25, 2010 at 9:50 pm
At the very end of your posting, the following was included:
===
Finally, “Scott1″ who says he is in the PCA, writes this:
The process underscores the way in which this denomination was chartered- intentionally, to be “in the middle” meaning between confessional, biblical reformed and mainline, liberal and apostate.
—
This is uncharitable, mean-spirited and false. It nicely illustrates why the EPC exists.
=======
The statement that the EPC was to be in the middle between Reformed and Liberal is almost exactly the wording used by several TEs in the POTE when I was still at Faith.
The words: “We are reformed, but not TOO REFORMED” and “We are reformed but we don’t let it get in the way” are direct quotes from two Former TE’s of the POTE. (One is now with the Lord and the other is now in another Presbytery.) BTW, both of these men were Pro WO.
So I don’t see how a statement which has been made by “founders” of the denomination, could be seen as uncharitable.
Note: I am not taking sides, but just pointing out that the EPC was designed to be “in the middle.”
June 25, 2010 at 10:20 pm
That EPC is a kind of via media between the mainline PCUSA and the more conservative PCA I don’t dispute, though I don’t think there’s any question that we’re not in the “middle”–we’re much closer to the PCA. It’s the word “apostate” to which I objected.
June 26, 2010 at 3:29 am
I would gently disagree with this whole discussion.
The Lucan taxonomy of theological matters can be established: the basis of Luke’s theology is Christology; upon that Pneumatology is built; then comes Eschatology (see Acts 2) and finally Eccesiology.
Granted, ordination of women elders is not an essential to Christology, Pneumatology or Eschatology. All those things are (or ultimately will be) Egalitarian in outlook.
But the nature and character of church leadership is one of the essentials of Ecclesiology. As Mr. Glaser notes above, Paul speaks clearly to this issue. Even if one goes down the “Paul’s-directives-are-culturally-bound” route in applying those texts today, one can hardly claim it was a “matter of indifference” to Paul’s ecclesiology.
What then? It is inconsistent (or at least truncated, at best) to have a church try to ride “two horses” in this area. Perhaps the One Church (especially from a Presbyterian perspective) may have room to embrace both positions; but it is extremely doubtful that one denomination will succeed in doing so, practically or theologically.
Respectfully,
Henry
June 26, 2010 at 8:54 am
Benjamin –
I understand your note and certainly agree that the issue is not over ability. I’ve studied the topic at length and simply believe that the Bible is not univocal on this account. Many passages in the Bible seem clear until seen in the light of others — but I don’t know that this is the place for the discussion of such, considering the books that have been written on both sides of the argument adhering to faithful readings of the texts. The EPC has presented itself as a place where women elders are a possibility…I would hate to see that change now that churches are leaving for the EPC with that thought in place.
June 26, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Thanks for posting the discussions. I have spent a lot of time thinking through both sises of the issue.
June 26, 2010 at 6:05 pm
#4 Not according to N.T. Wright:
The entire article is here:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
and it is quite fascinating.
June 26, 2010 at 9:59 pm
As an EPC RE, one who does not support Women elders (RE or TE), I can appreciate this discussion. I have always held, even when I was new to the reformed faith, that women should not be elders nor should they be pastors according to scripture. However, the church I now attend, an EPC church (then a PCUSA church) did have women elders when I first attended. It is not something that will cause me to leave the church, or the denomination.
The question of woman TE or RE might not be considered an essential at the moment, but certainly down the line it must rise to that level. The simple reason is we must adhere to scripture and scripture is an essential. That is, as we seek to submit to scripture, the interpretations of the passages that speak to the women in leadership issue will become more significant as other issues (like the transitional presbyteries, the welcoming of new congregations, etc.) fade into the background. At this point, we are agreeing to disagree.
The PCA is addressing this issue on the question of women as deacons. I think it is part of the discussion of their general assembly this year. They currently have a position called deaconness which is not technically an ordained position. There are also other factions in the PCA that I have modest awareness of. The nature of Presbyterian history, based on someone who really hasn’t studied it much, is a series of splits and mergers over the years. (I’ve seen a chart of American Presyberian history and it is hard to follow all the denominations and the changes.) I figure that will happen again in the future. This doesn’t have to have malice with regards to the splits, but I think it may happen. When that happens to the PCA, as I think it might, I think it will effect the EPC. I don’t know that this will happen, and I am not pushing for anything like this to happen. I just see something like this happening in the future. The good news for churches in both the PCA and the EPC is that they both allow churches to leave to other reformed denominations, so those congregations don’t have to go through the same difficulties that effect the PCUSA churches that are leaving have to go through.
At this point, the EPC is one of the few reformed options that PCUSA churches have. Going to the PCA, or OPC are probably not options for any of them, just to understate the issue. While I disagree with the women elder/pastor position, I can understand the “need” to be egalitarian to welcome these churches in. Our church, when we left the PCUSA, had women RE’s, but they apparently were willing to resign to join the PCA. At that time, however, we were not willing to ask the women deacons to do the same. (That’s my understanding, and it is largely second hand.) Therefore, that left the EPC as the main option for our church at the time.
I have to agree with David on the last point, that the EPC is serious about its position on the reformed faith, and we don’t consider the Westminster Confession an optional document. At least, our presbytery is serious about it. It is fair to say it was a question for the EPC maybe 10 – 15 years ago when the Westminster Confession was debated as a standard for the denomination.
Just a few thought. I think there is much to think about here, and there will be lively discussion for a long time.
June 27, 2010 at 8:36 am
Dear Kate (#11)
Four things must require careful attention in Dr. Wright’s article:
1. It was written in 2004, much valuable and substantive scholarship has come out since then.
2. By Wright’s own admission: “Once again the matter is of course very vexed and much fought over, and I have not read more than a fraction of the enormous literature that has been produced on the passage. I simply give my opinion for what it is worth.” This is hardly a scholarly response to the hard work done before and (of course) after this lecture.
3. Even if Dr. Wright had “nailed” this text exactly, look again at how he says the passage should be translated. In fact he translates v. 12 with Paul’s prohibition still entirely intact.
4. With respect to 1 Timothy 2, in essence, Dr. Wright has only said, “Let’s not be stupid and dish up the old shibboleth, ‘keep women ignorant, pregnant and in the kitchen.’ This was never Paul’s intention, nor should it be ours.”
One trusts, none of us would wish to disagree with this latter point.
Finding a loving, holistic balance between the work and ministry of men and of women in the church has not, nor probably ever will be, easy. The question that must be answered remains, “Was it ever and is it still God’s intention for men and women to fulfill different but equally glorious roles in His creation?”
If the answer to that question is “yes” then surely we must ask, “Does the blessed Apostle have any instructions on how those differences impact our ecclesiology?
I reiterate, I cannot see how one can affirm that there are two radically different answers to this latter question and claim it is a matter of indifference which one the various authorities in a single organization choose.
Best Regards,
Henry
June 27, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I guess I’m too old for this discussion. It’s not that I haven’t prayed through this, read about it and come to my own belief but it has the threat to become the “whipping boy” for the EPC the way “gay ordination” has been for the PC(USA). IMHO chill out. If you believe God is going to “remove the lamp stand” of the EPC from his presence over this issue then it MUST be seen as an essential of the faith. If you believe God’s grace is able to overlook, forgive, or deal with our human short sightedness when it comes to fully understanding his revealed Word then it is safe to label it a non-essential.
Ok; the old guy is done spewing..
Peace all
Alan
June 27, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Henry, I don’t think you are doing justice to Wright’s paper.
June 27, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Point 1 isn’t relevant, unless you can point to some of that scholarship.
Point 2 Putting him down for a humble admission that he hasn’t read all there is to read on the topic isn’t particularly relevant either. This admission says nothing about the scholarship he did to reach his conclusions.
Point 3 I think he makes a very good case for Paul’s prohibition addressing the specific situation in the church he (Paul) was writing to.
Point 4 is a strawman. Your summary of his points is innacurate.
June 27, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Alan,
I’m not sure I understand your point. God’s grace is able to overcome all our sins. My personal feeling is that the issue of gay ordination is a poor reason to leave the PCUSA. The questions for the PCUSA are 1)the authority of scripture and 2)the nature and work of Christ. On neither of those questions are they orthodox. The denial of scriptural authority brings them to the question of gay ordination, but it isn’t their root problem, just a consequence of their root problems. That is not the case with EPC and women TE’s. I believe that while the egalitarians are wrong, they take serious the scripture and are guided by its authority. We all are sinners and are wrong on some issues (David will say I’m wrong being opposed to women TE’s.) In all cases God’s grace is sufficient, and as long as our discussions recognize God’s grace, and the authority of the scripture, I am comfortable. I don’t think there is danger of the lampstand being removed over this issue unless it devolves into some form of legalism one way or the other. Scriptural issues are important, and we need to take our disagreements seriously. But, there must always be charity and grace.
June 28, 2010 at 7:27 am
Doug: Thank you, thank you, thank you. It frustrates me beyond belief when people who are opposed to ordaining women as presbyters assume that I don’t take scriptural authority seriously.
June 28, 2010 at 7:28 am
As an aside: Could someone please define the terms “ruling elder” and “teaching elder” for me?
–A Slightly Confused Anglican
June 28, 2010 at 9:10 am
Doug: Just wanted to say that I would not necessarily say you are wrong regarding women’s ordination. When I’ve written on this issue, I’ve always been clear not to state an opinion, but only dealt with the polity questions. In fact, I see a good biblical case being made on both sides, and believe, like you, that both supporters and opponents take Scripture and its authority seriously (as opposed, say, to the advocates of gay ordination). I think you are exactly right about the PCUSA–gay ordination is only a symptom of a much deeper theological disorder.
June 28, 2010 at 9:13 am
Kate: “Teaching elder” is another way of speaking of those who are ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Pastors are always teaching elders. “Ruling elder,” on the other hand, are those ordained to the ministry of governance. Ruling elders cannot be pastors. In other polities, they would be considered laypeople. Confusing enough?
June 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
Dear Kate (# 16)
Thanks for your response. I am preparing to preach from 2 Timothy this week and 2.14 comes to mind! So I’ll refrain from further postings on this topic. I’ll sign off with this -
I find two questions apposite -
A. Do we really know that the situation in Ephesus was as Dr. Wright portrays it?
I suspect that it was not. See the very fine series of articles by Stephen M. Baugh:
“The Apostle Among the Amazons.” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 153-171.
“A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century.” In Women and the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (2d ed.; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005 [rev.from 1st ed. 1995), 13–38.
“Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 42/3 (1999): 443–60
B. If the directions of 1 Tim 2.12 were really only intended for the geographically limited context of Ephesus in the latter half of the 1st C. AD, why has the nearly universal interpretation of the verse throughout the church in manifold locations and situations (until relatively recent days, anyway) been to take Paul’s advice as normative?
Blessings,
Henry
June 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
#21 Terribly. So a ruling elder is what I would call a churchwarden?
June 28, 2010 at 11:17 am
Henry – Well, I’ll see if I can find those articles or similar, online.
Your second point – the church is a human institution and throughout history has often got things wrong.
June 28, 2010 at 11:27 am
Kate – yes the ruling elders are the “board” and the teaching elders are the pastors.
Well while we’re all practicing for the next year’s arguments….
A number of key issues come up regarding the debate on women as elders. First are the key texts against the idea:
1 Corinthians 14:26 begins the section on what we call “Orderly Worship” and it introduces the first of the “cultural problems”.
First it affirms that several prophets should speak – biblically there are at least 7 instances of female prophets. So is Paul contradicting himself when he says in verse 35 that a woman should not speak in church? In the context of his later remark, “ask her husband at home”. Culturally men and women sit on opposite sides of the building in the Eastern world. So if a woman asked her husband about something it would be yelling across the room at him – certainly a problem.
As to the use of masculine language in Timothy and Titus – well that’s really putting a ton of weight on a pronoun and a description of a marital relationship.
Again I point to the 7 female prophets, the fact ath Phoebe is labeled a “Servant” the Greek work Deacon is consistantly used in this manner only as a title and is used primarily next to a name to introduce church leaders.
Lastly we all know the example of Deborah who was Judge over all of Israel.
There is a great deal of water under this particular bridge – I believe we find a challgenge lies ahead and I think the GA has done an excellent job of atticipating a relief for those who will need it.
I have to say after a decade of being persecuted for my conservatism and years of risking my family’s livelihood for the sake of the gospel – I really hate being told I’m liberal or that I am over on the “apostate” stream of a continuum.
June 28, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Probably showing my ignorance but my read is that women are not barred from having an office of authority in the congregation but wives are barred from having an office of authority over their husbands in a congreagtion.
June 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm
David Fischler: “By virtue of being in the EPC, churches have agreed that the matter of women’s ordination is a non-essential.”
This is a polity issue informed by a theological or doctrinal determination.
Theology will drive ecclesiology.
At some point in EPC’s history, there was someone or some group who deemed WO a “non-essential” theological issue.
Let’s not ignore theology or sweep theology aside by saying that it’s an issue of polity or ecclesiology.
That is intellectually dishonest.
June 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I’d also point out that in Numbers, women who wished to dedicate their lives to the service of the Lord needed permission from their father or husband. Thus, a setting apart, or ordination, was possible for women, with the approval of the head of their household. Saint Paul, with his exhaustive study of the Torah while a pharisee, would have known about this condition of women’s service and appears to have been silent on it.
There appears to be a good argument that women who have their husband’s support and permission may be ordained. Certainly I, like Zechariah or Joseph, would not wish to stand in His way if He called my wife to ordained service in His Church.
June 30, 2010 at 11:21 am
Bill in Ottawa,
I am assuming you are referring to the Law of the Nazarites in Numbers 6?
What does that have to do with the Office of Elder that Paul sets forth in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5ff and limits to qualified men?
June 30, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Yes it was the Law of the Nazarites I was referring to as an example of women in formal service to the Lord.
As an Anglican in the ACNA, I agree with our interpretation that the Titus instructions as applying to the chief elders that oversee, who we title Bishops, in our Communion. The qualifications for deacons are instructive, but there are debatable issues around deaconesses and what their roles and responsibilities were. How this translates into modern times, I’m not sure.
Certainly the primary example of a woman teaching elder is Priscilla, who was part of a team with her husband. Again, this may or should have implications for our approval processes for ordination of women and the contexts in which they can or should teach.
On a personal level, it doesn’t much matter to me who I receive Communion from, but I will admit that I am more comfortable receiving from a woman if she has some visible gray in her hair.
June 30, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I should clarify that in the ACNA the office of Bishop is not open to women.
July 1, 2010 at 5:27 am
Timothy and Titus do not limit leadership to men. If they did, it would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, because Phoebe and Pricilla were both leaders. The Greek word that describes Phoebe is identical to the Greek word that describes male deacons. Further, as the Wright article I referenced explains, the descriptions in Timothy are male because that’s the way Greek grammar works, much as English grammar did when the 39 Articles were written. The articles say that the church is a congregation of faithful men – this refered to both men and women.
July 1, 2010 at 5:29 am
#30 Grey hair doesn’t necessarily mean older, dear. I started to go grey at 16, remember!
July 1, 2010 at 6:11 am
The EPC: they have a right of rebellion granted in perpetuity…
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. – 1 Timothy 2:12-14
“The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has always affirmed that women’s ordination is a matter of Biblical interpretation, not Biblical authority.” – EPC Elders Gerrit Dawson and Trish Dietz
(Tim) I’ve heard it said that, following a merger of two churches, in two years the new congregation will be the size of the larger of the two predecessor congregations. The moral of this story is to avoid a merger since, generally, it creates conflict and does little good for either congregation.
This occurred to me while reading an account of the recent meeting of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church which is composed of churches recently departed from the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA)–my own denomination prior to 1992. For the member congregations of New Winskins, fitting into the EPC will be no easy task. And thinking of New Wineskins, I’ve wondered if the influx of PC(USA) churches the EPC has sustained the past couple of years will not finally change the EPC beyond recognition, leaving it even more liberal than it has been to this point.
If our good readers are wondering at the label “liberal” being applied to the EPC, here’s a summary of the EPC’s commitments concerning sexuality as presented to this latest meeting of New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery by its Committee on Women’s Ordination. Keep in mind that these former PC(USA) congregations have had women elders and pastors ruling and teaching and exercising authority over men for many decades, now, and are so committed to this rebellion that they chose to transfer into a denomination where it is their constitutional right.
So New Wineskins’ Committee on Womens Ordination gave a report reassuring its constituents that the EPC has always been and will always be a safe place for the repudiation of God’s Created Order…
of man and woman:
A guiding principle of the EPC from its beginning has been our declared intent to allow liberty on the women’s ordination question. It is in that spirit that the interim committee has approached our responsibility. The committee members hold a diversity of views that reflect the ethos of our denomination. The challenging task assigned to us is to help facilitate the EPC’s continuing commitment to liberty on this question while working within our constitution as we move forward. The issue of women’s ordination, particularly as it applies to clergy, has been a test of our genuine commitment to the EPC motto: ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity.’
At the beginning, we must acknowledge the fundamental principles that inform the EPC’s liberty on women’s ordination. The Biblical Principle: The Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This authoritative Word is true in all that it teaches. The Ecclesiastical Principle: Women’s ordination is a non-essential issue about which faithful believers may have honest differences of Biblical interpretation and practice. One’s view of women’s ordination is not an essential element to the catholic faith, Evangelical Protestantism or the Reformed Tradition. The EPC has always affirmed that women’s ordination is a matter of Biblical interpretation, not Biblical authority.
The EPC is dedicated to Christian freedom within the bounds of Presbyterian polity on this subject, which has sharply divided Evangelicals and Presbyterians. The General Assembly in 1984 adopted a preliminary position paper on the ordination of women (approved as a position paper in 1986) that stated: “…while some churches may ordain women and some may decline to do so, neither position is essential to the existence of the church. Since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as Elders and Deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as Ministers.” This position complements the EPC constitution: “The particular church has the right to elect its own officers” (Book of Government 7-2). This right is guaranteed in perpetuity to all churches in the EPC.
Actually, not “in perpetuity.” The Head of the Church will return on a day when we are least expecting Him, and He will not overlook the betrayal of those servants he finds drunk and betraying their delegated stewardship of His Household.
When, back in 1991, my congregations left the PC(USA) for the PCA, forming Grace Presbyterian Church in Pardeeville, Wisconsin, God in His great mercy granted us repentance of our sin of many decades of women officers ruling and teaching and exercising authority over men. What a blessing repentance is, and how sad so few of our former sister churches have admitted their sin and repudiated it.
Rather, that sin appears to be the principal principle upon which they stand.
July 1, 2010 at 6:49 am
Kate,
As far as “diakonos” goes in Rom 16 this format does not allow a detailed explanation of why the “diakonos” in Rom 16 is not identical to the “diakonos” in Acts 6.
I would recommend for a short treatment of this verse taking a look at this paper by J. Ligon Duncan.
http://tiny.cc/0akbl
July 1, 2010 at 10:19 am
Benjamin,
You are right that it does not match the usage of the word deacon found in Acts 6 (which wouldn’t be particularly helpful for a debate regarding Teaching Elders) but it is exactly the same as the use of the word in:
Ephesians 6:21
Colossians 4:7
1 Timothy 4:6
NoI think we all agree that Tychicus and Timothy were Pastors?
In addition you add a study of the word sunergos (a synonymn)which means – “fellow worker/co-servant” and you find this word and its roots associated with a woman and men – clearly in leadership – the word seems to be part of a title:
Romans 16:3
Colossians 1:7
And often the root is used “doulos” -servant/slave repeatedly as part of the title for leaders such as Epaphras (Col 1:7), James (1:1), Peter (2 Peter 1:1), and Jude (1:1).
So in this list of key Biblical pastoral leaders from the early church you find among the “servants” Phoebe and among the “co-laborers” and “slaves to Christ” Priscila.
You find 7 prophets who are women throughout the bible
You find a Judge who is a woman.
So we find ourselves at a biblical “stand off” we can either sit on one side of the fence or the other and throw stones (as our PCA brother seemingly likes to do) – or we can admit to the need for a “Polity Solution”.
This is not a “liberal” vs. “conservative” debate but rather a matter of faithful, evangelical, conservative, and Biblical Christians disagreeing.
August 4, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Here are a few thoughts from one who is both a long-standing member/minister in the EPC and a complementarian.
1) The issue “Chaplaintraining” raised about paedo-communion is valid. In the Central South Presbytery this issue has arisen in practical ways, as multiple ministers have stated paedo-communion views. The response has been what I would suggest for egalitarians: their exceptions to the Westminster Standards have been denied, but they have been allowed to remain ministers in good standing so long as they refrain from teaching, preach, or practicing their views. In my opinion, the best solution for egalitarianism in the EPC would be to allow them to be ‘grandfathered in,’ but to treat it as an aberration and state that our standards require a hermeneutic which affirms the clear stance of Scripture that the office of Teaching Elder be reserved for men.
2) In my experience I have noted several things RE: egalitarians.
a) they are unfamiliar with Reformed theology, particularly Reformed hermeneutics.
b) they are unfamiliar with complementarianism. The best treatments of this theological view are by a woman, Mrs. Susan Hunt of Georgia. I have yet to come across an egalitarian who has dealt seriously with the incredibly well-reasoned arguments raised by scholars such as Mrs. Hunt.
c) they have almost invariably attended what one might call a ‘theology-lite’ seminary. That is, one which emphasizes practical issues of ministry above (and to the exclusion of?) solid exegesis and linguistic studies.
d) (in line w/ point a above) they are usually of the “well, I’m personally Reformed, but I think theology is divisive and Reformed theology is inimical to church growth, mission, and evangelism.” (This quote came from a New Wineskins leader.)
3) This issue of women’s ordination isn’t a practical/pragmatic matter, but one which is revelatory of a deep-seated malady in the EPC. This malady is the fact that we have a weak Confessionalism. For instance, it is common to come across ministers (let alone elders) who are not aware of the fact that we have three confessional documents to which they are required to subscribe. These are the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. In my Presbytery, it is common for ordination candidates to state no exceptions, and then to go on to state that they are not on board with “Limited Atonement,” Covenant theology, the baptism of infants, or Reformed sacramentology. At a Presbytery meeting in 2009, I personally was gavelled down by the Moderator for pressing an ordinand to come clean and state that it is necessary to state an exception to the WCF, WLC, & WSC because he stated that he had not, nor would he, baptize his children, nor would he encourage Christian parents to have their children baptized. My Presbytery commonly ordains or transfers in ministers who are functional Arminians or Amyralidians, Baptists, Dispensationalists, etc. I have had more than one candidate for ordination in the last two years tell me that he had not read or studied the Westminster Standards.
THIS is the real issue at hand: what does it mean to be Reformed and Presbyterian in the EPC? We have adopted (in 2001) “The Essentials of Our Faith” as a confessional document. But it is also expressly stated in the adopting act of 2001 that this is not meant to be a bare-bones minimum theological statement for ordination. According to that act, Elders, Minsters, and Deacons are required to subscribe to the THREE Westminster Standards. But I personally know of dozens of churches that have untrained elders & deacons, and which have never asked for exceptions to the Westminster Standards.
Furthermore, in my personal experience the Presbyteries of the West & Midwest have such low standards of subscription that it is possible to be out of accord with almost every point of Reformed theology and still be approved as a minister. Through friends I also know that this is the case for the Presbytery of the East & the New Wineskins Presbytery, if not others.
As I say, THIS is the real issue. Women’s ordination is but the tip of the iceberg revealing a serious theological drift and unmooring from the Confessionalism that our Book of Order and the Acts of the Assembly require. It is an hermeneutical problem, a theological problem, and a polity crisis.
4) Already, a number of the more Reformed ministers and churches in the EPC are being forced to decide if the drift of the denomination requires that they move to the PCA. Several churches have already left, or in process. And it seems that no one really cares that those in our midst who are Confessionally Reformed are being pushed out in this fashion.
5) Several presbyteries have already adopted ‘gag rules’ for the discussion of the ordination of women. That is, female candidates are required to submit a paper explaining their egalitarianism, but then no discussion, follow-up questions, or debate is allowed regarding their views. So, (and this is not an hypothetical example) a woman who states that Paul would have never considered ordaining women, or that he was a mysogynist, or that the clear meaning of Scripture must be disregarded because “that was then and this is now, and we have better understanding than did Paul about the implications of the Gospel” must be moved through the process without the ability of other presbyters to ask hermeneutical questions.
6) The clear lesson of history in the last 100 years points to the fact that every denomination that has allowed women’s ordination has gone liberal. It is not a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Rather this is observable, documented fact. And why is that? It is an issue of hermeneutics. As Dr. Ligon Duncan of RTS has noted, ‘if you can make Paul’s statement that ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man’ mean ‘I do permit it,’ then you can make Scripture say a anything.”
7) The standard hermeneutic that allows for women’s ordination is the self-same as that used by liberals in the PCUSA, the ECUSA, the ELCA, and the UMC to affirm homosexuality. I am always open to hearing a hermeneutically sound argument (which is why i desire open debate, not gag rules), but thus far I have not encountered such a hermeneutic.
8) As you peruse the history of American Presbyterianism, it is clear that weak subscription always leads to liberalism, division, the undermining of the Great Commission, and other ills.
9) We in the EPC have a Book of Order and Acts of the Assembly that REQUIRE subscription. The ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ practice of so many of our churches and presbyteries is nothing more than a violation of our ordination vows, refusing to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay, and bearing false witness. If presbyters in the EPC don’t like our policies and confessionalism, let them change it. Let them make the EPC the Evangelical Free Church of the Presbyterian world. But until those policies are changed, to continue in our present course is to dance on the edge if a precipice. It will not end well, nor is it faithful to God, to our vows, or to our sacred trust.
I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m “flaming” people, but this is how I and a number of other ministers I know around the country feel. Moreover, this is where I/we are after observation, deliberation, reflection, and prayer.
If anyone has any thoughts, I would be more than happy to have an irenic discussion and hear alternate assessments.
Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father & the Lord Jesus Christ.
August 4, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Sorry, but when I put in my 8th point, it seems tat it created some happy face with sunglasses. I didn’t mean for that to appear. Shalom.
August 4, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Bill,
Regarding Teaching Elders can a woman be the “Husband of One Wife”?
Regarding the “doulos” argument. Are all the men referred to as “doulos” eligible for Pastoral Office?
Regarding Deborah. Is she a Teaching Elder? Does she not recognize in Judges that her position is not a normal part of God’s design? Notice that she defers to Barack even though she is the judge. Besides what does being a political leader over Israel have to do with the Pastoral Office?
Regarding Phoebe. Is she called a “Bishop” or a “Presbyter”? At best Phoebe is an argument for female deacons.
Regarding “Prophets”. Are “Prophets” Teaching Elders in the NT Church? Does “Prophecy” continue to this day?
Regarding “Slaves to Christ”. Are not all believers “Slaves to Christ”? Why not then have any standards for Teaching Elder at all?
August 4, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Ben,
Since we’re being technical here – the term “teaching elder” isn’t exactly in the text either. We’re infering something there that my texts point out appears to be much muddier than some would like to make it. I therefore lumped a great deal of matters in. Are you implying that the Judges were purely political leaders? How should that change my reading of those texts?
Can you show me where the officer of prophet was cancelled?
Sorry but don’t throw the straw man at me that we are talking about eliminating all rules.
Can a woman have one husband? Is there any significant difference? The standard seems to be aboput fidelity in marriage not gender.
Phoebe – I agree but still we might as well get that i the mix.
August 4, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Austin,
I think the smiley face with sunglasses was very helpful.
August 5, 2010 at 1:40 am
Thanks, Bill. Laissez les bons temps rouler, cher.
August 5, 2010 at 10:45 am
Let me just close with this and then I’m done – I left a denomination that I felt was biblically unfaithful. I joined one that holds the same beliefs I hold particulary I like this qoute from the EPC website:
When the EPC started in 1981 we determined that on the basic essentials of the Christian faith, we would not disagree, but on anything that was not essential, such as the issue of ordaining women as officers or practicing charismatic gifts, we would give each other liberty. Above all, we committed ourselves to loving each other and not engaging in quarrels and strife. The result is that when we get together in our regional and national meetings, we spend most of our time in worship and fellowship and almost none in arguing with each other.
Peace,
August 5, 2010 at 11:14 am
Bill, I also like that quote. And now that you’re in the Central South Presbytery I trust it will continue to be your experience. It definitely was my experience while in CSP. I am convinced that CSP is close to the model presbytery when it comes to the Biblical model for a balance between Biblical passion, warm fellowship, respectful debate, and gracious polity. However, CSP is (I am afraid) becoming (or has long been) the exception rather than the rule in our ecclesiastical house. The question of the relative positions of the “Essentials” and the Westminster Standards, which was supposedly resolved in 2001, has never been answered in the minds of many. It’s as if the memo went out from the 2001 GA, but many of those who received it disregarded it or interpreted it as they would, rather than as the Assembly clearly intended it. I am deeply concerned for the health and future of our Church.
Again, I am eagerly waiting for any input others may have about my comments, above.
Shalom, y’all.
August 5, 2010 at 11:26 am
Austin: “Again, I am eagerly waiting for any input others may have about my comments, above.”
Pastor Austin, an exceptionally fine comment in #37.
Bill Crawford, if I’m not mistaken, has departed from TEc and is a former Episcopalian. There are many folks who believe that egalitarianism and women’s ordination played a large and significant role in TEc’s rapid descent into nigh-irreversible and blatant heresy and apostasy. Bill Crawford may not agree with those folks opposed to egalitarianism and WO such as myself. Seemingly, he would prefer to shove the matter under the rug and shallow-label Biblically faithful complementarians and opponents of WO as quarrelsome and/or argumentative. Ostrich sticking head in sand is the image of such faux peaceniks.
August 5, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Truth: Rev. Crawford is a member of the EPC. His church recently transferred in from the PCUSA after many years of fighting the good fight for orthodoxy there. I wouldn’t read more into what Bill said. While we may disagree about WO (& not knowing where he stands, I don’t know that we do), I have the utmost respect for my brother. The congregation he serves, 1st Pres Thibodoux (Louisiana) is a solid church that I would attend if I lived in Acadiana (Cajun country).
I do thank you for your complements on my post. Shalom.
August 5, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I’m glad that I added my qualifier that I may have been mistaken in believing that Bill Crawford was a former Episcopalian.
However, Biblically faithful complementarianism is worth contending vigorously for.
August 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Agreed.
October 16, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Wow, I didn’t realize how popular I was. I am the “chaplainintraining” that was referenced in the article. To clarify my points…
1) It is stripping the power of the presbyteries because no longer is a presbytery able to decide a theological position for their presbytery on the issue of WO. If a church does not like a ruling, they can seek membership in another presbytery. The presbytery still has power and authority over other matters, but on WO it has been stripped.
2) We are being defined by our position on WO. A simple test is to ask any of our Reformed brother denominations what comes to mind when they think of the EPC and WO will be the answer more times than not. I understand that a redrawing of the presbyteries will be needed. The problem is that we are allowing the beliefs of a church play a role in how a presbytery is drawn. That is what I have a problem with.
3/4) I do not see that we are bending over backwards for everyone’s convictions. I see that we are bending over for the egalitarian position. Various ordained men of God had chosen to deny ordination/installment of female TEs in their presbytery. The response is that this is not good for the denom and something needed to be done to allow these female TEs to serve. I am not seeing how the convictions of a complimentarian are being catered to at all. When the issue of a complimentarian being forced to submit to female TEs at the presbytery level was brought up, the response was this is the EPC (which by the way reinforces the idea that we are being defined by our views on WO). If we were truly concerned about everyone’s convictions and were willing to bend over backwards, we would allow complimentarians to move as well. Their conscience believes that WO is wrong and sinful, but is not worth breaking fellowship over. Just because they show respect to the other position does not mean that they should be forced to submit to it.
5)Yes, the denom has decided that WO is a non-essential, but just because one agrees that it is a non-essential does not necessarily mean that one does not see WO as sinful. Just because one has determined that a certain issue is not a hill to die on does not necessarily mean that one is endorsing the issue. If a complimentarian sees female TEs as sinful (I for one do), his conscience would not permit him to vote in such a way as to allow for the installment of a female TE.
6) Our actions as a denom sets precedent for future issues. If we decide that we are willing to redraw boundaries and rewrite the constitution just so we can all get along (which how are we really learning to get along with each other when we are taking the two parties and separating them.), then we are opening the door for the same thing to happen at a later point on a different issue.
7)My point about the CRC (I admit I did not make it very clearly) is that I kept hearing that our PCUSA brothers have no other option. It is either the EPC or stay in the PCUSA. I don’t want them to stay in the PCUSA either, but I don’t think the EPC is the only option either. That was all I was saying. If one wanted to come into our denom, that is fine. Come on and join the fellowship.
I hope this makes my position a little more clear.
August 29, 2011 at 10:21 pm
I was attending the EPC in Brighton, Mi. It takes time to know a church, but after a year I learned that the pastor believe in ordaining women as elders and pastors. He did not believe in hell as a place of eternal judgement, nor did he believe in the opening chapters of Genesis. What would you call that?
August 29, 2011 at 10:56 pm
#50: “I was attending the EPC in Brighton, Mi. It takes time to know a church, but after a year I learned that the pastor believe in ordaining women as elders and pastors. He did not believe in hell as a place of eternal judgement, nor did he believe in the opening chapters of Genesis. What would you call that?”
What would I call that? I’d say look to #37. Especially this part:
“The clear lesson of history in the last 100 years points to the fact that every denomination that has allowed women’s ordination has gone liberal. It is not a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Rather this is observable, documented fact.”
August 30, 2011 at 10:08 am
No, it’s not. Would you call the Salvation Army liberal? How about the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada?
August 30, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Hey Kate,
Actually it is. The exceptions you note are not really exceptions.
The SA is indeed a denomination, but it is so defined by its specific ministries that it is functionally more of a mission organization (i.e. a parachurch) than it is a “Church.”
And the Pentecostals of various stripes are so wholly different from magisterial / Reformed Protestantism that the comparison is more of an apple-orange issue.
Besides which, Pentecostalism as a whole has its own liberal tendencies. That said, their liberal /heterodox tendencies are rooted in large part in their quite weak ecclesiology.
At any rate, any survey of Church history over the last 200 years shows definitively that the issue of women’s ordination is a watershed issue whose adoption necessitates an hermeneutical system that undermines the principles of sola scriptura, inerrancy, and infallibility. And of course, with those bedrocks eroded, the whole edifice collapses eventually.
Shalom y’all,
-Austin.
August 31, 2011 at 10:37 am
I disagree. The Pentecostals and the Sally Ann are both Christian denominations that ordain women who aren’t liberal. You’ve merely redifined “denomination” to support your argument.
August 31, 2011 at 10:38 am
Sorry “who aren’t liberal” modifies “denominations”, not “women”. My comment is poorly written, but I guess you take my point.
August 31, 2011 at 1:15 pm
I’m not a Presbyterian, but I have enjoyed the ministries of R.C. Sproul, James Boice, Sinclair Ferguson, and many others over the years. My family started attending Brighton, Mi. EPC to see if it would be a good fit for us. Not being familiar with today’s Presbyterian community we were shocked at what we found. Women pastors was one thing,but not believing in hell, or the opening chapters of Genesis was another. Placing scientific observation on an equal footing with scripture was necessary for this EPC’s outreach program. Whatever, we returned to the Baptist community for the sake of our children.
August 31, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Hey y’all,
Kate: There is, in the historic Reformation understanding, a difference between a “church” and a “sect.” Pentecostals, (most) Baptists, the Restorationists, et al., are sectarians. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc are “churches.” The difference lies in the relative ‘catholicity’ of the movement. Reformational churches are ‘catholic’ in the sense of having as their stated goal (both originally and in some sense continuingly) the reformation of the whole Church Catholic. Sectarians generally see the whole Church as irreparably broken and in a sense ‘start over.’
That said, if I may clarify what I meant above, every one of the ‘churches’ that has begun ordaining women has gone liberal.
Now, aside from that, my point about christians in general in their attitude toward ordaining women remains. The problem is the hermeneutical issue. Just because certain denominations (to speak broadly) that ordain women have not yet gone liberal does not prove the negative. The operative word is “yet.” They will. I guarantee it.
And the reason that they WILL go liberal (unless they reform or repent) is because, as Dr. Ligon Duncan said a couple of years ago, if one can ‘interpret’ the words of Paul and the rest to mean the opposite of what they clearly and unequivocally say, then one can ‘interpret’ Scripture to say whatever one wants.
In other words, any church, sect, congregation, or individual who can look at “I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man” (in reference to Church leadership) to mean “I DO permit a woman to have authority over a man”… well, that person can do the same with any other passage of Scripture.
Let’s take some examples:
1) “Thou shalt not murder…” Unless you’re really pissed, b/c that was then & this is now, and, you know, Paul never envisioned [insert your justification].
2) “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” Well, except for sex offenders… or homosexuals… or the guy who picks his nose in the third pew during the sermon… or my mother-in-law… B/c, you see, they’re just hateful people who commit sins I have no trouble with.
3) “Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for her…” Unless of course, your wife doesn’t do it for you anymore. Or if she’s a nag, or won’t let you go to the pub with your buddies. Maybe she should just submit to my whims without my 1st sacrificing myself for her in love, b/c, well, she’s just a stupid woman.
Perhaps you see my point.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Larry: I beg of you to believe that the minister in Brighton, MI (whom I know fairly well, and who I like very much personally, but with whom I have serious doctrinal differences) is not representative of the EPC as a whole. The minister there is of the old Evangelical-but-not-Reformed UPCUSA school (as are most of the ministers in that Presbytery of the EPC) who never got on board with the stated direction of the EPC. I have not personally heard him raise questions about Creation, science trumping Scripture, or the doctrine of hell. Indeed, my hope is that you misunderstood him, b/c I would be deeply saddened to hear that he held these errors. Nonetheless, I do believe that he and a number of other ministers there have deeply flawed hermeneutics. But in my 16+ years in the EPC it has been my experience that the denomination as a whole is not of that sort.
Shalom y’all,
-Austin.
August 31, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Austin, you can go up in his website and read his paper on Genesis and his position on the ordaination of women. My wife and I attended his seminar several months ago where he stated that the opening chapters of Genesis were not to be interpreted literally. His guest speaker clearly stated that scientific observation, being truth, was as credible as scripture. His position on hell came from a complaint directed by a former elder in his congregation.
August 31, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Just a thought…the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyan Church, and the Free Methodists (all broadly out of the Wesleyan reformation of the Anglican church) have ordained women for a very long time — over a century. While they are obviously not Reformed, their core theology is very solidly within the conservative evangelical stream.
August 31, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Larry, do you have the link to those essays? Thanks.
August 31, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Yes. Go to Cornerstone Evangelical Presbyterian of Brighton, Mi. and click on the pastor page.
September 2, 2011 at 9:13 am
Austin, if you’ve read the essays favoring women as teaching elders, and his treatment of Genesis, how does his position square with the teachings of the EPC?
September 2, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Austin, you are splitting hairs. “Sect” or “church”, they are all part of the body of Christ – and there are many who ordain women who are solidly biblically based.
You are wrong, because that is not what bible believing Christians who believe WO is allowed are doing. I’ve read arguments that that pasage is situation specific (not “I want it to be so, so it must be so” arguments, but real, biblically faithful interpretations that come to that conclusion). Two books that make that argument are Why Not Women? A biblical Study of women in missions, by Loren Cunningham, and The Blue Parakeet by Scott McKnight.
September 3, 2011 at 9:40 am
Two quick things:
1) Larry, either I am technologically challenged or the links are missing. Would you do me the favor of sending me the links themselves? I would appreciate it.
2) Kate: One of the main issues regarding the WO issue vis a vis the arguments you cite is the fact that Paul grounds his position in the vary nature of Creation. Additionally, as you go all the way back to the 2nd chapter of the Bible you find that the Lord creates “man” (“adam” i.e. mankind) after His image, “male and female” He makes them. “Male” is “zachar” (‘the remembering one’) and female is “nekevah” (‘the pierced one’). The very nature of the creation of man and woman (whence comes Paul’s firm stand) is that men are to remember Torah for their wives and families and for the family of god, whereas women are to be life bringers who, as the ‘helper suitable’ (lit, ‘ezer kenegdo,’ or ‘paraclete’ in the greek) bring grace and lifebringing nurturing into the world.
Anyhow, I’ve got to run. Shalom, tout le monde.
-A.
September 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Austin, http://www.cornerstoneforlife.com/issues&id...
September 3, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Larry: Richard’s view of Creation stated in his essay is consistent (as I understand it) with Scripture and the Westminster standards. The Framework view is one which is held by many solidly Reformed ministers and theologians. It is the view toward which I lean myself. The essence of the view is that the 1st chapter of Scripture (gen 1:1-2:3) is a poetic framework used to describe creation, while the 2nd creation account (beginning with the creation of a literal, historical Adam & Eve) is “history.”
I haven’t yet looked at his essay on WO, but when I have a chance I will give it a look and comment then. If you would like me to comment further on the Framework hypothesis, I would be happy to do so, though perhaps we should start a new thread for that.
Blessinvs,
-A.
September 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm
The major problem with the Framework view is the 1st Chapter of Genesis is written in about a straightforward historical manner as possible.
and this happened, and this happened,and then this happened…
The waw-consecutive in the Hebrew of Gen 1 is just basic Hebrew historical writing. You might as well as argue that Ezra 1 is poetic.
September 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Thank you.
September 4, 2011 at 12:44 am
Personally, I don’t find the issue of the vav consecutive to be as clear as that. As Dr. John Currid at RTS Jackson (paraphrasing Meredith Cline) pointed out in class once, the issue isn’t so much the grammar of the passage as it is an issue of hermeneutics. To make the parallel to Revelation, the Dispensationalist will note that Revelation seems to describe future history. Therefore, Revelation ought to be read as the Left Behind guys read it. However, the real question with Revelation, and one’s views of it, isn’t so much grammar as it is a question of genre. The Dispensationalist sees Revelation as prophecy, thus they read it as future history. The Amillennialist sees it as apocalyptic literature, and thus reads it as such, that is, typologically.
Similarly, if the “1st” creation account in gen 1:1-2:3 is “history,” then there is no question regarding a “literal” six-day view. But if that account is poetry, then (like Revelation) it is entirely grammatically consistent to read it as such. The question then is “What was the Lord, through Moses, trying to say?” Was He making it clear that, in contradistinction from all of the other prevailing worldviews, all things were made by the Lord, and not through chance, polytheistic mumbo-jumbo, or whatever else?
The Framework view asserts that the account of the 1st chapter of Scripture is poetry, specifically a polemical poem whose purpose is NOT to describe Creation, per se, but to describe its Creator.
However, the Framework view (along with all Biblically faithful views) holds fast that the “2nd” Creation account is “history,” and that Adam & Eve were real persons, created from the elements of the earth, who were created (not born), and had no progenitors.
September 4, 2011 at 12:50 am
One more thought while I’m at it:
According to the Framework view, Moses had no agenda of describing Creation before the creation of Adam. Thus we, in asking the question of the length or manner of the creation of all things other than Man, are a question Scripture is not interested in answering. In other words, Scripture is silent, and we are debating something as irrelevant to the intent of special revelation as the Medieval question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
And personally (again), I find cognitive rest in this answer. After all, the main freight of Scripture is not the manner or length of creation, but the problem of sin, and its solution.
September 4, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Well then, let me ask you the same question I asked the pastor. When did death enter in. According to Romans the universal reign of death is the consequence of sin. Scientific observation says “no.”