Category Archives: ordination standards

Coverage of a new film on the Bible and Homosexuality

Leave a reply

Yesterday a newly released news story from the Presbyterian News Service, a part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), caught my attention and while the tone of the coverage concerned me, I’ve commented on this slant in coverage before and decided to let this one pass.  Until…  I read the entry Viola has at her blog, Naming His Grace, titled Reporting on Reporting and For the Bible tells me so.”

First, some background:  Earlier this year First Run Features released the film “For the Bible tells me so” ( official film web site) that examines how the Bible and the church view and deal with homosexuality and homosexual behavior from the progressive perspective.  As the Presbyterian News Service (PNS) article says, this film was shown at the Covenant Network of Presbyterians’ conference in Atlanta in November and is highlighted on the front page of their web site.  In addition, it is mentioned positively on the Witherspoon Society web site.  The PNS article is generally positive about the film and has positive and encouraging quotes from Pam Byers, the executive director of the Covenant Network.

Now turning to Viola’s comments, you would not know that she was talking about the same film.  Viola comes from the evangelical perspective and is not a fan of the film, although she does say she has only seen the trailer and the promotional information.

While I have only looked at the film’s web site and have not seen the trailer, my problem and part of Viola’s problem is not with the film, but again with the PNS coverage.  And rather than my restating my complaint, I will quote Viola:

Today the Presbyterian News Service had an article, Biblical examination, about the film. It is written by Toya Richards Hill. While it is true that this particular film has won quite a few awards at the Sundance film festival, so it is a news worthy film, it is also true that the Presbyterian News Service is, well, officially Presbyterian. So it seems to me in their news reporting they should be handling the subject of this film from a two-sided position.

That is, the Presbyterian News Service could write about how the Covenant Network likes this film and here is what all of those who made the film and agree with the film, including some theologians, say about it. (Which they did.) But on the other hand, there are those scholars and theologians and Christians in the pews who don’t agree with the film’s take on the subject and this is what they have to say about it. (Which
they did not do.) And hopefully as the film is shown across the country PNS will do that?

It is interesting to note that there is a film or video expressing an alternate conservative/evangelical viewpoint called “Speaking a Mystery.” ( official film web site) This video was produced by OneByOne and Presbyterians for Renewal and was released in April 2006 in advance of the 217th General Assembly.  Now, that film did not go into theatrical release and does not seem to have won any awards, but it was produced by PC(USA) affiliated groups.  Some browsing through the PNS archive, using the search function on the PC(USA) web site, and even doing a Google search on it I could find no mention of it on the PC(USA) web site.

Well, I’ll again say, that if the PC(USA) is trying to present themselves as an organization for all Presbyterian viewpoints, they need to be much more intentional about the balance of the news they cover and balance within the articles themselves.

On a related note, today the PNS announced a realignment of which of their reporters covers what news based on the new structure of the PC(USA) General Assembly Council.  It just looks structural and not fundamental so I’m not sure it will have any impact on how news gets reported.

Episcopal Diocese to Realign and Church Property in California

Leave a reply

Yesterday the Diocese of San Joaquin took their second and deciding vote to leave The Episcopal Church and realign with the southern-most Anglican Province in South America, known as the Southern Cone.  The vote was 70-12 within the clergy and 103-10 among the lay delegates at the annual diocese convention in Fresno, California.  A representative of the Archbishop of the Southern Cone read a statement from the Archbishop that began “Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion.”

While roughly 60 churches individually have left the Episcopal church and realigned with overseas Anglican Provinces, this is the first diocese to part ways with the Episcopal church over the differing views of the Bible and homosexuality.  Three other dioceses, Fort Worth, Texas, Quincy Illinois, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are in the process and others are discussing beginning the process.  In the Diocese of San Joaquin there is the group Remain Episcopal that is loyal to the Episcopal Church, that opposed the realignment of the diocese, and whose web site says they will remain with the Episcopal Church.

I think that it goes without saying that the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is not in favor of the move.  She is quoted in an Episcopal Church news story as saying “The Episcopal Church receives with sadness the news that some members of this church have made a decision to leave this church.”  The quote finishes with “The Episcopal Church will continue in the Diocese of San Joaquin, albeit with new leadership.”

The news is full of stories, such as this one from Associated Press.  Also, the San Joaquin Diocese news page has several entries about the convention and the action.  I have found nothing from the Worldwide Anglican Communion yet.

This action brings up the interesting question of property ownership when a whole diocese (or presbytery) parts ways with the denomination.  The Diocese of San Joaquin says churches that wish to remain with the Episcopal Church can stay with their property.  The word from the national office and the group Remain Episcopal is that they will wage the legal fight to keep all of it.

All of this comes in the midst of news in California that the California State Supreme Court will be hearing a church property case to set the precedent for the state.  The test case will be one from the Diocese of Los Angeles for St. James church in Newport Beach, Orange County that voted to leave.  In the first round in Superior Court the church won the right to retain its property.  This was overturned by the appellate court which ruled in favor of the denomination using “implied trust.”  Initial briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court but a court date has not been set.  It will probably be in the spring.  Several additional cases already decided by lower courts and future cases will hinge on this decision.  I know that PC(USA) Presbyteries and Synods are watching it closely.  A news story on it is reprinted on Anglicans United.  and on the Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon’s Weblog TitusOneNine he has a good description of the cases and the legal background.  The law firm Payne and Fears that represents the churches has posted the initial brief on their web site.  The brief argues their case including several Presbyterian cases.  Finally, these issues are discussed more generally and with a national scope in an interview that the Orthodox Anglican web site Virtue Online did with canon lawyer Rt. Rev. William Wantland.

It is no exaggeration to say that this is a very closely watched case and it will define the landscape in California for churches in hierarchical denominations that want to leave with their property.

Discernment of the Call to Ordained Office

Leave a reply

A question that has been in and out of my thinking for many years, and is back in it at the moment, has been the discernment process for calling individuals to ordained office.  One particular manifestation of this has been the church nominating committee having a certain number of positions to fill on the session or board of deacons.  Do they just keep going until they fill all the slots, or do they stop and leave positions vacant if they can find no more willing individuals who they have discerned to have the proper God-given gifts and talents for that office?  In many Presbyterian churches I am aware that there is some pressure to fill the slots because each elder or deacon has a particular program area of responsibility:  we need an “outreach elder” or there is no one for the “food pantry” deacon yet.  I was very happy when my own church dispensed with the elders being assigned to oversee a particular ministry and simply made them the governing body with responsibility for “shepherding the flock.”

I’m writing on this now because I am having a very “hurry up and wait” day at work.  You may know the type:  there are an endless series of short jobs for the computer to do.  Short enough that you really can’t leave and do something else but long enough waiting that you have some time that you need to fill.  Well, I filled part of it with some web surfing in directions I had not ventured before and came across an interesting blog called “ Building Old School Churches.”  Even if you are nowhere near being an Old School Presbyterian church there is some interesting material there.  What caught my attention today was a post by Andrew Webb titled “ On Whether to Vote to Ordain.”  In the post he talks about an experience he had early in his career at a presbytery meeting when a candidate was examined to be a pastor, the discomfort he felt with that candidate, and the guidelines he formulated from talking with experienced ruling and teaching elders about it.  His guidelines, with his emphases, are:

1) Remember
that Presbyteries aren’t rubber stamp operations, we are gate-keepers,
and we’ll be called to account by God for every man we let into the
sheepfold. So ask yourself, “is that man a true shepherd or something
else?” No church absolutely has to get someone if that someone was
never really meant to be a pastor. Calling the wrong man will do them more harm than calling no one at all!
2) Anyone can graduate from seminary, my wife could graduate from seminary but she isn’t qualified or called to be a pastor. Not everyone who graduates is called.

3) If you are
in doubt, ask yourself, “would I be able to stomach this man being the
shepherd of my own family?” If the answer is no, don’t vote for him. Christ’s other lambs don’t deserve less than your own family!
4) Go home
and read Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 [vs. 17-36]
and treat those words as Christ’s advice to you.

I would add that we are a called covenant community and it is the responsibility of the community to be gathering around candidates, helping them discern their call and their gifts and talents throughout the candidate process, not just at the examination.  And furthermore, once God has spoken through the vote of the community to affirm the call, it is our responsibility as members of the community to support, nurture, and guide that person as they live into that call, even if we voted in the minority.

I know that within my presbytery the candidates committee has done a good job mentoring and discerning calls with candidates and I have been satisfied with all that have come to presbytery, the ministry committee, or a search committee of which I have been part.

Do we do as good a job with ruling elders when we ask members of our churches to serve on session?  What could we do better before and after the elders are elected and ordained to develop their gifts for the ministry?  Are our sessions bodies that are seeking to be guided by the Holy Spirit and discerning where God is leading the church, or a group that gets together to “get the business done” once a month?  As an example, on presbytery committees that I have chaired I always insisted, no matter how late the meeting was running, that we did not just “close in prayer” but that we closed in prayer for each other and our churches and church members with a sharing of joys and concerns.  In many cases I suspected that several people wanted to get out of there and get home, but as a community, holding each other in prayer is one of the most important and powerful things we can do.

So as members of the covenant community we have responsibility for who is ordained as a minister/teaching elder, ruling elder, or deacon and we should not just leave it to the nominating committee or candidates committee to do the work for us.  Their work is important and most do it well.  But in the end the call of God through the voice of the people comes from the larger community.

PUP Report and Ordination Standards: Nothing has changed?

Leave a reply

In the wake of the adoption of the report from the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP) by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) we heard a lot about how “the standards have not changed.”  For example: coverage of a press conference, a pastoral letter from the Moderator and Stated Clerk, and the Stated Clerk’s new  Advisory Opinion issued following the General Assembly all state that as a fact.

Now a new high-profile case is coming before a presbytery as a result of the passage of the PUP Report.  The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area has called a special presbytery meeting for Saturday December 1 to consider the request of Mr. Paul Capetz to have his ordination as a minister of word and sacrament reinstated.  Mr. Capetz requested, and was granted release from the exercise of ordained office back in May 2000 and the presbytery’s Stated Clerk has confirmed that at the time no charges were pending.  Back in 2000 Mr. Capetz could not affirm the newly adopted Amendment B which inserted G-6.0106b into the Book of Order.  Now with the passage of the PUP report Mr. Capetz writes in his request for reinstatement:

In the meantime, however, a possibility then unforeseen by me has been opened up by the decision of the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve the recommendations of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church as an “authoritative interpretation” of section G-6.0108 of the Book of Order.

He continues on later in his request:

Since the church has now seen fit to find a way beyond the impasse occasioned by the incorporation of G-6.0106b into the Book of Order, I have prayerfully discerned that it is appropriate for me at this time to request of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area my reinstatement as a minister member.

Clearly something has changed.  Mr. Capetz explicitly says so.  The word from the top of the PC(USA) says that the standards have not changed.  So has the process changed?  Has the understanding of the standards changed?  Really the question is, if there are “standards” but they are no longer considered standard, what are they?  Why were they put, and continue to remain, in the Book of Order.  Unfortunately, I don’t think we are being honest with anyone when we say that the standards have not changed.  In the strict sense that the Book of Order has not been changed, that is true.  But in reality, to me, when the application and understanding of the standards has changed the standards have effectively changed.

Lest you think this is semantics, or that the PC(USA) is alone, just look at the current top controversy in the PCA with the Federal Vision theology.  Louisiana Presbytery is facing a church trial on charges that they failed to properly apply that denomination’s “standards” in the theological examination of a minister member.

I would like to commend the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area for the process that they will be undertaking at their special meeting.  Numerous documents are available on their special meeting web site and the docket clearly shows the discernment process they will be going through.  The landscape has changed and they are undertaking the process as the authoritative interpretation directs.

I will be interested to hear about the experience of the discernment process and the outcome.  For advance coverage of the meeting there is an article on the Layman Online as well as a post by Toby Brown on Classical Presbyterian.  At the moment that is all the other coverage I can find.

What matters to whom? Different Perspectives on the Controversies in the PCUSA

Leave a reply

I have found it interesting that over the last couple of months the same sentiment has been expressed by different leaders in different settings related to the current controversies in the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Specifically, these were both racial ethnic leaders, one Hispanic and one African-American, talking about what was important to them and their constituents.  Guess what, it is not the PUP Report and ordination standards.  It is issues of justice, empowerment, and church growth. The issues of ordination standards and homosexuality are “Anglo” issues.  It is not a priority in their congregations and constituencies.  There are other things that are more worthy of their valuable time.

Let me extend this a little bit.  Yes, I’m going to stick with ordination standards related issues here, specifically the departure of churches from the PCUSA to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  Where does this fit in the grand scheme of things?

I’ll return to the 2006 denomination statistics published in the June issues of Perspectives.  In particular, I would note that in 2006 there were 56 congregations dissolved and only 6 dismissed.  I would also note that there were almost 28,000 members lost by certificate of transfer and about 102,000 just left.  Here in So. Cal. our presbytery has several churches hanging on by their fingernails and only one with any rumblings about leaving.  And a neighboring presbytery projects that at the current loss rate it will cease to exist in 20 years or less.

What this tells me is that the New Wineskins Association is not the only problem.  At the present time the chart from the Layman On-Line indicates 46 churches leaving.  We dissolved more churches last year than are trying to leave this year.  And while it is obvious that a church that gets dissolved will have few members and many of those leaving are larger and thriving, you still can not ignore the fact that about four times as many people just left the denomination than transferred out last year.

So what matters?  We can’t blame the New Wineskins movement alone for depleting our numbers.  We all need to carry the burden of reaching out the world around us with the Good News of Jesus Christ.

GAPCJ Decision: Stewart vs. Mission Presbytery – Ordination Standards probably apply to candidates

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) issued four decisions this past week, all of them interesting.  I will begin with one of the more complex and important decisions and one that discussed last July when the presbytery took their action and again in October following the Synod PJC tie vote on the case that was filed:

George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery:  This case was shaping up to be a test case on at what stage of the PC(USA) process for ordination as minister of word and sacrament the Book of Order ordination standards would apply.  Specifically in this case, Mission Presbytery voted to advance to candidacy a women who was an acknowledged lesbian involved in an active relationship.

The Rev. Stewart filed a remedial case with the PJC of the Synod of the Sun and the trial was held September 8, 2006.  The trial resulted in a tie vote of the voting member of the Synod PJC.  On October 11, 2006, the case was filed for appeal with the GAPJC and accepted on October 20.

On November 17, 2006, the candidate requested of her Committee on Preparation for Ministry to be removed from the process.  At the March 3, 2007 presbytery meeting the presbytery approved the request. The Presbytery moved to have the case dismissed, on grounds of mootness, on March 6 and the Executive Committee of the GAPJC concurred on March 23.  On March 28, Rev. Stewart requested a full hearing which the GAPJC granted.

I give this full chronology because in the course of these events, the focus of the case changed significantly.  What the GAPJC ended up deciding on was whether the case was now moot by the withdrawal from candidacy.  In effect, Rev. Stewart had gotten, through the candidate’s action, the relief he had requested.

Well, the majority of the GAPJC ruled that no relief could be granted so that the case was indeed moot.  There was a dissent that this was about presbytery process not the individual and it should go forward in amended form. But I would not have spent all of this time if there wasn’t something interesting.

On one point that Stewart requested, the “need for guidance” the GAPJC did have something to say:

Stewart further argues that there is a “need for guidance” because the statements to the Presbytery and the SPJC cast doubt on the Book of Order requirements for candidates. This Commission is not an advisory body for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding matters relating to the Constitution, but is charged with deciding cases or controversies. However, this Commission notes with concern that the record shows that both the Presbytery and the SPJC appear to have relied on the Book of Order: Annotated Edition entry for the Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey, Minutes, 2000, p. 589, case, rather than the language of the case itself. Such reliance was misplaced.

It turns out that there were significant differences in Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey and to only read the entry in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Order did not give the full context and application of the case.  The GAPJC concludes that section with the statement:

Annotations found in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition can be helpful to the Church as it seeks to be faithful in its life and service; however, they are not authoritative. The assistance that annotations offer to the church is as a guide to the deliverances of the bodies that have been accorded authority in our Constitution. To the extent that the misstatement in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition was relied upon by the Committee on Preparation of Ministry, the Presbytery, and the SPJC, it misled each body.

In the decision section it was the expected, that the case is moot and that the appropriate parties be notified of the decision.

Fifteen of the sixteen members of the GAPJC were present and four filed a dissent that effectively said that the complaint was not against the individual being advanced to candidacy but against the presbytery for its process and an amended complaint should be allowed since relief could still be granted there.

So, where does that leave us?  This did not turn out to be the test case that it could have been but by the reminder of the GAPJC about the Sheldon case being different, it has clearly left the door open for another case of this type if it were to make it this far.  To claim that this was a victory for those supporting the current ordination standards is going a bit far.  In the same way the GAPJC reminds us to do our homework, not just look at the “Cliff notes” (pun intended), it would be too early to see this as prohibiting advancement to candidacy without the case law being written.

As for reaction, Toby Brown of Classical Presbyterian is in Mission Presbytery and was part of this case and has posted his take on this, especially the part about reading the full decision, not just the annotation.  There is nothing on the PC(USA) News Service, and I don’t expect any for a dismissed GAPJC case.  It has been picked up by the Louisville Courier-Journal but they, in my opinion, slightly mis-state the decision.  They refer back to the Commission’s reference to the Sheldon case and report this as a ban on advancing to candidacy those whose lives are not in accord the PC(USA) ordination standards.  As I say above, I see it as still an open question but there seems to be an implication that this GAPJC would, given the correct case, decide that they can not be advanced.  So, at the present time there appears to be a ban by implication, or extrapolation, of the existing case law.

American Episcopal Bishops Decline to Participate in the World Anglican Communion’s Proposed Solution

Leave a reply

Back in February the Anglican Primates met and requested that the American Episcopal Church be clear that it intends to affirm the Anglican standards on ordination and marriage.  Last week the Episcopal House of Bishops met and by voice vote approved a “mind of the house” resolution that said they do not like the scheme that the Anglican Primates approved.  To quote the official Episcopal article:

On the second to last day of the meeting, the bishops had approved a “mind of the house” resolution by voice vote. While affirming the desire to remain within the councils of the Anglican Communion, they said a proposed pastoral scheme recommended by the Anglican primates in February would be “injurious” to the church and urged Executive Council to decline to participate in it.

The full text of the three “mind of the house” resolutions can be found in another press release.

In addition, the Bishops have asked for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.  As Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was quoted as saying in the article the meeting would be “about concerns around polity issues, how this church is governed, that we do not make decisions lightly or easily, but after lengthy conversation and deliberation through a very reasoned process.”  She is also quoted as saying “I think there is some belief in this House [of Bishops] that other parts of the communion do not understand us very well.”

That Archbishop Williams would attend such a meeting is uncertain since it is also reported that he does not have a place in his schedule for it.

In related news, it is being reported that the it was recommended to the House of Bishops that the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, age 86, be tried in the church court for “illegally performing sacramental acts without the permission of the local Episcopal bishop.”  Specifically, he participated in the ordination of two priests and a deacon at Christ Church in Overland Park, Kansas, under the direction of the Primate of Uganda.  The primary source for the information is an article on The Living Church Foundation web site and it has been picked up by one of my regular reads, the Global South Anglican.  (The comments on Global South Anglican following this article are interesting as well.) This news is reported as coming out of the March 16-21 House of Bishops meeting, but I have found no mention of it on the official news service, Episcopal Life Online.  In a breaking development, The Living Church web site reported on Friday that Bishop Cox has informed the Presiding Bishop that he has left The Episcopal Church and has been received into the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.  The article quotes Bishop Cox as saying “I don’t want a fight among Christians,” and that he left to avoid financial and public relations problems for the Episcopal Church.

(Brief commentary note:  The Episcopal Life Online web site is a brand new portal that went live last week.  If you are a casual Episcopalian who is looking for info on what is generally going on in the church, it is probably good.  If you are a news junkie who is trying to drill down into important or relevant news stories I found it to be a more clumsy and difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.  In addition, at the present time the search function seems to be having problems.  But that can be fixed I’m sure.)

Witherspoon Society response to NPWL comments on women in leadership in EPC

Leave a reply

A week ago I discussed the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) articles that asked important and hard questions about how women in leadership would be accepted by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church with the New Wineskins Association of Churches’ expected transition from the PC(USA) to the EPC.  In that posting I commented on a parallel between some of the language used in that articles about the ordination of women with the language that is used in favor of the ordination of active homosexuals.  Others have also noted that parallelism and the Witherspoon Society has posted an open letter that Karen Ellen Kavey of Chapaqqua, NY, wrote about this to Becce Bettridge, Director of the NPWL and author of one of the articles.  Ms. Kavey writes that she is appreciative of Ms. Bettridge asking these questions but then goes on to write:

An unsettling question haunts me: How can someone, such as yourself, feel and express such genuine, palpable, well-reasoned concern for themselves regarding inequality, especially inequality based on interpretation of Scripture, and not feel this very same concern for others?

If, instead of the word “women”, you had substituted all minorities into your wonderful Questions, it would be a perfect essay… a letter for all God’s people.

The question of ordination standards is not an easy one and, as this exchange points out, is a continuum. Where you draw the line as to who should and who should not be ordained varies widely depending on perspective.

NWAC responds to the NPWL

Leave a reply

In my previous post I reported on three articles the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) posted on their web site discussing the transition of churches to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and their polity that ordination of women is a local option.  The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) has responded in their web log to the first two articles posted on the NPWL web site.  The entry, titled “Advancing Biblical Truth: Women in Leadership and the Proposed New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery“, begins with the statement that the NWAC:

The New Wineskins Constitution
makes no explicit distinction between men and women serving in roles of
leadership in the church, embracing the biblical declaration in
Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Women
have always been, continue to be, and will always be an integral part
of the New Thing that God is doing through the New Wineskins
Association of Churches (NWAC).

(If you followed the New Wineskins Winter Convocation you know that there was a question from the floor asking why the Strategy Team was all male.  The response was that no women had asked to be on it.)

Further on in the NWAC response where they discuss the Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s article about the glass ceiling for women in the PC(USA) there is an interesting observation that I had not previously thought about:

To Rev. Anita Bell’s credit, she admits that the experience of women pastors within the PCUSA has not been all it should be. However, both NPWL articles fail to examine underlying causes to the “glass ceiling” in the PCUSA other than a pastor’s gender. There are at least two other realities that should have been discussed. The first is the promotion of feminist and womanist theologies by the denomination. This has not helped orthodox and evangelical women pastors in finding a call. Pastor nominating committees are understandably concerned about the possibility of nominating a pastoral candidate and then later discovering the candidate does not uphold an orthodox or evangelical theology.

The NWAC  article goes on to discuss eight reasons that evangelical women pastors should consider moving to the EPC.  These include the fact that the NWAC will have its own transitional presbytery in the EPC where they will get to decide if women can be ordained and the fact that if you are an evangelical Presbyterian women looking for an alternative to the PC(USA) than the EPC is the only game in town.

The take on the PC(USA) to EPC transition from the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership

Leave a reply

The Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) is posting a series of articles on the transition of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC. The issue of course is that the ordination of women is not accepted across the EPC but is a “local option.”  As Becce Bettridge, the Director of NPWL, put it in the first article titled “Has Anyone Asked the Women“: “My question to the EPC is: Why would I want to be part of a church that overwhelmingly now views my leadership with suspicion?”

The second article in the series, “Where will the Women be Welcome,” by the Rev. Anita Miller Bell asks a broader question:  “Are ordained women treated as equals in the PC(USA)?”  She writes:

Yet, lest we become too judgmental of our brothers and sisters in the EPC and those who would join them, we must take a moment of honest self-reflection in our PCUSA fellowship.  Ordained women, especially those called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, know full inclusion in the ministry life of the PCUSA in name only.  After 50 years, women still face the “glass ceiling” across the theological spectrum of the church.

 Her analysis of this situation is fascinating, at least to me, and I think it contains a great deal of truth.  She writes, in part:

This lukewarm embrace of women in ministry by the PCUSA and the “local option” approach of the EPC both find their roots in the original decision made by our denominations’ predecessor to ordain women to the ministry of Word and Sacrament 50 years ago. That decision, framed by postwar emphasis on human rights and democracy among mainline churches, has often been characterized as a “simple act of fairness”.   Our debate centered more on the social correctness of opening the door to women in ordained ministry than on the Biblical
witness of the essential nature of women’s ministry within the body of
Christ.

Such well-intentioned “social correctness” has not transformed the heart and mind of the church to embrace fully the leadership of the sisters in our midst.

She goes on to discuss the “Body of Christ” and how an individual’s gifts and talents are intended to be used for the building up of the body and how a person’s calling should not be a matter of fairness but a response to their place and role in the body.

There are presently three articles posted and in the third seminarian Janice Krouskop discusses her perspective on the transition and what it may mean for her call and career.

The EPC does have a Position Paper on the Ordination of Women where they say:

…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.

Now, a couple of comments where I’m about the stray into the more controversial and may raise the blood pressure of some of my readers…

Returning to the first NPWL article, it contains echoes of arguments that I regularly hear.  In one line  Ms. Bettridge asks: “Why would I want to be part of a church whose denominational culture does not view me as an equal partner in ministry, gifted and called to serve the Body of Christ?”

What caught my attention here is that this is essentially the same question that my friends and family who support the ordination of practicing homosexuals ask.  The progressives in the PC(USA) and other denominations see no difference between these two ordination questions.  If a person has been given these gifts for leadership by God, why should they not be ordained?  Does Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s argument apply here as well?  It is not a matter of fairness but a matter of gifts and call.  And appealing to scripture is not the clear-cut way out since we are all probably familiar with the exegetical arguments on all sides of both of these issues.  It comes down to how you read scripture and how you understand officers within the church.

Now, I do acknowledge that the two issues are different and I see differences in the scriptural support for the two issues.  But, the PCA and other conservative Presbyterian branches do not recognize either ordination, and the PC(USA) recognizes one and is arguing about the other. We need to be aware that for many people these two issues are linked and each of the NPWL articles could be quickly and easily rewritten to focus the same arguments on the issue of homosexual ordination.

My two cents worth from my background and experience.  Now back to our regularly scheduled politics.