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.