Churches concerned with the liberal direction they see the country's largest Presbyterian denomination going in are doing their homework and preparing for the worst.
Some joined a meeting of breakaway and discontent Presbyterians earlier this week, researching possible alternative ways to forge ahead with their mission if the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) were to adopt more liberal standards, such as allowing non-celibate homosexual clergy.
"They were very concerned about the removal of G-6.0106b," explained the Rev. Dean Weaver of the New Wineskins Association of Churches, a network of some 200 conservative Presbyterian churches discontent with the PC(USA).
G-6.0106b is part of the denomination's constitution that requires church clergy to live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." In June, the 218th General Assembly, the denomination's highest governing body, voted to delete the requirement. The proposal requires a majority approval from the denomination's 173 presbyteries.
"If that were to be removed, there would be a tidal wave of churches leaving," Weaver recalled some saying.
The New Wineskins Association of Churches held their fifth convocation on Nov. 9-11 in Cleveland, Ohio, where over 300 people convened to recapture their vision.
"We want to be part of what God is doing," the network, which is comprised of both Presbyterians who have left the PC(USA) and those still in the denomination, states in its vision. "But here at home, mainline denominations struggle with theological confusion, ethical compromise and numerical decline.
"We envision a church, therefore, that is theologically clear and passionate because it is based on shared essential tenets of historic orthodox faith."
Earlier, in August, the network held a separate meeting in response to concerned Presbyterians following some of the actions of the PC(USA) General Assembly in June.
"We presented it as a result of this last general assembly. We knew many would be confused and concerned," Weaver explained.
Over 100 people joined the August meeting in Atlanta. Most attended with the determination to leave the PC(USA), said Weaver, and were looking for advice on how to transition. Many are considering realigning with the smaller and more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church denomination.
The New Wineskins network held the separate meeting in Atlanta to address concerns involving the PC(USA) so that the November convocation would be devoted to their vision.
On Tuesday at the convocation, attendees examined candidates for ordination, including women, and heard reports from several task forces. A report on women outlined why they believe that women should be ordained.
"We believe in the whole of the Bible," Weaver summed up, citing a number of examples of women in positions of leadership in both the Old and New Testaments.
The New Wineskins' position on women has sparked a "vigorous discussion" within the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which had welcomed the network into their covenant family in the form of a transitional presbytery.
Among the EPC's eight presbyteries, two of them allows consideration of women ministers and candidates and two do not. The other two are still working on the issue.
Driving the discussion on female "teaching elders," or pastors, in the EPC is a proposal for a permanent, non-geographic affinity presbytery. The EPC had created a New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery last year to receive an increasing number of congregations that were leaving the PC(USA). The EPC is expected to consider next year whether to make that presbytery permanent.
If made permanent, the affinity presbytery would offer a solution to "the dilemma of women teaching elders," EPC's Committee on Administration stated, as it allows women ordination.
Weaver says the issue on female clergy is a "great discussion" to have and does not equate this to the debate on homosexuality.
"Because it's biblical," Weaver explained. "It's an honest debate to be had among people who have belief in the infallible Scripture."
Whereas, homosexuality is rarely ever debated on grounds of Scripture, he said.
RSS
_2.jpg)
I read Josh's books years ago, and of course, no one would admit to money-saving being the reason, but there are letters among the publishers suggesting just that.
sj, I sometimes have fun with KJV only folks by pointing out the apocrphal books to them.
sj, I would really encourage you if you have not already to pick up a copy of "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell and I think you'll discover that cost was not the primary reason for dropping the books of the Apocrypha.
believer, my mistake. my reference to 1611 was meant to be the Synod of Dort in 1618, when the Protestant Bible first appears. You are correct, 1611 is the year King James of England authorized a new English translation, the KJV or AV, which did include all of the Western Catholic Old Testament.
believer, you are absolutely right and I have had this argument before, but what we call the King James Version, which is what the English call the Authorized Version, did contain ALL of the Western Catholic Old Testament. However, like the Lutherans before them, the Anglicans separated them from the rest of the Jewish Scriptures, after the pattern of Jerome, giving them some kind of secondary standard. Then within a century, Dutch printers were dropping them all together to save costs!
sj, your assumption is correct but what is interesting is that very few people are aware that the original KJV 1611 did contain the Apocrypha which contain many of those books you mentioned.
believer, when I suggest that there is no agreed Christian Bible, I'm not talking about translations but content. Do you include Tobit, Judith, additions to the book of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, letter of Jeremiah, additions to Daniel, 1 & 2 Maccabees, ALL of which have been part of the Western Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Slavonic Bibles from the beginning, OR 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees which have always been a part of the Greek and Slavonic Christian Bibles, but not the Western Catholic, or 2 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible and Vulgate Appendix, or 4 Maccabees in the Greek Bible Appendix, or do you include Revelation, which the Syrian Orthodox Church never has, or 2 & 3 John and 2 Peter absent in the Syriac tradition. But I suspect you use the so-called Protestant Bible which doesn't first appear until 1611!
sj, as far as no agreed on Bible, I'm sure no two reliable translations of the Bible are totally identical, but for the most part I believe the differences are minimal and have no impact on the truths taught or discredit the inerrancy of God's Word.
sj, I have no problem with traditions until they are allowed to take precedence or even supersede the Word of God. What's also a little scary is when I talk to leaders and others in churches and they have come to believe their tradition is biblically based and it is clearly not. I had a group of men who told me the Bible teaches that the oldest a person can live is 120 years, it turned out a former Pastor told them that Paul taught that, but when I looked up the verses it turned out Paul was referring back to God giving the people of Noah's day 120 years to turn to Him or be drowned in the flood.
believer, the interesting response there would be to suggest that Scripture is a PART of Tradition, that our Bible wasn't written by a single person and didn't fall from heaven, but was part of a long procession over 400 years at least. Some would note that even now there is no agreed Christian Bible.
sj, I don't ever recall not believing that the same way I question churches who put more creedance into traditions rather than determining if there is a biblical premise to support it.
believer, interesting acknowledgment there that the biblical norm may be different from God's design, that's what the abolitionists should to say!
sj, the question is not what is the biblical norm the question is what is God's original and unchanging design for both marriage and sexual intimacy and they are stated by God in the Old Testament and reaffirmed by Christ in the New Testament and that would be check and mate!
sj, we've been through this before and other than taking verses out of context you can produce no biblical evidence to show that God condones anything other than His original design for marriage of one man and one woman as well as God's design for sexual intimacy, whereas there are verses in the Old and New Testament alike that support and affirm God's original design for both marriage and sexual intimacy.
believer, I think the problem is with your notion that "God has an original and perfect design for marriage and sexual intimacy" within the Scriptures. The Biblical norm for marriage was polygamy, or more correctly, polygyny, one man with as many wives and concubines as he can afford. Biblical sexual norms were concerned with clear and definitive property rights. Women were men's property and so they can't be violated, especially if it might lead to questions of their rightful heir; questions like who is responsible for a woman (who can't be responsible for herself) if her husband dies and there is no male son to care for her? Thus the Levirate, for example, which requires the nearest male heir to marry such a widow, whether he is married already or not. The Biblical norm is less about love or sex, and much more about property and inheritance. If you think that the Biblical norm for marriage is between one man and one woman, then you are picking and choosing your verses very selectively and ignoring a great many others.
sj, but how does one reject God's original and perfect design for marriage and sexual intimacy without willfully violating the Word of God? Plus, both Peter and Paul share that a woman is not to be put into a position that would automatically give her spiritual headship over men. This was in both the home and the local church and still holds true today. Plus, just look at the denominations that are advocating willfully violating the Word of God with regards to same-sex marriages and other issues related to homosexuality. All of them allow for women to hold offices in the church that allow women to have spiritual headship over men.
1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all." 1 Corinthians 16:3: Paul refers to a married couple: Priscilla and Aquila as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus. 2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women. Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status). Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel. Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church. 1 Peter 4:10-11: This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." (NIV) Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and would have been expected exercise that gift.
ID4234, I believe that YOU are the one reading into the Scriptures what you want to find, if you try to deny the extraordinary and unusual leadership roles of authority that women exercised in the Apostolic Church, cf. Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple. Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home. Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses. Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper". Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles." The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles." The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle. Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air. They converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's name) in order to warp St. Paul's original writing by erasing all mention of a female apostle. Junia was first converted into a man only in the "13th century, when Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316 CE) referred to both Andronicus and Junia as "honorable men." 1 Corinthians 1:11: Chloe is mentioned as the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some ambiguity as to whether the women actually led the house churches. Similar passages mention, with the same ambiguity: The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and Nympha in (Col 4:15).
If one checks the scripture with purpose of determining what it says and not trying to see if one can make it say what he/she wants said, you will not discover one pastor. Then, if you check the early church from scripture through Eusebius' several hundred years history, again, you can not find one female pastor. Pastor in this case meaning senior pastor. Women minister in many ways, but God has designed a certain order in the family and the church. It is not surprising that rebellion against His order and the Bible's teachings is commonplace in our time.
schemeroo, the phrase 'slippery slope' is usually used in the context of 'this far, but no farther,' where you have moved so far, but wish to move no farther. So we have moved greatly over the centuries, allowing Gentiles into the Church, introducing democracy over the biblical divine right of kings, supporting the abolition of biblical slavery, allowing the practice of usury, or interracial marriage, or the equality of women. This is the slippery slope, we have come this far, but you want to suggest there is no farther to go? I think Ray has gotten it right.
Sisters and Brothers, I appreciate the concerns outlined in this piece. As a minister of Word and Sacrament who is gay and ordained as an openly gay man, there are those who instantly choose to reject me, my call, and those who examined and cleared me. It is true that the same judgment is often rendered toward women in similar situations. And, there are other dividing lines.
In truth, I have always sought unity for the PC(USA) and the broader community of creation. Disagreement, strong disagreement sometimes, has never seemed reason enough for me to cut ourselves off from one another. I still feel that way.
What is so troubling is that G-6.0106b is seen as the "line" in our church around which we must draw sides. The debates and arguments, theologically and otherwise frequently frame it all as "an issue," the issue of homosecuality or ordination standards. What is forgotten, I think, is that this is not an "issue." This is about living, breathing members of God's creation, baptized sisters and brothers, family members and friends, who are being gravely affected by the actions of the church.
I don't believe God is calling us to marginalize one another, nor do I think God is calling us to judge. I think we are being called to get beyond the things that divide us and embrace one another in love, even those we may not particulary like or agree with. If our God is not greater than such differences, we are in bigger trouble than we think.
Peace, Ray Bagnuolo
Minister of Word and Sacrament
White Plains, NY
with all due respect Emersonian, St.John's is correct. While I do believe we need to take context into account, its a very slippery slope when we start deciding what is and isn't relevant because of the time period. Its not so easy I admit - many could make an argument that slavery discussions in the bible fit this category - though others might say it never in fact condones slavery as an institution.
While I agree with you its worthy of debate, I take issue with your sentiment that this is so easy to see.
emersonian, just as you dismiss the sexist verses of Paul because he was in your words "very much a man of his time," others dismiss the homophobic passages of Scripture as being written by 'other men very much of their time.' Is that so hard to understand?
It's a bit confusing why female and gay ordination are lumped together...? There are examples of female leadership in the Bible, e.g. the prophet Deborah and the Christian Priscilla. There is no reason in Earth or Heaven why women can not serve God in every way that a man can. As for the oft-quoted passages from St Paul, it's known that he was very much a man of his time; we all admire him,[I know I do] but we should also recognise his historical context. The ban on female ordination originated in patricarchal societies. I'm actually a MAN, and it's not hard for me to see this. On the other hand, homosexual ordination is problematic because homosexual behaviour, unrepented of, is an obstacle towards communion with God. So perhaps we are talking about two semi-separate issues here?