While the PCUSA has been debating the inflamatory issue of ordination of gays and lesbians, our brothers in the PCA have been debating whether their Book of Order allows ordination of deaconesses. This according to the Layman. Not that I find the Layman a particularly unbiased or even factual reporter of events. (At a General Assembly four years ago, I was at an event that Parker Williamson, founder of the Layman, reported on. We evidently were at two different events.) I usually read it to keep up with my friends. My friends on the progressive end get written up and dissed.
It is my understanding that for the EPC, ordination of women is a local option, but I'm not sure about that. PCUSA churches leaving for the EPC are migrating to a nongeographical presbytery where their ordained women can retain their ordination.
I never encountered either PCA or EPC until I moved south. The largest Presbyterian churches in Memphis are either PCA or EPC. Mega churches.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Musings of a particular Presbyterian with a particular view Hopefully not very short-sighted
About Me
- Failed Southern Belle
- Sorta Mother
- Former Lawyer
- Life-long Presbyterian
- Unabashed Liberal--Progressed beyond Progressive
- Happily Retired!
RevGalBlogPals
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(144)
-
▼
July
(19)
- Good Bye
- A comment made by all the folks at dinner Friday e...
- Sermon
- Thanks to all the comments on the blog. I never kn...
- Friday Five
- Maybe God does have a lesson for me: more on being...
- Being a Bitch
- Oh, Duh!
- Evil
- Telling the Truth--the aftermath
- Good Soil--Or telling the truth
- Truth II or Telling Truth to a Congregation
- Truth
- Friday Five
- Anglicans to ordain women bishops
- Friday Five/RevGalBlogPals
- While the PCUSA has been debating the inflamatory ...
- I have been feeling a desire to go on retreat. I'd...
- Have they always been stupid?
-
▼
July
(19)
4 comments:
Chattanooga was the same way. We had one really big PCUSA church left but they went EPC like last year some time.
You know what's struck me as funny (in a sad and/or frustrating sort of way), the folks who are entertaining the idea of moving to the EPC (or are actually doing it) defend the EPC stance on "local option" for women's ordination, or, at least, are tolerant of it. Yet often (I'm trying very hard not to make fully sweeping statements which I despise in discussions on these topics) many of those people are the ones who are upset by the interpretation of PUP and other PC(USA) leanings that sound like "local option".
Why is local option and acceptable idea for addressing conflicting theology and practice in one issue, but not in the other?
Now I'm not saying that PUP or anyone else really is "local option", but I'm saying why are THEY (whoever they are) saying local option (because that's what they have determined it is) is bad for the issue of homosexuality in the PC(USA), but it's acceptable for the issue of women's ordination in the EPC, the denomination they are (considering) aligning with?
Sorry if that's a digression. It's mostly on a similar topic. It's just sort of bugged me.
Yes, the local option option is interesting. It's OK for ordaining women, but not for ordaining homosexuals. I do note that the Anglican church has just voted to ordain women as bishops.
My guess about"their" rationale for why local option for ordaining women is okay, but not for ordaining gays and lesbians goes something like this:
The Ordination of Women is something about which people of good faith may disagree, but The Ordination of Gays is something which is so absolutely contrary to scripture that there can be no disagreement. Period.
Again--just a guess.
Post a Comment