Thursday, July 3, 2008

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.

5 comments:

Becky Ardell Downs said...

Chattanooga was the same way. We had one really big PCUSA church left but they went EPC like last year some time.

She Rev said...

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.

Joan Calvin said...

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.

Purechristianithink said...

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.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,酒店,