Proving a point?
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007
About Pete Simpson [Letters, September 27, 2007] and proving a point:
Just what is Mr. Simpson’s point and what is he advocating?
James H. Logan Sr. Rock Hill, S.C.
Malawi and South Africa
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007
Since Larry Brown [Letters, September 26, 2007] has asked me a question and The Layman Online has published it, I will give a response.
But, first, a clarification of some confusion from his recent message. Mr. Brown suggests that I mentioned the rate of HIV infection in Malawi as something that resulted from traditional attitudes about homosexuality when, of course, I did nothing of the sort. My comment about HIV responded directly to his earlier statement about husbands and wives being forbidden to hold hands in public in Malawi, and my reference to the incidence of HIV in Malawi made a point of stressing that more women than men are infected – indeed, about three times as many. By far, most of those suffering from HIV/AIDS in Malawi and elsewhere in Africa are heterosexual, and any discussion of HIV/AIDS incidence and prevention in Africa is, by numbers, primarily a discussion of heterosexuality.
My mention of the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in South Africa was in response to something only tangentially related, since Mr. Brown had disputed Mr. Joiner’s assertion that some on the continent would disagree with Mr. Brown’s blanket assessment of African attitudes to homosexuality. Mr. Brown cites statistics about HIV/AIDS in South Africa which, of course, are similar to those in Malawi (despite obvious differences between the countries in urbanization, history and geography), as one may confirm by consulting the web page of the World Health Organization.
I would not think that my letter could in any way be interpreted as suggesting that South Africa serve as a model for dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis. President Mbeki’s damaging statements denying the link between HIV and AIDS alone is sufficient to consider South Africa a poor model. But since the word has been put out there, I would not hesitate to suggest that South Africa could serve as a model in other ways. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a model for how a people can put injustices behind them without a need for vengeance.
The patience and fortitude (perhaps related to “ubuntu”) in the face of slow progress as expressed by the South Africans with whom I have spoken is a model that I wish my fellow Americans could follow.
Although Mr. Brown will disagree, I believe that recognizing the unions of gay and lesbian citizens is an appropriate model for the world to consider. This has no important link to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa and could hardly make even a small dent since the vast majority of those infected are heterosexual, other than the fact that promoting marriage and fidelity even for a very small part of the population is a positive thing. No doubt lesbian marriage will have essentially no effect with respect to HIV/AIDS.
Regarding Mr. Brown’s request that I enlighten him about how I think people may establish that they are a supporter of civil rights: I have already answered that question, but am happy to elaborate. Since Mr. Brown mentioned Martin Luther King, I recommended that rather than talk about the issues of four decades ago, he might consult those who were close to and worked with Dr. King regarding what Dr. King would say to us today and see where he is on those issues.
I mentioned John Lewis, a man whose personal courage, faith commitment and accomplishments would require many paragraphs for even the briefest summary. Or one could consider the words of Coretta Scott King before her recent death. Or Andrew Young, one of King’s chief aides and a person on whom King relied to give a conservative outlook so that King would have room to “split the difference” with more radical advisors. James Lawson, Julian Bond, and others are still alive and active.
There are many issues to consider, but since Mr. Brown objects strenuously and especially to linking the civil rights movement with rights for homosexuals, let’s consider the following:
John Lewis: “I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Coretta Scott King: “Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
It is not difficult to locate similar statements by Lawson, Bond, Young or others.
Regarding whether Mr. Brown should become a comedian, I would answer sincerely “don’t give up your day job” since I do hope that he will continue his work in Malawi. But perhaps I did not sufficiently stress my curiosity about a question he has not answered: Why does Mr. Brown of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church exert such time and effort in criticizing my denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA)?
I might suggest that if his experience at a non-PCUSA church in having petitions in support of the Confederate flag shoved at him by all in attendance is typical, then perhaps he could first address the need for a prophetic voice to Americans a little closer to his spiritual home and let other prophets speak to the PCUSA.
David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va.
Blessed by the ministry of these women’
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007
Thank you for the excellent letter [Letters, September 26, 2007] you published in The Layman Online by James H. Logan Sr. concerning women in ministry.
I originally came to Christ in a holiness church in New York City and one of the ways I grew in my faith was listening to the preaching of many women who came to our church. It was never a threat to the folks or leaders of the church and we were very blessed by the ministry of these women of God.
I was taught that the Holy Spirit came upon all of God’s people at Pentecost and God has called all of God’s people to ministry, which includes preaching, teaching and pastoral ministry.
When I became convinced of the Reformed theology and tradition, I was glad to know that the Presbyterian Church (USA) ordained women to all the ministries of the church and that, by doing so, they were not caving into “liberal” theology.
As an evangelical within the PCUSA, I am thankful that we do not have to battle whether women are called or not to Christian ministry and I am thankful to my holiness beginnings that it was never a struggle in my own life. There are other more important issues that we should continue to focus on so that we do not lose our vitality as a church.
Thanks for publishing Mr. Logan’s letter.
Rev. Eddie Soto Associate for Latin American Ministries , Charleston-Atlantic Presbytery, Charleston, S.C.
Finding ways to be together without G-6.0106b
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sent in response to, ‘There is one thing worse than a lie: a half truth by the Rev. Dr. Allen Kemp [Letters, September 24, 2007].
I want to thank Rev. Allen Kemp for his writing, comments at presbytery, and faithfulness. Whatever disagreements I may have with others who see G-6.0106b as an important checkpoint for church leaders, I have always felt that such individuals come to their beliefs and responses with the same conviction and call that I feel in my own being.
It is what makes this such a difficult process, seeking a welcoming place in the full work and worship of our church for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, along with all our sisters and brothers. The use of these words, alone, evokes such a response that it is often near to impossible enter into a safe and Christian space, where we can each hear each other and listen to how God speaks to us in our own hearts. Dr. Kemp and others, while maintaining their positions, have always been able to do that. I appreciate their witness and practices in this and many other ways.
I am not writing to fight, to divide, or to persuade anyone to change their minds about gay people. We’ve all tried that. I have sat with Biblical scholars, each taking a position on verses from Scripture, giving clear and impassioned interpretations of those verses, with those who agree supporting their respective speakers. In the end, both sides walk away feeling good about what they have done and nothing changes. We return to our own sides of the Presbyterian Church (USA), faithful witnesses and still apart. General Assembly committees often reflect this dynamic.
Yet, I see us in our presbyteries and at General Assemblies. We worship together, debate, seek justice, truth – all of us together – and the ceilings of the churches and civic centers don’t fall down upon us. Somehow, we manage to walk and work together, even though our theological positions may be very far apart. Maybe there is something in that practice that we can use to figure out how to be faithful and together even in our greatest of differences.
Most everyone knows someone who is lesbian or gay. I am an ordained minister of the Word and sacrament serving the Palisades Presbyterian Church in New York. I am a man who is openly gay and was ordained as such. I also teach high school in the public school system in Westchester County, New York. In both roles, I have heard from people who have experienced the pain and suffering of discovering that a member of their family was different. I have counseled young people tossed out of their homes when they came out to their parents or guardians: seeking acceptance only to be rejected. Somehow, that has always struck me as the sin, not that they might have been created as a person who was gay, nurture and nature arguments aside for now – but rejected.
There are many more stories; many of you have your own. Whenever I work with someone or hear about someone who has been marginalized or tossed out – I think that we, our church and other churches, have failed to grow enough in God’s love and hospitality to possibly err on the side of compassion and love in taking the risk of opening our doors to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as full members. Instead, we draw lines of separation because of different sorts of fear. We become more entrenched in our own beliefs, maybe so much so that we forget the risks Jesus took to save us all.
There must be a way that we can find space in our understandings of God and Scripture that makes it possible for us to make the PCUSA an example of God’s love, not based on certainty but on trust that God would prefer we take the chance, rather than shut the door on one another. God has to be bigger than our arguments. Has to be … if we could just rely on that bit of faith.
Look, there will always be congregations that will have their own methods of worship and interpretation of Scripture. If a person who was gay showed up at the door of a church who loved but could not welcome a gay person, they could simply say to them: “We have a sister church where you will be more welcome than here …” or something to that effect. And, in the other way, someone who seeks a more literal interpretation and traditional worship service could be directed to a sister church so that none were lost or rejected. There must be a way we can work together so that none are lost.
Yes, I absolutely believe G-6.0106b needs to go because it divides us. I am pleased that our presbytery voted to send an overture to do that to General Assembly and I am deeply aware of how this hurt some of our members. Someone always seems to be hurt in this ongoing difficulty we share. Maybe we can heal with each other and limit such unnecessary pain and fear.
And I disagree that the removal of G-6.0106b will open our church to all forms of sexual impropriety. G-6.0106a is fully able to maintain required guidelines for appropriate behavior, along with the other requirements of the Book of Order and protocols required of candidates in being cleared to seek a call, and they are considerable. Ask anyone who has gone through them.
What G-6.0106b does is eliminate LGBT folk from serving since it calls for requirements in “marriage,” a sacred commitment not yet available to gay people. We end up using this to exclude people from our church: good people, friends, family, faithful, called people. That can’t be the best way to be faithful for any of us. Yet, some of us are so sure we are right that we are ready to split the church. In a world already dividing up into smaller, more ragged, violent and isolated pieces, how could this ever be God’s call to any of us?
I will not debate or argue here. Neither of those will achieve anything near consideration of a sacred trust and a way of being together that really takes a risk based on all we hold true. Our world needs this church, all of this church and all of its members. Our diminished numbers have more to do with ways we exclude people than ways in which we include them. At least I think so.
I, and others I know, will be happy to meet in forums or person to help work at being church together. I do not see us as liberals, conservatives or other political groups. I see us as members of God’s family, sharing the same baptism, with differences that do not need to divide us. We can work this out. We can pray and practice this out faithfully. I have to believe that, and I hope some of you will, as well.
Then, once we work it out, we can teach the rest of the world how we did it. That’s witnessing that would humble us all in the power of the Holy Spirit it might just unleash. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Rev. Ray Bagnuolo Palisades Presbyterian Church, Palisades, N.Y.
Your young men will see visions’
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007
The letter from James Logan [Letters, September 26, 2007] demonstrates the peril of using a paraphrase to prove a point. In Hebrew, Joel 2:16ff reads: “Your sons and daughters, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. …”
Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Some were amazed and perplexed, asking, “What does it mean?” (Acts 2:13). Full of wine, others mocked, “They have had too much wine” – these folks who are speaking in their own language but being heard by others, each in his own language. But Peter brought Holy Spirit clarity to the scene, bringing about 3,000 people to acceptance of the wonderful message (2:14):
“Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: ‘Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
“‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
“Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
“Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'”
Acts reports the marvelous events of that Pentecost day, leaving no wiggle room for His intent. No more distinction between slaves, or freemen, or Gentiles, or Jews, or men, or women. His spirit poured out on all mankind.
The argument should be over. If Joel and Peter are not liars, then any person on whom God pours out His spirit must be accepted. My dear sisters, when the Holy Spirit calls you to speak the Word, speak it with power, unafraid. Congregations, your legitimate question is, “Has God called that son or daughter to prophesy in our midst?”
It is not a question of entitlement, it is a question of the Holy Spirit calling and sending whom He will and of people, listening to the Spirit, ratifying that call. It is not about civil rights or women’s rights; it is about the sovereign rule of King Jesus, the head of His church, choosing whom and where He will send.
We do violence to Jesus when we place non-Biblical restrictions on whose calling we will sanction.
Somewhere, there are females having the only Word from God that someone desperately needs to hear. The fields are truly white; pray God that He will send empowered men and women of every tribe and nation uniquely equipped for that task so that lives will be rescued and the harvest of souls will be great.
Men and women are suffering and dying in their sins, not knowing who Jesus is and not having the assurance of pardon of their sins. It is time to get on with our Father’s business!
James H. Logan, Sr. Rock Hill, S.C.
A response regarding the ordination of women
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007
It fascinates me the way that your readers take my simple question [Letters, September 20, 2007] and run off in all directions. A few points are worth making.
First, I never said that ordination was a “right,” nor did I say that everyone coming for ordination should be pushed through. After six years on a committee on ministry, I assure you that I wish that committees on the preparation of ministry would do more gate-keeping.
That said, my statement about women who feel called was a direct response to the writer’s saying that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church shows “love and charity” toward those who find the ordination of women unacceptable. My question was, “Where is the same love and charity toward women who feel called.” To say not everyone is called or not everyone is qualified is one thing. To say that people are disallowed simply because of their gender is entirely another.
Second, no one seems able to answer the simple question of whether the EPC/writers consider the ordination of men “essential,” that is something that a church or presbytery would be required to do.
I find the effort of Rev. Brown to imply that I equate the ordination of women on equal footing with the Resurrection in importance to be rubbish. I am only trying to get a read on how the EPC understands the ordination of women vis-a-vis the ordination of men – the language of “non-essential” for the former belongs to the EPC.
Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop Davenport, Iowa
Another viewpoint regarding women’s ordination
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007
I have followed the discussion about women’s ordination with interest.
I am reminded of a letter to the editor from a pastor I saw some years ago. He said there were 35 women in his seminary class. He went to each one and asked why she came to seminary.
He said 34 said they were there because they had a “right” to be there. One said she had been called by the Lord to ministry.
Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn.
A response to David Carothers
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007
In his lengthy rebuttal [Letters, September 24, 2007], David Carothers suggested that Malawi has a 15 percent HIV/AIDS infection rate that is caused by some traditional attitudes on homosexuality. He went on to suggest that South Africa, with its openness to gay marriage, should serve as a model. Here’s what he didn’t say. I got the following from www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica/htm, accessed 25 September 24, 2007:
“It is difficult to overstate the suffering that HIV has caused in South Africa. With statistics showing that almost one in five adults are infected, HIV is widespread in a sense that can be difficult to imagine for those living in less-affected countries. For each person living with HIV, in South Africa and elsewhere, not only does it impact on their lives, but also those of their families, friends and wider communities.
“With antiretroviral drug treatment, HIV-positive people can maintain their health and often lead relatively normal lives. Sadly, few people in South Africa have access to this treatment. This means that AIDS deaths are alarmingly common throughout the country. It is thought that almost half of all deaths in South Africa, and a staggering 71 percent of deaths among those aged between 15 and 49, are caused by AIDS.2 So many people are dying from AIDS that, in some parts of the country, cemeteries are running out of space for the dead.3 A recent survey found that South Africans spent more time at funerals than they did having their hair cut, shopping or having barbecues. It also found that more than twice as many people had been to a funeral in the past month than had been to a wedding.4”
Mr. Carothers also said, regarding me:
“He does not directly praise the social attitudes in Malawi that forbid married couples from holding hands in public, but since he suggests that they are somehow related to the absence of what he calls ‘Hollywood-driven propaganda,’ we might at least infer that he has some positive feeling about them.”
My response: Go ahead, infer away. One has no control over what people choose to infer. I will not attempt to do any inferring on Mr. Carothers.
And then he said:
“I might mention that applauding those who ‘marched with Martin Luther King’ is no longer sufficient to establish one’s bona fides on civil rights in the U.S.A.”
Enlighten us, Mr. Carothers, what does it take to “establish one’s bona fides” and what specifically have you done to establish yours?
Finally, he says of me:
“Citing an unwillingness to support a Confederate flag resolution as evidence of a progressive stand on civil rights is almost comical.”
Hey, maybe I should quit the mission field and take up stand-up comedy. I’m sure there’s more money in it than being a missionary, and I bet I’d be funnier than Mr. Carothers.
Larry Brown African Bible College , Lilongwe, Malawi
Parochial questions
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Reading about the continuing misadventures of Heartland Presbytery’s struggle to define parochial fidelity juxtaposed to our Biblical and constitutional heritage, two questions come to mind.
Parenthetically, please note I am discouraged by both the increasing apostasies and schismatic movements in our franchise. I ask these questions because I am called to remain faithfully rather than separate to be faithful.
Be that as it is, my questions:
1) Does anyone see the irony in the anti-institutional children of the ’60s dominating mainline ecclesiastical bureaucracies being so obsessively compulsive about maintaining the status quo of dying denominations?
2) When it comes to our particular franchise, the Presbyterian Church (USA), is it intellectually inconsistent not to mention spiritually bankrupt for those who defy or enable defiance of our constitution’s ordination standards to insist on enforcing our constitution’s property clause?
I’m probably missing something, especially in the second question, which is almost as rhetorical as the first. I look forward to hearing from folks who can help me with the cited confessional contradiction in the second question. I may be too “old school” to get the distinctions.
When I was ordained, I understood I would subscribe or at least submit to the entire constitution, rather than embrace just my favorite parts. That’s why I’ve been equally nauseated by the apostasies and advocates of schism. But, again, I’m probably missing something.
I look forward to being enlightened on how ordination standards are optional in our constitution while the property clause is not optional in our constitution.
Silly me! I thought both were, uh, constitutional. That’s what I thought when I was ordained. Next thing you know, someone will come along and say you don’t have to believe in Jesus to be a member, officer or pastor in the PCUSA.
Robert R. Kopp
Truly a difficulty of life in the church’
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Meghan Foote has a good point [Letters, September 24, 2007]. She asks how it is possible to reconcile condemning people who disagree over Scripture with the fact that there are issues in which faithful Christians disagree.
This is truly a difficulty of life in the church. How do God’s foreordination and man’s free will work together? Should we baptize infants or only adults? What is the nature of charismatic gifts in today’s church? These are challenging issues that good people disagree on.
What is the solution? At the root, there are two options:
Number one: The church drops all distinction in doctrine and simply allows every person to seek out how to follow their religion as their own conscience dictates.
Number two: The individual denominations decide on what constitutes their own essential doctrines and then faithfully seek to adhere to those standards.
Recognize that the first solution will create complete anarchy. Such a church would neither be pure nor unified. I highly doubt it would be peaceful either. There is clearly a point at which two opposing views are so tangential that they cannot work together.
Personally, I believe that the issue of homosexual ordination (that is, gay-affirming, practicing homosexual ordination) is one of those issues. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has recognized this same incompatibility in its denial of ordination to anyone who takes a complementarian (i.e., patriarchal/misogynistic) view of women’s ordination. If you cannot affirm women’s ordination, you cannot be a PCUSA minister.
Obviously, I see the second solution to be the only viable alternative. We must recognize that there are core essentials of Christianity, issues that are theologically (denominationally) distinctive, and debatable matters.
Core essentials are those doctrines that mark someone as an orthodox Christian or not. Though the PCUSA seems unable to get these straight either, it is things like the deity of Christ, the necessity of the Atonement and the Trinity.
Theological distinctives are those issues that we recognize Christians can disagree on. Many of my friends practice believer’s baptism. I believe in covenantal (infant) baptism. Though we love the same Lord, we respect each other’s right to practice as our consciences dictate and we serve in different denominations. As believers, we are part of the same Universal Church but, here on earth, we keep our distinctives.
Finally, there are those issues that must be recognized as debatable. Sometimes, these cause the most conflict. How should believers dress? Is it best to educate kids in public school, Christian school or to home school? What color should the new carpet in the sanctuary be?
Now, here is the real challenging part: deciding what will be your theological distinctives and what you are comfortable leaving open to debate. In the PCUSA, affirmation of women’s ordination is a theological distinctive (i.e., you must affirm it to be ordained). The Presbyterian Church in America also sees women’s ordination as a theological distinctive (i.e., you must deny it to be ordained). The Evangelical Presbyterian Church believes it is a debatable matter (i.e., you may take either position and be ordained).
In the PCA and EPC, the denial of homosexual ordination is a theological distinctive. The PCUSA, in passing last year’s PUP report, has made homosexual ordination a debatable matter. If I were a betting man, I would put money on it eventually becoming, like women’s ordination, an essential distinctive. The list of issues goes on and on: Calvinism versus Arminianism, inerrancy of the Bible, the nature of the creation, the church’s role in politics, etc.
I am currently preparing for ordination in the PCA. Based upon my theology, I am not welcome in the PCUSA (though I was saved in that denomination). I considered the EPC, but felt I was a better fit in the PCA. There are too many issues, for me, which the EPC considers debatable and I consider distinctive. And that is OK. I am happy that the Lord Jesus is being lifted up in other denominations by my brothers and sisters. Christ is the only Lord of our consciences and it is good for us to have denominations where like-minded believers can serve together.
Meghan, I hope you recognize the necessity of distinctions between denominations. Yes, Christians can disagree on issues. And there are times when those issues are significant enough to split apart denominations, even while affirming that those we disagree with are our brothers and sisters in the Lord.
Tom Mirabella Faith PCA , Wauchula, Fla.
A response to letters by Chris Joiner, Larry Brown
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007
I found your editorial comment interesting regarding Chris Joiner’s response [Letters, September 19, 2007] to Larry Brown’s letter [Letters, September 18, 2007]. You noted: “In our original assessment of Mr. Brown’s letter and a subsequent review, we see no evidence of ‘hate speech’ in the letter as written.”
Actually, you are correct. However, I will point out another observation.
Mr. Brown notes in his caveat: “If you’re gay and you’re open about it, this wouldn’t be the place for you. Your arrival here could cause, well, unpleasantness. Africans aren’t noted for their acceptance of homosexuality, which is why so many American Episcopalian churches are now under the authority of African bishops.”
Okay, in order for one to walk his/her talk, I think the words are more accurate if said: “If you’re a sinner and you’re open about it, this wouldn’t be the place for you. Your arrival here could cause, well, unpleasantness. Africans aren’t noted for their acceptance of sinful behavior, which is why so many American Episcopalian churches are now under the authority of African bishops.”
After all, sin is sin and no sin in particular is any different than another. Correct? I hope so, for that was true when I last checked the Bible and what Jesus taught. I seriously doubt that the paradise Mr. Brown lives in would actually turn any sort of sinner away. That is the whole point of being the Body of Christ, in being a healing community that welcomes and helps those who struggle (sinners) to find a better way of life through Christ.
I expect in the debate Mr. Brown, in his passion, said words that he didn’t realize would single out a group of sinners, as though those sinners are any different than anyone else in the world or even any believer in Christ.
The bottom line is we all fall short of the glory of God and will sin until our last day on earth. The good news is that, together, we are a community of believers in Christ and those believers will not forsake us any more than God or Christ does. In the end, it is love speech. It can never be hate speech.
Earl C. Apel Member , Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church , Cincinnati, Ohio
Second-class citizens?
Posted Monday, September 24, 2007
I have been following the responses to Megan Foote’s letter [Letters, September 17, 2007] concerning ordination practices in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
My attention was grabbed by the Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop’s letter [Letters, September 20, 2007] and her claim of a de facto declaration that EPC women are second-class citizens. She also extends this to the Roman Catholic Church. She goes on to complain, asking, “One wonders where the love and charity is toward women whose spirit feels called to ordained ministry, but who are effectively blocked by church or presbytery refusal [to ordain them]?”
I wonder whether Rev. Hislop realizes that, every year, Presbyterian Church (USA) sessions and presbyteries turn away people requesting to become inquirers and candidates for ordination for all manner of reasons – as do all other denominations and even independent churches. These decisions are made without denying the person’s sense of call. Who are we – any of us – to declare that a person does not have a sense of call?
However, just because someone claims to have a sense of call does not put a corresponding obligation on any church to agree that such a sense of call must necessarily be lived out under their particular discipline. If God is truly calling a person to ordained ministry, in His sovereignty God will provide an arena in which that call can be exercised – and it might not be exactly where the person called would prefer.
Ultimately, a person who feels called has a responsibility to find that place rather than insist that, despite their standards, a particular denomination ordain the person. That kind of insistence, in my opinion, is a mark of immature, adolescent petulance and a sense of entitlement and lack of respect for the church’s beliefs signaling that perhaps this person would not be a good candidate for ordination even if the way were clear.
And the genuine love and charity so sought by Rev. Hislop and her ilk on the part of a church that cannot ordain someone who feels a sense of call is found in pointing this out to the seeker and perhaps even helping such a one along in the journey.
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church, Canton, Ohio
A response to Loren Golden
Posted Monday, September 24, 2007
I’d like to thank Loren Golden [Letters, September 20, 2007] for putting together the Biblical texts regarding the ordination of women. It’s nice to be able to go to chapter and verse, and I especially appreciate the way both sides of the argument were equitably presented in the letter.
In my own walk, I have seen the wonderful things done by women in positions of leadership. I have heard others generally discuss it, but have been a bit hesitant as I am not as familiar with the Scriptural basis for it.
In good Presbyterian fashion, I can’t agree with everything in the letter. As far as hijacking a meeting to hash out these issues, I tend to think we (at least in our local church) have such good committee work that taking time to hash out these issues at our local meetings does more good than “working” on the routine issues that dominate our meetings, but I digress.
I agree with the letter’s perspective on gays and I appreciate The Layman Online for providing this forum. I feel that I am learning by reading these letters.
Frank Christian elder, Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church
Letter ‘contributes to the muddiness’ regarding women’s ordination
Posted Monday, September 24, 2007
As much as the Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop [Letters, September 20, 2007] claims that the water is being muddied by previous respondents regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church’s policy on the ordination of women, I think Hislop’s argument contributes to the muddiness.
Her statement at the end of her latest letter about “women whose spirit feels called to ordained ministry, but who are effectively blocked by church or presbytery refusal,” convinces me. It should be clear, but often isn’t, that ordination is not a right granted just because you feel the call, because you’re a good person, because you want it. The call to ministry must be investigated, discerned and confirmed by the larger church – the external component of a true call by Reformed standards.
I have served on a presbytery committee on preparation for ministry and, in so doing, was part of a group that had to tell some folks they wouldn’t be ordained. Some recipients of this message were male, others female. The key point was the discernment of the calling of God on their lives. They thought an internal call was sufficient. Our experience with and assessment of them led us to believe otherwise. Their internal sense of call was not validated by an external call by the church. This is not an “either/or,” but a “both/and.” So, in a very real and practical sense, yes, any ordaining body can tell a man that he will not be ordained and tell a woman the same message.
But I don’t think that’s what Hislop is attempting to get at with her complaints. Her “can you refuse to ordain a man?” line of thought makes muddy the two very real issues at the heart of this discussion on which we need more clarity and less mud.
The first real issue is, “Are women proper candidates for ordination?” Women’s ordination is a Johnny-come-lately historically, and much of Christianity disagrees with it. The EPC’s compromise may not be the best one around, but it is one that respects the consciences of those who disagree with women’s ordination while still creating pathways for that ordination to take place.
I am thankful we ordain women in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I come by this honestly: before I came into the PCUSA, I was a Cumberland Presbyterian minister, a denomination ordaining women since the 1880s. But I recognize that many – indeed most – of the Christian world doesn’t see women’s ordination the way I do, and I respect that difference of opinion. The EPC policy has some flaws, but at least it tries to find some middle ground for conscience on both sides of the issue.
The second real issue is, “What is essential for a denomination to believe and to practice in order to be a denomination?” For Hislop, women’s ordination is clearly such an essential. I grant that it may indeed be essential for polity and organizational reasons, for our communal life together, to be of one mind on this and other issues. It certainly lubricates the gears of the machinery! But women’s ordination is not an essential of the faith unless you are willing to say that it rises to the level of the Apostles’ Creed in terms of our allegiance and that Christians who do not ordain women flirt with apostasy.
But women’s ordination does not rise to this level. Now, if we were talking about, say, affirming the Resurrection of Christ as a real, actual, historical event, I would reply that now we’re on to something truly essential. But the bald-faced truth is we live, move and have our being in a denomination that holds women’s ordination to be essential: You can’t be ordained if you believe otherwise.
At the same time, we live, move and have our being in a denomination that does not effectively require ordained ministers to believe in the Resurrection of Christ as essential: you can say Jesus’ body is rotting in a Palestinian tomb with impunity, for your presbytery will not touch you. There’s a lot of muddiness to go around.
Rev. Clay J. Brown pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Mooresville, N.C.