Update on EPC and female ordination

Status
Not open for further replies.
Notthemama1984

Notthemama1984

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Today we had quite a bit of discussion on the proposed recommendations to allow churches to move to a nearby presbytery if their current presbytery would not allow for female elders.

We won't vote until tomorrow and looking at the discussion I cannot get a feel on which way it will go.

Here are some of my thoughts though:

1. No matter how much the committee states otherwise, I see this as stripping the power from presbyteries.

2. The EPC considers the issue of female eldership as a non-essential, but is moving in such a way that we are now defined by a non-essential. They are talking about redrawing Presbyterian borders in such a way that each complimentarian Presbyterian would be neighbored by an egalitarian. This proves that each individual Presbyterian is now defined by a non-essential.

3. Questions were raised on why this was one-way road and that a complimentarian church could not move to a differing Presbyterian if surrounded by egalitarians. The answer was that no one is forcing a complimentarian to take on a female elder, but complimentarians would be forcing egalitarians from not taking. I understand the concept in general, but it is still catering to the left. I can see where a strong egalitarian Presbyterian could deny someone like a Wayne Grudem who is openly and strongly opposed to female ordination. They would deny someone like him because they do not want to deal with it.

4. We are told that this is being done in order to not bind one's conscience on the issue. When someone pointed out that a Presbyterian would still have to vote to allow a church to move, and that if one's conscience was bound towards complimentarian they could still not vote to allow the church to move. The response from the committee was that if you are against a female elder in every situation then you are in the wrong denomination (this is just wrong. Someone might have joined the EPC for one of their other distinctives. Maybe someone has a more charismatic view of the gifts. That could be reason for being in the EPC). So in other word's the conscience of the egalitarian matters, but the conscience of the complimentarian doesn't.

5. I think this does lead to future problems. Paedocommunion is not an issue currently, but what if it became one in the future? History would show that we should allow for those who believe in paedocommunion the opportunity to serve in a Presbyterian that would accept a TE who practices such. Really where would the line be drawn? If our Essential of Faith is the only thing that we have to agree on, then a whole laundry list of things could ultimately divide the various presbyteries.

6. Several people mentioned that we are suppose to strive for unity among the brethren but this recommendation divides. The response from the committee was, "No it doesn't." No qualification was really given. I can't see why they would think that.

7. Doesn't the CRC allow female ordination (correct me if I am wrong please)? If so, then why not join them vs. rewriting the constitution?

8. They are suppose to present the final recommendation in the morning. They removed it at the last second to rewrite it. So this means that we will not even see it until the morning docket and then somehow expected to vote upon it within a few hours.


If I think of something else, I will add to it.
 
As an EPC member, I am particularly interested and concerned. I have spoken previously with our delegates to the GA but don't have a clear read on where they stand. I am praying that this motion will fail. Please do update as you are able.
 
This will be an ongoing problem for the EPC, in which I spent almost 17 years. I'm glad they are there to receive churches departing the PCUSA; but some ministers, elders, members and congregations might belong in the PCA or OPC. Any fix is short term at best.
 
Chaplainintraining said:
3. Questions were raised on why this was one-way road and that a complimentarian church could not move to a differing Presbyterian if surrounded by egalitarians. The answer was that no one is forcing a complimentarian to take on a female elder, but complimentarians would be forcing egalitarians from not taking. I understand the concept in general, but it is still catering to the left. I can see where a strong egalitarian Presbyterian could deny someone like a Wayne Grudem who is openly and strongly opposed to female ordination. They would deny someone like him because they do not want to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. I would note on your item #3 that a complimentarian pastor in an egalitarian presbytery is in a position of being forced, because he is subject to the discipline of the presbytery which includes women. So why can't his church leave if they don't want their pastor forced into such a situation? Or do EPC presbyteries not have that kind of authority over pastors?
 
Chaplainintraining said:
3. Questions were raised on why this was one-way road and that a complimentarian church could not move to a differing Presbyterian if surrounded by egalitarians. The answer was that no one is forcing a complimentarian to take on a female elder, but complimentarians would be forcing egalitarians from not taking. I understand the concept in general, but it is still catering to the left. I can see where a strong egalitarian Presbyterian could deny someone like a Wayne Grudem who is openly and strongly opposed to female ordination. They would deny someone like him because they do not want to deal with it.

4. We are told that this is being done in order to not bind one's conscience on the issue. When someone pointed out that a Presbyterian would still have to vote to allow a church to move, and that if one's conscience was bound towards complimentarian they could still not vote to allow the church to move. The response from the committee was that if you are against a female elder in every situation then you are in the wrong denomination (this is just wrong. Someone might have joined the EPC for one of their other distinctives. Maybe someone has a more charismatic view of the gifts. That could be reason for being in the EPC). So in other word's the conscience of the egalitarian matters, but the conscience of the complimentarian doesn't.
Click to expand...

There is a huge flaw in this thinking. If a church is in a Presbytery with women elders, it will have to de jure (not just de facto) submit to women elders in every action of Presbytery. It is this reason that makes me think that women deacons, while unbiblical and disturbing of the peace (in the PCA, for example) are not nearly as offensive as women elders.
 
I totally agree Fred.

Jack, you make a good point. The presbytery does have authority over the pastors and a pastor would have to submit authority to a female elder.
 
The process underscores the way in which this denomination was chartered- intentionally, to be "in the middle" meaning between confessional, biblical reformed and mainline, liberal and apostate.

Here's a quote from a Presbyterian Layman article covering this with quotes from within the EPC on this:
http://www.layman.org/news.aspx?article=27157


A miracle in the making:
Women as Teaching Elders in the EPC

By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2010


Dawson then added, “Hard-liners need not apply. We are going to be a different kind of denomination than the hard-lines followed by the PCUSA and the PCA.”
Click to expand...

The fundamental problem is that Scripture qualifies men to ecclesiastical authority in the church as an ordinary pattern. Many in the EPC know this, but have entered into a broadly evangelical charter, not a reformed, confessional one. And one that forces a very substantial undermine of historic presbyterian polity, and the doctrine underlying it.

One cannot know the future, but I would not be surprised if, over time, a substantial block of churches will make their way out and into the biblical, reformed denominations. I'm not even wishing that, only that is where this nonconfessional pattern leads for those who hold Scripture, and confession of it as matter of conscience. :)
 
Evangelical Presbyterian Church

BOOK OF GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 17
Amendment, Union and Limitations

....

§17-2 Amendments to the Book of Order, including its parts composed of the Book of Government,
the Book of Discipline, and the Book of Worship

A.91 After approval by the Assembly, in accordance with G.16-27B.2, the recommended
change shall be sent to the Presbyteries.
B. No changes may be made to the Book of Order including any of its parts composed of
the Book of Government, the Book of Discipline, and the Book of Worship that would
be contrary to the Confession of Faith and catechisms.
C.92 Approval by three-fourths of the Presbyteries is required.
D. Ratification by the subsequent General Assembly is required. If, however, by the
subsequent General Assembly, an insufficient number of Presbyteries has voted, the
Assembly shall urge those Presbyteries to vote. If by the second Assembly following
original enactment, an insufficient number of Presbyteries has given the amendment a
majority vote, it shall be declared lost.
Click to expand...

It appears constitutional changes require approval of 3/4 of the Presbyteries, and then majority vote at a subsequent General Assembly.

This EPC web site http://www.epc.org/presbytery/midwest-presbytery/ identifies 10 Presbyteries, including two "transitional" presbyteries. So, it would appear 8 Presbyteries would need to concur, if the "transitional" presbyteries are reported in the same way, and with typical rounding convention.

I suspect there will be some spirited discussion about this in the presbyteries where there are majorities opposed to this.
 
man someone moved fast. It is true that everything passed. It is also true that it now has to be approved by 3/4 of the presbyteries. Honestly I have no clue how many presbyteries would vote it down. The voting seemed pretty one sided today.

I did find some background information today that made me scratch my head over the whole thing. We were told that one presbytery had been in civil war over this issue for the past two plus years. The truth of the matter though is that a female came before presbytery to be accepted. The vote was tied. Heated discussion followed for a while, but the female became pregnant and decided it was best to take care of her newborn vs. take on a new pastorate at this time. So the issue is no longer pressing in any presbytery and has not been pressing for some time. In other words, there is no real reason to be rewriting our constitution because of something that does not even apply right now.

Secondly, we had a final resolution today that appointed a commission to see about dividing the civil war presbytery into two geographical presbyteries. The EPC has been looking at redrawing presbyteries due to the increase in churches over the last few years anyway, so this commission passed pretty easily (in fact my associate pastor was the only "no" vote). So with this presbytery being divided the previous problem fixed itself if another female ever came up. So again, why rewrite the constitution if the resolution fixed the problem anyway?

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

I would also add that the passing of this will strengthen my presbytery on the issue. Several are planning on making a proposal to position ourselves that we will not allow for female TE and that only a super majority could overrule this position. Many have wanted to do this for awhile, but some although they agreed with the position were not willing to make it the position of the presbytery becasue they did not want to force a church to stay in the PCUSA. That excuse is no longer available. They could still join the EPC, but just go to some other presbytery.

---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------
The fundamental problem is that Scripture qualifies men to ecclesiastical authority in the church as an ordinary pattern. Many in the EPC know this, but have entered into a broadly evangelical charter, not a reformed, confessional one. And one that forces a very substantial undermine of historic presbyterian polity, and the doctrine underlying it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I heard several arguments for the recommendations that were based upon unity and loving our brethren. I heard someone say that they could not in good conscience deny the calling of God that He placed on a female. That is nuts. Just because a woman wants to be a pastor does not mean she has the call of God to be one.

I do not know about people leaving yet. Could it happen in the future? Sure. It just depends on where the EPC goes from here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard someone say that they could not in good conscience deny the calling of God that He placed on a female. That is nuts. Just because a woman wants to be a pastor does not mean she has the call of God to be one.
Click to expand...
Of course it's nuts. God would be contradicting Himself to call a woman to the pastorate. Proponents of pastoresses blind themselves to the fact that their position portrays God as incoherent and the truth of scripture invalid. What would be the point of calling oneself christian if your beliefs render the entire faith contradictory and illogical?
 
Chaplainintraining said:
I did find some background information today that made me scratch my head over the whole thing. We were told that one presbytery had been in civil war over this issue for the past two plus years. The truth of the matter though is that a female came before presbytery to be accepted. The vote was tied. Heated discussion followed for a while, but the female became pregnant and decided it was best to take care of her newborn vs. take on a new pastorate at this time.
Click to expand...


:( :scratch::flamingscot:
 
After reading my post again, I want to clarify that I am not saying the female became pregnant out of wedlock. I am just saying she was pregnant.
 
Chaplainintraining said:
2. The EPC considers the issue of female eldership as a non-essential, but is moving in such a way that we are now defined by a non-essential. They are talking about redrawing Presbyterian borders in such a way that each complimentarian Presbyterian would be neighbored by an egalitarian. This proves that each individual Presbyterian is now defined by a non-essential.
Click to expand...

Is a presbytery allowed to change its spots on the female question? Or is it their view that "once egalitarian always egalitarian?"
 
No presbytery is not bound one way or another. The way the recommendations go a church could petition to move to another presbytery. The current and future presbytery would have to vote to approve it. So you could have an egalitarian Presbyterian who reforms and rejects this view in the future.
 
Chaplainintraining said:
So in other word's the conscience of the egalitarian matters, but the conscience of the complimentarian doesn't.
Click to expand...
This is what always happens. If a denomination allows both conservative and liberal positions on anything, the toleration of the liberal position/practice is usually against the conscience of the conservatives. And historically speaking, the toleration of a liberal position/practice is a precedent, which leads to the eventual apostacy of the denomination, regardless of the presence or influence of the conservatives.
 
Kaalvenist said:
Chaplainintraining said:
So in other word's the conscience of the egalitarian matters, but the conscience of the complimentarian doesn't.
Click to expand...
This is what always happens. If a denomination allows both conservative and liberal positions on anything, the toleration of the liberal position/practice is usually against the conscience of the conservatives. And historically speaking, the toleration of a liberal position/practice is a precedent, which leads to the eventual apostacy of the denomination, regardless of the presence or influence of the conservatives.
Click to expand...

Yes.

As I understand the basic issue here, the denomination has classified many broad doctrines as "nonessentials" which means there can be no unified confession or accountability for doctrine in those areas.

According to the EPC website, Evangelical Presbyterian Church > About the EPC "nonessentials" include women's ordination and "practicing charismatic gifts."

We know of course, there are a whole host of reformed biblical doctrines tied up in those areas as well as others that are expressly or impliedly nonessential. E.g. Women exercising ecclesiastic authority over men, is a woman officer candidate husband examined per I Timothy 3 to qualify the woman. Does "practicing charismatic gifts" mean that new revelation of God equal to that of Scripture ordinary comes outside of Scripture?

One wonders if the founders have given serious, careful biblical consideration of Scripture on these points. Declaring that they are not important enough to contend for belies misunderstanding at best of the authoritative revelation of God for His People, at best. :)

Practically, it tends toward disunity, not the unity that is bedrock of reformed churches.

Another tendency refusing to resolve key doctrines like this is to bring all doctrine to the "lowest common denominator" which gives, at best, a shallow basis of unity, and less likely maturing God's people toward the hard (to fallen human nature) truths and deeper mysteries that produce faithful perseverance in the Christian life.

With regard to teaching elders, since they are ordained by and members of their Presbytery (rather than their local church)- they have left whether to ordain women to that position to individual presbyteries, as part of their examination and qualification generally. Presbytery ordains teaching elders.

With regard to ruling elders and deacons, those same qualifications are left to individual churches.

Because there is no confessional basis for doctrine or polity in the charter of this denomination, each presbytery and local church broadly determines key doctrine. My understanding is there is NO constitutional requirement for a presbytery to ordain a woman teaching elder.

My impression is, but not entirely sure, is that there is NO constitutional requirement for particular churches to ordain women as ruling elders or deacons, either.

But, by having no constitutional authority, and declaring this "nonessential" doctrine, in effect, no local church or presbytery could be prevented from ordaining women to ecclesiastical authority over men if a majority there wished to do so.
 
EPC Women's Issue

For what it's worth, I know of several churches that are leaving or are strongly considering leaving the EPC for the PCA. But also, let me note that the most pressing issue seems to be the fact that some of the Presbyteries of the EPC have serious Confessional problems that go much further than the women's ordination issue. That is, the people I know who are leaving or considering it aren't leaving over women's ordination, but rather over subscription to the Confession and Catechisms.

Examples pertinent to this thread:
-There ARE TEs who have been ordained or transferred in who are Baptists when it comes to Baptism. I.e., they refuse to baptize infants, or at least would never recommend it & have refused to baptize their own children.

-Some of these candidates for ordination or transfer have refused to state exceptions/scruples to the WCF, WLC, & WSC in regard to this, and their Presbyteries haven't pressed the issue, but have let them in (w/ their stated Baptist theology) without stating exceptions.

-I have seen: Amyraldians ("4-pointers"), unselfconscious Dispensationalists, and people who have stated that "Wesley and Calvin are in essential agreement in regard to soteriology and sanctification" ordained or transferred.

-Some Presbyteries have adopted what have been called "gag rules" regarding women's ordination. That is, complementarian TEs & REs are prohibited from pressing egalitarians on their hermeneutical views in regard to women's ordination. The stated reason is to avoid long-running conflict when a Presbytery's voting pattern is clearly egalitarian. Major problem: most justifications for egalitarianism are near the top of the slippery slope that leads to theological liberalism.

-I know of TEs currently looking for a call who have been repeatedly refused for consideration b/c they are complementarian. That's fine, since complementarians would refuse to consider egalitarians in many cases, but the real problem is that this reveals that a growing number, perhaps verging on a majority, of churches are now egalitarian.

The major problem in the EPC, in my estimation, is one of Confessional subscription & unity. In 2001 the more Confessional wing thought that they'd established the EPC as a strict subscription denomination (see "Acts of the Assembly, 2001"). But there is a a high degree of "wink-wink, nudge, nudge" when it comes to enforcing subscription. The ethos of the EPC was supposed to be one of strict subscription applied in a "New School" pattern, but when those enforcing subscription are not Confessional themselves... well, it doesn't work so well.

Final comment: I have seen a number of quotations of the Wikipedia article on the EPC, with questions raised regarding its provenance & clarity. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to reply, as I wrote that Wikipedia article while serving as Clerk of the Ministerial Committee of one of our Presbyteries.

Shalom y'all.
 
Hello Austin,

Please add a signature per board rules. Also are you in the EPC right now? If so I would like more specifics on the issue. The EPC grew by over 100 churches in the last four years with many more on their way, so although what you say may in fact be true (I am not calling you out for lying by any means) I do question how widespread these situations are in the EPC.
 
Hey,

Sorry. I am Austin Olive, a minister in the Midwest Presbytery of the EPC. So I am currently in the EPC. I am a graduate of RTS, Jackson (2001) and previously served in the Central South Presbytery as Clerk of the Ministerial Committee (2003-2007) and as a member of the Presbytery of the West (2001-2003). Right now I live in Tucson, AZ while I take a much-needed break from parish ministry.

Boliver: what kinds of additional information would you like? I am happy to share my reflections.

Shalom,

Rev'd Austin Olive
Midwest Presbytery (EPC)
Tucson, AZ
 
Glenn: to the best of my knowledge the Presbyteries that are officially complementarian are Florida & Central South. Southeast may be also. If Mid-America were divided as has been proposed, then the rump Mid-America (Missouri etc) would also be complementarian. The ones that are officially "open" to female TEs are West, East, & Midwest. And also the New Wineskins/Transitional Presbytery, of course. The rest have yet to state a position as far as I know, but I am under the impression that MidAtlantic has the "gag rule" in place, which would make it technically "open" to female TEs.

Of course, as the issue increases in intensity with incoming female TEs from the PCUSA and the female seminarians that they will in all likelihood be bringing, this issue will be re-assessed by the male-only Presbyteries.

Bear in mind that due to the EPC's "separation of powers" in regard to those courts of the church which ordain, the session of every church is able to ordain & install elders and deacons of their choice, including women. It is only the Presbyteries which have the authority to rule on Teaching Elders.

Does that help?

Shalom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Austin
  • Locked
EPC, Women's Ordination, & Confessionalism
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Notthemama1984
Notthemama1984
Pilgrim Pastor
  • Locked
Epc?
Replies
20
Views
5K
Marrow Man
Marrow Man
Scott1
  • Locked
Pcusa sues epc
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
raekwon
raekwon
fredtgreco
  • Locked
Christ EPC in Houston votes to leave EPC
Replies
3
Views
2K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
S
The Ordination of Women, the Marks of the True Church, and Validity of Ordinations
Replies
16
Views
731
joebonni63
joebonni63
Back
Top