Fw: Re: Another query to George and comments to Janice

Gordon notes that: "I Timothy 3 gives a list of qualifications for
leadership positions in churches. It seems obvious from this list that
there indeed are two
classes of members: those that can be ordained and those that cannot."

A reasonable observation, Gordon. The question then becomes, do we take
these words literally? For instance, they are clearly written only to
males. Verse 2: " 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband
of but one wife, ... ." Likewise, verse 12: "A deacon must be the husband
of but one wife ... ."

In the PCUSA, as well as in many denominations, the battle was fought
many years ago as to whether women, as well as men, could serve in the
church -- first the debate was only about deacons, then elders, and
finally, women were recognized as being eligible for the office of
minister of the Word and Sacrament. I think this last came about only 25
or so years ago in the PCUSA. Of course, there are still some
fundamentalist groups that marginalize the female sex, based on a "that's
what it says and that's what it means" reading of the above. I sometimes
wonder if they will ordain a bachelor or a widower or one who marries a
second wife after the first one dies!

Today the debate continues -- much on the same ground. The arguments are
similar.

But your point is that "there indeed are two classes of members: those
that can be ordained and those that cannot." Which is true, but there is
no class of person that cannot qualify by becoming more Christlike. And
that, perhaps, is my point.

Cheers

Burgy

(Sometimes wrong; never in doubt)
Received on Mon Jun 12 10:20:53 2006