bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) (08/06/90)
Quick tests beg for exceptions :-)
In article <Jul.24.04.42.12.1990.17387@athos.rutgers.edu> Our Esteemed Moderator writes:
[...One reasonable test is whether a denomination ordains women.
Strict believers in inerrancy generally do not accept that. In
principle one could accept inerrancy, but still come up with
arguments for ordination of women, based on differences in the
social environment now and in the 1st Cent. But I don't know
anyone who believes in inerrancy and accepts such arguments. So in
practice ordination of women is a fairly good quick test. --clh]
Our fellowship (Xenos, a house church movement in Columbus and a few
other cities) includes a lot of people, including both genders of
leaders, who hold to various degrees of inerrancy. We don't ordain
women simply because we don't "ordain" anyone, being instead entirely
lay-led (which renders moot any attempt at a clergy/laity distinction,
so "lay-led" is a misnomer for us anyway). Yes, we have elders and
deacons, but they aren't regarded as clergy.
Regarding your second sentence: Lots of folks accept inerrancy, "come
up with arguments" against ordination and clergy in general, observe
women in the same positions of significant spiritual responsibility as
those occupied by men, and see in the 1st Century record both cross-
cultural principles and in-cultural examples to support the practice.
So, after all that, I can't tell whether Our Moderator and I agree or
disagree, but at least he now knows of someone :-)