Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Inerrancy ?vs? ordination of women Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 90 23:47:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 27 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Quick tests beg for exceptions :-) In article 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 :-)