Presbyterians enforced ordination law when it applied to women By John H. Adams The Layman Online Wednesday, January 7, 2004 The Presbyterian Church (USA) has been far less tolerant of ministers who expressed their Biblical reasons for opposing the ordination of women than it is toward those today who actually defy church law by ordaining practicing homosexuals. In fact, a number of ministers were forced out of the denomination – or denied calls to congregations – because they dared to state their opposition to the ordination of women, even though they found some basis for their dissent in Scripture. Even so, there's no hue and cry against women's ordination in the denomination, but there is dissonance. Most Presbyterians, including evangelicals, have accepted the arguments in favor of ordaining women and have welcomed women in leadership positions. But many also see a double standard in the way church law is enforced – with strict enforcement of women's ordination and virtually no enforcement of the constitutional prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals. Not a single presbytery or session has been disciplined for growing defiance of the constitutional prohibition. That double standard was cited by Bethany Collegiate Presbyterian Church's session in its Jan. 6 overture to the Presbytery of Philadelphia. The overture made brief mention of a historic church court case known as Maxwell v. the Presbytery of Pittsburgh. The case is noteworthy inasmuch as it did lead to strict enforcement, both in the Northern mainline denomination and later in the Presbyterian Church (USA), which was formed in 1983 through the reunion of the Northern and Southern branches of the church. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the United Presbyterian Church (USA), the Northern denomination, in a 1974 ruling invalidated the ordination of a minister who merely expressed his disagreement with the ordination of women but also said he would serve alongside women who were ordained. After the Pittsburgh Presbytery approved the ordination of Walter Kenyon, Jack Martin Maxwell, another minister, filed a complaint contending that the presbytery had erred. Maxwell accused Kenyon of violating his ordination vows by expressing a dissenting opinion. Because the court ordered a stay of installation while his case was being tried, Kenyon was never ordained. A transcript of that case shows that Kenyon's opposition to the ordination of women would not have included any unlawful acts, as are occurring now in the PCUSA among those who oppose the prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals. In fact, he said he would have allowed ordinations even if he disagreed with them, but would not have personally been involved in them. Here are some excerpts from that transcript: Question: "Would you ordain women who were elected to the Session of the church?" Kenyon: "No." Question: "Do you know that the church is wrong in ordaining women?" Kenyon: "I would just simply cite the 1 Corinthians 14 passage. And 1 Timothy 2:12 says, 'Let not a woman usurp authority nor teach.' And I feel that 'teach' there – the word didaskein – is used in the Greek in the pastoral letters as authoritative ordained preaching, and I feel that a woman is not allowed to be an ordained preacher, to usurp authority in the church, and that's what the Scriptures teach." Question: "Supposing you were ordained, and you were called and installed as a minister of one of our congregations. Your nominating committee presented the name of a lady for elder. Would you be willing to call another minister then to ordain her?" Kenyon: "Yes. The question was raised earlier, would I stop them from this? I don't think I have the power. I think I would be overstepping my bounds if I tried. But I would definitely let the nominating committee know why I believe the way I do and try to show them what's at stake and then it would be their decision. If they voted for a woman, then I would … have another minister do the ordination." Question: "… if they went ahead and did it, then you would call someone else to perform the ordination service?" Kenyon: "Or presbytery could send somebody in – yes." Question: "So the first point of your teaching would be to them that it is wrong and it is contrary to the Word even though it happens to be in harmony with our church government?" Kenyon: "Yes." Question: "If the candidate does not believe that women should teach …, how would he staff his church school? Kenyon: "My answer would be – I don't think the Presbyterian Church has ever accepted a pragmatic view of truth. I don't think we can base truth on what is pragmatic, what works. And so if the Scriptures were to teach that women should not teach, period, and then I couldn't get Sunday school teachers, I don't think that would give me a way or a reason for breaking what the Scriptures say." The outcome of the case was that the court concluded that Kenyon could not be be ordained because he expressed his views. There never was an issue over whether he would openly defy church law. Today's situation, as the Bethany Collegiate Presbyterian Church's overture says, is just the opposite. No one is being disciplined for expressing views in favor of ordaining homosexuals or actually doing it in violation of the PCUSA's constitution. And there is an irony. Liberals led the applause when Kenyon was denied ordination. Today, they applaud acts of defiance that go far beyond what Kenyon ever did.

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links