Does female ordination go against the core values of Christianity?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No (Christian)

I will never attend a church that does not do it.

[Skill and Chance]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not the case eo ipso, but it can cross that line if the case for female ordination grounds itself in modern ideas concerning gender and gender roles, since the unchangeability of the faith is itself a core Christian value and it follows that that faith shouldn't be subject to later developments in social philosophy.

     I am thinking in particular of a clip I saw of Bryan Wolfmueller, an LCMS pastor, who was discerning the ELCA and asked a female priest there about 1 Tim. 2:12. Her response was that that passage didn't carry doctrinal weight because it was sexist. That response confirmed for him that he could not be in the ELCA, and I would say justifiably so; such disrespect for the revealed word of God is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

[Skill and Chance]

     Not the case eo ipso, but it can cross that line if the case for female ordination grounds itself in modern ideas concerning gender and gender roles, since the unchangeability of the faith is itself a core Christian value and it follows that that faith shouldn't be subject to later developments in social philosophy.

     I am thinking in particular of a clip I saw of Bryan Wolfmueller, an LCMS pastor, who was discerning the ELCA and asked a female priest there about 1 Tim. 2:12. Her response was that that passage didn't carry doctrinal weight because it was sexist. That response confirmed for him that he could not be in the ELCA, and I would say justifiably so; such disrespect for the revealed word of God is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

I agree that’s a very poor defense of it.  The Bible and basically all pre-20th century church tradition clearly comes down against men and women being identical and interchangeable.  However, it also strikes me that  many churches also drifted more patriarchal than originally intended over time (i.e. almost surely those that don’t or didn’t allow deaconesses).  It can be appropriate to point that out, too. Early Christianity was pretty clearly more in favor of gender equality than the pagan societies it was converting (indeed, the early power base was educated women), just not gender interchangeability.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not the case eo ipso, but it can cross that line if the case for female ordination grounds itself in modern ideas concerning gender and gender roles, since the unchangeability of the faith is itself a core Christian value and it follows that that faith shouldn't be subject to later developments in social philosophy.

     I am thinking in particular of a clip I saw of Bryan Wolfmueller, an LCMS pastor, who was discerning the ELCA and asked a female priest there about 1 Tim. 2:12. Her response was that that passage didn't carry doctrinal weight because it was sexist. That response confirmed for him that he could not be in the ELCA, and I would say justifiably so; such disrespect for the revealed word of God is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

I agree that’s a very poor defense of it.  The Bible and basically all pre-20th century church tradition clearly comes down against men and women being identical and interchangeable.  However, it also strikes me that  many churches also drifted more patriarchal than originally intended over time (i.e. almost surely those that don’t or didn’t allow deaconesses).  It can be appropriate to point that out, too. Early Christianity was pretty clearly more in favor of gender equality than the pagan societies it was converting (indeed, the early power base was educated women), just not gender interchangeability.

     What's interesting about deaconesses is that in the Orthodox tradition they are a nonliturgical role that is dedicated to working with women, and naturally were phased out as the stigma against men working with women broke down. If it seems odd, consider that diakonos/diakonissa originally meant "servant" in Greek. Now the history is fragmented enough that I cannot per se prove to you that this is the original sense in which deaconesses were spoken of, but we would not accept the notion that we drifted patriarchal, but rather we would say that deaconesses fulfilled a specific function that ceased to be necessary. Interestingly we recently reintroduced deaconesses in Africa, because there the Orthodox do work with some heavily patriarchal societies wherein social pressures against men working with women make their service important.

[Aurelius2]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

I'd never heard of this "sparkle creed" so I looked it up.

“I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God.

“I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.

“I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative, and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder.

“I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved, let us love.

“I believe, glorious God. Help my unbelief.

“Amen.”

Even as a non-Christian, and one who is gay on top of that, this is one of the most revolting pieces of blasphemy I've seen in a long time. Lord help these people.

I'm currently synagogue hunting and I've had to keep my eyes peeled for nonsense like this, because it really has conquered a frightening number of Jewish congregations too.

[RINO Tom]

Non-Christians: 50% No
Christians: 90% No

Lmao.  It's funny how atheists and fundamentalists always make strange bedfellows when it comes to interpreting Scripture with an utter lack of nuance or open-minded thinking.  They have opposite reasons for pushing such a simplistic reading of Christianity, but they ironically both prefer the same cultural paradigm.

[jojoju1998]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

[Skill and Chance]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

     Let me pose it to you this way: why would openness to non-literal readings of Scripture require openness to female ordination? Since the Orthodox do not accept doctrinal development as a concept, this would have to be the crux of the matter here.

[jojoju1998]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church according to the Second Vatican Council does not give lay people, men or women lower status simply because they are not ordained.

The Universal Call to Holiness concept, which was introduced by the Opus Dei Movement and other new movements, I think has shifted a bit the understanding of the ordained priesthood in the Catholic tradition.

That you don't need to be an ordainted minister to be holy, to have roles of responsbilities in the church.

[jojoju1998]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

     Let me pose it to you this way: why would openness to non-literal readings of Scripture require openness to female ordination? Since the Orthodox do not accept doctrinal development as a concept, this would have to be the crux of the matter here.

It seems to me that in the Anglo West,

Christianity is mostly protestant so the understnading of male vs. female ordination, rests on sola scriptura, a fundamental tenet of Protestantism.

For Catholics and Orhtodox Christians however, Sola Scripture is well.... not a thing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

     Let me pose it to you this way: why would openness to non-literal readings of Scripture require openness to female ordination? Since the Orthodox do not accept doctrinal development as a concept, this would have to be the crux of the matter here.

It seems to me that in the Anglo West,

Christianity is mostly protestant so the understnading of male vs. female ordination, rests on sola scriptura, a fundamental tenet of Protestantism.

For Catholics and Orhtodox Christians however, Sola Scripture is well.... not a thing.

     Sure, and I shouldn't go around trying to start arguments. It irks me a bit that people who know very little about Orthodox belief and practice nevertheless speak quite confidently about it. Orthodox and Catholics have rather sophisticated theological justifications for not endorsing female ordination, but people don't consider that our perspectives might be rather different from a Protestant one.

[LabourJersey]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

I'd never heard of this "sparkle creed" so I looked it up.

“I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God.

“I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.

“I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative, and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder.

“I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved, let us love.

“I believe, glorious God. Help my unbelief.

“Amen.”

Even as a non-Christian, and one who is gay on top of that, this is one of the most revolting pieces of blasphemy I've seen in a long time. Lord help these people.

I'm currently synagogue hunting and I've had to keep my eyes peeled for nonsense like this, because it really has conquered a frightening number of Jewish congregations too.

I'm fairly well versed in liberal/progressive Christianity (even though I don't belong to a progressive parish) and have genuinely never heard of this creed. It's bad, obviously, but like a lot of "Woke Christian" viral things, it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of Christians, even liberal Christians, don't know or like that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

I'd never heard of this "sparkle creed" so I looked it up.

“I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God.

“I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.

“I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative, and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder.

“I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved, let us love.

“I believe, glorious God. Help my unbelief.

“Amen.”

Even as a non-Christian, and one who is gay on top of that, this is one of the most revolting pieces of blasphemy I've seen in a long time. Lord help these people.

I'm currently synagogue hunting and I've had to keep my eyes peeled for nonsense like this, because it really has conquered a frightening number of Jewish congregations too.

So this is the first time that I, Mr. Hipster Christian has ever heard of this "creed".

I've noticed there's a bit of a strawman that conservative Christians have constructed on progressive Christianity, like that all progressive churches are places full of rainbows everywhere and drag shows and that promote quasi-Unitarian or Spong-like theology. While there actually are a few churches like that, they're not particularly common or representative of progressive churches at all. The sort of message you'll hear in a progressive church is recognizable as not like a conservative one due to being less rigid (and obviously different from a fundamentalist one due to lack of fire and brimstone), but it's rarely ever about "support this liberal cause" at least with that as the core message, I'd say at least 90% of the sermons and messages delivered at what I've attended were hardly political at all.

[jojoju1998]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

I'd never heard of this "sparkle creed" so I looked it up.

“I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God.

“I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.

“I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative, and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder.

“I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved, let us love.

“I believe, glorious God. Help my unbelief.

“Amen.”

Even as a non-Christian, and one who is gay on top of that, this is one of the most revolting pieces of blasphemy I've seen in a long time. Lord help these people.

I'm currently synagogue hunting and I've had to keep my eyes peeled for nonsense like this, because it really has conquered a frightening number of Jewish congregations too.

So this is the first time that I, Mr. Hipster Christian has ever heard of this "creed".

I've noticed there's a bit of a strawman that conservative Christians have constructed on progressive Christianity, like that all progressive churches are places full of rainbows everywhere and drag shows and that promote quasi-Unitarian or Spong-like theology. While there actually are a few churches like that, they're not particularly common or representative of progressive churches at all. The sort of message you'll hear in a progressive church is recognizable as not like a conservative one due to being less rigid (and obviously different from a fundamentalist one due to lack of fire and brimstone), but it's rarely ever about "support this liberal cause" at least with that as the core message, I'd say at least 90% of the sermons and messages delivered at what I've attended were hardly political at all.

Likewise, the Conservative denominations barely mention politics as well.

Strawman goes both ways.

[dead0man]

depends on what your "core values of Christianity" are doesn't it?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Personally, I don't see a problem with it, but this is an issue where I trust the leadership of my church and don't ask questions. My current church allows it.