There are almost no UCC members active in CF. As a member of a denomination in full communion with the UCC, I sometimes post here to represent their views. (In fact of all forums in CF, the UCC is the closest to my own denomination in belief and practice.)
The UCC was the first major denomination in the US to ordain women, and is one of the most vocal supporters of that today.
I was unable to find an official statement giving the reason the UCC ordains women. However I can be reasonably confident about the approach taken by most members.
Posting 35, http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-women-preach.7615047/page-2#post-66453055, does a good job justifying women’s full participation from a traditional Biblical point of view. In addition to the treatment of 1 Tim 2 there, it’s also possible that this passage was concerned with wives having authority over their husbands. (Recall that the Greek is the same for both.) That would make more sense of the reference to Adam and Eve, and would be consistent with the approach in the undisputed Pauline letters.
However the article quoted in that posting comes from a magazine that asserts Biblical inerrancy. The UCC doesn’t accept inerrancy. While it accepts Scripture as a witness to God’s activity, and in particular to Christ, most members believe that the authors also reflect their own culture. Hence many UCC members would regard 1 Tim 2:8 ff as reflecting attitudes among Christians in the next generation after Paul, but that it is not binding on Christians today. Unlike posting 35, which treats the author as Paul, most UCC members would accept the scholarship suggesting that it was written in Paul’s name by a Christian in the next generation.
The UCC was the first major denomination in the US to ordain women, and is one of the most vocal supporters of that today.
I was unable to find an official statement giving the reason the UCC ordains women. However I can be reasonably confident about the approach taken by most members.
Posting 35, http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-women-preach.7615047/page-2#post-66453055, does a good job justifying women’s full participation from a traditional Biblical point of view. In addition to the treatment of 1 Tim 2 there, it’s also possible that this passage was concerned with wives having authority over their husbands. (Recall that the Greek is the same for both.) That would make more sense of the reference to Adam and Eve, and would be consistent with the approach in the undisputed Pauline letters.
However the article quoted in that posting comes from a magazine that asserts Biblical inerrancy. The UCC doesn’t accept inerrancy. While it accepts Scripture as a witness to God’s activity, and in particular to Christ, most members believe that the authors also reflect their own culture. Hence many UCC members would regard 1 Tim 2:8 ff as reflecting attitudes among Christians in the next generation after Paul, but that it is not binding on Christians today. Unlike posting 35, which treats the author as Paul, most UCC members would accept the scholarship suggesting that it was written in Paul’s name by a Christian in the next generation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
