At least 40 evangelical Presbyterian churches are expected to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) next month out of the leftward-leaning Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), but the more conservative group of PCUSA churches continues to affirm the ordination of women.

The latest exodus from the PCUSA comes from a renewal group composed of 153 evangelical Presbyterian churches known as the New Wineskins Association of Churches.

At its February meeting on Orlando, New Wineskins voted unanimously to ask the EPC to create a transitional, non-geographic presbytery for congregations leaving the PCUSA. The EPC will vote on the proposal during its general assembly in June.

The PCUSA has bled conservative evangelicals profusely from its ranks in recent years—including New Wineskins which began in July of 2006—with many vowing to leave in the wake of the mainline denomination’s general assembly last June. During that meeting, the PCUSA approved a task force leaving open the possibility of ordaining gays and lesbians. The assembly also approved a paper that offered "culturally correct" language such as "Mother, Child and Womb" for describing the Trinity.

But, while New Wineskins churches are seeking shelter from the PCUSA’s liberal avalanche, the association remains committed to women’s ordination, arguing that the position is "in full accord with Scripture and the Reformed tradition."

In a Q&A on the New Wineskins website, the association is unambiguous about its position on gender roles in the local church. In response to the question, "Are you compromising the affirmation of the gifts of leadership of women in ordained ministry in any way," the association replies:

"One of the most unfortunate misconceptions about our work is on the issue of women’s ordination and leadership. There is much that is being said of our effort that is simply not true. The New Wineskins’ essentials and constitution make clear that God calls women and men into all forms of ministry. The same standards of leadership development and opportunities for service apply to all ministers within the New Wineskins Association regardless of gender. We have been clear on this from our beginning and will not change our position on this issue. We believe this to be fully in accord with Scripture and the Reformed tradition. Our work with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church does not change either our theology or practice of fully affirming the gifts of women to all forms of service in all of our member congregations."

The EPC, a small denomination composed of 185 churches and around 70,000 members, leaves the ordination of women up to the individual congregation.

According to a recent Christianity Today (CT) article, the EPC includes two women who serve as pastors, with one set to retire soon. The EPC’s position is decidedly open to the ordination of women, stating:

"While some churches may ordain women and some may decline to do so, neither position is essential to the existence of the church. Since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as elders and deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as ministers."

According to the CT article, the EPC’s lack of a full and clear embrace of female ordination could be a contentious point in the proposed transition of New Wineskins congregations. At the New Wineskins meeting in February, female pastors from the PCUSA pleaded with the organization’s leadership to make sure they will have a place to serve, CT reported. At least one EPC presbytery has said it will not ordain women.

A report titled "The Mystery of Gender" seeks to answer the question: "Aside from the obvious, what make us male or female?" The multi-author piece proceeds to downplay biological differences between men and women and, through the use of numerous real-life illustrations, sound bites and statistics from feminist sociologists and allusions to science, touts with a positive spin the increasing number of people who identify themselves as "transgendered" and its significance for gender identity.

The overwhelmingly positive, almost sermonic tone of the article debunks self-evident truths about human sexuality and proclaims a single theme: the traditional idea that gender identity is a biological absolute is out, gender self-determination is in. The sub-headline which adorns the cover is thesis-like: "The new visibility of transgender America is shedding light on the ancient riddle of identity."

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the article is its subtle insistence on the normalcy of "transgender children;" that is, children whose parents have allowed them to change gender identities because the tykes were dissatisfied with their original biological makeup.

The article illustrates its point with the infinitely troubling narrative of six-year-old kindergartner now named "Jona" Rose: "Rose, from northern California, seems like a girl in nearly every way—she wears dresses, loves pink and purple, and bestowed female names on all her stuffed animals. But "Jona," who was born "Jonah," also has a penis."

The writers tell how "Jona" convinced "her" mom to buy "her" a dress at age four and was "so excited she nearly hyperventilated." "Jona" apparently began wearing dresses to preschool every day at age four and "no one seemed to mind," the article points out.

The narrative continues, "They chose a private kindergarten where Jona wouldn’t have to hide the fact that he was born a boy, but could comfortably dress like a girl and even use the girls’ bathroom," the article says, quoting the child’s father, Joel, as saying "She’s been pretty adamant from the get-go: ‘I’m a girl.’"

In a bewildering exercise of pronoun calisthenics, writers chronicle the story of another child who was born female, but insisted—at 30 months of age—that she be called "him." A therapist later "confirmed the (parents’) instincts to let [their child] guide them" in determining whether the youngster would continue to exist as a male or female. The child’s mother, Colleen Vicente, said, "The most important this is to realize who your child is."

Predictably, Newsweek gives short shrift to traditional views of gender and marginalizes biblical arguments for gender identity by, in one brief paragraph, telling of the struggle of a Florida man who underwent a sex-change operation to become a woman and was opposed by a local Baptist minister. The authors briefly quote the minister—second hand—as saying "Jesus would want him terminated."

Authors offset what they obviously see as a narrow-minded Baptist minister with a longer vignette about a 56-year-old Baptist pastor who underwent a "gender reassignment" procedure in 2003. His wife of 33 years has remained with him and the minister—formerly John, now "Julie"—said, "Actively expressing the feminine in me has helped me grow closer to God."

Accompanying the article is a timeline marking a "history of transgender awareness," and the piece itself asserts that "transgendered reality" is really nothing new.

View Newsweek article.

Congress has initiated a renewed attempt to expand hate crimes protections to homosexuals and transgendered individuals, and opponents have mounted a counter effort they realize will be difficult to sustain on Capitol Hill.

Bills to expand the categories protected under hate crimes laws to include homosexuality and other sexual identities have been introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives. A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the issue April 17, and a full committee vote is expected soon, reportedly during the week of April 23-27.

While the current hate crimes law protects traits such as race, religion and national origin, the new legislation would grant protection based on lifestyle, say foes of the measure. They also say it would move federal law toward punishing thoughts and beliefs, since the motivation of a person charged with a hate crime would have to be evaluated.

Pro-family organizations, including the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, already have been working to rally opposition to the measures. Exodus International, a ministry that seeks to help people out of homosexuality through the Gospel of Jesus, had about 50 people joining others April 17-18 to explain to Senate and House members and their staffs their opposition.

For Exodus President Alan Chambers, it is a matter of justice.

"[R]eally what we're saying is this legislation is unfair, because it means that I was more valuable as a homosexual than I am today as a former homosexual," Chambers told reporters before he began visiting on Capitol Hill April 17. "You know, this law would give special protection to those who are gay and lesbian, yet it doesn't give any protection to those who are children. That's saying that a gay man is more valuable than a child, is more valuable than a grandmother, is more valuable than the majority of Americans. That's just not fair."

The bill is "primarily being pushed by those in the homosexual activist community, really as a reinforcement that homosexuality is valid, that they need protection, and that's just not the case," said Chambers, who left homosexuality 15 years ago and has been married for more than nine years. "[Homosexuals are] protected as much as I am protected under the Fourteenth Amendment."

The House bill is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R 1592. Rep. John Conyers, D.-Mich., has 137 cosponsors for his bill. The Senate version, S. 1105, has the same title, except the name of Matthew Shepard has been attached to it. Shepard was the young homosexual who was beaten and left for dead tied to a fence in Wyoming in 1998. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D.-Mass., has 42 cosponsors for his proposal.

The House and Senate both have passed versions in separate sessions in the past, but they have yet to agree on a measure to send to the White House. It appears there are enough votes to gain passage in this Congress, especially since Democrats control both houses. The only apparent hope for preventing the legislation from becoming law is a veto by President Bush.

Opponents of new hate crimes legislation do not have a veto commitment from Bush yet, but they are seeking one, Chambers said.

Chambers said even some friends of Exodus in Congress are having a difficult time voting against the measure.

"They don't want to make it sound like they are voting for violence," he said.

"The tide is against us," Chambers said. "I believe that this is a great opportunity for us to share the truth ... about freedom, the truth about this bill and really to reinforce the fact that hate crimes legislation is unnecessary -- for one reason, the FBI uniform crime report has shown that bias-motivated crimes are on the decrease. Crimes against those who are gay, or who are perceived to be gay, have decreased over the last several years. So it seems like in a free and tolerant society where Americans are beginning to learn to treat their neighbor like they'd like to be treated, we're seeing a decrease in some of these crimes. And that's a good thing."

The bills would authorize the U.S. attorney general to provide assistance to state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, as well as expand the categories to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," among others. The legislation says a hate crime is one "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws."

"Sexual orientation" includes homosexuality. "Gender identity" is a "person's innate sense of gender," which may be different than his sex, according to the website of the Human Rights Campaign, which describes itself as the country's largest "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender" political organization. Transgender is an umbrella term for "people who live all or substantial portions of their lives expressing an innate sense of gender other than their birth sex," according to HRC. The transgender category includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.

Walt Disney Parks & Resorts announced April 6 it now will allow homosexual couples to exchange vows in its public wedding spots that previously were reserved for people with valid marriage licenses.

"Bottom line, our business is all about hospitality," Donn Walker, a spokesman for Disney, told the Orlando Sentinel. "Our commitment at Disney is to welcome all guests in an inclusive environment and to make them feel respected. We think this is consistent with that long-standing policy."

Disney hosts about 1,500 weddings each year, mostly through its Fairy Tale Wedding packages that include a ceremony at one of the parks' marriage pavilions, Disney costumed characters at the reception and a ride in a horse-drawn, glass-enclosed carriage through the Disney property. Such packages can cost tens of thousands of dollars, The Washington Post reported.

"I think for years, Disney has reflected the values of America," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said. "Now, I think it could be argued they are trying to shape those values in a very radical way."

Walker told the Sentinel that Disney's policy change was not the result of a campaign by homosexual activists but was spurred by one homosexual couple's request to purchase a wedding package.

"At the end of the day, they're in business to make money," Steve Smith, communications pastor at First Baptist Church in Orlando, told the Sentinel. "This is an untapped market for them, obviously. I'm not entirely surprised that Disney would make a fiduciary decision over a moral one."

With the $28,000 average cost of a Disney wedding, just one homosexual ceremony a week would earn Disney another $1.5 million a year, Bob Witeck of a Washington-based public relations firm catering to homosexuals told the Sentinel.

"It's a savvy business decision," Witeck said.

Because "gay marriage" is not legal in Florida and California, the homosexual events won't be marriage ceremonies but will be commitment ceremonies.

Disney has been considered a pioneer in the push to accept homosexuality in America, leading to an eight-year boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention that ended in 2005. The company began offering partner benefits to employees in 1996 and it has allowed thousands of homosexual tourists to mark Gay Days at its theme parks each spring.