Which Evangelical Denominations... ???

[temporal1]

I would describe LCMS and WELS as evangelical, not mainline Protestant (which the ELCA is), roughly analogous to the PCA and OPC (vs the PC(USA)).

The Laestadian movement is not OSAS and does not ordain women. If they put on headcoverings and stopped baptizing infants, many of us would be right at home. It is a revivalist Lutheran movement.

Yes, although they’re relatively small. LCMS is huge. Although I wouldn’t feel right at home with that enthusiastic of an embrace of Luther.

I’m surprised I can’t think of other evangelical denominations that don’t ordain women + are not somewhat Reformed.

i’d not heard of Laestadians, i looked them up, found a church not awfully far from my family in WA. Lots of Finns in Seattle, this group began there decades ago, before it was over run with So Cal (as locals describe it to me). This church moved away from the city.

The OP asks for denominations, which i understand to be not non-denoms? i think of Lutherans as a denom.
Add/correct, please.

i much appreciate your descriptions of differences WITHIN denoms, the lib ends seem to get all the attention, for instance, as you say, ELCA is essentially “mainstream” Protestant, alongside so many others, including Anabaptists.

Umbrella denom labels, alone, are no longer sufficient, esp not following the 1990’s, when lots “blew up.”
i wish it were over.

Many are not aware of differences. Many believe MCUSA, ELCA, PCUSA, etc., are “the whole story” for each group.
Even “huge” LCMS is unknown to many.

[Josh]

I forgot about Church of Christ. They would meet this criteria as well.

I believe Free-Will Baptists (at least some of them) don’t ordain women either.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

The Evangelical movement was essentially a "third way" that eventually formed in the gap left from the sharp divide between the mainline and fundamentalist movements.

Mainline churches embraced a lot of laxness in Christian doctrine and practice. Ordaining women was one of the big signifiers here. The fundamentalists emphasized a defence of the "fundamentals" of the faith, and took on a retreating stance against "the world" and culture.

The Evangelical movement (speaking in broad strokes) was defined by its embrace of traditional Christian doctrines, values, and practices (what the fundamentalists were eager to defend), but were incredibly engaged with the culture and with secular institutions like the government.
The mainline churches were always desiring to influence the culture, while the fundamentalists had a desire to resist the culture. The mainline churches did not put much effort into resisting the culture, and the fundamentalists did not put much effort into influencing the culture. The Evangelicals put effort into influencing the culture while maintaining traditional doctrine and practice. So they were active like the Mainline, but conservative like the Fundamentalists.

The ordination of women was one of the big lines drawn between the Evangelicals/Fundamentalists and the Mainline. Nowadays, the acceptance of LGBT+ lifestyles is more at the forefront. Some Evangelical churches ordain women, but I'm pretty sure the majority would still not.

[RZehr]

The Evangelical movement was essentially a "third way" that eventually formed in the gap left from the sharp divide between the mainline and fundamentalist movements.

Mainline churches embraced a lot of laxness in Christian doctrine and practice. Ordaining women was one of the big signifiers here. The fundamentalists emphasized a defence of the "fundamentals" of the faith, and took on a retreating stance against "the world" and culture.

The Evangelical movement (speaking in broad strokes) was defined by its embrace of traditional Christian doctrines, values, and practices (what the fundamentalists were eager to defend), but were incredibly engaged with the culture and with secular institutions like the government.
The mainline churches were always desiring to influence the culture, while the fundamentalists had a desire to resist the culture. The mainline churches did not put much effort into resisting the culture, and the fundamentalists did not put much effort into influencing the culture. The Evangelicals put effort into influencing the culture while maintaining traditional doctrine and practice. So they were active like the Mainline, but conservative like the Fundamentalists.

The ordination of women was one of the big lines drawn between the Evangelicals/Fundamentalists and the Mainline. Nowadays, the acceptance of LGBT+ lifestyles is more at the forefront. Some Evangelical churches ordain women, but I'm pretty sure the majority would still not.

Well put.

[Josh]

I would hazard that majority of evangelical churches do ordain women now, in particular, nearly all Pentecostal / Charismatic circles do.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I would hazard that majority of evangelical churches do ordain women now, in particular, nearly all Pentecostal / Charismatic circles do.

Yeah, this tradition is definitely where I would expect to see the exception.

In evangelical churches I participated in, a good percentage of charismatic churches would not be considered "Evangelical" because they tended to participate in a newer movement, the Prosperity Gospel.
But now there's a lot of labels and, are prosperity gospel churches in their own, new tradition? Are they included in the mainline or with the evangelicals? (Certainly not with the fundies).

[cooper]

https://religionnews.com/2020/12/09/con ... ur-pulpit/

"In 2018, male-led congregations were nearly three times the size of those led by women."

"In 1998, 1 in 10 Christian churches in the survey indicated that a woman was the pastor or otherwise led their congregation. Eight years later, that had dropped to just 8% percent. In 2012, that rose to 11% and six years later was at 13.5%."

Church goers prefer male pastors and vote with their feet.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I would describe LCMS and WELS as evangelical, not mainline Protestant (which the ELCA is), roughly analogous to the PCA and OPC (vs the PC(USA)).

The Laestadian movement is not OSAS and does not ordain women. If they put on headcoverings and stopped baptizing infants, many of us would be right at home. It is a revivalist Lutheran movement.

Yes, although they’re relatively small. LCMS is huge. Although I wouldn’t feel right at home with that enthusiastic of an embrace of Luther.

I’m surprised I can’t think of other evangelical denominations that don’t ordain women + are not somewhat Reformed.

The Laestadian movement is interesting in itself. It is more conservative than LCMS and typically the families are 8-10 children. It is Piatistic to the last degree. It originates from Finland. Had a few of these in the college christian fellowship. Solid. stand up guys.

[Ernie]

Looks like 72% of Evangelicals are fine with women pastors and preachers.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... reach.html

[Judas Maccabeus]

Looks like 72% of Evangelicals are fine with women pastors and preachers.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... reach.html

This does not surprise me at all. My former group (C&MA) did it, after a 15 year fight, national leadership verses the bulk of the membership.

In my experience, the higher you get in a denominational hierarchy the more liberal you are likely to be..