Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 84

Church Office discuss ByFaithOnline Reaction to PCA GA in the The Church forums; I have been reading the comments on the ByFaithOnline article ( Find it here ) and wanted to know from our PCA brethren if the ...

  1. #1
    Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
    Backwoods Presbyterian is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    16,919
    Blog Entries
    2

    ByFaithOnline Reaction to PCA GA

    I have been reading the comments on the ByFaithOnline article (Find it here) and wanted to know from our PCA brethren if the views expressed by the (seemingly vast majority of commenters) is an accurate picture or not of the thoughts of your general PCA member on the Deaconess issue and the understanding of the role of women in general?

    Thanks and Blessings,
    Rev. Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, ARP
    Pastor, Ellisville Presbyterian Church, ARP
    Ellisville, Mississippi

    ‎‎"Ministers of the Gospel, when dispensing the truths of God, must preach home to their own souls, as well as unto others. Sir's, we do not deliver truths or doctrines to you, wherein we ourselves have no manner of concern. No, our own souls are at the stake, and shall either perish or be saved eternally, as we receive or reject these precious truths which we deliver unto you. And truly, it can never be expected that we will apply the truths of God with any warmth or liveliness unto others, unless we first make a warm application thereof to our own souls. And if we do not feed upon these doctrines, and practise these duties, which we deliver to and inculcate upon you, though we preach unto others, we ourselves are but castaways." -- Ebenezer Erskine, "The Assurance of Faith", pg. 8

    Deo Vindice

  2. #2
    he beholds's Avatar
    he beholds is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,102
    NO!! I don't know of one woman in our church who feels like many of the commenters do.

    I wish the people complaining on it would give specific examples of what the church is holding them [us] back from.

    I don't see clear enough evidence that supports deaconesses, and so I am fine without that being a role in the church. I know there are solid Reformed churches that do, the RPCNA at least, and I am sure they studied the issue--so I see that there may be two possible understandings, but I do not think the PCA should re-introduce this idea of a study committee every year until it passes. Which is likely to eventually happen. We have come to believe that it is unscriptural, and I don't think we should keep voting until that changes. Our votes do not make Scripture.
    Shalom,
    jessica
    Virginia
    PCA



    "Worldly minds the world pursue;
    What are its charms to me?
    Once I admired its trifles too,

    But grace has set me free."


    John Newton

  3. #3
    ColdSilverMoon's Avatar
    ColdSilverMoon is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,377
    I wasn't at the GA obviously, but from my experiences in a number of PCA churches the views expressed on that site are fairly representative of the spectrum of views in the congregation. There are those who believe women are given an un-Scripturally large role, those who believe that are given an un-Scripturally small role, and a few who are satisfied the way things are. I don't think the issue of women's work in the church is necessarily tied to the deaconess issue. While I do believe most lay members of the PCA would agree with the pro-deaconess view, I don't think the most of the comments are necessarily pushing for deaconesses as much as a broader women's ministry within the church. The two are sort of linked, but I don't think quite as closely as some think.

    Interestingly, I find the role of women to be bigger in larger churches. To me this is counter-intuitive: I would think smaller churches would need women to do more work simply to make up for the lack of numbers. But almost invariably women seemed to more formally involved in larger congregations. I'm not sure why that is, but to me it highlights the gray area between what women absolutely can do within a church, and what they absolutely cannot do. Can women be administrators? How broad can their responsibility go before it becomes a position of authority? Can they lead some ministries? At what age group should they no longer teach male members? Of course there are many other similar questions - these would have been addressed with the study committee, which is why it is unfortunate that it failed - the debate will only continue, rather than be settled for good.
    Mason
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) - though transferring soon to a church in FL
    Destin, FL

    "Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

  4. #4
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Sheryl

    Location:
    North Carolina

    Comment:


    It is achingly sad to me that the denomination I love refuses to look at an issue that I struggle with nearly every Sunday as I try to reconcile the gifts God has given me with a church that does not recognize them. I am in tears.
    I guess to keep some of these ladies from tears you guys in the PCA should just turn the denomination over to them. I mean if you were REALLY gentle, you wouldn't make a lady cry. You big, fat meenies.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

  5. #5
    Wayne's Avatar
    Wayne is offline. Tempus faciendi, Domine.
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,754
    To this point there have been just under fifty comments on that page, and it seems kind of evenly divided. How much weight do we give those 25 comments? How many people do they represent? Besides, we live in the era of the sock puppet and Sheryl from North Carolina, for all her display of emotion over reason, could just as easily in reality be Mike from New Jersey who likes to mess with Christians' heads. Can't tell much from comments, especially when poorly identified. Nor do a few comments a denomination make.
    Wayne Sparkman, Th.M., C.A.
    Director, PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, MO
    Blogs: The Continuing Story and This Day in Presbyterian History
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

    "Remember, it is not hasty reading, but serious meditating upon holy and heavenly truths, that make them prove sweet and profitable to the soul...It is not he that reads most , but he that meditates most, that will prove the choicest, sweetest, wisest and strongest Christian." - Thomas Brooks (1608-1680) [HT: Hamalas]

  6. #6
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    I also notice the comments have to get approved, and that leads one to the next question: who's doing the approving, and how does that affect the over all look of the responses.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

  7. #7
    Classical Presbyterian's Avatar
    Classical Presbyterian is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,185
    Blog Entries
    1
    The commenter "Sheryl" needs to stop moping and join an EPC church.
    Rev. Toby L. Brown

    Proud member of The Westminster Fellowship

    "The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which God is also highly exalted." --Jonathan Edwards

  8. #8
    Sven's Avatar
    Sven is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    737
    Ben,

    I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.

    Jessi,

    Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.

    Pastor Brown,

    We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
    Steven J. Carr (Sven)
    http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
    Eagan, MN
    PCA
    "Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
    Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

  9. #9
    fredtgreco's Avatar
    fredtgreco is offline. Vanilla Westminsterian
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    12,310
    Quote Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon View Post
    I wasn't at the GA obviously, but from my experiences in a number of PCA churches the views expressed on that site are fairly representative of the spectrum of views in the congregation. There are those who believe women are given an un-Scripturally large role, those who believe that are given an un-Scripturally small role, and a few who are satisfied the way things are. I don't think the issue of women's work in the church is necessarily tied to the deaconess issue. While I do believe most lay members of the PCA would agree with the pro-deaconess view, I don't think the most of the comments are necessarily pushing for deaconesses as much as a broader women's ministry within the church. The two are sort of linked, but I don't think quite as closely as some think.

    Interestingly, I find the role of women to be bigger in larger churches. To me this is counter-intuitive: I would think smaller churches would need women to do more work simply to make up for the lack of numbers. But almost invariably women seemed to more formally involved in larger congregations. I'm not sure why that is, but to me it highlights the gray area between what women absolutely can do within a church, and what they absolutely cannot do. Can women be administrators? How broad can their responsibility go before it becomes a position of authority? Can they lead some ministries? At what age group should they no longer teach male members? Of course there are many other similar questions - these would have been addressed with the study committee, which is why it is unfortunate that it failed - the debate will only continue, rather than be settled for good.
    Mason,

    I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.

    I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report "Women should not be business administrators" (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not IMO speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."

    Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO actually speaks and should prevail.
    Fred Greco
    Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
    Christ Church Blog

    "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

  10. #10
    Classical Presbyterian's Avatar
    Classical Presbyterian is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,185
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Ben,

    I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.

    Jessi,

    Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.

    Pastor Brown,

    We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
    Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.

    Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
    Rev. Toby L. Brown

    Proud member of The Westminster Fellowship

    "The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which God is also highly exalted." --Jonathan Edwards

  11. #11
    BJClark is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,132
    I don't know of any women in my church who desire this either..there might be, and I'm just not aware of them..but yet many women serve..

    The only one I know of who complained about things re: women..left our church and went else where..
    Bobbi Clark
    Covenant Member
    Pinewood Pres. (PCA) Middleburg

    When I kept Silent, My bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. Psalm 32:3

  12. #12
    Classical Presbyterian's Avatar
    Classical Presbyterian is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,185
    Blog Entries
    1
    On another note: All of my PCA friends should be thanking God that your denomination has no claim on a congregation's property! Take it from the mostly dead PC(USA)--you want congregations to be allowed to depart if the time comes!
    Rev. Toby L. Brown

    Proud member of The Westminster Fellowship

    "The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which God is also highly exalted." --Jonathan Edwards

  13. #13
    lynnie is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,235
    I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.

    Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.

    I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).

    So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.
    Lynnie

    Attending Maranatha Christian Fellowship

    Central NJ

  14. #14
    Sven's Avatar
    Sven is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Ben,

    I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.

    Jessi,

    Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.

    Pastor Brown,

    We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
    Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.

    Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
    Pastor Brown,

    Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.

    The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
    Steven J. Carr (Sven)
    http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
    Eagan, MN
    PCA
    "Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
    Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

  15. #15
    Prufrock's Avatar
    Prufrock is offline. Arbitrary Moderation
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by lynnie View Post
    I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.

    Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.

    I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).

    So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.
    Lynnie, I don't think [m]any will disagree with you that such personal, domestic issues should be addressed and taught from our pulpits and in personal pastoral counseling. But we're comparing apples and oranges here. The deaconess issue is one of an ecclesiastical practice out of accord with the BCO; the other is an issue of continuing sanctification of all Christians. One is addressed by synods; another by individual pastors. These things are dealt with differently.
    Paul
    On "Temporary Leave"
    Please feel free to contact me by Private Message, but please include your email address.

  16. #16
    he beholds's Avatar
    he beholds is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Ben,

    I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.

    Jessi,

    Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.

    Pastor Brown,

    We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
    I obviously know that mine is anecdotal, but I have been a member of another PCA church where the results would have been the same.

    I was just trying to answer the OP, as I do feel very much that I am your "general" PCA member
    Shalom,
    jessica
    Virginia
    PCA



    "Worldly minds the world pursue;
    What are its charms to me?
    Once I admired its trifles too,

    But grace has set me free."


    John Newton

  17. #17
    Beth Ellen Nagle's Avatar
    Beth Ellen Nagle is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Sometimes I really don't like women.
    ____________________________

    ~Beth Ellen Nagle~
    Lakeside Church -Wales, WI (PCA)
    Married to John
    One wonderful daughter, Chaela Joelle


    My work in digital art and photography: http://www.puritanboard.com/members/...ms-images.html

  18. #18
    Classical Presbyterian's Avatar
    Classical Presbyterian is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,185
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Ben,

    I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.

    Jessi,

    Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.

    Pastor Brown,

    We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
    Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.

    Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
    Pastor Brown,

    Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.

    The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
    We can sit around all day discussing what people need to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.

    As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!

    Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
    Rev. Toby L. Brown

    Proud member of The Westminster Fellowship

    "The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which God is also highly exalted." --Jonathan Edwards

  19. #19
    ColdSilverMoon's Avatar
    ColdSilverMoon is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by fredtgreco View Post

    Mason,

    I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.

    I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report "Women should not be business administrators" (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not IMO speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."

    Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO actually speaks and should prevail.
    Pastor Greco,

    Other than the size of the church and involvement of women, I agree with everything you say. I'm all for the local option outside of the offices, but the problem is that there are plenty of people in the PCA who think it is wrong for women to have any sort of "title;" they believe this puts her in a position of authority and should be forbidden. I don't see why a study committee couldn't simply affirm the "local option" outside of offices. They wouldn't have to rule in particular on every possible scenario (such as women business administrators), but simply make a general, blanket report that women can have formal roles outsides the offices at the discretion of the local session and presbytery. Don't you think this would be a good, unifying report?
    Mason
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) - though transferring soon to a church in FL
    Destin, FL

    "Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

  20. #20
    fredtgreco's Avatar
    fredtgreco is offline. Vanilla Westminsterian
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    12,310
    Quote Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fredtgreco View Post

    Mason,

    I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.

    I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report "Women should not be business administrators" (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not IMO speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."

    Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO actually speaks and should prevail.
    Pastor Greco,

    Other than the size of the church and involvement of women, I agree with everything you say. I'm all for the local option outside of the offices, but the problem is that there are plenty of people in the PCA who think it is wrong for women to have any sort of "title;" they believe this puts her in a position of authority and should be forbidden. I don't see why a study committee couldn't simply affirm the "local option" outside of offices. They wouldn't have to rule in particular on every possible scenario (such as women business administrators), but simply make a general, blanket report that women can have formal roles outsides the offices at the discretion of the local session and presbytery. Don't you think this would be a good, unifying report?
    No I don't think it would be unifying. That was why I voted against it. The fact that the Minority Report had supporters(as it did last year) who varied from those who wanted a report to shut down all options and discipline churches in our denomination who are playing on the edge of the deacon(ess) issue and those who want deaconesses now highlights this.
    Fred Greco
    Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
    Christ Church Blog

    "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

  21. #21
    WarrenInSC is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by lynnie View Post
    I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.

    Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.

    I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).

    So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.
    Is this one of those examples of what a growing number of folks mean when they say the PCA is becoming schitzophrenic?
    Ok, I know it's serious and very personal as well.
    To answer the original question on this thread, after almost 25 years in two different PCA churches (GA - heavy with PCA committee families & SC - mostly Northerners), I saw no instance of women using their gifts and demanding a title. However, over the last few years, I am seeing a subtle attempt to purposely 'grow' that issue from some newer leadership.
    Warren
    Member, PCA
    South Carolina

    "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek"
    Romans 1:16

  22. #22
    Sven's Avatar
    Sven is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post

    Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.

    Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
    Pastor Brown,

    Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.

    The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
    We can sit around all day discussing what people need to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.

    As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!

    Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
    Are you talking about Church history or your own personal history here? Furthermore, since when did the judgments of the individuals conscience suddenly become more important than the judgment of the Church? This view of Church discipline and Church authority is one of the main problems of Christianity in America. The Church would do better if we would instead of saying, "Go your way," said, "it is better before God to be in submission to your Church in these matters." I am referring to matters that do not clearly contradict Scripture. This view of Church authority and discipline has more historical weight than the individualism you are promoting.
    Steven J. Carr (Sven)
    http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
    Eagan, MN
    PCA
    "Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
    Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

  23. #23
    ColdSilverMoon's Avatar
    ColdSilverMoon is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by fredtgreco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fredtgreco View Post

    Mason,

    I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.

    I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report "Women should not be business administrators" (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not IMO speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."

    Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO actually speaks and should prevail.
    Pastor Greco,

    Other than the size of the church and involvement of women, I agree with everything you say. I'm all for the local option outside of the offices, but the problem is that there are plenty of people in the PCA who think it is wrong for women to have any sort of "title;" they believe this puts her in a position of authority and should be forbidden. I don't see why a study committee couldn't simply affirm the "local option" outside of offices. They wouldn't have to rule in particular on every possible scenario (such as women business administrators), but simply make a general, blanket report that women can have formal roles outsides the offices at the discretion of the local session and presbytery. Don't you think this would be a good, unifying report?
    No I don't think it would be unifying. That was why I voted against it. The fact that the Minority Report had supporters(as it did last year) who varied from those who wanted a report to shut down all options and discipline churches in our denomination who are playing on the edge of the deacon(ess) issue and those who want deaconesses now highlights this.
    I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?

    Also, what do you (or anyone else) think the odds are of the same overtures being bright again next year, and if they are brought, what the odds are of them passing given the extremely tight vote this time around?
    Mason
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) - though transferring soon to a church in FL
    Destin, FL

    "Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

  24. #24
    Classical Presbyterian's Avatar
    Classical Presbyterian is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,185
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post

    Pastor Brown,

    Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.

    The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
    We can sit around all day discussing what people need to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.

    As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!

    Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
    Are you talking about Church history or your own personal history here? Furthermore, since when did the judgments of the individuals conscience suddenly become more important than the judgment of the Church? This view of Church discipline and Church authority is one of the main problems of Christianity in America. The Church would do better if we would instead of saying, "Go your way," said, "it is better before God to be in submission to your Church in these matters." I am referring to matters that do not clearly contradict Scripture. This view of Church authority and discipline has more historical weight than the individualism you are promoting.
    Nonsense. This is not 'individualism', this is presbyterian polity. People can move from churches and they do.

    Being a pastor involves far more than disciplining members and it certainly does not involve any form of rhetorical coercion when a member of the church reaches differing conclusions on matters of belief. As pastors, we are also called lead people to discernment in the Word of God as to where they are called and what they are called to do. There is a line between counsel and coercion. Let's leave the latter to the papacy and the cults.
    Rev. Toby L. Brown

    Proud member of The Westminster Fellowship

    "The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which God is also highly exalted." --Jonathan Edwards

  25. #25
    Edward's Avatar
    Edward is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,371
    Quote Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon View Post
    . If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
    If by 'settle the issue' you mean a split sooner rather than later, yes.

    Also, what do you (or anyone else) think the odds are of the same overtures being bright again next year, and if they are brought, what the odds are of them passing given the extremely tight vote this time around?
    Based on what we've seen in other denominations that have turned from the mandates of scripture, the liberals are likely to keep returning with the issue until they prevail. Then it's on to the next item on the agenda.

    Some of us here are old enough to remember how this story ends.
    Edward
    Deacon
    PCA
    Texas

  26. #26
    Scott1's Avatar
    Scott1 is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,124
    ColdSilverMoon

    I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
    Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.

    There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.

    It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.

    Judges 17:6

    6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

    God withdraws his blessing and chastisement begins as He gives His people over to the chastening of the darkened imaginations of men, clouded by confusion, disorder and rebellion.

    We can see the effect of sin clearly in Scripture. It's something that ought strike a holy fear in all of us... what we can become if we get our own way.

    Remember, reformed theology teaches that unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement. That's why we are called "confessional."

    In the PCUSA, which the PCA separated from over issues like this, it went this way:

    women as trustees denying infringement on elder or deacon authority
    study committee on women as deacons without authority
    women as local option deacons with authority
    women as deacons required by presbytery
    women required as deacons by constitution (which was not followed by those who wanted them in the first place, but would be by those who did not want them later)
    study committee on 'women'
    local option on elder
    women may infringe on duties of elders and deacons as trustees
    women elders optional by not commissioners at general assembly
    women elders required by constitution but not commissioners at general assembly
    women attend general assembly but without authoritative 'voice'
    women go to general assembly with full ecclesiastical authority
    study committee on eliminating discrimination against women in office
    'affirmative action' for women elders, deacons, trustees and moderators
    church discipline against teaching I Timothy 3, Titus I, etc.
    Last edited by Scott1; 06-20-2009 at 03:09 PM.
    Scott
    PCA
    North Carolina


    Post Tenebras Lux; "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." - Revelation 11:15

  27. #27
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Based on what we've seen in other denominations that have turned from the mandates of scripture, the liberals are likely to keep returning with the issue until they prevail. Then it's on to the next item on the agenda.

    Some of us here are old enough to remember how this story ends.
    Exactly.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

  28. #28
    he beholds's Avatar
    he beholds is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
    ColdSilverMoon

    I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
    Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.

    There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.

    It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.

    Judges 17:6

    6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

    God withdraws his blessing and chastisement begins as He gives His people over to the chastening of the darkened imaginations of men, clouded by confusion, disorder and rebellion.

    We can see the effect of sin clearly in Scripture. It's something that ought strike a holy fear in all of us... what we can become if we get our own way.

    Remember, reformed theology teaches that unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement. That's why we are called "confessional."

    In the PCUSA, which the PCA separated from over issues like this, it went this way:

    women as trustees denying infringement on elder or deacon authority
    study committee on women as deacons without authority
    women as local option deacons with authority
    women as deacons required by presbytery
    women required as deacons by constitution (which was not followed by those who wanted them in the first place, but would be by those who did not want them later)
    local option on elder
    women may infringe on duties of elders and deacons as trustees
    study committee on 'women'
    women elders optional by not commissioners at general assembly
    women elders required by constitution but not commissioners at general assembly
    women attend general assembly but without authoritative 'voice'
    women go to general assembly with full ecclesiastical authority
    'affirmative action' for women elders, deacons, trustees and moderators
    study committee on eliminating discrimination against women in office
    church discipline against teaching I Timothy 3, Titus I, etc.
    Has there really been church discipline against teaching the BIBLE? YIKES.

    I think a committee is unnecessary. I think the Pastors should just go home from GA and address their congregation with the Bible.
    Shalom,
    jessica
    Virginia
    PCA



    "Worldly minds the world pursue;
    What are its charms to me?
    Once I admired its trifles too,

    But grace has set me free."


    John Newton

  29. #29
    WarrenInSC is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
    ColdSilverMoon

    I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
    Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.

    There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.

    It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.

    Judges 17:6

    6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

    In the PCUSA, which the PCA separated from over issues like this, it went this way:

    women as trustees denying infringement on elder or deacon authority
    study committee on women as deacons without authority
    women as local option deacons with authority
    women as deacons required by presbytery
    women required as deacons by constitution (which was not followed by those who wanted them in the first place, but would be by those who did not want them later)
    local option on elder
    women may infringe on duties of elders and deacons as trustees
    study committee on 'women'
    women elders optional by not commissioners at general assembly
    women elders required by constitution but not commissioners at general assembly
    women attend general assembly but without authoritative 'voice'
    women go to general assembly with full ecclesiastical authority
    'affirmative action' for women elders, deacons, trustees and moderators
    study committee on eliminating discrimination against women in office
    church discipline against teaching I Timothy 3, Titus I, etc.
    Then there was the NEXT stage of 'gender confusion' - instead of 'women this and women that', the PCUSA is now going through the 'homosexual this and homosexual that' routine. It is a grave error to think that allowing 'gender confusion' between the sexes will not lead to 'gender confusion' within the sexes.
    Warren
    Member, PCA
    South Carolina

    "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek"
    Romans 1:16

  30. #30
    ColdSilverMoon's Avatar
    ColdSilverMoon is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
    ColdSilverMoon

    I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
    Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.

    There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.

    It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
    Scott,

    Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?
    Mason
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) - though transferring soon to a church in FL
    Destin, FL

    "Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

  31. #31
    ww
    ww is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post
    The commenter "Sheryl" needs to stop moping and join an EPC church.
    I have to say in my last PCA church that several of the couples who were members had been part of the EPC at one time. The Pastor in my estimation is supportive of women deacons so they probably were hoping for a better outcome with the study committee.
    ww

  32. #32
    Sven's Avatar
    Sven is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian View Post

    We can sit around all day discussing what people need to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.

    As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!

    Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
    Are you talking about Church history or your own personal history here? Furthermore, since when did the judgments of the individuals conscience suddenly become more important than the judgment of the Church? This view of Church discipline and Church authority is one of the main problems of Christianity in America. The Church would do better if we would instead of saying, "Go your way," said, "it is better before God to be in submission to your Church in these matters." I am referring to matters that do not clearly contradict Scripture. This view of Church authority and discipline has more historical weight than the individualism you are promoting.
    Nonsense. This is not 'individualism', this is presbyterian polity. People can move from churches and they do.

    Being a pastor involves far more than disciplining members and it certainly does not involve any form of rhetorical coercion when a member of the church reaches differing conclusions on matters of belief. As pastors, we are also called lead people to discernment in the Word of God as to where they are called and what they are called to do. There is a line between counsel and coercion. Let's leave the latter to the papacy and the cults.
    A. You must be mistaking what I've said for something else. At no time have I said that we must coerce people. I fully agree with the Book of Church Order (PCA) which states that Church power is "ministerial and declarative" and is "wholy spiritual."

    B. Encouraging Church members to submit to the actions and declarations of the Church, so far as they are in line with the clear teaching of Scripture, or face discipline is no where near the same as the coercive discipline acted out by the papacy.

    C. If by "Presbyterian polity" you mean the kind exercised by American presbyterian churches for the last hundred years, I'll grant you that. But this is not the presbyterian polity of the Reformers or the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states in Chap. 30 Of Church Censures, "III. Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from like offenses; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.

    IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person."
    Where does it say, "Let them go find their happy home in another denomination?" This is not Presbyterian polity; this is American individualism.
    Steven J. Carr (Sven)
    http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
    Eagan, MN
    PCA
    "Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
    Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

  33. #33
    Scott1's Avatar
    Scott1 is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,124
    Quote Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
    ColdSilverMoon

    I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
    Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.

    There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.

    It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
    Scott,

    Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?
    I don't believe most are. There is real confusion being generated out there, though.

    For starters,
    in a confessional denomination like the PCA, we do not establish our polity by "study committee"

    we do not teach our confession by "pastoral letter"

    we do not independently determine our own doctrine and then proceed to follow what we will by majority and minority vote.

    In a confessional denomination we are accountable when we refuse to qualify deacons and their wives by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elect them, ordain them, and install them, or to teach the holy doctrines upon which each is based to our congregation BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VOWS OFFICERS TAKE.

    There is accountability first to God, then to session through vows, and even to the congregation.
    Scott
    PCA
    North Carolina


    Post Tenebras Lux; "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." - Revelation 11:15

  34. #34
    ColdSilverMoon's Avatar
    ColdSilverMoon is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
    Scott,

    Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?
    I don't believe most are. There is real confusion being generated out there, though.

    For starters,
    in a confessional denomination like the PCA, we do not establish our polity by "study committee"

    we do not teach our confession by "pastoral letter"

    we do not independently determine our own doctrine and then proceed to follow what we will by majority and minority vote.

    In a confessional denomination we are accountable when we refuse to qualify deacons and their wives by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elect them, ordain them, and install them, or to teach the holy doctrines upon which each is based to our congregation BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VOWS OFFICERS TAKE.

    There is accountability first to God, then to session through vows, and even to the congregation.
    Scott, you know I admire you greatly and have really learned a great deal from you on the PB. I think we have the same end goals in mind, namely to first and foremost glorify God in all that we (meaning the PCA) do, to uphold the clear teaching of the Bible, WCF, and BCO, and to promote peace and purity within the church.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to the issue of deaconesses and women in the church in general, we approach those end goals from different directions. To address your points:

    - No one is saying we should establish our church polity by a study committee. The purpose of the committee, as I understand it, is to delve into the topic more intensely and carefully scrutinize the Biblical and traditional arguments on both sides to determine the best standard for the congregation. The report of the committee is not binding, of course, and must be affirmed by the GA to be policy. I am in favor of the committee because I hope the congregation can reach an agreeable decision - even if it's not one that I favor.

    - No one is saying the Confession should be taught by pastoral letter. The purpose is to show unity and affirm a common view on the topic. When there is an intra-mural disagreement on an issue like this that does not directly touch upon the Confession or BCO (except the deaconess issue), it is important to reach Biblically-based conclusion as a church.

    - No one is independently determining their own doctrine. Doctrine isn't decided by majority vote, but these issues, as I see them, aren't matters of doctrine for the most part. They are disagreements about the practical boundaries of Scripture when it comes to the role of women in the church. No one disagrees on the Scriptural standards, but rather the practical application in the nebulous zone outside those clear standards.

    Finally, the issue isn't about the offices of the church, and thus the responsibility to teach the Scriptural standards contained in the vows of ordination - those are being taught, and there is really no disagreement on them. Rather it is about the intepretation of the denomination's Constitution, and it's clarity on these matters (or lack thereof).

    Regarding the deaconess issue, everyone agrees that women should not be ordained. The disagreement is about whether or not there is a requirement to ordain Deacons BCO, and if women can serve in the capacity as un-ordained deaconesses. The disagreement really has nothing to do with the Scriptural standards or the WCF - everyone agrees on those. It all comes down to what is allowed in the BCO - that is the heart of the debate.

    Regarding women in the church in general, the issue is much less clear. Like Fred Greco, I favor the local option. But there are plenty of people, particularly in the majority that opposed the study report, who don't favor this option, and would like a set of absolute standards, which they believe are clear. But obviously it isn't clear: if it were, 49% of the GA delegates would not have voted for the study.

    So while I think we have the same end goals in mind, our approaches are different. I don't think it's helpful to say those in favor of the study committee or deaconesses are acting contra-WCF and/or Scripture; on those standards I think we all agree.
    Last edited by fredtgreco; 06-20-2009 at 09:18 PM.
    Mason
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) - though transferring soon to a church in FL
    Destin, FL

    "Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

  35. #35
    Scott1's Avatar
    Scott1 is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,124
    ColdSilverMoon

    I think we have the same end goals in mind, namely to first and foremost glorify God in all that we (meaning the PCA) do, to uphold the clear teaching of the Bible, WCF, and BCO,
    I agree that for the large majority, including those who voted for this (even though the action would undermine all that).

    There is much confusion out there, and we must pray this becomes clear for what it is.

    If this is true that everybody wants to follow their Book of Church Order (and their vows to uphold it) why are the ( very few churches) not qualifying, electing, ordaining and installing deacons per BCO 1,9, et. al.?

    Why do church lawsuits have to be filed, and even after suit, refuse to comply? Will they comply, for the sake of submission to their brethren to honor our Lord and further the peace and purity of His church?
    Scott
    PCA
    North Carolina


    Post Tenebras Lux; "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." - Revelation 11:15

  36. #36
    Romans922's Avatar
    Romans922 is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,296
    Maybe the problem is laziness. I don't know how many times I heard at GA that there were many (one whole section) resources available in the CE/P bookstore concerning women. Yet, some want a committee to settle it (which will be divided anyway). My advice to the laziness...pick up some books and read on the subject.
    Elder Andrew Barnes (PCA)
    Christ Presbyterian Church (Kansas City, MO)
    Sermon Audio
    Twitter

  37. #37
    Mushroom's Avatar
    Mushroom is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,228
    I wish the egalitarians would leave. I'd call that revival. The EPC is waiting for them with open arms and minds.

    [personal comment deleted, apologies proffered to any offended and thanks to a brother for a gentle rebuke]

    Why are these folks determined to destroy our denomination? Is it demonic influence, or just plain cynical hatred for the bride of Christ?
    Last edited by Mushroom; 06-20-2009 at 08:29 PM.
    Brad

    PCA

    These toadies just keep holdin' me down, man!

  38. #38
    Ravens is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    667
    I simply don't understand the hullaballoo over women "using their gifts" in church, or being traumatized over not being able to participate in the service in certain ways. The majority of congregants in well nigh every church in America are decidedly un-involved in the preaching, administration of sacraments, Bible readings, "announcements" (if you have those; not saying whether you should or not), etc.

    I simply don't understand what the big deal is. It baffles me. I'm a layman. I have no problem being a layman. If I need to "express myself" or use my gifts, then I'll do that in my family, with my friends, at my job, on the basketball court, in writing or painting, etc. Whatever. There are a thousand ways to use whatever "gifts" or "talents" you have in life, both for secular purposes and for spiritual purposes (if I can make an ad hoc distinction).

    And if these women really wanted to be a blessing in the church, there are still a thousand ways they could do it. Being excellent mothers, excellent wives, and excellent friends. Visiting the sick and needy just to cheer their spirits. One doesn't have to have a title to do that. Sprucing up the church. Cooking for those who are ill. Praying. Whatever.

    It just seems like this tremendous amount of energy and tension is being created over so very little. What? A title? The ability to get in front of the church and read 18 sentences for the morning sermon?

    I have opinions on the issue, and they definitely fall on the "conservative" side. But this isn't even an issue I'm that passionate on nowadays. My mind is consumed by other things.

    But speaking simply as a layman and a church member, it literally baffles me that this is a problem, or that women feel "under-represented". I just think it's goofy, to be frank.

  39. #39
    Julio Martinez Jr's Avatar
    Julio Martinez Jr is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    148
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian View Post
    I have been reading the comments on the ByFaithOnline article (Find it here) and wanted to know from our PCA brethren if the views expressed by the (seemingly vast majority of commenters) is an accurate picture or not of the thoughts of your general PCA member on the Deaconess issue and the understanding of the role of women in general?

    Thanks and Blessings,
    I would have to say that this is ridiculous. I wrote a retort about Overture 18, and it seems like the constituients that tend to read ByFaith are clearly not as confessional and presbyterian as I would like. I am shocked that the PCA ruled against Overture 18, which would have drafted a letter to the president to inform him that the church in America does not approve of homosexual activity within the military. The main reason was that it contradicts WCF 31.4. As a presbyterian and as a pronomian, I was shocked that it would use that article of faith as a valid reason to not send the president a significant letter. I then took a step back and began to evaluate the arguments objectively. I conceded that maybe (by a small fraction) the church wasn't qualified in passing that overture. Then I quickly retorted with this: So maybe we won't send a letter, but the churches within the PCA should preach on it and let the church know that we abhor this sort of behavior, and its reaction could lead to individual action. But then another quick rejoinder might be thus: the pastor cannot bind the conscience in this manner. At that point, I hit a wall. Is the church, then, to be silent on the issue? This is clearly an issue of the church's relation to culture and its influence on ethics in the public domain. What do you guys think?
    Mr. Julio Martinez Jr.
    Member of Grace Presbyterian Church (PCA)

    My Blog
    "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
    because you have rejected knowledge,
    I reject you from being a priest to me.
    And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
    I also will forget your children." Hosea 4:6 ESV

  40. #40
    Grimmson's Avatar
    Grimmson is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    529
    JDWiseman,
    I think to some part we let women, wanting to rebel against what God ordained in his law from Genesis 3:16, but doing so in a way that seems spiritually good. And in a sense makes it that much more wicked. Your list of what women should be doing is great and I entirely agree, especially on the issue of titles which overall I think is a problem with the laity; which the result being the downgrading role of an elder, pastor, or minster in daily minster and preaching. At least in regards to the understanding of what the title represents biblically. Women should be happy with the role God has given then, or least submit and us men we need to do what God has ordained for us to do and be men instead of allowing their wickedness by being wicked ourselves by not leading in our homes and in the church. We have been lazy, allowing society views to creep in instead of holding to the biblical mandate from creation This is not just reflected in the PCA, but in just about all of the denominations in God’s Church Universal.
    Last edited by Grimmson; 06-21-2009 at 04:49 PM. Reason: needed to add let, I am a male. took me a few minutes to figure out why the we was there
    David Jolley
    Broadway Baptist Church of Escondido, CA
    Confessions: 1689-SLBCF/ 2000-BFAM
    Winslow, AZ

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72