Thread: ByFaithOnline Reaction to PCA GA

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.

I am not a member of the PCA (unfortunately), so my experience may not be relevant to the PCA or its churches. However, I will say that in some churches, women really are kept from being involved in the church at all. I don't support women deacons, but I do think its a good idea to have some sort of "Women's Auxiliary" by which women can use their gifts in the church (under the oversight of elders and deacons, of course). In my church, women have at various times visited the sick/shut ins, organized meals and other services for families with newborns, medical issues, or other crises, organized and taught ESL classes, and aided in the organization and administration of other mercy ministries. For example, we have a female accountant in the congregation who taught a money management seminar for young people.

The church I grew up in would not have allowed any of this. Women were allowed to play the piano, do nursery, and they could make meals or visit the sick, but they weren't allowed to do any type of organization. Its possible that some in the PCA may be reacting against this type of extreme view. I'm not saying that their reaction is necessarily right, but I can understand why some women might feel distress at feeling unable to be active in the church.

Having said that, most of the reactions to that article seem extreme.

In the PCA there are many ways women are involved.

Believe it or not, Deacon's wives, if the Deacon is married, play a real support role in their husband's Deacon duties. And they are examined for the qualifications necessary in I Timothy 3.

11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Women in the Church (WIC) is a main organization in the PCA where women are involved in many activities- it was designed to foster that.

As far as I have seen, women are involved in meals ministry, welcome baby ministry, comfort and care ministry, stephen's ministry, serve on committees, in music ministry, and much more.

Honestly, involvement varies between congregations and from time-to-time. Sometimes women are more or less involved. But ultimately, biblically the officers (deacons and elders) are responsible to 'set the tone' for this. It's also a responsibility for unordained women and men to seek out to serve, not merely complain about it.

From what I have seen, the PCA is quite generous in this while at the same time biblical as ecclesiastical office is very very important to get right. If Scripture is not followed here, it tends to bring confusion on down.

There is absolutely no shortage of mercy ministry to be done. We need more of it. If more unordained men and women would seek out to do this, not for title or recognition, but only to be available to use whatever time and abilities God gives them- we would all be the better.

MODERATOR Edited:

Sheryl is not here. No need to pretend as if she is to make a point. Let's calm that portion of the rhetoric

MODERATOR Edited:

Sheryl is not here. No need to pretend as if she is to make a point. Let's calm that portion of the rhetoric

Originally Posted by Romans922

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.

ummmmm.....

here is the link to the PCA video loaning library:

http://www.pcacep.org/Video/catalog.PDF


Plenty of good stuff we can borrow from the PCA video library. And then we have:

Lots of Beth Moore for the ladies ( theology doen't matter and when it does Arminian is better)

Anne Graham Lotz (who is shocked that men are against her public preaching)

Barna....yup, Barna can help you with principles for your family

Dobson ( please don't get me started)

Allender (who I will conceed is marvelously wise about sexual abuse victims, but is also egalitarian in marriage)

NT Wright on Paul (but never mind, the ladies will probably choose the Beth Moore ones anyway)

I'm just saying, don't point anybody to the PCA resources, books or videos, without giving them titles and authors. ( like I said, some real great stuff in there too)

And if the resources page is anywhere typically reflective of my denomination, please pray for us!

Yep. Lots of Focus on the Family SS material in the PCA. And the sad part is that so many of our leaders haven't a clue why that might be a problem. And they vote at GA.

Hence the constant drain-circling.

Compare with other verses where we are to bear gently with one another and exhort one another in the faith.

I am frankly shocked and appalled at the lack of a caring, gentle, and Pastoral spirit evidenced by some of the comments here. I can testify to more appalling and impious views of the Scriptures and roles in the Church uttered by people I've shared the name of Christ with. When in leadership you should not let them slide but the solution is not to kick them to the curb. I cannot fathom how anyone can read repeated exhortations to encourage one another in the faith and come to the conclusion that this translates to shooting the troublemakers in the head and moving on at the pace of the strongest members.

Montanablue;

I am not a member of the PCA (unfortunately), so my experience may not be relevant to the PCA or its churches. However, I will say that in some churches, women really are kept from being involved in the church at all. I don't support women deacons, but I do think its a good idea to have some sort of "Women's Auxiliary" by which women can use their gifts in the church (under the oversight of elders and deacons, of course). In my church, women have at various times visited the sick/shut ins, organized meals and other services for families with newborns, medical issues, or other crises, organized and taught ESL classes, and aided in the organization and administration of other mercy ministries. For example, we have a female accountant in the congregation who taught a money management seminar for young people.

We have those things as well in the PCA, which is also why I don't understand what the uproar is about..

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Compare with other verses where we are to bear gently with one another and exhort one another in the faith.

I am frankly shocked and appalled at the lack of a caring, gentle, and Pastoral spirit evidenced by some of the comments here. I can testify to more appalling and impious views of the Scriptures and roles in the Church uttered by people I've shared the name of Christ with. When in leadership you should not let them slide but the solution is not to kick them to the curb. I cannot fathom how anyone can read repeated exhortations to encourage one another in the faith and come to the conclusion that this translates to shooting the troublemakers in the head and moving on at the pace of the strongest members.

Rich,

First, I don't think that anyone here was suggesting that Sheryl (or any of the pro-women-in-church-office crowd) should be shot at all, much less in the head.

Second, proponents of this position - particularly form the laity - aren't poor young Christians just trying to figure things out. On the contrary, they are for the most part not interested in such patriarchal notions as the confessional position. They're not interested in being "taught." They're interested in agitating for change. And while you're right that the Bible teaches that the weak should be taught with gentleness, the Bible seems to speak differently of those who by their lack of conformity with apostolic doctrine cause divisions... (See, for example Rom 16:17.)

As an illustration that is closer to home on this site, let's take the issue of the 4th Commandment and how it applies to today. If someone is a "weaker brother" and has questions or does whatever he wants on the Lord's Day, he is typically dealt with patiently.
BUT...
The someone who begins denouncing the confessional position and agitating in every way for a change to the position is promptly, and oftentimes tersely, silenced.

I'm not saying that this is wrong. I'm in fact saying that the principle is ok, and that it applies here too in the case of those who want to reject the teaching of Scripture in regards to women.

I know that I have ZERO patience for "evangelical feminists" because 1) my experience with them has been uniformly frustrating and 2) because as Al Mohler said in class, the hermeneutic employed to allow the Scriptures to be read in such a way as to allow women to serve in public offices invariably leads to liberalism, because it is the hermeneutic of liberalism.

The folks in these rich suburbs who are agitating for women in official positions are doing so because they want the Bible to conform with the culture, and we've been going over this issue for long enough that if they were really wanting to learn they would have done so.

No, they're disturbing the peace and purity of the church. And I say that they should just leave. (Well, actually, I think they should be disciplined, but that isn't going to happen...) Since they have a set of values that is at odds with our Confessional Standards, instead of living in a state of constant agitation and making us divert attention from other pressing issues to deal with them, they should just leave for denominations more suited to their beliefs. At least that's what I would do...

In fact, if the reverse situation was occuring, everyone here would be saying to leave. If someone is in a denomination that teaches women CAN be ordained, and someone says they don't agree with it, we don't tell that person to stick around agitating for change. No, we tell them to leave and go to a good church.

Anyway, I think that the comments you're responding to are for the most part justified.

Originally Posted by jmartinez83

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?

Well dealing with this issue of the Church sending the President a letter, I don't see any reason why we would do it. First, it is a waste of time. Second, it is a symbol, but one that should not be needed.
Third, the only letters that the president cares about are V-O-T-E-S. That is how I will write my letter.

As far as your hypothetical rejoinder, I disagree. Although I am fully against the church writing a letter, I fully embrace the role of the Pastor to teach the truth to his sheep. This is not an issue of conscience, but of Scriptural authority (to which our consciences are bound). The church is NOT to be silent on this matter, and I expect my pastor to be vocal. But I want him to spend his time talking to me, not writing to a godless man.

Originally Posted by solascriptura

i know that i have zero patience for "evangelical feminists" because 1) my experience with them has been uniformly frustrating and 2) because as al mohler said in class, the hermeneutic employed to allow the scriptures to be read in such a way as to allow women to serve in public offices invariably leads to liberalism, because it is the hermeneutic of liberalism.

The folks in these rich suburbs who are agitating for women in official positions are doing so because they want the bible to conform with the culture, and we've been going over this issue for long enough that if they were really wanting to learn they would have done so.

No, they're disturbing the peace and purity of the church. And i say that they should just leave. (well, actually, i think they should be disciplined, but that isn't going to happen...) since they have a set of values that is at odds with our confessional standards, instead of living in a state of constant agitation and making us divert attention from other pressing issues to deal with them, they should just leave for denominations more suited to their beliefs. At least that's what i would do...

amen, amen, amen, amen!!!!!

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Scott1

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?

Come join us for a N Ca presby meeting. You can see it for yourself.

I'll try to find a choice quotation with a date of the meeting, if you are interested.

Cheers,

Come join us for a N Ca presby meeting. You can see it for yourself.

At NorCal they wear it as a badge of honor.

Originally Posted by lynnie

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.

Excellent point Lynnie!

I have been visiting a PCA while I'm working out of town. It's a very conservative and traditional church holding tothe regulative principle of worship, etc. The guest speaker said that the vote was only 16 deciding against studying this issue. You can bet that it will be overturned soon.

If not, half the ministers will be divorced by their wives and even more of the lay representatives will be divorced. After all, their wives are in tears over this issue.

Personally, I think it is a sad day when even the PCA begins to cater to the cultural values of the world rather than the Scriptures. I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?

Good grief!

The PCA is struggling with the Federal Vision issue already. Now its the ordination of women. What NEXT?

I see no reason for women to be ordained ministers. That is not their role in the Scriptures and only a biased reading of the texts can even come close.

As in the Old Testament nation of Israel with its ups and downs and gross apostasies, restoration, then more apostasy.... the endless cycle of conservative, biblical denominations degenerating into apostasy is a slow process taking place over several generations. But that process seems to be at work in the PCA. How long will it be before the homosexuality issue is being presented for study???? Ten years? Twenty?

Call me a fundamentalist.

Charlie

Originally Posted by Cranmer1959

I have been visiting a PCA while I'm working out of town. It's a very conservative and traditional church holding tothe regulative principle of worship, etc. The guest speaker said that the vote was only 16 deciding against studying this issue. You can bet that it will be overturned soon.

If not, half the ministers will be divorced by their wives and even more of the lay representatives will be divorced. After all, their wives are in tears over this issue.

Personally, I think it is a sad day when even the PCA begins to cater to the cultural values of the world rather than the Scriptures. I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?

Good grief!

The PCA is struggling with the Federal Vision issue already. Now its the ordination of women. What NEXT?

I see no reason for women to be ordained ministers. That is not their role in the Scriptures and only a biased reading of the texts can even come close.

As in the Old Testament nation of Israel with its ups and downs and gross apostasies, restoration, then more apostasy.... the endless cycle of conservative, biblical denominations degenerating into apostasy is a slow process taking place over several generations. But that process seems to be at work in the PCA. How long will it be before the homosexuality issue is being presented for study???? Ten years? Twenty?

Call me a fundamentalist.

Charlie

Sorry, Charlie, (I rarely get to use that phrase with a Charlie!) Every deacon I know is married to one woman and has been his whole life. My father-in-law is not gay, nor are the other faithful men whom I know do serve the church in this office. I am hoping your experience is atypical of PCA churches in general.

I was referring to the General Assembly, not to the local church I'm attending. The visiting minister announced that the General Assembly voted against studying the issue of ordaining women as deacons. The measure failed to pass by only 16 votes.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 08:43:38 EST-----

Just to clarify, I do not think "all" PCA parishes, local churches are bad or liberal. In fact, I like the local church where I have been visiting. It is Church Creek PCA in Charleston, South Carolina. My comment was in reference to the general assembly where the proposed measure to study the place of women in ministry failed by only 16 votes. In other words, I'm siding with the conservatives who voted against the measure even though I am not a Presbyterian.

If you wish to hear the remarks I'm referring to, listen to the sermon by Danny Clark on June 14th in the sermon on Deborah and Barak.

History proves out that when we allow cultural values like egalitarian feminism to infiltrate the church rather than following the authoritative teaching of Scripture on issues like this, the inevitable downward spiral into theological and moral liberalism is set into motion. Does anyone remember when the PCA split from the PCUSA? Please tell me what the issue was? Pray tell?

I was accused of bordering on violating the 9th commandment here. I don't see it that way. Rather, I am merely stating in strong words the implications of such a move on the part of the PCA. If the PCUSA and ECUSA are any indication, theological liberalism is a dead end.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

Originally Posted by Cranmer1959

I have been visiting a PCA while I'm working out of town. It's a very conservative and traditional church holding tothe regulative principle of worship, etc. The guest speaker said that the vote was only 16 deciding against studying this issue. You can bet that it will be overturned soon.

If not, half the ministers will be divorced by their wives and even more of the lay representatives will be divorced. After all, their wives are in tears over this issue.

Personally, I think it is a sad day when even the PCA begins to cater to the cultural values of the world rather than the Scriptures. I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?

Good grief!

The PCA is struggling with the Federal Vision issue already. Now its the ordination of women. What NEXT?

I see no reason for women to be ordained ministers. That is not their role in the Scriptures and only a biased reading of the texts can even come close.

As in the Old Testament nation of Israel with its ups and downs and gross apostasies, restoration, then more apostasy.... the endless cycle of conservative, biblical denominations degenerating into apostasy is a slow process taking place over several generations. But that process seems to be at work in the PCA. How long will it be before the homosexuality issue is being presented for study???? Ten years? Twenty?

Call me a fundamentalist.

Charlie

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 08:51:34 EST-----

Someone said:

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 would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

Originally Posted by he beholds

Originally Posted by Cranmer1959

I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?

Sorry, Charlie, (I rarely get to use that phrase with a Charlie!) Every deacon I know is married to one woman and has been his whole life. My father-in-law is not gay, nor are the other faithful men whom I know do serve the church in this office. I am hoping your experience is atypical of PCA churches in general.

I think Charlie's point was not that deacons are not happily married, but rather that since deacons are supposed to be husbands of one wife, you can't ordain a wife as a deacon. In other words, the way the marital requirements are couched demands that only men be considered for the office.

Charlie:
First of all, the proposed study that was defeated was to be on the role of women in the church, not whether or not to have deaconesses. There was confusion on that matter, somehow, among some people.

Second, doesn't your own church have a woman sitting as a member of the vestry? How is that different? I am asking an honest question, because I don't know much about the Anglican system of church government, especially at the local level. (Also, in asking that question, I'm not in any way arguing for the ordination of women).

Hmmm...three clicks from Charlie's link gets you this:

Elected at Convention
ELECTED AT THE DIOCESAN CONVENTION: STANDING COMMITTEE - CLERICAL ORDER The Reverend Phyllis Bartle (4 year) The Reverend Danielle Morris (1 year)

Originally Posted by Cranmer1959

Someone said:

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 would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Cranmer1959

Someone said:

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 would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Cranmer1959

Someone said:

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 would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.

That's undoubtedly true, Pastor Greco, but is there a significant number of PCA pastors pushing for actual ordination? There may be, but I don't know of any...

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.

That's undoubtedly true, Pastor Greco, but is there a significant number of PCA pastors pushing for actual ordination? There may be, but I don't know of any...

Actually it is the not ordaining that is a bigger issue right now in regards to deacon (which is contrary to the BCO). The issue for many is the making the PCA into a 1 office church by destroying the biblical office of deacon.

I have pointed this out before . . . I think that this issue is merely symptomatic of the more serious problem of rebellion. The fact that pastors disagree with our constitution is not as much a problem as their unwillingness to fulfill their ordination vows in submitting to that constitution. Study committees are not the prescribed means for changing the order of a denomination (at least not the PCA).

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

1 OVERTURE 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery (to CCB and OC)
2 “Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”
3
4 Whereas, Crossroads Community Church Presbyterian Church in America, a member
5 church, filed a complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the Philadelphia
6 Presbytery in accord with BCO 43-2 against the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery
7 approving a candidate for licensure who took exception, with respect to the office of
8 deacon, to the provision of BCO 7-2 that states “In accord with Scripture, these
9 offices are open to men only”; and
10
11 Whereas, the 35th General Assembly's review of presbytery records cited an exception of
12 substance (attached hereto as Exhibit B) for the Philadelphia Presbytery for liberti
13 Church as follows “Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned
14 contrary to BCO 9-3 [S]”;
15
16 Whereas, liberti Church responded to the General Assembly’s citation by submitting to the
17 Philadelphia Presbytery an Overture (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the General
18 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America asking for a change to the BCO to
19 allow the election of women to the office of deacon equal with men and the freedom
20 to either ordain both or commission both men and women called to that office; and...


http://www.pcaac.org/GeneralAssembly...Presbytery.pdf
Note bolded text.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

1 OVERTURE 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery (to CCB and OC)
2 “Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”
3
4 Whereas, Crossroads Community Church Presbyterian Church in America, a member
5 church, filed a complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the Philadelphia
6 Presbytery in accord with BCO 43-2 against the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery
7 approving a candidate for licensure who took exception, with respect to the office of
8 deacon, to the provision of BCO 7-2 that states “In accord with Scripture, these
9 offices are open to men only”; and
10
11 Whereas, the 35th General Assembly's review of presbytery records cited an exception of
12 substance (attached hereto as Exhibit B) for the Philadelphia Presbytery for liberti
13 Church as follows “Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned
14 contrary to BCO 9-3 [S]”;
15
16 Whereas, liberti Church responded to the General Assembly’s citation by submitting to the
17 Philadelphia Presbytery an Overture (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the General
18 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America asking for a change to the BCO to
19 allow the election of women to the office of deacon equal with men and the freedom
20 to either ordain both or commission both men and women called to that office; and...


http://www.pcaac.org/GeneralAssembly...Presbytery.pdf
Note bolded text.

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

Perhaps it is right now. Give the agitators some time, and they will push for it to be the norm. Then on to their next conquest: eldership. It's the same song that's been sung before. No need to pretend we haven't heard it before.

First, is the request for toleration;
Second, the request for acceptance as normal;
Third, is the calling of the granting to the old stance a form of "toleration";
Fourth, the old form is called perverse.

This is the method in the Brave New World, and such philosophy is not absent from the PCA.

Cheers,

This Lord's Day, I've been consumed with worship and Deacon service. I've never been so aware of the spiritual charge of this office which the PCA Book of Church Order gets right, biblically:

1) overseeing mercy ministry
2) overseeing property stewardship
3) developing a spirit of liberality amongst the congregation

The impact of men leading this as qualified by I Timothy 3, examined, elected, ordained and installed is immeasurable in the local church. As with the Pastors and Elders, this sets the tone for the church, and effects its whole.

The response of the church to the leaders whom God has appointed for them and they have confirmed is such blessing!

Seeing unordained men and women following in lead of being more merciful, more hospitable, more helpful, more generous more centered on God and neighbor, and not self, is a real blessing!

If we disgrace this office by devaluing or trivializing it for any reason, or the ordination upon which it rests, or the installation upon which it is received, we will be due God's chastisement and the withdrawing of his favorable countenance upon us.

These are spiritual ordinances, (examination, ordination, installation) and they need to be taught and modeled to God's people for the Honor and Glory of our Lord and the careful and proper governance of His Church.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

There is no need for a study committee on this issue. The Scriptures have spoken so clearly even a child can understand them. Women are not to be ordained to any office in the church and opening the door even a crack in that direction is just an excuse to manipulate, revise, and devalue Scriptural teaching.

To be fair to Tim Keller, I hope you realize that no truly egalitarian female in NYC would be satisfied with unordained deaconesses. They would want women elders and pastors. I am in that presbytery, near Princeton, and the mentality of feminism in this ultra liberal north east area would not be satisfied with what Redeemer is doing right now, any more than a ravenous wolf would be satisfied with a bone. Whatever the reason, it isn't to pacify feminists, there is no way this satisfies a true egalitarian.

Originally Posted by lynnie

To be fair to Tim Keller, I hope you realize that no truly egalitarian female in NYC would be satisfied with unordained deaconesses. They would want women elders and pastors. I am in that presbytery, near Princeton, and the mentality of feminism in this ultra liberal north east area would not be satisfied with what Redeemer is doing right now, any more than a ravenous wolf would be satisfied with a bone. Whatever the reason, it isn't to pacify feminists, there is no way this satisfies a true egalitarian.

Like all compromise, it might seem at first like it would settle the issue. On one level it appeals to a notion like "finding a middle ground." The problem is, the principles are based on two very different grounds.

The underlying principles are distinctly different, that's why "finding a middle ground" will not satisfy either set of principles.

On one side is the difficult truth that church leaders have placed themselves under holy vows before God to obey and model a certain polity.

On the other is a belief that one may do what one individually wants to do, as long as they individually think it is best.

The problem is, fundamentally, this is not the way a confessional church operates.

The peace and purity of Christ's church is bigger than us all.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Like all compromise, it might seem at first like it would settle the issue. On one level it appeals to a notion like "finding a middle ground." The problem is, the principles are based on two very different grounds.

The underlying principles are distinctly different, that's why "finding a middle ground" will not satisfy either set of principles. One one side is the difficult truth that church leaders have placed themselves under holy vows before God to obey and model a certain polity.

On the other is a belief that one may do what one individually wants to do, as long as they individually think it is best.

The problem is, fundamentally, this is not the way a confessional church operates.

The peace and purity of Christ's church is bigger than us all.

Very well put. While reading your post, I thought back to just over 70 years ago, when Chamberlain found the 'middle ground' in Munich. Finding that 'middle ground' is rarely a good idea, even outside the Church.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Would you have them serve with ordained men?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...

Originally Posted by ChariotsofFire

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Edward

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...

Another reason this leads to confusion is-

What do we call unordained men who assist in mercy ministry?

PCA polity (e.g. BCO 9-7) is that that unordained men AND women assist the deacons, more or less in parity with one another (parity between the unordained men and women), without special titles.

If we give title to the unordained women who assist, but not the men, we undermine that. The polity is both men and women serve in their capacities as laypeople in the congregation.

There is some flexibility in practice in PCA polity within this framework. It often works out in practice that these unordained men and women are organized under various ministry groups (e.g. Comfort and Care, Single Moms, Refugee Ministry, etc.) that are administratively overseen by the Diaconate, and ultimately by the Session.

This works well in practice and tends to create a more "grass roots" participation by the whole of the congregation. It also tends to overcome the distinctions of gender, age and other factors that so easily divide in the world.

It's not wise biblically to create a tone in the local church where there is a seeking after of titles. A notion only those who have titles really serve. This really is the opposite of biblical pattern, which is the priesthood of all believers, a culture of service as unto the Lord, and a subjection to the brethren (that includes the duly constituted governance of the church God has appointed- Deacons and Elders).

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Would you have them serve with ordained men?

Yes. Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do. Personally, I'm in favor of men being ordained to the office (which seems to be the Scriptural model), but having a group of men and women who perform diaconal work in a formal capacity - these people would be called deacons/deaconesses (also seems to be the Scriptural model).

Originally Posted by ChariotsofFire

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Edward

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...

They don't have the title of an office - they have a title, but it is not the title of an office. They do fill the role outlined in the current system. So why use the term "deaconess" you ask? The better question would be why not use the term? It has been used from the New Testament onward throughout 2,000 years of church history, including for at least 25 of the PCA's 35 year history. It is only in the past few years that people have had a problem with it...

Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do

Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?

I do believe that the pastor I was speaking to thinks that deacons do not have authority, as they are actually carrying out the will of the session, or serving on behalf of the session, maybe? I am not sure, and I don't want to misquote him, but I got that feeling, so women deaconesses wouldn't be an issue of authority. (I do not know whether all of this was devil's advocate or stemmed from personal opinion, as it came about in a discussion between us and not me interviewing him!)

Clearly, the doctrine of Scripture reflected by our Book of Church Order is that the church is governed by Deacons and Elders. Both are authoritative, leadership offices reflecting the explicit qualifications of Scripture that they be men (I Timothy 3, Titus 1).

Deacon is not merely a synonym word for servant. The same word for deacon (servant) sometimes describes Christ ministering. Hopefully, no one would dare represent Christ was only a servant, had no authority, no special title, etc.

The office of Deacon is a leadership one, reflecting not only the explicit qualification of Scripture, but the creation order. In the PCA, the spiritual charge, all leadership roles are:

1) oversee mercy ministry
2) oversee property stewardship
3) develop a spirit of liberality in the congregation

Off-and-on in church history there were "deaconesses" but they were patterned after I Timothy 5 (60 year old widow, vows to remain unmarried, destitute, and financially dependent on the church). There were times in church history the church deviated from those qualifications (e.g. lowered the age to 40) and got into all kinds of trouble. Younger women broke their vows to remain unmarried, left church service primarily, etc. So the practice fell into disuse. It was abandoned.

Only since about 1960, in all of church history, with the liberalism/modernism has it been promoted that I Timothy 3 was an interchangeable office men and women.

More-and-more, what is becoming clear that what is at stake is the office of deacon itself- a high office, qualified, elected, ordained and installed- a perpetual office with high spiritual reward.

By arguing it is only a substitute word for servant only we devalue it, misunderstand it, and trivialize it. When we "commission" but not ordain we devalue the holy ordinance of ordination. What's happening, it appears is that polity and the doctrines of ordinance and church governance are not being taught by some from the pulpit. That's part of their vows, but they are not doing it, and that is causing confusion.

One of the best research papers on the biblical issues and church history on this is Brian Schwerley's http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html