Thread: Another GA, Another Overture

At the PCA's 36th General Assembly last year, Overture 9, the overture to erect a study group regarding deaconesses, occupied a good deal of time. While the Assembly answered the oveture in the negative, a new Overture 9 promises to spark some lively debate again this year.

While the PC(USA) is currently voting on whether to ordain homosexuals, the PCA is being petitioned to strenghten marriage by providing ecclesiastical cover for ministers who refuse to wed homosexual couples. The wording of the Overture would amend Amend BCO 59-6 by striking from it language that would require ministers not to perform weddings that "transgress...the laws of the community."

While on the surface the phrase seems innocuous enough, it could create civil headaches for ministers in Connecticut or Masachussets who refuse to wed such couples on moral grounds. By changing the wording, the minister could respond to possible litigation by saying that he was acting in conformity with denominational policy. It might not save him from a lawsuit, but it would probably help him respond.

Thoughts?

*******************Edit******************
Whoops! It's actually overture 6. But the substance of the post is correct. Hehehhe

I will be supporting Overture 9. I see no reason for it to be a "non-binding" part of the BCO.

I agree. It's a good idea. How is that you got thanked for that??? Or do you just have an auto thank macro built into the programming here?

Overture 9? The PCA is actually considering female deacons... My family and I are visiting a PCA church right now and this might be a deal breaker. Im not in the PCA so what am I missing here? PCA brothers please enlighten me to this argument.

The PCA BCO does not allow for women deacons.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

At the PCA's 36th General Assembly last year, Overture 9, the overture to erect a study group regarding deaconesses, occupied a good deal of time. While the Assembly answered the oveture in the negative, a new Overture 9 promises to spark some lively debate again this year.

While the PCA (USA) can you please delete the A? I don't want people to think we are considering that!is currently voting on whether to ordain homosexuals, the PCA is being petitioned to strenghten marriage by providing ecclesiastical cover for ministers who refuse to wed homosexual couples. The wording of the Overture would amend Amend BCO 59-6 by striking from it language that would require ministers not to perform weddings that "transgress...the laws of the community."

While on the surface the phrase seems innocuous enough, it could create civil headaches for ministers in Connecticut or Masachussets who refuse to wed such couples on moral grounds. By changing the wording, the minister could respond to possible litigation by saying that he was acting in conformity with denominational policy. It might not save him from a lawsuit, but it would probably help him respond.

Thoughts?

*******************Edit******************
Whoops! It's actually overture 6. But the substance of the post is correct. Hehehhe

I am not sure I understand what it says now vs. what is being introduced. I would support a policy that said, "ministers are not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies that transgress the law of God," regardless of the law of community.

Excuse my ignorance I did not relize that the second overture was "Overture 6". I now see why Overture 6 would be getting support. "law of the community" will lead to trouble with the ever changing laws in our nation.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 04:04:28 EST-----

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

The PCA BCO does not allow for women deacons.

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood the original post.

Done, Jessi. My bad John. I was typing faster than I was proofing. It is Overture 6.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Done, Jessi. My bad John. I was typing faster than I was proofing. It is Overture 6.

Kevin no problem its not your fault that I did not understand the obvious

Originally Posted by Blev3rd

Overture 9? The PCA is actually considering female deacons... My family and I are visiting a PCA church right now and this might be a deal breaker. Im not in the PCA so what am I missing here? PCA brothers please enlighten me to this argument.

They are not making PCAs with them stop and get rid of them at this point. 10th Pres in Philly (Ryken) has them for example. Keep in mind that they are not ordained, they are "commissioned" ( whatever that means) and they are strictly in feminine helping service, not authoritative roles. Some presbyterys do not have them at all.

My church will not have deaconesses, ever. So find out about your church and presbytery, they are all different. If you end up with a great pastor like we have, don't leave now just because the PCA has some other churches with deaconnesses at the moment.

The denomination does have some problem issues in churches here and there but the GA has been upholding truth... good decision on FV for example. And they are still holding officially to the BCO on ordination of deaconesses.

I think we should erect a study committee to study the role of women....

That was sarcasm. I don't think we should. Please correct me if, in my youth, I'm too dogmatic... Reasons, you ask???

1) I think the Bible is pretty clear about a woman's role.
2) Study Committees really don't make anything binding, with an overwhelming majority (like on FV/NPP) it might make people look at it.
3) The Administration Committee (EVERYONE KNOWS) has no money. This is not a wise study committee to spend $10,000 on.
4) The types of questions they are asking the Study Committee to answer would lead to answers that can and will only hurt the PCA (especially with a mixed committee): (1) What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church? (2) What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches? (3) What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO? (4) What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Kevin, why didn't you say something about this overture.

Gotta keep picking at the perimeter, don't they? Why are these folks in the PCA? What possible motive could bring them into this denom, when there are plenty of wack job denoms out there for them to practice their rebellion against the word of God?

Every year the same silly issue. If you want to ordain women to Church office, why not go find a call in the EPC or PCUSA? Is it that there are just not enough open pulpits in those denoms? Or is the pay better in the PCA? Or do they just have a desire to drag the PCA down into the filth?

The men of the PCA need to grow a pair and put this garbage to rest.

They are not making PCAs with them stop and get rid of them at this point.

I don't think the GA should have to deal with it until one member of one church does the right thing and bring a case against a church calling someone an unordained Deacon. Any appeals process would eventually land the case at the GA and then they could decide it. Not that it would take too much to come to a decision, since the BCO says all Deacons have to be ordained.

You simply can't call someone a Deacon if they're not ordained, and women, Baptists and Arminians can't be ordained. I would think it would be a slam dunk.

Originally Posted by Brad

Gotta keep picking at the perimeter, don't they? Why are these folks in the PCA? What possible motive could bring them into this denom, when there are plenty of wack job denoms out there for them to practice their rebellion against the word of God?

Every year the same silly issue. If you want to ordain women to Church office, why not go find a call in the EPC or PCUSA? Is it that there are just not enough open pulpits in those denoms? Or is the pay better in the PCA? Or do they just have a desire to drag the PCA down into the filth?

The men of the PCA need to grow a pair and put this garbage to rest.

Originally Posted by Romans922

Kevin, why didn't you say something about this overture.

I have not yet had the opportunity thought it is on my list of things to do. It appears to be an end run around last year's "NO," doesn't it?

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Originally Posted by Romans922

Kevin, why didn't you say something about this overture.

I have not yet had the opportunity thought it is on my list of things to do. It appears to be an end run around last year's "NO," doesn't it?

Well, I think it is. They might not think so (and even if they do), others certainly will. It is easy step.

I can see it now...****Andrew's nightmare tonight****Study Committee approved, Moderator appoints a diversified group which has all views on it. You know --> Phil Ryken, Tim Keller, Ligon Duncan, (I'd want Fred Greco (he's famous now... ), etc. (or people like that). Since they cannot come to a conclusion, there is a majority report and minority report. My dream will show that the majority report will be the complementary position, whereas the minority will be the 'less' complementary position calling for the BCO to be changed and saying that women can be deacons. BLOGS GO CRAZY!!!! for 3 months. GA comes around and the minority report is made the majority report, and is approved. I have a heart attack on the spot at the ripe ole age of 28 and I enter into glory. ****Andrew's nightmare over...everything is wonderful now****

Maybe that is the worse case scenario, but it is my future nightmare...

Originally Posted by Brad

Gotta keep picking at the perimeter, don't they? Why are these folks in the PCA? What possible motive could bring them into this denom, when there are plenty of wack job denoms out there for them to practice their rebellion against the word of God?

Every year the same silly issue. If you want to ordain women to Church office, why not go find a call in the EPC or PCUSA? Is it that there are just not enough open pulpits in those denoms? Or is the pay better in the PCA? Or do they just have a desire to drag the PCA down into the filth?

The men of the PCA need to grow a pair and put this garbage to rest.

Whoa, slow down a sec.

Did you mean to say that every denomination that ordained deaconesses was a "wack job denom" that was in "rebellion against the word of God"???

Like maybe all of those evil members of the RPCNA? Or perhaps the whack jobs over at the ARP?

Tone down the rhetoric! A lot more God fearing, confessional MEN disagree with you then you realise. And that is OK!

Disagree all you want. Argue all you want. Debate to the best of your ability, by all means. But, don't slander your reformed brothers in Christ, with in & without of the PCA.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by Brad

Gotta keep picking at the perimeter, don't they? Why are these folks in the PCA? What possible motive could bring them into this denom, when there are plenty of wack job denoms out there for them to practice their rebellion against the word of God?

Every year the same silly issue. If you want to ordain women to Church office, why not go find a call in the EPC or PCUSA? Is it that there are just not enough open pulpits in those denoms? Or is the pay better in the PCA? Or do they just have a desire to drag the PCA down into the filth?

The men of the PCA need to grow a pair and put this garbage to rest.

Whoa, slow down a sec.

Did you mean to say that every denomination that ordained deaconesses was a "wack job denom" that was in "rebellion against the word of God"???

Like maybe all of those evil members of the RPCNA? Or perhaps the whack jobs over at the ARP?

Tone down the rhetoric! A lot more God fearing, confessional MEN disagree with you then you realise. And that is OK!

Disagree all you want. Argue all you want. Debate to the best of your ability, by all means. But, don't slander your reformed brothers in Christ, with in & without of the PCA.

Error creeps in at every turn. The fact that otherwise sound denoms have allowed the egalitarianism of the culture to enter in to their polity does not serve to mitigate the danger of the error. If they are not 'whack job denoms' yet, they are certainly slouching their way in that direction, period. Whether they disagree with me or not is immaterial. That they disagree with scripture is the main problem, and then with the confessions to which they claim subscription second. This is another attack on the denom to which I, and my daughters, are a part of, and that alone is enough to stir strong passions, and rightly so.

I refuse to sit idly by due to some effeminate sense of civility while 'progressives' assail the peace and purity of the Church with guile and subtlety. Instead of tempting and stumbling my daughters with offers of Church office, we should be about the business of teaching and demonstrating to them how they may serve Christ and His body as scripture prescribes. Where are the overtures to demand that of this denomination?

We all know very well that women perform a great deal of service to the body, always have. Why is there this sudden need to 'honor' that service with an ordained office? Maybe because it is not honored as it should be. The solution to that is to properly recognize that service, not defy scripture. If a Benjaminite were laboring in the temple, would it have been appropriate for the Levites to vote an end run around the law and ordain him as a Priest?

Hey, Kevin

I have a lot of sympathy for your post. If I'd joined a church that allows women Deacons I'd just go along with the flow on that one, to be honest. But when you say

Disagree all you want. Argue all you want. Debate to the best of your ability, by all means. But, don't slander your reformed brothers in Christ, with in & without of the PCA.

I don't think Brad was slandering anyone in the PCA when he called the constant pushing to change the BCO garbage. I would bet that if we had a poll here where only women could vote, the great majority do not feel despised and unappreciated by being barred from office.

The pushing of this issue doesn't come from godly women. It comes from liberal men. Men who joined an organisation that does not allow Deacons that or not ordained, and does not allow Deacons who are women.

The people will push and push until they are in control of everything, and things will fall apart like they always do. Unless, that is, if they aren't pushed back before it is too late. We had a situation locally with a man imposed his personality on the Presbytery to the point where conservatives were discriminated against. It can and will happen.

Brad, You are wrong.

There is no creeping egalitarianism or compromise with the culture in either case that I cited.

When I think of the RPCNA the first image that comes to mind is NOT effeminate progrssives.

effeminate progrssives.

That is a misrepresentation of my words. I did not connect them as you have inferred.

I'll say again, error creeps in at every turn. It is evident that no denomination is immune to it.

Originally Posted by TimV

They are not making PCAs with them stop and get rid of them at this point.

I don't think the GA should have to deal with it until one member of one church does the right thing and bring a case against a church calling someone an unordained Deacon. Any appeals process would eventually land the case at the GA and then they could decide it. Not that it would take too much to come to a decision, since the BCO says all Deacons have to be ordained.

You simply can't call someone a Deacon if they're not ordained, and women, Baptists and Arminians can't be ordained. I would think it would be a slam dunk.

It would be good if someone did do this. But they need to be dedicated. It's a long process. As I read the BCO, the process would most likely follow this route if someone chose to do this.

Actions Needed

Member Files a Complaint to Session 30 days

Session Declines to find a Presumption of Guilt,
so member files another complaint about failure to
find persumption of guilt. 30 days

Session still doesn't find a presumption of guilt,
member complains to Presbertery 90 days

Presbertery dosen't find issue with Session decition,
member files complaint to Presberty about that. 90 days

Presberyt still rules against the member, member file
complaint to SJC 90 days

The time to completion is base off that Session usually meet monthly, Presbyteries quarterly, and I think the SJC meets quarterly. So my understanding is that if everything goes well, ordinary member would be lucking to get a case up to the SJC within a year. At least this is what my current understanding is.

Maybe someone can correct me that knows better....

Originally Posted by Brad

effeminate progrssives.

That is a misrepresentation of my words. I did not connect them as you have inferred.

I'll say again, error creeps in at every turn. It is evident that no denomination is immune to it.

Sorry about that. I reread your remarks, and you did not say it that way.

I will repeat that I believe that you do a disservice to the church at large when you assume that all of those brothers that disagree with you are motivated by outright egalitarianism.

Although some liberals may view this as a wedge issue to force (eventual) female elders. The overwhelming numbers of those in the PCA, OPC, ARP, RPCNA who are in favour of deaconesses, are in favour of them because they are convinced that the scripture teaches it.

Thanks, Kevin.

I don't think that most folks who hold to error have as their aim what it eventually extrapolates into, which is why it is so insiduous and must be guarded against. If there is one thing my conversion from charismatic arminian to reformed believer has taught me, it is that error is often clouded in the best of intentions in the minds of those who embrace it. I never even realized how much my flesh and the philosophies of the world influenced my reading of God's word. And that discovery continues to this day, so it comes as no surprise to me that otherwise orthodox men would have error lying somewhere in their theologies. But that does not change the fact that error is error. Nor does it mean that error should be any less forcefully resisted because it is embraced by those within the camp than it should when held by those without.

Scripture does not teach that women should occupy Church office, and those who believe it does should not take pulpits, serve on Sessions, or even join Churches that by their Confession and rules of order agree with scripture by forbidding the practice.

By doing so they willingly attack the peace and purity of the Church.

[quote=Brad;557471][quote=Kevin;557007]

Originally Posted by Brad

I refuse to sit idly by due to some effeminate sense of civility while 'progressives' assail the peace and purity of the Church with guile and subtlety. Instead of tempting and stumbling my daughters with offers of Church office, we should be about the business of teaching and demonstrating to them how they may serve Christ and His body as scripture prescribes. Where are the overtures to demand that of this denomination?

Folks, it is only a matter of degree on the continuum.

As Grudem observed, most (I believe he said all) denoms that opened the doors on egalitarianism a couple of decades ago are struggling with homosexual ordination today. He sees a causal connection between the two. A couple of years ago my judicatory withdrew from the ABC over issues of homosexual ordination. During my seminary years in the 70s the issue was egalitarianism.

If the PCA remains in the American culture, it will continue to be tough to resist the lure of egalitarian ideas (much as the younger generation are generally more "tolerant" on homosexual issues today). But, if they yield on this point, you WILL be struggling with homosexual ordination in a matter of a few years.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Folks, it is only a matter of degree on the continuum.

As Grudem observed, most (I believe he said all) denoms that opened the doors on egalitarianism a couple of decades ago are struggling with homosexual ordination today. He sees a causal connection between the two. A couple of years ago my judicatory withdrew from the ABC over issues of homosexual ordination. During my seminary years in the 70s the issue was egalitarianism.

If the PCA remains in the American culture, it will continue to be tough to resist the lure of egalitarian ideas (much as the younger generation are generally more "tolerant" on homosexual issues today). But, if they yield on this point, you WILL be struggling with homosexual ordination in a matter of a few years.

Two examples contra Grudems assertion are the ARP & the RPCNA.