» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 106 | | 34 members and 72 guests | | Anton Bruckner, austinww, Backwoods Presbyterian, Blueridge Believer, buggy, Chaplainintraining, ColdSilverMoon, Dr. Bob Gonzales, Jimmy the Greek, Marrow Man, MrMerlin777, Nathan Riese, satz, Sgt Grit, Skyler, T.A.G., TaylorOtwell, The Calvin Knight, Tim, TimV, toddpedlar, Tripel, TrueConvert, ubermadchen, WAWICRUZ, westminken | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | | 
04-24-2009, 06:34 PM
|  | Iron Dramatist | | Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Decorah, IA
Posts: 6,254
Thanks: 249
Thanked 2,370 Times in 1,238 Posts
| | |
Good! Probably won't go anywhere, but they've been in violation of the BCO in practice (holding to the letter, I suppose, by using the dodge of ordaining nobody but having a 'vibrant diaconal ministry') for YEARS in Metro NY.
| 
04-24-2009, 06:56 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: London, UK
Posts: 258
Thanks: 141
Thanked 68 Times in 33 Posts
| | |
Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.
__________________
Jon
London, UK
Ex-Redeemer PCA, Manhattan
(Now All Souls' Langham Place, London)
| 
04-24-2009, 07:10 PM
|  | Drunk with Powder | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,109
Thanks: 2,779
Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,224 Posts
| | |
One of the TEs mentioned in the Metro NY Presbytery report (Craig Higgins) was my campus minister in college. While I consider to him to be a brilliant, godly man, this isn't the first time in the last few years that I've read/seen/heard something regarding him that has distressed me. When the committee report concerning the FV came up at the PCA GA a couple of years ago, he was either minister directly before or directly after Sproul's famous admonition (which means he was speaking from the other viewpoint).
| 
04-24-2009, 07:18 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,358
Thanks: 263
Thanked 602 Times in 318 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans922 | Ryken's church has had women deeks for a LONG time. I believe that they were grandmothered in when 10th came into the PCA from the UPCNA.
| 
04-24-2009, 07:18 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,427
Thanks: 2,919
Thanked 6,140 Times in 2,590 Posts
| | |
No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures teach when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.
__________________ Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA Facebook - The Calvinist Vent Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry | | The Following 30 Users Say Thank You to Joshua For This Useful Post: | Anton Bruckner (04-26-2009), Athaleyah (04-27-2009), Augusta (04-26-2009), Backwoods Presbyterian (04-24-2009), Berean (04-26-2009), Beth Ellen Nagle (04-25-2009), brianeschen (04-25-2009), dbroyles (05-08-2009), ericfromcowtown (04-25-2009), gene_mingo (04-24-2009), Hamalas (04-25-2009), jaybird0827 (04-25-2009), JM (05-18-2009), Josiah (04-24-2009), JOwen (05-19-2009), Knoxienne (04-25-2009), Marrow Man (04-24-2009), Michael Butterfield (05-19-2009), Michael Doyle (04-27-2009), PointyHaired Calvinist (04-24-2009), Quickened (04-25-2009), reformed trucker (04-24-2009), Rev. Todd Ruddell (05-20-2009), Scottish Lass (04-25-2009), Southern Presbyterian (04-25-2009), SRoper (06-14-2009), Theoretical (04-24-2009), toddpedlar (04-25-2009), w (04-24-2009), WarrenInSC (04-25-2009) | 
04-24-2009, 07:26 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: London, UK
Posts: 258
Thanks: 141
Thanked 68 Times in 33 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such. | I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.
| 
04-24-2009, 07:56 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Plano TX
Posts: 2,038
Thanks: 626
Thanked 683 Times in 444 Posts
| | |
*
It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.
I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.
__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas
Last edited by NaphtaliPress; 04-26-2009 at 05:21 PM.
Reason: deleting quotation from Lynnie's post as she deleted the original
| | The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Edward For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 07:59 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,871
Thanks: 1,906
Thanked 1,850 Times in 1,096 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmo Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside. | Yes, Tim Kellar is a gifted teaching elder and the church he serves is a great asset.
We need to pray he and the leadership will respond humbly as this is being "called out" for accountability to the larger church.
There appears to be a failure here to follow the denomination's polity (something all elders and deacons vow to) in a very significant way:
1) refusing to ordain and install Deacons
2) denying the congregation of the benefits of the presbyterian system of government
(That is the church is governed by elders and deacons, with unordained men and women assisting)
We also have to remember that a particular church is not intended to be overly dominated by one person in presbyterian polity. We all have a tendency to "worship" people by being "respectors of persons." That is not right, biblically.
There are many checks in the PCA system including ordaining and installing associate pastors (called by the congregation). Leadership (governance) really is designed to come from the plurality of elders (usually ruling elders). So, one teaching elder's views ought not be dominating polity- that should be coming from the ruling elders.
If what is coming out is true, there has been a real failure of that, and the situation has been allowed to get out of hand.
We all need to pray here that this will be met with humility, submission and charity all around. This needs to be shown to the outside watching as well as for the peace and purity of Christ's church.
__________________ Scott
PCA
North Carolina "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23 | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Scott1 For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 08:11 PM
| | Inactive User | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Neverwhere, USA
Posts: 2,156
Thanks: 478
Thanked 322 Times in 203 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmo Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such. | I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended. | Definitely keep reading the Bayly Blog...Tim Bayly has documented Redeemer's violations clearly...and has shown that Tim Keller less than forthright when it comes to Redeemer and their deaconesses.
Tim Bayly on deaconesses being "grandfathered" in: BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: The RPCES heritage in the PCA: Jim Hurley, Joel Belz, Will Barker, Steve Smallman, and Dominic Aquila...
Tim's systematic dealing with the RPCES decisions re: deaconesses: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6a Part 6b | | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Craig For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 09:16 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,024
Thanks: 671
Thanked 843 Times in 395 Posts
| | |
While I take great issue with Pastors Tim and David Bayly in some of the highly inappropriate and unfounded things they've said about Pastor Keller and Redeemer (you can see my comments there - I don't want to start a "blog war"), I do commend them for their desire to maintain the integrity of the PCA polity and to uphold Scripture. I understand their concern about the deaconess issue, but I think these presbyteries have a strong case; I support the Metro NY Presbytery (and the 3 others), but can see the strength of the complaints against them.
As I understand it, the complaint against the Metro NY Presbytery will first go before the presbytery itself, and then before the presbytery's standing judicial committee. Since the presbytery itself just passed these resolutions, it seems highly unlikely that they would reverse course and uphold the complaint.
From there, I believe it would go before the GA judicial committee. At that point, one of two things will happen: the complaint will be rejected and things will continue as they are, or they will uphold the complaint against the Metro NY Presbytery, which would directly affect my church (Redeemer) and pastor. While I hope they reject the complaint, my hunch is that they will uphold it, and rule against the practice of not ordaining male deacons.
If that happens, I suspect the Metro NY Presbytery will disagree with the decision but will comply, and as a result Redeemer will ordain male deacons - I think it is highly unlikely that Redeemer would leave the PCA over this. In practice, I doubt anything will change - a handful of male deacons will be ordained, but the day to day function of the diaconate will likely remain completely unchanged.
So in the end, I think everyone will be satisfied: Redeemer can retain its strong female presence in the diaconate, only now with some ordained male deacons, and the anti-deaconess camp will be happy because the BCO will be strictly upheld and it will be viewed as a repudiation of liberalization (as much as I personally disagree). So in the end, this complaint could actually be a good thing overall for the PCA. While I personally hate to see my church under fire, I am glad this issue is being addressed, and will hopefully be resolved once and for all.
I pray for the PCA, particularly for unity, and for wisdom of the men on the judicial committees. I also pray for Redeemer and Pastor Keller, especially for wisdom as they navigate these choppy waters.
__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY
"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
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ColdSilverMoon For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:00 PM
|  | Drunk with Powder | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,109
Thanks: 2,779
Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,224 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.
I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making. | It ain't necessarily peachy in the ARP, either. The presbytery I'm in, by and large, is opposed the whole deaconness thing as well (the ARP policy is to allow the practice on a sessional basis -- the wording allowing it in the Form of Government is very vague, btw). The memorial (same as overtures in the PCA) has been presented to rescind the practice, but it cannot get any traction outside of our presbytery.
This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in. The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books. And barring anything extraordinary, it's won't go away. | | The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Marrow Man For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:17 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Plano TX
Posts: 2,038
Thanks: 626
Thanked 683 Times in 444 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in. | Agreed.
I grew up in the PCUS, and unlike some of the younger brothers, I know that change like this is generally a one way street. Southern Baptists, under the leadership of Patterson and Patterson is the only case I can think of where the liberals were not just stopped in their tracks, but rolled back decisively.
The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.
| | The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Edward For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:18 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,058
Thanks: 913
Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
| | |
Praying for the elimination of Egalitarianism within the PCA as soon as it is able to do so as I believe this to be of the utmost importance.
__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM
| | The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to whitway For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:19 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Sarver, PA
Posts: 11,984
Thanks: 5,106
Thanked 2,645 Times in 1,605 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in. | Agreed.
I grew up in the PCUS, and unlike some of the younger brothers, I know that change like this is generally a one way street. Southern Baptists, under the leadership of Patterson and Patterson is the only case I can think of where the liberals were not just stopped in their tracks, but rolled back decisively.
The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned. | As a recent convert from the PC(USA) I can concur wholeheartedly. Egalitarianism is not a disease that many recover from, especially those with "big names" doing the pushing.
| | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods Presbyterian For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:29 PM
|  | Puritanboard Botanist | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,477
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 2,416 Times in 1,142 Posts
| | |
Don't count out NorCal. There are still three Presbyterian churches in that Presbytery, and they have more energy and knowledge than those of churches there like Keller's who say "We have no women Deacons. Please welcome Amy Chung, our head of the Deaconate" and think that they can even spell the word integrity.
__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California
| | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TimV For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:30 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hilton Head, SC
Posts: 303
Thanks: 238
Thanked 55 Times in 23 Posts
| | | Indeed, Division Started w/ Ignoring the BCO Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward ...*
It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.
I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making. | Indeed. It has already 'blown up into a mess" - that's the problem. We in the PCA are supposed to be part of a confessional and connectional church. When a high profile church with a high profile pastor knowingly and deliberately ignores the governing instrument of our unity, the BCO, that is an attack on the very heart of our unity. It is deeply divisive and distresses the brotherhood of believers within our PCA. It is a great service to the peace and unity of the church to call out this blatant non-conformance and bring it to account. This is really two issues - the issue of deaconesses, which is clearly settled in our standards, consistents with centuries of understanding by the Church as a whole, and the issue of deliberate unconstitutional process. Just think - if this unconstitutional process is allowed to go unchallenged and not rolled back, the same unconstitutional process could then be pointed to as acceptable practice within the PCA - and then made a habit, but on other deep issues of faith and practice.
__________________
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
Last edited by NaphtaliPress; 04-26-2009 at 05:22 PM.
Reason: deleting quotation from Lynnie's post as she deleted the original
| | The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to WarrenInSC For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:41 PM
|  | Drunk with Powder | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,109
Thanks: 2,779
Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,224 Posts
| | |
Let me ask a dumb question: in the ARP, we have the "local option" with regard to deacons and deaconnesses (I'm not making this up -- our Form of Government defines deacons as "persons* of good character, honest repute, exemplary life, brotherly love, sympathetic nature, and sound judgment, and who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture"; the asterisk leads to the following statement: "Circumstances of the local congregation shall require each session to determine the meaning of the word 'persons.' "). But it is still left up to local sessions. Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Marrow Man For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:51 PM
|  | Puritanboard Botanist | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,477
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 2,416 Times in 1,142 Posts
| | Quote: |
Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?
| Neither. They are headed to take their BCO seriously.
| | The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to TimV For This Useful Post: | | 
04-24-2009, 10:53 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,058
Thanks: 913
Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man Let me ask a dumb question: in the ARP, we have the "local option" with regard to deacons and deaconnesses (I'm not making this up -- our Form of Government defines deacons as "persons* of good character, honest repute, exemplary life, brotherly love, sympathetic nature, and sound judgment, and who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture"; the asterisk leads to the following statement: "Circumstances of the local congregation shall require each session to determine the meaning of the word 'persons.' "). But it is still left up to local sessions. Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness? | Hopefully C: None of the Above! Here is an Overtures link and Overture 5 is seeking to open up the question of what is the woman's role in the Church. Presbyterian Church in America | 
04-24-2009, 11:21 PM
|  | Puritanboard Botanist | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,477
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 2,416 Times in 1,142 Posts
| | Quote: |
It cannot be put in the same category with the creeds and confessions even though you promise to uphold them all. I sure hope they go straight to the Word when it comes to women in leadership.
| But that's chaos. If I said I thought that cussing was fine, and I joined this board and agreed not to cuss then I have to abide by my word. These people joined the PCA with eyes wide open, and they are ignoring their vows. That's the problem, not women Deacons. There are ways to change the BCO legally and orderly.
| | The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to TimV For This Useful Post: | Athaleyah (04-27-2009), Backwoods Presbyterian (04-25-2009), Berean (05-19-2009), brianeschen (04-25-2009), Ex Nihilo (04-25-2009), gene_mingo (04-25-2009), he beholds (04-26-2009), JBaldwin (04-25-2009), Michael Butterfield (05-19-2009), Michael Doyle (04-27-2009), Puritan Sailor (04-25-2009), Theoretical (04-25-2009), w (04-25-2009), WarrenInSC (04-25-2009) | 
04-25-2009, 12:08 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hilton Head, SC
Posts: 303
Thanks: 238
Thanked 55 Times in 23 Posts
| | | Vows are words - words have meaning Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV Quote: |
It cannot be put in the same category with the creeds and confessions even though you promise to uphold them all. I sure hope they go straight to the Word when it comes to women in leadership.
| But that's chaos. If I said I thought that cussing was fine, and I joined this board and agreed not to cuss then I have to abide by my word. These people joined the PCA with eyes wide open, and they are ignoring their vows. That's the problem, not women Deacons. There are ways to change the BCO legally and orderly. | Precisely - when every one of the TE's & RE's in Metro NY took a vow, they said words before the Lord and His Church that are supposed to MEAN something - not some post-modernist personal reinterpretation that changes with time & culture. | | The Following User Says Thank You to WarrenInSC For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 12:17 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Plano TX
Posts: 2,038
Thanks: 626
Thanked 683 Times in 444 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness? | IF the innovation is allowed to stand, based upon my recollection of what transpired in the PCUS, I would guess that it would initially be permissive, and a few years later become required. And now (or at least a couple of years ago, based on the last statistics I saw) 75% of the 'deacons' in the PCUSA are women, and right around half of the elders. So I know how this story ends if proper discipline isn't enforced at this stage.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Edward For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 12:26 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tchula, MS
Posts: 2,571
Thanks: 136
Thanked 560 Times in 259 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmo Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such. | I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended. |
Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution.
| | The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Romans922 For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 12:42 AM
|  | whippersnapper | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 2,751
Thanks: 1,471
Thanked 539 Times in 328 Posts
| |
Oh Lord I pray for my denomination.
__________________
Ben Franks
I attend: Ketoctin Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
in Purcellville, Virginia
I'm a member of: Heartland Community Church (PCA)
in Wichita, Kansas
I blog here (along with my Dad): http://rrfranks.blogspot.com/
And I'm a student here: www.phc.edu "Remember the speeches we have spoken so often over our mead, when we raised boast on the bench, heroes in the hall, about hard fighting. Now may the man who is bold prove that he is."-Aelfwine at the Battle of Maldon | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hamalas For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 01:40 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 619
Thanks: 142
Thanked 260 Times in 151 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned. | Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so.
Last edited by Marrow Man; 04-25-2009 at 07:43 AM.
Reason: The quotation was from Edward, not MM.
| 
04-25-2009, 02:50 AM
|  | Snow Miser | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 3,313
Thanks: 313
Thanked 1,413 Times in 741 Posts
| | |
Mason,
Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up?
Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst?
__________________ Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn 
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo 
Deacon Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zenas For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 03:06 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Pleasanton, California
Posts: 1,107
Thanks: 724
Thanked 188 Times in 108 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmo Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside. | City Church San Francisco left because they wouldn't submit to the vows they agreed to submit to. BCO 8 - the elder and BCO 9 - the deacon. They knew getting into the denomination that the PCA holds that these two offices are for qualified MEN only. They remained in long enough for the PCA to get them started financially and then they bolted.
__________________
Brian Eschen
Ruling Elder, PCA
Pleasanton, California
| | The Following User Says Thank You to brianeschen For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 07:50 AM
|  | Drunk with Powder | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,109
Thanks: 2,779
Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,224 Posts
| |
This issue bears some similarities with another thread I started here. Though it is over different issues (WCF v. BCO), the root problem is similar: how do we handle ministers who enter a denomination knowing full well what that denomination teaches and yet begin teaching (in some capacity) differently from the system accepted by that denomination. It seems a recipe for disaster.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Marrow Man For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 10:00 AM
| | Inactive User | | Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,046
Thanks: 706
Thanked 192 Times in 100 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man This issue bears some similarities with another thread I started here. Though it is over different issues (WCF v. BCO), the root problem is similar: how do we handle ministers who enter a denomination knowing full well what that denomination teaches and yet begin teaching (in some capacity) differently from the system accepted by that denomination. It seems a recipe for disaster. | Tim great point. I do not understand why we tolerate this for a single minute. It is vital to the health of the denomination that we put these men out of the denomination the minute that they publicly or privately teach against the standards. This issue has been settled for thousands of years, there is no reason to be tolerant, but unfortunately we will. We should keep in mind that this is only the beginning.
__________________
w
Last edited by Joshua; 04-25-2009 at 11:20 AM.
| | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to w For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 10:25 AM
|  | Drunk with Powder | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,109
Thanks: 2,779
Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,224 Posts
| | |
*
I cannot understand the arrogance of someone who would disturb the peace and unity of the church and split a denomination by pushing an agenda like this. The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter. But causing a split over egalitarianism and/or quasi-feminism?!? For shame.
Last edited by NaphtaliPress; 04-26-2009 at 05:23 PM.
Reason: deleting quotation from Lynnie's post as she deleted the original
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Marrow Man For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 10:48 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Plano TX
Posts: 2,038
Thanks: 626
Thanked 683 Times in 444 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned. | Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so. | Private conversations with a few of the men involved, and reading some of the material in connection with the threat of a Presbytery to withdraw a few years ago. Probably not worth a thread from me, because I don't think I'd say much beyond that, and would likely not defend my point further if someone could refute it.
| 
04-25-2009, 10:48 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,358
Thanks: 263
Thanked 602 Times in 318 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books.  | Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.
| 
04-25-2009, 10:53 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Plano TX
Posts: 2,038
Thanks: 626
Thanked 683 Times in 444 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter. | I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Edward For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 10:57 AM
|  | Vanilla Westminsterian | | Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 10,520
Thanks: 334
Thanked 3,502 Times in 1,412 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by nleshelman Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books.  | Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement. | From a Position Paper approved by the ARP General Synod:
( Women in the Life of the Church ) Quote:
The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church discussed and debated these matters with vigor from the 1960's until the early 1980's. A key development was the defeat of a 1969 proposal to rewrite the Form of Government so as to open all offices to women. The 1969 General Synod declined to open the offices of elder and minister to women but did permit
Sessions to allow women to serve in the office of deacon
|
__________________ 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) | | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to fredtgreco For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 11:05 AM
|  | Drunk with Powder | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,109
Thanks: 2,779
Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,224 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrow Man The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter. | I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out. | Eh, you may be correct. I understand your point. I only meant that the conservatives who left in 1973 did so for the "right" reasons. If a disgruntled group leaves now b/c of egalitarianism, that is not the right reason. | | The Following User Says Thank You to Marrow Man For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 11:08 AM
|  | Iron Dramatist | | Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Decorah, IA
Posts: 6,254
Thanks: 249
Thanked 2,370 Times in 1,238 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmo Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such. | I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended. | The primary issue I have is that the office of deaconness is not Scriptural, and is certainly contrary to the confession, and without a doubt contrary to the BCO.
So what has been done at Redeemer and other churches is to dispense with the "office" of deacon entirely so that men and women can equally well fill exactly the role that ordained deacons do in churches that hold to the BCO they claim as their own as part of the PCA. The deaconesses at Redeemer and other places that have merely "commissioned" people doing the diaconal role do just what deacons do at places that properly ordain deacons.
So the other problem, which is not much less significant than the Biblical issue, is that these churches are skirting (no pun intended) the BCO which they claim to uphold. They are doing what they want to do in such a way that they are not violating the letter of the BCO, but are CLEARLY violating the intent. This is the source of the complaint, and in my opinion a highly dishonest way of operating. It would be far better and more respectable to practice according to the BCO as it is written, and work to change it, than to sidestep the BCO and practice the way you'd rather (with male and female deacons holding office equally, though you argue strenuously that they really aren't holding office) and pretend you're not violating the church constitution.
| | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to toddpedlar For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 11:08 AM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 3,667
Thanks: 2,140
Thanked 971 Times in 581 Posts
| |
I will say that I'm disturbed by the number of these reformed womens' conferences and retreats (from a variety of reformed denominations) where women travel around and speak. I stopped attending these because they annoy me no end. These women already have a podium, and have made a business career out of traveling around to these conferences. Certainly they belong to churches which forbid women elders, but if they're lecturing and teaching publicly in "business suits" behind a podium, what's the next step? Why do they need a podium to minister to other women?
Further, while I think it's wonderful for women to get together and teach one another, I'm uncomfortable with women's theological bible studies. I think this is where the trouble can start. They're already teaching theology like an elder instead of teaching according to Titus II. The Greek in the Titus II passage for teach is "sophronidzo" - different than the Greek "didaktikos" used for passages which speak of elders teaching. "Sophronidzo" means sober-mindedness, and that is what is to be communicated to other women in the areas of keeping the home and loving their husbands and children.
And if women are going to teach women these things, the home, not the public sphere, is where this all needs to take place.
| | The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Knoxienne For This Useful Post: | | 
04-25-2009, 11:12 AM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,427
Thanks: 2,919
Thanked 6,140 Times in 2,590 Posts
| | | ADMIN NOTE:
Unless you have names and examples that you're willing to provide, all speculations about female elders existing in the PCA need not be posted here on the PB. Even if you have proof, such should be handled by sessions, presbyteries, etc.
Also note: this is a not a personal rebuke against anyone, just an Administrative call that I think's appropriate.
| | The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Joshua For This Useful Post: | Backwoods Presbyterian (04-25-2009), calgal (04-25-2009), ColdSilverMoon (04-25-2009), Ex Nihilo (04-25-2009), Hamalas (04-25-2009), Knoxienne (04-25-2009), Marrow Man (04-25-2009), Montanablue (04-25-2009), Reepicheep (04-25-2009), w (04-25-2009), whitway (04-25-2009) | 
04-25-2009, 11:34 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,024
Thanks: 671
Thanked 843 Times in 395 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans922
Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution. | Pastor Barnes,
Redeemer doesn't believe they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution. Did you read the lengthy resolution that the Metro NY Presbytery and others passed? They make a lengthy argument that they ARE submitting to the BCO. I understand why you and others disagree - I suppose this will be resolved when it comes before the SJC. Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenas Mason,
Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up?
Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst? | Andrew,
No it is not disingenuous or deceitful, and your point is at the core of Redeemer's philosophy on non-ordained female deacons. The BCO makes it clear that the role of the deacon is one of service, mercy ministry, and is at times advisory (BCO 9-1, BCO 9-6). So even if you ordain a male deacon, there is no practical (day to day) role of authority (teaching, exhortation, rule, policy-making, etc) that he has that precludes a woman from serving in the same capacity. Thus an ordained male deacon has no clear role that distinguishes him functionally from an unordained deaconess - the only difference would be that he is in a church office and she is not.
I think the problem people have with Redeemer's practice is the fact that they do not ordain male deacons at all. People view this as a violation of the BCO, because it makes women and men equal within the diaconate, even though women aren't ordained into the office. So it seems everyone would be satisfied with the result if Redeemer (and other churches) simply ordained male deacons, even if the daily function of the diaconate didn't change - I don't think this would be disingenuous at all. Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV
There is a method set up in the BCO for legitimate discourse, even such as would lead to changes in the BCO. But that is not the route chosen by the sneaks and liberals. They would rather constantly chip and erode. First this issue, then the next, and the next and so on.
They, if they get their way on this issue, will use the same technique, which will be to ignore their vows, openly flaunting the BCO until they can bring the debate to a field of their own choosing. | Tim,
I don't think anyone is openly flaunting the BCO. If you read the rationale for their practice (in the link Pastor Barnes provided), you will find they make a strong case for why they are in submission to the BCO. You (and plenty of others) may disagree, but it is anything but ignoring or flaunting the BCO.
Also, this practice has not been one of "sneaks and liberals." The fact that they have made their views and practices widely known for 20+ years flies in the face of that argument. I know you've had a bad experience and want to see the integrity of the BCO upheld, as we all do. Hopefully this complaint and the procedures that follow will resolve this issue for good.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ColdSilverMoon For This Useful Post: | |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |