I have to say in my last PCA church that several of the couples who were members had been part of the EPC at one time. The Pastor in my estimation is supportive of women deacons so they probably were hoping for a better outcome with the study committee.
ByFaithOnline Reaction to PCA GA
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
I have to say in my last PCA church that several of the couples who were members had been part of the EPC at one time. The Pastor in my estimation is supportive of women deacons so they probably were hoping for a better outcome with the study committee.
Sven
Puritan Board Sophomore
A. You must be mistaking what I've said for something else. At no time have I said that we must coerce people. I fully agree with the Book of Church Order (PCA) which states that Church power is "ministerial and declarative" and is "wholy spiritual."
B. Encouraging Church members to submit to the actions and declarations of the Church, so far as they are in line with the clear teaching of Scripture, or face discipline is no where near the same as the coercive discipline acted out by the papacy.
C. If by "Presbyterian polity" you mean the kind exercised by American presbyterian churches for the last hundred years, I'll grant you that. But this is not the presbyterian polity of the Reformers or the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states in Chap. 30 Of Church Censures, "III. Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from like offenses; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.
IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person."
Where does it say, "Let them go find their happy home in another denomination?" This is not Presbyterian polity; this is American individualism.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't believe most are. There is real confusion being generated out there, though.
For starters,
in a confessional denomination like the PCA, we do not establish our polity by "study committee"
we do not teach our confession by "pastoral letter"
we do not independently determine our own doctrine and then proceed to follow what we will by majority and minority vote.
In a confessional denomination we are accountable when we refuse to qualify deacons and their wives by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elect them, ordain them, and install them, or to teach the holy doctrines upon which each is based to our congregation BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VOWS OFFICERS TAKE.
There is accountability first to God, then to session through vows, and even to the congregation.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
Scott, you know I admire you greatly and have really learned a great deal from you on the PB. I think we have the same end goals in mind, namely to first and foremost glorify God in all that we (meaning the PCA) do, to uphold the clear teaching of the Bible, WCF, and BCO, and to promote peace and purity within the church.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the issue of deaconesses and women in the church in general, we approach those end goals from different directions. To address your points:
- No one is saying we should establish our church polity by a study committee. The purpose of the committee, as I understand it, is to delve into the topic more intensely and carefully scrutinize the Biblical and traditional arguments on both sides to determine the best standard for the congregation. The report of the committee is not binding, of course, and must be affirmed by the GA to be policy. I am in favor of the committee because I hope the congregation can reach an agreeable decision - even if it's not one that I favor.
- No one is saying the Confession should be taught by pastoral letter. The purpose is to show unity and affirm a common view on the topic. When there is an intra-mural disagreement on an issue like this that does not directly touch upon the Confession or BCO (except the deaconess issue), it is important to reach Biblically-based conclusion as a church.
- No one is independently determining their own doctrine. Doctrine isn't decided by majority vote, but these issues, as I see them, aren't matters of doctrine for the most part. They are disagreements about the practical boundaries of Scripture when it comes to the role of women in the church. No one disagrees on the Scriptural standards, but rather the practical application in the nebulous zone outside those clear standards.
Finally, the issue isn't about the offices of the church, and thus the responsibility to teach the Scriptural standards contained in the vows of ordination - those are being taught, and there is really no disagreement on them. Rather it is about the intepretation of the denomination's Constitution, and it's clarity on these matters (or lack thereof).
Regarding the deaconess issue, everyone agrees that women should not be ordained. The disagreement is about whether or not there is a requirement to ordain Deacons BCO, and if women can serve in the capacity as un-ordained deaconesses. The disagreement really has nothing to do with the Scriptural standards or the WCF - everyone agrees on those. It all comes down to what is allowed in the BCO - that is the heart of the debate.
Regarding women in the church in general, the issue is much less clear. Like Fred Greco, I favor the local option. But there are plenty of people, particularly in the majority that opposed the study report, who don't favor this option, and would like a set of absolute standards, which they believe are clear. But obviously it isn't clear: if it were, 49% of the GA delegates would not have voted for the study.
So while I think we have the same end goals in mind, our approaches are different. I don't think it's helpful to say those in favor of the study committee or deaconesses are acting contra-WCF and/or Scripture; on those standards I think we all agree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
I agree that for the large majority, including those who voted for this (even though the action would undermine all that).
There is much confusion out there, and we must pray this becomes clear for what it is.
If this is true that everybody wants to follow their Book of Church Order (and their vows to uphold it) why are the ( very few churches) not qualifying, electing, ordaining and installing deacons per BCO 1,9, et. al.?
Why do church lawsuits have to be filed, and even after suit, refuse to comply? Will they comply, for the sake of submission to their brethren to honor our Lord and further the peace and purity of His church?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
I wish the egalitarians would leave. I'd call that revival. The EPC is waiting for them with open arms and minds.
[personal comment deleted, apologies proffered to any offended and thanks to a brother for a gentle rebuke]
Why are these folks determined to destroy our denomination? Is it demonic influence, or just plain cynical hatred for the bride of Christ?
[personal comment deleted, apologies proffered to any offended and thanks to a brother for a gentle rebuke]
Why are these folks determined to destroy our denomination? Is it demonic influence, or just plain cynical hatred for the bride of Christ?
Last edited:
I simply don't understand the hullaballoo over women "using their gifts" in church, or being traumatized over not being able to participate in the service in certain ways. The majority of congregants in well nigh every church in America are decidedly un-involved in the preaching, administration of sacraments, Bible readings, "announcements" (if you have those; not saying whether you should or not), etc.
I simply don't understand what the big deal is. It baffles me. I'm a layman. I have no problem being a layman. If I need to "express myself" or use my gifts, then I'll do that in my family, with my friends, at my job, on the basketball court, in writing or painting, etc. Whatever. There are a thousand ways to use whatever "gifts" or "talents" you have in life, both for secular purposes and for spiritual purposes (if I can make an ad hoc distinction).
And if these women really wanted to be a blessing in the church, there are still a thousand ways they could do it. Being excellent mothers, excellent wives, and excellent friends. Visiting the sick and needy just to cheer their spirits. One doesn't have to have a title to do that. Sprucing up the church. Cooking for those who are ill. Praying. Whatever.
It just seems like this tremendous amount of energy and tension is being created over so very little. What? A title? The ability to get in front of the church and read 18 sentences for the morning sermon?
I have opinions on the issue, and they definitely fall on the "conservative" side. But this isn't even an issue I'm that passionate on nowadays. My mind is consumed by other things.
But speaking simply as a layman and a church member, it literally baffles me that this is a problem, or that women feel "under-represented". I just think it's goofy, to be frank.
I simply don't understand what the big deal is. It baffles me. I'm a layman. I have no problem being a layman. If I need to "express myself" or use my gifts, then I'll do that in my family, with my friends, at my job, on the basketball court, in writing or painting, etc. Whatever. There are a thousand ways to use whatever "gifts" or "talents" you have in life, both for secular purposes and for spiritual purposes (if I can make an ad hoc distinction).
And if these women really wanted to be a blessing in the church, there are still a thousand ways they could do it. Being excellent mothers, excellent wives, and excellent friends. Visiting the sick and needy just to cheer their spirits. One doesn't have to have a title to do that. Sprucing up the church. Cooking for those who are ill. Praying. Whatever.
It just seems like this tremendous amount of energy and tension is being created over so very little. What? A title? The ability to get in front of the church and read 18 sentences for the morning sermon?
I have opinions on the issue, and they definitely fall on the "conservative" side. But this isn't even an issue I'm that passionate on nowadays. My mind is consumed by other things.
But speaking simply as a layman and a church member, it literally baffles me that this is a problem, or that women feel "under-represented". I just think it's goofy, to be frank.
Julio Martinez Jr
Puritan Board Freshman
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?
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
JDWiseman,
I think to some part we let women, wanting to rebel against what God ordained in his law from Genesis 3:16, but doing so in a way that seems spiritually good. And in a sense makes it that much more wicked. Your list of what women should be doing is great and I entirely agree, especially on the issue of titles which overall I think is a problem with the laity; which the result being the downgrading role of an elder, pastor, or minster in daily minster and preaching. At least in regards to the understanding of what the title represents biblically. Women should be happy with the role God has given then, or least submit and us men we need to do what God has ordained for us to do and be men instead of allowing their wickedness by being wicked ourselves by not leading in our homes and in the church. We have been lazy, allowing society views to creep in instead of holding to the biblical mandate from creation This is not just reflected in the PCA, but in just about all of the denominations in God’s Church Universal.
I think to some part we let women, wanting to rebel against what God ordained in his law from Genesis 3:16, but doing so in a way that seems spiritually good. And in a sense makes it that much more wicked. Your list of what women should be doing is great and I entirely agree, especially on the issue of titles which overall I think is a problem with the laity; which the result being the downgrading role of an elder, pastor, or minster in daily minster and preaching. At least in regards to the understanding of what the title represents biblically. Women should be happy with the role God has given then, or least submit and us men we need to do what God has ordained for us to do and be men instead of allowing their wickedness by being wicked ourselves by not leading in our homes and in the church. We have been lazy, allowing society views to creep in instead of holding to the biblical mandate from creation This is not just reflected in the PCA, but in just about all of the denominations in God’s Church Universal.
Last edited:
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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.
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.
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.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
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
Sheryl is not here. No need to pretend as if she is to make a point. Let's calm that portion of the rhetoric
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
[bible]Hebrews 5:2[/bible]
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.
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.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
tgoerz
Puritan Board Freshman
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Come join us for a N Ca Presbyterian 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,
Cranmer1959
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
Last edited:
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Cranmer1959
Puritan Board Freshman
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
-----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
-----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
-----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
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.
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
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).
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).
- Status
