PCA General Assembly in Dallas

Status
Not open for further replies.
This concludes my report. My attention span has been exceeded.

Apologies to anyone asking questions that I didn't see.

Keeping up with the floor action was all I could do.

:detective:
 
Thanks Mr. Haig for "live blogging" this.

Watching by web cam, I came away with a great appreciation for the way our PCA does business- a combination of head on dealing with difficult issues interspersed with worship and much prayer. I really sense God's providence through the twists and turns.
 
Anybody know the name of the brother that lead in worship in last night's worship service??

Abraham Armenta
Senior Pastor, Iglesia Cristiana Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
 
When I first realized about a year and half ago that some PCA churches had deaconesses I was concerned because I had not thought that was possible in our denomination. It seemed to be like they were breaking the law- does their Presbytery know? Indeed, ordaining women, with all its scriptural implications was one reason our denomination had to separate from the larger denomination to remain a continuing Church.

So, when I first heard of a study committee, I was reluctant thinking it might only lead to confusion, division and actually encourage disunity. A divided report would likely result and there would not be clarity because, in our system, study committees while not absolutely binding, carrry great weight. However, if they were divided, that tends to lessen that and lessen clarity.

Then, I came to believe a study committee would be helpful if it was based on Scripture exegesis. A resource for the denomination, and maybe for others.

So, when Brian Chappel, President of Covenant Seminary, spoke in favor of a study committee he said some who wanted it believe it would only strengthen the valuation of the office of Deacon, he was describing me.

When Reverend Fred Greco spoke, I changed my mind.

He pointed out that the Constitution (Book of Church Order) is clear, the denomination studied this issue thoroughly when we were formed, and has spoken that it believes Scripture says what our Book of Church Order says. If some disagree, they can persuade others and overture to change the Book of Church Order.

It particularly made sense when Mr Greco said, like our US government system, change generally goes from "bottom up" (local or session, presbytery) level and then moves up. Our system allows sessions and presbyteries to "reference" questions about practice already to the General Assembly in various ways and they can always initiate overtures if they do not believe the Constitution reflects Scripture.

Amazingly, shortly after that carried the argument, a big debate occurred over similar issues reviewed by the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records. Many got involved, and I saw that the process is there already, and it works.
 
Thanks Mr. Haig for "live blogging" this.

Watching by web cam, I came away with a great appreciation for the way our PCA does business- a combination of head on dealing with difficult issues interspersed with worship and much prayer. I really sense God's providence through the twists and turns.

My pleasure. That was my sense too. There was much graciousness and thoughtfulness between people who sincerely disagreed.

We disagreed agreeably. That is rare. I was honored and humbled to be a part of this historic process.

It was also very exhausting. I'm on my first glass of pre-dinner wine now.

:detective:
 
.... I came to believe a study committee would be helpful if it was based on Scripture exegesis. A resource for the denomination, and maybe for others.

So, when Brian Chappel, President of Covenant Seminary, spoke in favor of a study committee he said some who wanted it believe it would only strengthen the valuation of the office of Deacon, he was describing me.

When Reverend Fred Greco spoke, I changed my mind.

He pointed out that the Constitution (Book of Church Order) is clear, the denomination studied this issue thoroughly when we were formed, and has spoken that it believes Scripture says what our Book of Church Order says. If some disagree, they can persuade others and overture to change the Book of Church Order.

It particularly made sense when Mr Greco said, like our US government system, change generally goes from "bottom up" (local or session, presbytery) level and then moves up. Our system allows sessions and presbyteries to "reference" questions about practice already to the General Assembly in various ways and they can always initiate overtures if they do not believe the Constitution reflects Scripture.

Amazingly, shortly after that carried the argument, a big debate occurred over similar issues reviewed by the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records. Many got involved, and I saw that the process is there already, and it works.

Yes. In retrospect, I think Philadelphia Presbytery made a calculated guess that an overture to change the BCO to allow deaconnesses, perhaps as a separate board not in authority over men, would not pass, but perhaps a study committee to even discuss it might pass, they guessed wrong.

Maybe next year, they will propose that, and many will argue -- no, you should have asked for a study committee instead.

:detective:
 
Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter ;)

Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it. :rolleyes:

That argument was made, but it escapes me how wanting to discuss whether women can serve as deaconesses, pursuant to Scripture, is a tool of feminism. The "slippery slope" argument was on many minds, but I don't see it at all.

You find deaconesses in Scripture. The burden is on those who defend its prohibition in the BCO, in my view.

Some seem to think they ought to be more conservative than God and that somehow that's a good thing.

I don't get it.

:detective:
 
Last edited:
Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter ;)

Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it. :rolleyes:

Trying to be fair and charitable to all here,

I think the brother who said something like this had just come out of a bad experience in the larger denomination which has fallen away from the authority of Scripture. Being new to our denomination, he saw signs of alarm of this happening in his new "safe haven" home.

We all know we have that tendancy as sinners, save for the constant abiding presence of God's grace.

I really don't believe the vast majority of people voting for a study committee are committed to a non Scriptural philosophy. I was glad to hear from Reverend David Coffin how, in his observation (he said this while speaking to not create a study committee) that all on the Overtures Committee, both sides, were united in their commitment to Scripture and to the doctrines of the Reformed faith.

Having said that, I think some are confusing "diaconal" (mercy) ministry with the ordained office of Deacon. If anything, our Book of Church Order might make more explicit the role of the Board of Deacons in overseeing mercy ministry, prioritizing it, and the Board involving men and women under its oversight to carry out the very very important work of mercy, servant, diaconal ministry.
 
.... I think some are confusing "diaconal" (mercy) ministry with the ordained office of Deacon. If anything, our Book of Church Order might make more explicit the role of the Board of Deacons in overseeing mercy ministry, prioritizing it, and the Board involving men and women under its oversight to carry out the very very important work of mercy, servant, diaconal ministry.

Actually, it already does. The BCO already says women may be deacons' assistants. The rub is, the BCO also says that the only perpetual church officers are elders and deacons and must be men.

I think a given congregation in the PCA could legally designate the Women in the Church (WIC) officers as deaconesses. These would thus not be perpetual, would not be on the same board with the deacons, and would not exercise any authority over men. Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.

:detective::detective:
 
Most impressive young man, that Rev. Greco. And he took on a seminary prez too? Watching a group debate a controversial issue and really, really, really try to be biblical is so refreshing! It is almost enough to make me want to join the PCA!
 
Praise God for this! I am thankful that this minority report was voted down, but I wonder what will happen at the next GA? What will be the next move for those who are pushing the egalitarian issue? I hope that the younger generation will not fall for the emotional arguments pro-minority report.

May the Lord Bless the PCA and keep her strong.
 
For you PCA brethren . . .

Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.
 
Most impressive young man, that Rev. Greco. And he took on a seminary prez too? Watching a group debate a controversial issue and really, really, really try to be biblical is so refreshing! It is almost enough to make me want to join the PCA!

I, too, enjoy the distinction of being rebuked by brother. Fred!


:lol:
 
Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.

Interesting, but if the BCO says Deacons have to be ordained to be Deacons, and only men can be Deacons how would a WIC person be legally called a Deacon without being ordained?
 
For you PCA brethren . . .

Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.

At one point in the discussion yesterday, a pro-overture man spoke about the increasing numbers of young men pursuing ministry in the PCA who favor the position that women should be ordained as deacons. This is, I suspect, part of the motivation for pursuing the changes.
 
Did anyone else find the comment by Stephen Smallman about how hard Philadelphia Presbytery had tried to study this issue (which comment he offered about why a global uber-committee was necessary) to be whiny? "We want the wisdom of the WHOLE DENOMINATION," he said... as though a small uber-committee is going to deliver said wisdom. It seems to me this debate was really about what kind of method would be used to effect large-scale denominational change... and whether the PCA wants to be presbyterian, and do as presbyterian denominations ought to do - effect change first by studying issues at the presbytery level, and offer up overtures for change to the broader court, or if the PCA will be guided/ruled by select committees who decide which way the river ought to flow, and then pass down mandates from on high.
 
At one point in the discussion yesterday, a pro-overture man spoke about the increasing numbers of young men pursuing ministry in the PCA who favor the position that women should be ordained as deacons. This is, I suspect, part of the motivation for pursuing the changes.

This doesn't surprise me.

I believe I've related my experience from when I visited Covenant Seminary...

(For those who don't know, for a period of time I considered leaving SBTS for Covenant... sure glad I didn't though... the folks at SBTS do a much better job of preparing the heart and mind for confessionalism than do the folks at Covenant... but anyway...)

I visited the campus and in ONE DAY had confirmed all the crazy reports that I'd heard about the school.

Most relevant here was the fact that I sat in on a NT class where the professor was going through 1 Tim 2 and 3... much time was spent on the whole women in ministry subject. The professor stated that THE PRIMARY reason he didn't support the ordination of women was because "my denomination doesn't support it." He then went on to say that he didn't care for the the CBMW folks because they are "mean spirited."

My mouth dropped. With such wimpy conviction regarding the biblical soundness of our position is it any wonder that young ministers question our Standards on the subject?


But the events of the past two GAs demonstrate that our elders still have enough sense, conviction, and nerve to hold the line: last year we defeated FV, this year we rejected egalitarianism. In both instances the Standards were upheld. Praise God!
 
Most impressive young man, that Rev. Greco. And he took on a seminary prez too? Watching a group debate a controversial issue and really, really, really try to be biblical is so refreshing! It is almost enough to make me want to join the PCA!

With all due respect, Dennis: No, the seminary prez took him on. Fred had nothing to do with the selection of the speaker for the minority.

But if you're almost persuaded, who am I to stand in your way. :rofl:

:detective:
 
For you PCA brethren . . .

Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.

Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was the opinion of only one speaker in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."

And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.

The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.

:detective:
 
Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.

Interesting, but if the BCO says Deacons have to be ordained to be Deacons, and only men can be Deacons how would a WIC person be legally called a Deacon without being ordained?

Interesting. In my view, a session could declare that it's WIC officers were deaconesses to assist the deacons, without the ladies having a vote on the deacon board, and be in compliance with existing PCA law. And I intend to so propose, at our next session meeting.

:detective:
 
Interesting. In my view, a session could declare that it's WIC officers were deaconesses to assist the deacons, without the ladies having a vote on the deacon board, and be in compliance with existing PCA law. And I intend to so propose, at our next session meeting.

I personally think that's very reasonable. I just wonder how one would write a clean, clear cut ruling on the matter to prevent Tim Keller type "Our denomination is wrong on the issue of women Deacons, therefore we have no women Deacons, only unordained women Deacons. Now please welcome Ms. Chung, the new head of the board of Deacons".

My personal problem with allowing women Deacons hasn't much to do with having women Deacons, but rather that in the PCA the issue is something of a common denominator among those young guys with views that truly scare me.

And thanks so much for the reporting!!!
 
Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was the opinion of only one speaker in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."

And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.

The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.

:detective:

Thanks for the correction. I must have over-interpreted the quote from the byfaithonline.com description of the event:

And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”

That sounded like an egalitarian argument to me. But, it is always good to be corrected by a real live steely-eyed lawyer man posting from the floor of the meeting. Thanks for correcting my misapprehensions due to distance, both geographic and ecclesiastical.

Given the strong bias against CBMW by almost all broad evangelicals and by an increasing number of conservatives, even in the Reformed schools, perhaps I am seeing ghosts were they don't exist. I had thought that the complementarian position was taking a pretty good beating in most seminaries these days.

(BTW, Sunday morning I am teaching through Galatians and will do an extended discussion of egalitarian vs. complementarian views of 3:28).
 
Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was the opinion of only one speaker in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."

And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.

The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.

:detective:

Thanks for the correction. I must have over-interpreted the quote from the byfaithonline.com description of the event:

And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”

That sounded like an egalitarian argument to me. But, it is always good to be corrected by a real live steely-eyed lawyer man posting from the floor of the meeting. Thanks for correcting my misapprehensions due to distance, both geographic and ecclesiastical.

Given the strong bias against CBMW by almost all broad evangelicals and by an increasing number of conservatives, even in the Reformed schools, perhaps I am seeing ghosts were they don't exist. I had thought that the complementarian position was taking a pretty good beating in most seminaries these days.

(BTW, Sunday morning I am teaching through Galatians and will do an extended discussion of egalitarian vs. complementarian views of 3:28).

As Ben reported, it is definitely taking a beating at Covenant, and that isn't the only Reformed school at which it is happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top