PCA General Assembly in Dallas

[jfschultz]

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.

Each file starts out with part of the nominating report, but after a little while (I can't remember how long), it gets to the right one. It's definitely somewhat annoying, but it is all there.

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?

It's in the report of the Overtures Committee.

 

[fredtgreco]

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?

I don't know why, but probably because the Assembly was running 4-5+ hours ahead of schedule, all the links lead to the same file, which is the video of the entire afternoon session. It starts with the nominating committee report. That goes on until about the 29th minute, and then the Overtures report comes back on. So start the video, wait for it to load (the gray bar going across) and then drag the time indicator a bit until you reach 29 minutes.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Thank you, Fred It was interesting to watch, but I only caught parts of it (I was running around doing all the things mothers have to do).

 

[greenbaggins]

I have addressed HaigLaw's position here.

 

[BJClark]

HaigLaw;

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

Why does it come across as if that a bad thing?

What is the deal, that women 'feel' they should have titles or be ordained? Are they that unsatisfied with who they are in Christ, that they must be given a title or be ordained? Are they so afraid they will be overlooked or not heard if they don't have what men have?

I can certainly serve God by ministering to other women without using a 'title',
which is what this issue seems to be about, people wanting to be given a title, because they some how *feel* like less of a child of God without one.

What's next give everyone in the congregation a title so that they can 'feel' more a part of God's family? Or so they can 'feel' as if they are more important in God's kingdom? How childish.

How about we give them a title more consistent of what we are as part of the BODY of Christ.. such hand, foot, big toe, finger, liver, nose, colon, large intestine, kidney, thyroid, all of which are important functions to a BODY. Oh wait, some would complain they weren't the mouth, or the ear, or the left arm. To me this all seems like utter foolishness to be tearing apart the body in such a fashion so that everyone is happy, just so one 'feels important in their own mind..it seems time the church grow up and get over themselves..as it's not about them, it is about Christ..and until they accept that truth, they will continually bicker and tear each other apart..

It seems to me this type of argument was addressed a couple times in Scripture..

Mar 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who [should be] the greatest.
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

and again here:

1Cr 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Cr 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Cr 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Cr 12:17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?
1Cr 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Cr 12:19 And if they were all one member, where [were] the body?
1Cr 12:20 But now [are they] many members, yet but one body.
1Cr 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1Cr 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
1Cr 12:23 And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness.
1Cr 12:24 For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked:
1Cr 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another.
1Cr 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1Cr 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Cr 12:29 [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles?
1Cr 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Cr 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

[ahavah7]

no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women?

I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.

It is interesting to me that all this talk about egalitarianism is from those who oppose it. No one who supported Overture 9 said they were doing so because they wanted to advance the issues of egalitarianism.

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.

I started a new thread in Church Office to discuss the biblical arguments for and against men only as deacons.