RIP PCA?
- Thread starter NaphtaliPress
- Start date
- Status
This just passed by apparently a wide margin. 767-375-12.
yup. In spite of the committee of commissioners voting far in favor of not appointing it.
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
While I was opposed to the formation of the committee, I don't think it's fair to say that this was a vote for women's ordination. There were (apparently) persuasive speeches regarding the study committee, who seemed clearly against women's ordination but still saw a need for it. While I understand that it can be argued that this is still reflective of an overall progressive drift in the denomination, my point is simply that to say that confessionalists should now leave simply because a study committee has been formed would be a mistake in my opinion.
Now, if the study committee comes back and recommends women's ordination, and that is passed at GA, then that is a different matter. But we should at least wait and see what the content is (as well as what the makeup of the committee is).
I would also suggest that confessionalists need to rethink how they argue at GA on these types of issues. The current approach seems to be counterproductive.
Now, if the study committee comes back and recommends women's ordination, and that is passed at GA, then that is a different matter. But we should at least wait and see what the content is (as well as what the makeup of the committee is).
I would also suggest that confessionalists need to rethink how they argue at GA on these types of issues. The current approach seems to be counterproductive.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I am curious. Is the study committee going to study and possibly recommend stopping churches in our denomination that have functional women deacons without the title. I ask this because if they are not willing to tackle that problem I believe it is just a matter of time till the official title comes with the work for ladies. In other words, we need to get to the root of the problem on this issue.
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
That issue was referenced several times by speakers on both sides. So it stands to reason that it will be addressed. But Ad Interim committee reports aren't binding anyway.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Below is an edit to make my question clear...
I am curious. Is the study committee going to study and possibly recommend stopping churches in our denomination that have commissioned women without the title of deacon. I ask this because if they are not willing to tackle that problem I believe it is just a matter of time till the official title comes with the work for ladies. In other words, we need to get to the root of the problem on this issue.
Pray for the best but plan for the worst. I think they need to make plans to leave, yes. I think good intention aside, a pig is still a pig and while I would be very happy to be wrong, this report will function exactly how those opposed to it fear it will because it is intended to give the egalatarians what they want. And it is not as though the folks behind this have not been clear. The reason is fear of losing millennials by not bowing to cultural changes. Read the arguments of the men who drafted the recommendation. I couldn't get the GA feed to work so cannot comment on confessionalists' methods. What approach is that that is not working and what alternative would you propose?
BGF
Puritan Board Sophomore
From what I observed it seems that emotionalism and self-righteous indignation was successful. However, if adopted by confessionaists I suspect they would be accused of...emotionalism and self-righteous indignation. As it was, they were accused of operating from fear.
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
There was certainly some of that from certain speakers (and probably always will be unfortunately). However, some of the speeches by those rejecting the committee construed it as a choice between a) caring about God's word and so rejecting the study committee, and b) not caring about God's word and going for it. The problem with this approach is that there seems to be a healthy middle of commissioners who do not believe in women's ordination, but they also seem to be particularly sensitive to what they may perceive as hyperbole and overstatement.
Thus, rather than some of the "Choose you this day whom you will serve" speeches, I believe that more measured responses highlighting specific problems with the recommendations as proposed would have been more useful (I do recognize that some speeches did this). It seems to me that when those types of speeches are given (particularly on issues like this which to many commissioners are not so straightforward), we alienate many people who actually might vote with the confessionalists otherwise.
In terms of a broader point about the approach: rightly or wrongly, confessionalists seem to largely be seen as being against certain things. That was certainly on display in this debate. And of course, the more progressive members tend to take advantage of this and portray it that way in stark terms. An approach which highlights more what confessionalists are for seems more likely to be fruitful in my opinion.
As a purely personal perspective, in the GAs I have attended, I have, on every major controversial vote, voted with the confessionalists (intinction, women's issues, paedocommunion, etc). And yet, during some of the speeches from men who I would ultimately vote with, I cringed, knowing that by speaking they probably did more to sway people against them. The vote would have been more likely to go their way if they had kept silent. Obviously, these are huge generalizations. However, I would simply suggest that those who think that it may be time to leave may need to reflect on how they go about arguing for their positions at GA and even in online publications.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
For what it's worth... If I were ever a PCA commissioner (admittedly, not likely to happen), I would fall in this group. I'm conservative but sensitive to overstatement. I prefer to be siding with those who are truthful, not given to exaggeration or unfair characterizations, slow to accuse, quick to listen, not bombastic but rather reasoned and thoughtful. Even when I believe a side is right, if they use hyperbole and unfair characterizations to make their points, I cringe to vote with them.
AndyS
Puritan Board Freshman
Which some may take as a straw poll of sorts, indicating that if they press for ordination of women as deacons, it will probably pass. Incrementalism is surely in play here, and the trajectory (despite all the protests to the contrary) is all too familiar (i.e. PCUSA).
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm not sure I read that the same way. While I don't deny it's a possibility, given some of the arguments (some of which seemed to be the decisive ones), imagine that half of those who voted for the study committee are actually opposed to women's ordination but wanted clarity on other practical issues (women on Covenant College board, what types of directorship positions, etc, etc). If they voted against ordination, it would be a landslide.
Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps there really are 700 men who will vote for women's ordination. But I would be surprised.
I still think confessionalists should put an emphasis on working hard to be better communicators, speaking with an overabundance of grace and humility. If the stereotype of confessionalists is harsh, negative, proud, etc--and even if that stereotype is 100% wrong--it stands to reason that confessionalists should work overtime to communicate in a way that would leave it very hard to charge them with that, even by those already so inclined.
AndyS
Puritan Board Freshman
I sincerely hope that you are right.
I still think confessionalists should put an emphasis on working hard to be better communicators, speaking with an overabundance of grace and humility. If the stereotype of confessionalists is harsh, negative, proud, etc--and even if that stereotype is 100% wrong--it stands to reason that confessionalists should work overtime to communicate in a way that would leave it very hard to charge them with that, even by those already so inclined.
If the confessionalists were so full of grace and humility and wisdom and love and grand communication skills that they were the most sanctified people on the planet, and Ken Sande asked them to ghost write his next book on peace making with their exemplary character and insight, it wouldn't do one bit of good if you are dealing with a liberal spirit that rejects biblical male authority .
With ignorance and confusion, maybe. But not with a determined heart and mind that has come under modern errors. Nothing you say, no matter how perfectly, is going to sway them.
Then again, maybe I am too cynical.....
If the confessionalists were so full of grace and humility and wisdom and love and grand communication skills that they were the most sanctified people on the planet, and Ken Sande asked them to ghost write his next book on peace making with their exemplary character and insight, it wouldn't do one bit of good if you are dealing with a liberal spirit that rejects biblical male authority .
With ignorance and confusion, maybe. But not with a determined heart and mind that has come under modern errors. Nothing you say, no matter how perfectly, is going to sway them.
Then again, maybe I am too cynical.....
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
I posted this on another thread:
lynnie said:
I think my point is that sure, it's unlikely to persuade those with an attitude that you describe. But I believe that there is a healthy middle that can be swayed. They are the ones that can often determine how the vote goes, and how confessionalists speak does I think influence them.
The study committee apparently will be 4 men and 3 women; and as Joel noted that women are on the committee is part of the protest. Ligon Duncan, Harry Reeder, Dan Doriani, Irwyn Ince, Kathy Keller (I assume Tim Killer's wife), Mary Beth McGreevy, and Susan Hunt.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Is Susan Hunt representing the conservative side? The rest seem firmly in the 'moderate' camp, and it looks like the report will come out as desired.
I don't know her other than I've seen the name. Yes, "as desired" by those who crafted it for the result desired. That is why it was not particularly astute if indeed a lot of folks voted for this who oppose women's ordination, to think one could take something like this to address more general concerns if one were opposed to the desired result. George Lacy was on the CoC and should weigh in here on some's confidence in the Rodney King section of the PCA.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Chris - Where is the list of committee members posted? I saw this list of names on Sean Lucas' FB post, but...
I reached out to Susan Hunt, who is a member of my congregation, and she said she was unaware of this.
Hopefully some on the committee condemn it but I think the goal of those most wanting this study committee is to give full legitamcy to that practice; it was explicitly stated 'we're doing this any way'. That seems to be the the MO in the PCA. Let corrupt practices and beliefs go till the flourish and then, legitimize them.
I have not; I saw Dr. Lucas' reply to your FB question. Apparently his list which I think has been the only source for anyone posting it, may not be complete, and he expressed doubt as to whether some may only be advisory members. So this appears to be in flux, particularly if Susan is in the dark and yet her name has been floated.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
It has only been 2 days since the decision to form a committee was made. Already I'm seeing FB posts in which various TEs are openly saying that the Bible permits deaconesses. This was never about studying an issue - as if this was an honest question, it was about obtaining legitimacy for un-confessional beliefs.
Inactiver user19912
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello, brothers and sisters. Having urged the commissioners in the Committee of Commissioners' (CoC) meeting to answer the Cooperative Ministries Committee's (CMC) recommendation in the negative, I found the floor discussion quickly deviated from the study committee's suggested tasking to the broader topic of women's ordination. While that's not surprising given the recommendations to the proposed study committee the fact is that I'd have preferred that we stuck with debating the CMC's suggestions, which were problematic enough without bringing the much larger issue into play.
The first bullet point in the recommendation speaks to the innocuous sounding issue of "women serving in the ministry of the Church." The point goes on to suggest the committee's makeup of both genders (a fact for which there is historical precedent) as well as the desire to represent the "diversity of opinions within the PCA."
The second bullet point illuminates the area of focus with regards to how women might be considered to serve in the Church. It is here where the problems began. The focus shifted from the broad role of women serving in the ministry of the Church to the specific issue of the "theology, history, nature, and authority of ordination." Many of us saw (and still see) this as the beginning of the CMC putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. The bullet point goes on to narrow the focus further to the biblical nature of the office of deacon and "clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses."
The third bullet point proposed the funding for this committee and wasn't truly a concern.
The fourth bullet point, when considered in concert with the first and second points, seemed troubling to many of us on the CoC. I'll quote it fully here:
"A Pastoral Letter to be proposed by the ad interim study committee and approved 6 by the General Assembly be sent to all churches, encouraging them to (1) 7 promote the practice of women in ministry, (2) appoint women to serve alongside 8 elders and deacons in the pastoral work of the church, and (3) hire women on 9 church staff in appropriate ministries."
The last point was something that troubled me greatly, specifically number 2: "appoint women to serve alongside elders and deacons in the PASTORAL WORK of the Church." (emphasis mine) It seems that, when taken in concert with the shift from "women in the ministry of the Church" to "the doctrine of ordination," that the CMC has in mind that there isn't any problem with women doing pastoral work. Language matters, and I feel that the CMC's recommendations were at best made up of sloppy language. The fourth bullet point concerning the pastoral letter assumes the the study committee will propose that women should be doing the work that elders and deacons should be doing alongside them. But the fact of the matter is that there are people Biblically commanded to work alongside elders and deacons doing pastoral ministry... Elders and Deacons as defined by Scripture and affirmed by our Standards and BCO as males only. The bullet point gives the impression that the study committee will come to certain conclusions regarding women's participation in ministry.
But what if the committee decided something else? What if they decided that we shouldn't be encouraging women to do these things, that we shouldn't hire them to unordained quasi-pastoral ministry jobs? The CMC's language seemed to speak to a foregone conclusion. All of this was problematic to me and I spoke specifically to the recommendation. While I agreed with many of my brothers who spoke on the assembly floor I would've much rather we stuck to debating the recommendation itself.
I found the speakers who spoke in favor of the CMC recommendation did an excellent job of framing the debate in terms of alleged fear in the minds of Confessional Presbyterians. "What could be wrong with studying the Bible?" they asked. "What are you so afraid of?" was another question. I don't believe that this would've been an effective line of questioning had we stuck to the CMC recommendation itself. Oh well.
The overal problem isn't exactly that Confessional Presbyterians, although we can, at times, do damage to our perspective out of our frustration with our current situation. (I reject the equating of "conservative Christians" with "Confessional Presbyterians." The two are not the same.) It's with a culture in the PCA that rejects the importance of subscription to any standard other than what is pragmatically sound (But always for the sake of the Gospel, of course), a willingness to form super-secret, confidential groups (the National Partnership) without a fear of being called to reject such activities, and a desire to have a "place at the table" rather than to be willing to be thought a fool for the sake of Christ. The CoC vote was 31-7; the floor vote did not even come close to representing the CoC's makeup, and that's a discouragement for me, as a full-subscription, Confessional Presbyterian Elder.
The first bullet point in the recommendation speaks to the innocuous sounding issue of "women serving in the ministry of the Church." The point goes on to suggest the committee's makeup of both genders (a fact for which there is historical precedent) as well as the desire to represent the "diversity of opinions within the PCA."
The second bullet point illuminates the area of focus with regards to how women might be considered to serve in the Church. It is here where the problems began. The focus shifted from the broad role of women serving in the ministry of the Church to the specific issue of the "theology, history, nature, and authority of ordination." Many of us saw (and still see) this as the beginning of the CMC putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. The bullet point goes on to narrow the focus further to the biblical nature of the office of deacon and "clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses."
The third bullet point proposed the funding for this committee and wasn't truly a concern.
The fourth bullet point, when considered in concert with the first and second points, seemed troubling to many of us on the CoC. I'll quote it fully here:
"A Pastoral Letter to be proposed by the ad interim study committee and approved 6 by the General Assembly be sent to all churches, encouraging them to (1) 7 promote the practice of women in ministry, (2) appoint women to serve alongside 8 elders and deacons in the pastoral work of the church, and (3) hire women on 9 church staff in appropriate ministries."
The last point was something that troubled me greatly, specifically number 2: "appoint women to serve alongside elders and deacons in the PASTORAL WORK of the Church." (emphasis mine) It seems that, when taken in concert with the shift from "women in the ministry of the Church" to "the doctrine of ordination," that the CMC has in mind that there isn't any problem with women doing pastoral work. Language matters, and I feel that the CMC's recommendations were at best made up of sloppy language. The fourth bullet point concerning the pastoral letter assumes the the study committee will propose that women should be doing the work that elders and deacons should be doing alongside them. But the fact of the matter is that there are people Biblically commanded to work alongside elders and deacons doing pastoral ministry... Elders and Deacons as defined by Scripture and affirmed by our Standards and BCO as males only. The bullet point gives the impression that the study committee will come to certain conclusions regarding women's participation in ministry.
But what if the committee decided something else? What if they decided that we shouldn't be encouraging women to do these things, that we shouldn't hire them to unordained quasi-pastoral ministry jobs? The CMC's language seemed to speak to a foregone conclusion. All of this was problematic to me and I spoke specifically to the recommendation. While I agreed with many of my brothers who spoke on the assembly floor I would've much rather we stuck to debating the recommendation itself.
I found the speakers who spoke in favor of the CMC recommendation did an excellent job of framing the debate in terms of alleged fear in the minds of Confessional Presbyterians. "What could be wrong with studying the Bible?" they asked. "What are you so afraid of?" was another question. I don't believe that this would've been an effective line of questioning had we stuck to the CMC recommendation itself. Oh well.
The overal problem isn't exactly that Confessional Presbyterians, although we can, at times, do damage to our perspective out of our frustration with our current situation. (I reject the equating of "conservative Christians" with "Confessional Presbyterians." The two are not the same.) It's with a culture in the PCA that rejects the importance of subscription to any standard other than what is pragmatically sound (But always for the sake of the Gospel, of course), a willingness to form super-secret, confidential groups (the National Partnership) without a fear of being called to reject such activities, and a desire to have a "place at the table" rather than to be willing to be thought a fool for the sake of Christ. The CoC vote was 31-7; the floor vote did not even come close to representing the CoC's makeup, and that's a discouragement for me, as a full-subscription, Confessional Presbyterian Elder.
Last edited:
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for your insightful comments. At least in part this was the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. By going with an almost apocalyptic "Choose you this day whom you will serve" approach, the actual language of the recommendation was lost. It does seem like it would have been more effective to question the way the recommendation was worded.
Question: could an amendment not have been offered on the floor to strip some of that problematic wording, remove the question of ordination, and simply ask for a study committee helping to provide pastoral advice on how women can serve effectively within the confines of our Constitution? I know Confessionalists wouldn't have liked that, but surely it would have been better to answering the CMC's recommendations with the problematic language in the affirmative.
- Status
