# Map of PCA Presbyteries Voting on BCO Amendments



## sastark (Nov 17, 2010)

If you read The Aquila Report, you may have already seen these maps (they are linked at the bottom of each "Update" article), but I also wanted to post here, in case any PBers were interested. I have been compiling maps showing how PCA Presbyteries have voted on the proposed BCO Amendments. The latest map is here: The Ruling Elder: Another 2 PCA Presbyteries Vote... and if you scroll down on my blog, you can see a couple of previous versions.


----------



## BJClark (Nov 17, 2010)

lol, I do love the red state blue state theme..it appears ours hasn't voted yet..


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 17, 2010)

Keep in mind that 2/3 of presbyteries must APPROVE before a final majority vote at next year's General Assembly.

Another way to look at that is only 27 presbyteries of the 80(!) now in our denomination need vote "NO." Right now, 15 have already voted "NO" and only 12 of the 54 required have voted "YES."

While we don't want to presume upon the intentions of any presbyteries, practically, many likely will not act, seeing defeat as a foregone conclusion.


----------



## TimV (Nov 17, 2010)

Funny how that mirrors....well, forget it.

PS Northern California includes Hawaii, which isn't on the map. I thought it included Arizona as well. the biggest geographically, but the smallest in terms of numbers of people, giving, number of cases won (joke) etc... Funny since there are so many strong Calvinists in that area....


----------



## Edward (Nov 17, 2010)

TimV said:


> I thought it included Arizona as well.



Arizona is in Southwest Presbytery (along with New Mexico and El Paso)


----------



## BJClark (Nov 18, 2010)

Scott1;




> While we don't want to presume upon the intentions of any presbyteries, practically, many likely will not act, seeing defeat as a foregone conclusion.



Interesting, In my humble opinion, if they can not make a decision and cast their vote because they believe defeat is a forgone conclusion, maybe they should not be "Leaders" in the church.

To me a "leader" would take the time to cast a vote, especially in such a matter that will effect their flock and the bodies finances.

Granted, many in the church body do not pay attention to such things, I think it would behoove pastors to talk about such things with their congregations explaining this to them, allowing church members their say in whether or not they believe they should have to 'pay to vote' concerning the things going on their Church..imagine, if the only churches who paid to vote (or even those who could afford to pay to vote) at the GA, were those who were straying from the Gospel ie: FV and NPP proponents and those who believe women should be ordained--what a disastrous effect that could have on the body as a whole..


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 18, 2010)

BJClark said:


> Scott1;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
In this context, I think it is just a matter of practicality- many of the presbyteries see it on a fast track for defeat, and are prioritizing more pressing matters presently, knowing that likely by a future meeting, the 27 presbyteries required for defeat will be obtained.

Nothing wrong implied in that at all, it's just seeing something "take care of itself." 

This funding plan did not come with broad based input or participation, as anything "strategic" like this ought- it has never had the broad support needed.


----------



## sastark (Nov 18, 2010)

FYI: The latest map is up. Total is now 15-14 against. 

The Ruling Elder: PCA Vote now 15-14 Against Amendments


----------

