# RIP PCA?



## NaphtaliPress

If this passes, the PCA, and very quickly, will go the way of the old PCUS. Not exactly the same, but in generalities, exactly the same (toss subscription, advance egalitarianism, evolution, etc.). The progressives killed any hope of a confessional church in 2002 when good faith subscription was rammed through, theistic evolution is taught without consequence, and we have in practice, women deacons already and with impunity. Just have them in a way the skirts the letter of the law. This may fail this year; but history tells us progressives are untiring, and conservatives give up and when their numbers dwindle the pace quickens. I read/showed this to two TEs, one former and one still PCA, and one while generally pretty down on the PCA was still shocked by this and the other said "this is sick." 
I got this from Andrew Barnes on Facebook who explains,
"This comes from the Cooperative Ministries Committee (which is made up of the last 5 moderators of GA, and heads of all the Permanent Committees/Agencies). However, CMC can't recommend anything to the GA by themselves, they have to go through a Permanent Committee/Agency (one that is appropriate to the action they are recommending). So this is the CMC through AC to GA." 

3. That Assembly form a study committee on the issue of women serving in the ministry of the church (RAO 9-1; 9-3). The Assembly authorizes the Moderator to appoint the study committee. The study committee should be made up of competent men and women representing the diversity of opinions within the PCA (RAO 9-1; Robert’s Rules of Order [11[SUP]th[/SUP] edition], 14, pp. 174-175, 50, pp. 495-496; 50, pp. 497-498 56, p. 579]).
The committee should give particular attention to the issues of:​

The biblical basis, theology, history, nature and authority of ordination;​
(2) The biblical nature and function of the office of deacon;​
(3) Clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses;​
(4) Should the findings of the study committee warrant BCO changes, the study committee will propose such changes for the General Assembly to consider.​
The committee will have a budget of $15,000 that is funded by designated donations to the AC from churches and individuals (RAO 9-2).
A Pastoral Letter to be proposed by the ad interim study committee and approved by the General Assembly be sent to all churches, encouraging them to (1) promote he practice of women in ministry, (2) appoint women to serve alongside elders and deacons in the pastoral work of the church, and (3) hire women on church staff in appropriate ministries.
Grounds: The Cooperative Ministries Committee may not make recommendations directly to the General Assembly but must do so through an apropriate committee or agency (RAO 7-3 c; 7-6). The CMC has had a subcommittee on the role of women and has sent several recommendations to the AC (including a proposal for a study committee on the issue women serving in the church) and CDM to bring to the Assembly.​
For back ground here is the report of this committee of past moderators, and other men and women:




Now maybe this is watered down or killed but the fact that it is proposed, by a committee that included 5 past moderators no less, indicates this is not going away. It will keep coming up. When they get tired of dealing with the confessionalists or conservatives they will force it through like they did good faith subscription. And after all, it is more important to them to retain millennials who own the surrounding degraded culture than retain those defending Presbyterian doctrine and practice.


----------



## DMcFadden

Wow, the PCA?

The egalitarians have practically taken the field in most denominations. Most of the ones that still decline to ordain women are VERY small. I can only think of six denominations larger than a couple of hundred thousand that continue to insist on male only ordination: CM&A, EFC, LCMS, PCA, SBC, WELS.

Groups still refusing to ordain women . . .
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church - 39,681
Christian & Missionary Alliance - 430,000
Evangelical Free Church - 371,191
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod – 2.1 million
Mennonite Brethren - 26,219
Orthodox Presbyterian Church - 31,112 
Presbyterian Church in America - 358,516 
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America - 6,572
Southern Baptist Convention - 15.49 million
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - 303,130


----------



## bookslover

As in politics, so in religion: leftists are untiring, as noted above, and always play the long game. Advancing the narrative and their agenda is all that matters, and they'll keep pushing until they win. They don't care if it takes 20 years or 50. They always have their eyes on the prize.


----------



## Beezer

Not surprised at all by this. Both of the PCA churches in my area are super progressive and non-confessional. I recently discussed on this forum my concerns over some of what I've encountered at these churches. 

I can still remember asking the senior pastor at one of the two PCA churches during membership classes whether any of the elders/deacons in the church took issue with anything found in the Westminster Confession and he responded "Hmm...I'm not sure, I don't think I've ever asked any of them." In this same church I met a deacon who didn't even realize he was in the PCA. The gentlemen was a Baptist. As hard as that is to believe, it is true.


----------



## Scott Bushey

DMcFadden said:


> Wow, the PCA?
> 
> The egalitarians have practically taken the field in most denominations. Most of the ones that still decline to ordain women are VERY small. I can only think of six denominations larger than a couple of hundred thousand that continue to insist on male only ordination: CM&A, EFC, LCMS, PCA, SBC, WELS.
> 
> Groups still refusing to ordain women . . .
> Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church - 39,681
> Christian & Missionary Alliance - 430,000
> Evangelical Free Church - 371,191
> Lutheran Church Missouri Synod – 2.1 million
> Mennonite Brethren - 26,219
> Orthodox Presbyterian Church - 31,112
> Presbyterian Church in America - 358,516
> Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America - 6,572
> Southern Baptist Convention - 15.49 million
> Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - 303,130



If I am not mistaken, the RPCNA does allow for ordination of women deacons:



> The modern debate regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate began in the 1880s, about twenty years after the rise of what has been called "Christian feminism." During the late 1880s a move to ordain women to the diaconate failed in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) but passed in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). The debate over women deacons re-emerged in the 1980s, about twenty years after the rise of secular and pagan feminism. The fact that the push to ordain women as deacons occurred in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries after certain types of feminism became popular in our culture is very interesting. The arguments set forth by those on both sides of the debate during the 1980s bore a striking resemblance to the arguments offered during the 1880s. At this writing there are a number of ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Presbyterian Church of America who believe that women should be ordained to the diaconate. There are ministers within the RPCNA who do not believe that ordaining women to the diaconate has biblical warrant. Can the debate over women deacons be resolved within these orthodox Presbyterian bodies? Are the biblical passages used in the debate so difficult that the best one can hope for is an "exegetical standoff"? Does the evidence from church history support the pro-women deacon view, as many assert? Is it possible that in certain ways both sides have been wrong and that there is a third alternative? Since these questions are important, and since most of the material dealing with these issues is brief and somewhat superficial, I have endeavored to examine the historical evidence and the biblical passages used in the debate in greater detail. I hope and pray that this little book will help Bible-believing Reformed and Presbyterian pastors and elders have a better grasp of these issues.



From B. Schwertley's paper 'A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons'

From my understanding, the RPCNA does not act in accordance to this amendment however. There are no women deacons in the group.

As far as the PCA goes, well lets just say in a generation or two, it will most likely be in the same place as the PCUSA if their liberalism is not reeled in in a great fashion. It is slowly being euthanized.


----------



## Logan

Scott Bushey said:


> From my understanding, the RPCNA does not act in accordance to this amendment however. There are no women deacons in the group.



I've known of one deaconness within the RPCNA but in general practice you're correct.


----------



## earl40

From history I see how patient God was with the RC church and this causes me to attempt to be more so with our current denomination as they whittle away at our confession. Satan has all the time in the world and he utilizes that time wisely knowing that men want the least common denominator in the religion they hold to.

I know that reading and studying our WCF has done for me in my walk than all the "**** I learned in HS". Not to say my local church teaches all **** but the OP points out what is happening where I gather on Sunday, and I joined my current local church to escape the depth of manure I have seen in non confessional churches. Sometimes I am not sure what is worse. Belonging to a church that has a confession but gives it lip service in areas such as Chris brought up, or belonging to a church that has a minimal confession of faith? I still gladly choose to belong to a professing confessional church even though I know satan is at work in the PCA.


----------



## Romans922

The RPCNA and ARP notion of deaconness however would be totally different from the notion of a PCA deaconness. That's what's different here.


----------



## lynnie

While I am against women deacons or ordination, which presumes authority, in the one Calvinist and one PCA church where I was around them, what they actually did was strictly feminine and acceptable. It was all helping and service type ministry. It seemed like the recognition was the men leaders trying to show gratitude and honor to them, as opposed to the women being pushy or demanding anything. So at this point I would say hearts are still in the right place as far as I know and it is a battle for the mind and for scriptural authority. 

The evolution thing leaves me shaking my head. You have endless intelligent design books by incredibly smart scientists about irreducible complexity and why classic evolutionary theory is mathematically and scientifically impossible. You don't even have to have faith to reject classic Darwinian evolution; many religious sceptics realize it is impossible. How this is allowed is something I just don't understand.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The goal is not just to have women appropriately assisting the deacons but is to have woman serving communion and other actions in the worship service. The thing is not whether women are being pushy (what in the world are women doing on I guess one of the highest level study committees of the General Assembly?). The heart is not in the right place if we are not beginning with scripture. This is pragmatics driven because the progressives don't want to lose the millennials who are beyond where the PCA's standards are on things such as sexuality, egalitarianism etc. This is similar bottom up rot that killed the PCUS. For instance on the doctrine of the Sabbath. Year after year the Sabbath Committee of the PCUS (hey, what is a Sabbath committee; PCA have one of those?), wrung their hands about how to get their people to better observe the Lord's Day and moaned about the cultural downgrade of that time. Then one year with an epiphany, they realized, the problem was no longer the people or the question to ask was not what is wrong with their members, but what was wrong with their ministers who wouldn't teach or take up any of their recommendations? The peoples' ears itch and the ministers are going to scratch them.


lynnie said:


> While I am against women deacons or ordination, which presumes authority, in the one Calvinist and one PCA church where I was around them, what they actually did was strictly feminine and acceptable. It was all helping and service type ministry. It seemed like the recognition was the men leaders trying to show gratitude and honor to them, as opposed to the women being pushy or demanding anything. So at this point I would say hearts are still in the right place as far as I know and it is a battle for the mind and for scriptural authority.


----------



## Philip

DMcFadden said:


> Most of the ones that still decline to ordain women are VERY small.



I would add the Reformed Episcopal Church to this, as well as a few other jurisdictions under the auspices of the Anglican Church North America. The current Archbishop is also on record as being opposed and his Diocese of the South does not ordain women.


----------



## Jake

Dennis, both the ARP and the RPCNA have ordained female deacons, which is what the PCA is considering.


----------



## Edward

DMcFadden said:


> Southern Baptist Convention - 15.49 million



Kinda, sorta, maybe. More of a non-binding directive. 

"Southern Baptists have long valued the priceless contribution of women as they have ministered to advance God's Kingdom. The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) affirms the vital role of women serving in the church. Yet it recognizes the biblical restriction concerning the office of pastor, saying: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." The passages that restrict the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles.

"The Southern Baptist Convention also passed a resolution in the early 1980s recognizing that offices requiring ordination are restricted to men. H*owever the BF&M and resolutions are not binding upon local churches. *Each church is responsible to prayerfully search the Scriptures and establish its own policy."
http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp#faq9


----------



## lynnie

I know for a fact they assume they are in accord with scripture and will tell you Calvin had deaconesses and Phoebe was a deaconess. While I think the overarching weight of scripture is such that women deacons is something I don't agree with, and I share you concerns, their hearts are not necessarily rejecting the inerrancy of scripture nor necessarily in the wrong place. 

Now evolution.....how you can twist the bible to say Adam nursed at the breast of a non human primate mama is beyond me.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Lynnie, I'm not addressing your experience; but the reasoning presented in the material above and culture is driving the concern not a theological debate over women deacons.


----------



## Romans922

Jake said:


> Dennis, both the ARP and the RPCNA have ordained female deacons, which is what the PCA is considering.



This is a false. 

First, the PCA at this juncture at this upcoming General Assembly will only be dealing with a Study Committee. That study committee at the current time would only, through the recommendation, study the deaconess issue as one of many things to study under the topic of 'women in ministry'. 

Second, if the PCA in years to come were to make an office of 'deaconess', it would most assuredly be different in very major ways compared to the ARP or RPCNA's female deacons.

One can't make this as simple as equating what the PCA is doing with the ARP or RPCNA. It is not even remotely close to the same thing.


----------



## DMcFadden

Jake,

You are absolutely correct. In my "quick and dirty" attempt at collating data, I used sources that primarily dealt with ministerial ordination to the pastoral office rather than differentiating from those that ordain TE and RE. That is mixing apples and oranges. My bad.

But, given the idiosyncratic ways in which different groups denominate their office holders, there may be more nuances that need to be introduced. Even within a single type of tradition, there may be differences. Among Southern Baptists, for instance, the OLD pattern was to only consider the senior pastor a "pastor." Everyone else, even those with M.Div's might be called "Director of Christian Education," "Director of Youth," etc. American Baptists, by contrast, ordained anyone that had a M.Div., regardless of the specialized ministry (e.g., youth, worship, counseling, education, administration, family ministry, etc.). So a "Christian Ed" Director in one denomination might be the functional equivalent of Rev. XYZ, the Associate Pastor in another body.

My current denomination only ordains men to the pastoral office. Other seminary educated persons could be DCEs or Deaconesses (in our tradition the Deaconess is a seminary trained woman who holds title and post in a congregation doing non-preaching church work).


----------



## StephenG

Interesting. I'm just glad I'm in the most conservative Presbytery!


----------



## Edward

StephenG said:


> Interesting. I'm just glad I'm in the most conservative Presbytery!



I didn't know you were in Westminster Presbytery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I thought boasting rights were for the worst presbytery?


----------



## Romans922

StephenG said:


> Interesting. I'm just glad I'm in the most conservative Presbytery!



Stephen, you are not in the most conservative presbytery in the PCA 

I could name probably 3-4 before MVP.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As Andrew notes the history of deaconnesses in the RPCNA/ARP are of a different category and both of those denominations are going the opposite direction. 

In the ARP deaconnesses were a "pressure release valve" to stop the progressive movement in the ARP during the late 1960's and from what I understand never became a majority position and are except for a few pockets almost extinct. I know in my presbytery there are none. 

The RPCNA has had them since the 1880's and like the ARP they are on the way out.


----------



## Edward

NaphtaliPress said:


> I thought boasting rights were for the worst presbytery?



The contest is certainly more competitive on that side. But I think I remember some discouragement from making such lists here several years back.


----------



## Parakaleo

My ARP ordination exam last year before the Minister & His Work Committee:



> Chairman: What is your position on women serving as deacons?
> Me: I do not believe Scripture supports women serving as deacons.
> Chairman: What argument would you make from Scripture?
> Me: "Let deacons each be the _husband of one wife_," (1 Tim. 3).
> Chairman: Okay, next question...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It does seem the PCA is the one 'conservative' Presbyterian body consistently trending less confessional/conservative as opposed to what is going on in the others. 


Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As Andrew notes the history of deaconnesses in the RPCNA/ARP are of a different category and both of those denominations are going the opposite direction.
> 
> In the ARP deaconnesses were a "pressure release valve" to stop the progressive movement in the ARP during the late 1960's and from what I understand never became a majority position and are except for a few pockets almost extinct. I know in my presbytery there are none.
> 
> The RPCNA has had them since the 1880's and like the ARP they are on the way out.


----------



## StephenG

The comment was in jest, but Mississippi Valley is definitely one of the more right-wing.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Without trying to fight if deaconesses in the ARP were seen as essentially a compromise at that time as a "pressure release valve" how would the deaconesses in the ARP be different than the PCA other than that the ARP is now trending more conservative. Both would seem to have the same motivation


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The push in the ARP was for women elders, deaconnesses were a strategic action to thwart a more dangerous move.


----------



## fredtgreco

NaphtaliPress said:


> It does seem the PCA is the one 'conservative' Presbyterian body consistently trending less confessional/conservative as opposed to what is going on in the others.
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Andrew notes the history of deaconnesses in the RPCNA/ARP are of a different category and both of those denominations are going the opposite direction.
> 
> In the ARP deaconnesses were a "pressure release valve" to stop the progressive movement in the ARP during the late 1960's and from what I understand never became a majority position and are except for a few pockets almost extinct. I know in my presbytery there are none.
> 
> The RPCNA has had them since the 1880's and like the ARP they are on the way out.
Click to expand...

I have personal knowledge of a PCA minister who was denied transfer into an RPCNA presbytery solely because he refused to acknowledge that there was Biblical warrant for women deacons. It is incorrect to assert that women's ordination in the RPCNA is of no import.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

fredtgreco said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem the PCA is the one 'conservative' Presbyterian body consistently trending less confessional/conservative as opposed to what is going on in the others.
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Andrew notes the history of deaconnesses in the RPCNA/ARP are of a different category and both of those denominations are going the opposite direction.
> 
> In the ARP deaconnesses were a "pressure release valve" to stop the progressive movement in the ARP during the late 1960's and from what I understand never became a majority position and are except for a few pockets almost extinct. I know in my presbytery there are none.
> 
> The RPCNA has had them since the 1880's and like the ARP they are on the way out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have personal knowledge of a PCA minister who was denied transfer into an RPCNA presbytery solely because he refused to acknowledge that there was Biblical warrant for women deacons. It is incorrect to assert that women's ordination in the RPCNA is of no import.
Click to expand...


Did I say it was of "no import"? I merely noted that the arrow is pointing away from that, especially as older minister members retire, similar to the ARP. 

I also did not make any kind of statement about the current situation in certain RP presbyteries, only my experience in the ARP presbytery I inhabit.


----------



## fredtgreco

Sorry, Ben, I was replying to the general tenor of the thread, and just used your post as a reply mechanism.

But I do find it odd that people are critical of what the PCA _might_ do, when the ARP and RPCNA have _already committed_ that error.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The situations behind all three are certainly different.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yet the RPCNA is trying a blue blood for maintaining woman out to be ordained to the ministry. Granted, the guy was foolish to trust in his blue blood to shield him and was too open. Folks are not open in the PCA and hide in safe spaces and couched language. So while they ain't perfect, score one for the RPCNA. Kill this madness study committee for woman's ordination, I'll give something to the PCA. If it goes forward it will be another creation report where "everyone gets a trophy" and there are no losers and we continue the downgrade.



fredtgreco said:


> I have personal knowledge of a PCA minister who was denied transfer into an RPCNA presbytery solely because he refused to acknowledge that there was Biblical warrant for women deacons. It is incorrect to assert that women's ordination in the RPCNA is of no import.


----------



## Edward

Parakaleo said:


> My ARP ordination exam last year before the Minister & His Work Committee:
> 
> Chairman: What is your position on women serving as deacons?
> Me: I do not believe Scripture supports women serving as deacons.
> Chairman: What argument would you make from Scripture?
> Me: "Let deacons each be the husband of one wife," (1 Tim. 3).
> Chairman: Okay, next question...





I knew a lesbian out of California that was the husband of one wife....


----------



## Parakaleo

Edward said:


> I knew a lesbian out of California that was the husband of one wife....



If lesbians (or feminists, for that matter) knew the etymology of the word "husband", they would try to shame and ridicule anyone using the term until people stopped.



> Late Old English (in the senses ‘male head of a household’ and ‘manager, steward’), from Old Norse húsbóndi ‘master of a house,'



...like they already have done with the word "patriarchy". Remind me why we're so afraid to use that biblical word, again?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

NaphtaliPress said:


> If this passes, the PCA, and very quickly, will go the way of the old PCUS. Not exactly the same, but in generalities, exactly the same (toss subscription, advance egalitarianism, evolution, etc.). The progressives killed any hope of a confessional church in 2002 when good faith subscription was rammed through, theistic evolution is taught without consequence, and we have in practice, women deacons already and with impunity. Just have them in a way the skirts the letter of the law. This may fail this year; but history tells us progressives are untiring, and conservatives give up and when their numbers dwindle the pace quickens. I read/showed this to two TEs, one former and one still PCA, and one while generally pretty down on the PCA was still shocked by this and the other said "this is sick."
> I got this from Andrew Barnes on Facebook who explains,
> "This comes from the Cooperative Ministries Committee (which is made up of the last 5 moderators of GA, and heads of all the Permanent Committees/Agencies). However, CMC can't recommend anything to the GA by themselves, they have to go through a Permanent Committee/Agency (one that is appropriate to the action they are recommending). So this is the CMC through AC to GA."
> 
> 3. That Assembly form a study committee on the issue of women serving in the ministry of the church (RAO 9-1; 9-3). The Assembly authorizes the Moderator to appoint the study committee. The study committee should be made up of competent men and women representing the diversity of opinions within the PCA (RAO 9-1; Robert’s Rules of Order [11[SUP]th[/SUP] edition], 14, pp. 174-175, 50, pp. 495-496; 50, pp. 497-498 56, p. 579]).
> The committee should give particular attention to the issues of:​
> 
> The biblical basis, theology, history, nature and authority of ordination;​
> (2) The biblical nature and function of the office of deacon;​
> (3) Clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses;​
> (4) Should the findings of the study committee warrant BCO changes, the study committee will propose such changes for the General Assembly to consider.​
> The committee will have a budget of $15,000 that is funded by designated donations to the AC from churches and individuals (RAO 9-2).
> A Pastoral Letter to be proposed by the ad interim study committee and approved by the General Assembly be sent to all churches, encouraging them to (1) promote he practice of women in ministry, (2) appoint women to serve alongside elders and deacons in the pastoral work of the church, and (3) hire women on church staff in appropriate ministries.
> Grounds: The Cooperative Ministries Committee may not make recommendations directly to the General Assembly but must do so through an apropriate committee or agency (RAO 7-3 c; 7-6). The CMC has had a subcommittee on the role of women and has sent several recommendations to the AC (including a proposal for a study committee on the issue women serving in the church) and CDM to bring to the Assembly.​
> For back ground here is the report of this committee of past moderators, and other men and women:
> 
> View attachment 4508
> Now maybe this is watered down or killed but the fact that it is proposed, by a committee that included 5 past moderators no less, indicates this is not going away. It will keep coming up. When they get tired of dealing with the confessionalists or conservatives they will force it through like they did good faith subscription. And after all, it is more important to them to retain millennials who own the surrounding degraded culture than retain those defending Presbyterian doctrine and practice.



Serious question: If the PCA rules in favor of the degrading culture, what should be the appropriate action of the confessionalists in the PCA?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It would almost surely depend on how it unfolds, and the conditions in the presbyteries and churches in which confessionalists find themselves. My guess is the usual disorganized flight or remaining to fight on an individual basis. 


Andrew P.C. said:


> Serious question: If the PCA rules in favor of the degrading culture, what should be the appropriate action of the confessionalists in the PCA?


----------



## Edward

NaphtaliPress said:


> My guess is the usual disorganized flight or remaining to fight on an individual basis.



Are you aware of any organized groups of conservatives such as were found in the PCUS and in the PCUSA?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I am not. 


Edward said:


> Are you aware of any organized groups of conservatives such as were found in the PCUS and in the PCUSA?


----------



## lynnie

Is a PCA church able by itself to pull out and join the OPC ( or another R denom)? Or is it a long and complicated thing that takes months and years to weave through presbyteries and courts?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I don't recall specifics, but if there is no controversy within the church itself, pretty easy. It is nothing like the PCUSA.


----------



## Edward

A merger would take at least two general assemblies and approval by the Presbyteries. And it would be unwise for the OPC to merge with the PCA at this point. They dodged a bullet a generation ago when it was close to happening (technically, the proposed union was not set up as a merger of equals, it would have been the OPC being absorbed by the PCA.) The initial plan for uniting the two denominations failed when the proposal was not approved by enough PCA presbyteries. A later effort was rebuffed by the OPC. Given the time needed to negotiate the terms and sell the idea, and I'd want to allow at least 3 years. (Four years passed between the two previous efforts). 



lynnie said:


> Or is it a long and complicated thing that takes months and years to weave through presbyteries and courts?


----------



## Romans922

lynnie said:


> Is a PCA church able by itself to pull out and join the OPC ( or another R denom)? Or is it a long and complicated thing that takes months and years to weave through presbyteries and courts?



For a local congregation of the PCA to leave the denomination, it takes one very simple congregational meeting to leave the PCA. It would probably however be a longer process to join another denomination (depending on that specific denomination).


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> For a local congregation of the PCA to leave the denomination, it takes one very simple congregational meeting to leave the PCA. It would probably however be a longer process to join another denomination (depending on that specific denomination).



You are correct. I misread the question.


----------



## yeutter

When the old Presbyterian Journal, and Presbyterian Guardian were, whether intentionally or not, killed off by the PCA and OPC starting denominational magazines, an effective independent voice was lost. This makes it more difficult; to call to the attention of the average ruling elder, errors floating around in their denomination.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

yeutter said:


> When the old Presbyterian Journal, and Presbyterian Guardian were, whether intentionally or not, killed off by the PCA and OPC starting denominational magazines, an effective independent voice was lost. This makes it more difficult; to call to the attention of the average ruling elder, errors floating around in their denomination.



Although the Journal that Chris puts out is technically independent (if I recall). I just got the new issue last week and in there he points out that the Sabbath is being lost (well...its being killed) by progressives in the PCA. Good read. I'd highly recommend the Journal and this issue in particular.

https://www.cpjournal.com/


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes; I took over the journal full time beginning with the 3rd issue. It had been 'my baby' and project and when I changed churches I managed a buy out as it would not have continued otherwise. So, now it is twelve. Killed, as in more like killed by neglect. It is almost surely true the doctrine was very ill from the first days of the PCA and really needed far more attention to turn it around. It's decline is not just the progressives' fault but has been generally neglected by all. 


Andrew P.C. said:


> Although the Journal that Chris puts out is technically independent (if I recall). I just got the new issue last week and in there he points out that the Sabbath is being lost (well...its being killed) by progressives in the PCA. Good read. I'd highly recommend the Journal and this issue in particular.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Andrew P.C. said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the old Presbyterian Journal, and Presbyterian Guardian were, whether intentionally or not, killed off by the PCA and OPC starting denominational magazines, an effective independent voice was lost. This makes it more difficult; to call to the attention of the average ruling elder, errors floating around in their denomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the Journal that Chris puts out is technically independent (if I recall). I just got the new issue last week and in there he points out that the Sabbath is being lost (well...its being killed) by progressives in the PCA. Good read. I'd highly recommend the Journal and this issue in particular.
> 
> https://www.cpjournal.com/
Click to expand...


Speaking of which, I visited a PCA congregation today that seemed, from what I could tell ahead of time, to be more towards the confessionally conservative side of the denomination and by no means progressive (at least as far as the region in question goes). After worship the pastor came over and invited my wife and I out to lunch with some other couples who do this regularly (and out meaning to a restaurant, not their home). Surprised, I said that it is not my wife and I's practice to eat at restaurants on Sundays and the pastor seemed to not recognize in the least that we were referring to any sort of scruples regarding the 4th commandment. I can understand to some extent one taking an exception with confessional language and differing on exegesis on the point, but it's astonishing that a long-time minister would flout the confession openly with a visitor from another NAPARC church without any consciousness of the issue. Has it really gone so far in the denomination?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

He may have known more than he showed, but not much surprises me now about the PCA (except maybe how quickly the rest of the dominoes are falling, and now, even that is not going to surprise me). My church's presbytery at the motion of a confessionalist set up a committee to study recreations on the Lord's Day because so many were taking the exception without a clue of the issues or doctrine involved (the wax nose 'continental sabbath', divorced from any actual continental view, etc.). I was told by the committee chair that it was with a very great difficulty that the more (or less) Sabbatarian minority (and in this presbytery one hand is too large to count the Sabbatarians), could get the antiSabbatarians to even grant any moral abiding validity to the fourth commandment. The PCA is not just functionally but doctrinally AntiSabbatarian. Forget the pesky thing of an actual doctrinal standard.


TheOldCourse said:


> Has it really gone so far in the denomination?


----------



## TheOldCourse

NaphtaliPress said:


> He may have known more than he showed, but not much surprises me now about the PCA (except maybe how quickly the rest of the dominoes are falling, and now, even that is not going to surprise me). My church's presbytery at the motion of a confessionalist set up a committee to study recreations on the Lord's Day because so many were taking the exception without a clue of the issues or doctrine involved (the wax nose 'continental sabbath', divorced from any actual continental view, etc.). I was told by the committee chair that it was with a very great difficulty that the more (or less) Sabbatarian minority (and in this presbytery one hand is too large to count the Sabbatarians), could get the antiSabbatarians to even grant any moral abiding validity to the fourth commandment. The PCA is not just functionally but doctrinally AntiSabbatarian. Forget the pesky thing of an actual doctrinal standard.
> 
> 
> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has it really gone so far in the denomination?
Click to expand...


I suppose I've read you and others say such things before but it was something else to be face to face with it today. Due to a recent move we will be living in an area (New Orleans) where the PCA is the only Reformed denomination within two or three hours so it seems that it is a pill we'll have to swallow for the time being.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

For now, it is far better than nothing.


TheOldCourse said:


> Due to a recent move we will be living in an area (New Orleans) where the PCA is the only Reformed denomination within two or three hours so it seems that it is a pill we'll have to swallow for the time being.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I have been reading the latest Confessional Presbyterian with great interest and profit. I so appreciate its being put together and published; the need is so great. I am praying that these things will be once again understood and embraced by more of the churches.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is was the reason and aim. And if it will not turn many from their error, it will at least be a testimony to the truth. I'm thankful to those that wrote on such short notice (3-4 months window to make this June release, as we were pivoting hard and fast from just getting v13 out late) or gave approval to run pieces from elsewhere.


Jeri Tanner said:


> the need is so great. I am praying that these things will be once again understood and embraced by more of the churches.


----------



## lynnie

It is my understanding from the two PCA churches in my past (two different presbyteries), that elder vows taking an exception to the Sabbath as understood in the Confession are the norm. Not trying to say who is right and wrong about specifics (and I found it very annoying once when an adult told my minor daughter that my husband was sinning and breaking the sabbath to start a fire in the woodstove on Sunday).....but until I started reading at PB I just assumed the OPC was strict and the PCA was not.

I guess people are different about what essentials bother them. This doesn't bother me, but I could not go to a biologos theistic evolution church in the PCA. I'd pick creationism over what we can do on Sunday. Don't know if that attitude is right or wrong.....


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I should hope so; that does not reflect a proper understanding of the Puritan Sabbatarianism of the Westminster Standards. 


lynnie said:


> and I found it very annoying once when an adult told my minor daughter that my husband was sinning and breaking the sabbath to start a fire in the woodstove on Sunday


Sadly, as to this issue the difference between the OPC and PCA, while it varies as to degree, I've been told by OPC TEs it ain't a hill anyone will die on in the OPC. Some of the common issues are there as well; maybe not pastors running out to the ball game after morning sermon like in the PCA.....

Exceptions to the Sabbath doctrine of the Standards are not to some minor point. It is as Professor Murray pointed out, woven into the ethic of the Westminster Standards. As the old confessionalists of the PCUS cried long and hard, 'as goes the sabbath, so goes the church, as goes the church so goes the nation.' God is not mocked; easy go one creation ordinance, easy go another. See the larger catechism and the Calvin cited below.

While exception to the puritan Sabbath doctrine is common now, it didn't use to be and those antiSabbatarians that may cry about evolution, women deacons except in name and other downgrades have only themselves to blame because they aided and abetted the erosion of the old school concept of confessionalism. 

“The word _Remember _is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and party, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less light of nature for it, and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful ....” Westminster Larger Catechims Q/A 121. 

“And for this cause the prophet Ezech. reproves the Jews that they kept not the Sabbath. For this is said unto them as if they had in general broken the whole law, and not without cause. For he which sets at naught the Sabbath day, has cast under foot all the service of God as much as in him is. And if the Sabbath day be not observed, all the rest shall be worth nothing, as is spoken by the prophet Isaiah….” Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin upon the x. commandements of the lawe (1579; 1581), 31v–32r.

“When the Sunday is spent, not only in games and pastimes full of vanity, but in things which are altogether contrary unto God, that men think they have not celebrated Sunday, except God therein be by many and sundry ways offended; when men, I say, unhallow in such sort this holy day, which God has instituted to lead us unto Himself, is it any marvel if we become brutish, and beastly in our doings all the rest of the week?” Sermons, 36v. The latter cited from Nicholas Bownd, _The True Doctrine of the Sabbath_, (2015), 444.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I started to say, Lynnie, that maybe the move towards evolution is related to the move away from the love and keeping of the Sabbath. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lynnie

Interesting concept I hadn't thought of before...."easy go one creation ordinance, easy go another."

Maybe that is why evolution and women in church leadership go together now. Interesting insight, I'll have to think about it more. Thanks Jeri and CC. 

I don't think any sincere Continental view is rejecting it though, just seeing it as fulfilled ie Hebrews 4. When I read "Calvin on the Sabbath" by Gaffin I thought Gaffin "won" as it were (Confessional position), but he did lay out the other side well. I only know one sincere Continental person who has studied it and come to that conclusion by conviction, and he works harder for God seven days a week than anybody I know. 
But I am not sure exceptions in the PCA are because they are Calvinists on this subject, I really don't know the basis for the exceptions.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Danny Hyde is Reformed and his article on Dordt's sabbath regulations shows they were, to use English labels, moderately puritan. It was a compromise as some at Dordt wanted a much stricter position. My church's presbytery had a study committee on the sabbath (regarding recreations and continental view) and the study found that the term 'continental' view had become so misunderstood and twisted from meaning a Reformed view, to simply mean a non Sabbatarian view, that it had been rendered meaningless. Danny's piece was rerun in the current issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal but was previously printed in Puritan Reformed Journal (v4, #1) which is online (look for _Regulae_ de Observatione Sabbathi: The Synod of Dort's (1618–19). Deliverance on the Sabbath).


----------



## Romans922

I wrote an article on this recommendation from the OP:

http://theaquilareport.com/pca-gene...study-committee-on-women-serving-in-ministry/


----------



## TheOldCourse

Romans922 said:


> I wrote an article on this recommendation from the OP:
> 
> http://theaquilareport.com/pca-gene...study-committee-on-women-serving-in-ministry/



Thank you for your needful response. Those quotes from Ross make me feel even worse about the overture. It's unfathomable to me how society denouncing our positions can ever be a argument for change in a denomination committed to the Scriptures, much less the confessional standards.


----------



## BGF

TheOldCourse said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote an article on this recommendation from the OP:
> 
> http://theaquilareport.com/pca-gene...study-committee-on-women-serving-in-ministry/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your needful response. Those quotes from Ross make me feel even worse about the overture. It's unfathomable to me how society denouncing our positions can ever be a argument for change in a denomination committed to the Scriptures, much less the confessional standards.
Click to expand...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This just passed by apparently a wide margin. 767-375-12.


----------



## Parakaleo

I would call that a pretty gaping wide margin.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

yup. In spite of the committee of commissioners voting far in favor of not appointing it.


----------



## Covenant Joel

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.


----------



## earl40

Covenant Joel said:


> 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.



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

earl40 said:


> 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.



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

Covenant Joel said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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

> *What approach is that that is not working and what alternative would you propose?



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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

That always is true of liberals and conservatives.


BGF said:


> 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

BGF said:


> *What approach is that that is not working and what alternative would you propose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Covenant Joel said:


> 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.



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

I suppose we are going to have to address that question sooner than later.

My wife keeps telling me that she thinks we are not long for the PCA. We shall see. (Maybe the OPC will have us?)


----------



## AndyS

NaphtaliPress said:


> This just passed by apparently a wide margin. 767-375-12.




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

AndyS said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just passed by apparently a wide margin. 767-375-12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
Click to expand...


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

Covenant Joel said:


> AndyS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just passed by apparently a wide margin. 767-375-12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I sincerely hope that you are right.


----------



## lynnie

_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.....


----------



## Pilgrim

Is there any precedent for those who are not elders, not to mention women, serving on a committee like this?


----------



## Covenant Joel

Pilgrim said:


> Is there any precedent for those who are not elders, not to mention women, serving on a committee like this?



I posted this on another thread:



> It appears (as was mentioned on the floor of the Assembly) that Diane Langberg was on the Ad Interim Committee on Divorce and Remarriage. It does, however, note "advisor" next to her name, so she may not have been actually on the committee, particularly since there appear to be 7 others listed on the committee.
> 
> So it does seem a reasonable assumption that Ad Interim committees would be made up of REs and TEs. In the case of the recently approved study committee, it seems like having women advisors would be a good idea, but it sounds like they will actually be on the committee.







lynnie said:


> 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.....




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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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

NaphtaliPress said:


> Ligon Duncan, Harry Reeder, Dan Doriani, Irwyn Ince, Kathy Keller (I assume Tim Killer's wife), Mary Beth McGreevy, and Susan Hunt.



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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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.


----------



## jwithnell

Any chance this study committee will address the current practice at some PCA churches of installing women deacons using the same language as ordinaion?


----------



## SolaScriptura

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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. 


jwithnell said:


> Any chance this study committee will address the current practice at some PCA churches of installing women deacons using the same language as ordinaion?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## SolaScriptura

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

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.


----------



## Covenant Joel

USNCerGuard said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It started immediately far as I recall. "Calvin held to a sort of deaconess as an office. You wouldn't want to call Calvin a liberal would you?" 


SolaScriptura said:


> 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

Covenant Joel said:


> 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.



That never came up in the CoC meeting. The substitute motion was made to answer in the negative with grounds and debate went on from there.


----------



## Covenant Joel

USNCerGuard said:


> That never came up in the CoC meeting. The substitute motion was made to answer in the negative with grounds and debate went on from there.



But would such an amendment have been allowable on the floor per RAO regulations? I think so, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying that once the substitute motion was defeated, proposing something like that might have been acceptable and perhaps been better.


----------



## Inactiver user19912

Covenant Joel said:


> But would such an amendment have been allowable on the floor per RAO regulations? I think so, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying that once the substitute motion was defeated, proposing something like that might have been acceptable and perhaps been better.



I'm not sure about that. In God's Providence, the assembly dealt with the CoC recommendation as we sent it. In retrospect, I'm surprised that no one offered anything different to see if it was in order. I'm not sure what to make of that.


----------



## AndyS

jwithnell said:


> Any chance this study committee will address the current practice at some PCA churches of installing women deacons using the same language as ordinaion?



That would be nice. Judging by the piece in the online version of By Faith, I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Scott Bushey

AndyS said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance this study committee will address the current practice at some PCA churches of installing women deacons using the same language as ordinaion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice. Judging by the piece in the online version of By Faith, I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...


The PCA church I attended for 12 years used bizarre language when referring to WIC. They even had an pseudo ordination ceremony for them where they were brought in front of the church and the leaders prayed over them. They referred to them as leaders. It creeped me out.


----------



## fredtgreco

USNCerGuard said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But would such an amendment have been allowable on the floor per RAO regulations? I think so, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying that once the substitute motion was defeated, proposing something like that might have been acceptable and perhaps been better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about that. In God's Providence, the assembly dealt with the CoC recommendation as we sent it. In retrospect, I'm surprised that no one offered anything different to see if it was in order. I'm not sure what to make of that.
Click to expand...

The only other thing that could have been done was to move to recommit to the CoC for the purpose of amending the recommendation. I rose immediately to do exactly that. I'm not sure if you can see it on the livestream. But I was not seen by the moderator, and instead others insisting on giving speeches that would not have changed the vote. I was very frustrated, as I hoped that the CoC could have done some good editing - including deleting the conclusions already put for the Pastoral Letter. Another piece of evidence that conservatives don't do their homework and understand how the Assembly works.


----------



## jwithnell

I saw something like that for women deacons and was flabbergasted that the installation used the same wording as for ordination of officers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This does seem to be a problem (i.e never underestimate conservatives grasping defeat out of the jaws of victory, shooting themselves in the foot, etc). What is the solution; is "planning ahead" simply a dirty word for many conservatives?


fredtgreco said:


> Another piece of evidence that conservatives don't do their homework and understand how the Assembly works.


----------



## fredtgreco

NaphtaliPress said:


> This does seem to be a problem (i.e never underestimate conservatives grasping defeat out of the jaws of victory, shooting themselves in the foot, etc). What is the solution; is "planning ahead" simply a dirty word for many conservatives?
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another piece of evidence that conservatives don't do their homework and understand how the Assembly works.
Click to expand...


I don't know, Chris. I have to admit that this annoys me to no end. I also believe that when conservatives get to the microphone, it appears to hurt rather than help. So many have lost the ability to give thoughtful, persuasive arguments. It is all shout and bluster.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Often in church history the side that is right is not the lovable, eloquent or best acting side; that can be a judgment/trial of the Lord if He is determined to try His people by having those in error prevail. We cannot see what the Lord's aim is; and in any case still leaves us without excuse to be prepared and wise in our doings.


fredtgreco said:


> I don't know, Chris. I have to admit that this annoys me to no end. I also believe that when conservatives get to the microphone, it appears to hurt rather than help. So many have lost the ability to give thoughtful, persuasive arguments. It is all shout and bluster.


----------



## Romans922

Covenant Joel said:


> 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.



You can't do amendments from the floor due to the moving all of that to committee work in the last 15 years.


----------



## Romans922

fredtgreco said:


> I don't know, Chris. I have to admit that this annoys me to no end. I also believe that when conservatives get to the microphone, it appears to hurt rather than help. So many have lost the ability to give thoughtful, persuasive arguments. It is all shout and bluster.



I agree.  Some OPC brethren commented as they watched that there seems to be no actually good logical biblical confessional arguments being made. Sad.


----------



## Parakaleo

In my mind, approving the committee to study the issue does represent a sort of straw-poll and a major lost battle. A study committee is formed, traditionally, to probe into areas of Scripture and theology that are somewhat grey or not completely settled. This unsettled quality is now what has been admitted regarding women's ordination and role in church leadership. 

If the PCA is unsettled on a teaching as straightforward and clear in the Scripture as the role of women in the church, God help them. And us all.


----------



## Parakaleo

This now from Andy Webb, a PCA pastor in Fayetteville, NC:



> Dear Confessional PCA Brothers, I have asked our session to consider hosting a convocation of sessions this fall, and we will officially vote on the matter on July 9th.
> The aim of the convocation would be to gather theologically conservative PCA elders so that we might hear from leading lights on the Confessional side of the aisle and consider, discuss, and pray about the following question:
> "In light of recent events in the PCA, should theologically conservative congregations:
> 1) Stay in the PCA and continue to fight for her theological integrity? (If so how?)
> 2) Break with the existing PCA and create a continuing PCA denomination? (if so how and when?)
> 3) Attempt to Join en masse with one of the more conservative Reformed denominations or join individually with whichever denomination would fit the theology of our congregation best? (If so, which option and which denomination?)"
> While the final form of the question will be framed by our session, I imagine that we will ask speakers to choose and defend the option they support and recommend.
> More details to follow...


----------



## TylerRay

Am I correct in assuming that the committee will report to G.A. next year?


----------



## Covenant Joel

TylerRay said:


> Am I correct in assuming that the committee will report to G.A. next year?



I believe it is normally expected that Ad-Interim Committees report to the next Assembly, unless they request more time (as in the case of the recent Insider Movements committee, which submitted Part 1 in 2012, was recommitted in 2013, and then finally completed in 2014).



> Dear Confessional PCA Brothers, I have asked our session to consider hosting a convocation of sessions this fall, and we will officially vote on the matter on July 9th. The aim of the convocation would be to gather theologically conservative PCA elders so that we might hear from leading lights on the Confessional side of the aisle and consider, discuss, and pray about the following question: "In light of recent events in the PCA, should theologically conservative congregations:
> 
> 1) Stay in the PCA and continue to fight for her theological integrity? (If so how?)
> 2) Break with the existing PCA and create a continuing PCA denomination? (if so how and when?)
> 3) Attempt to Join en masse with one of the more conservative Reformed denominations or join individually with whichever denomination would fit the theology of our congregation best? (If so, which option and which denomination?)" While the final form of the question will be framed by our session, I imagine that we will ask speakers to choose and defend the option they support and recommend. More details to follow...



Regarding this idea, I would suggest a couple of things:

First, as noted above, I believe that the way commissioners have gone about arguing on the floor for some of these things has not been helpful or effective. So I think some soul-searching is in order before something like this should happen.

Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this _before the committee reports back _seems questionable. 

Thirdly, what could be more effective than doing #1 (coordinating efforts to fight for the 'conservative' wing of the PCA)? Perhaps I am woefully uninformed, but I wonder if everyone who would attend that meeting would instead invite a 'progressive' brother out to lunch, or pick up the phone and call one of them, and seek to honestly listen and also convey his own concern. Would that help? What if instead of simply raising the specter of liberalism and accusing men of not caring about Scripture, we tried to develop genuine relationships and work through those? 

It might not. But posting articles to the Aquila Report and our current speeches on the floor aren't working either. It certainly can't hurt.


----------



## DMcFadden

A question for my PCA friends:

There are a number of conservative/confessional denominations in the US (both Reformed and Lutheran). Most of them have what might be called a "confessional" wing and a "missional" wing. The confessionalists hold to whatever confessional standards the denonmination claims (e.g., Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, Book of Concord). The other side tries to ape the broad evangelicals with all of the silly trendiness that applies there (e.g., flirting with church growth ideology, Big Box worship style, egalitarianism,and Biologos theistic evolution).

Does this typology apply to the PCA? And, how would you "wise heads" describe the percentages of pastors/churches on each end?


----------



## Romans922

TylerRay said:


> Am I correct in assuming that the committee will report to G.A. next year?



*RAO 9-2*. Only two (2) ad interim study committees may be appointed or continued in any given year, (with no committee continuing with undesignated Administrative Committee funding beyond the third year of its inception and no more than two [2] committees existing in any one [1] year), and any additional committees would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of commissioners, with financing provided from outside the Administrative Committee budget.






Covenant Joel said:


> Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.



This is not just because of a Study Committee being formed. It is due to the continual 'progressive' nature of the PCA.



Covenant Joel said:


> Perhaps I am woefully uninformed, but I wonder if everyone who would attend that meeting would instead invite a 'progressive' brother out to lunch, or pick up the phone and call one of them, and seek to honestly listen and also convey his own concern. Would that help?



This has been done time and time again with generally no gain.


----------



## Covenant Joel

DMcFadden said:


> A question for my PCA friends:
> 
> There are a number of conservative/confessional denominations in the US (both Reformed and Lutheran). Most of them have what might be called a "confessional" wing and a "missional" wing. The confessionalists hold to whatever confessional standards the denonmination claims (e.g., Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, Book of Concord). The other side tries to ape the broad evangelicals with all of the silly trendiness that applies there (e.g., flirting with church growth ideology, Big Box worship style, egalitarianism,and Biologos theistic evolution).
> 
> Does this typology apply to the PCA? And, how would you "wise heads" describe the percentages of pastors/churches on each end?



I think a simple binary description like that cannot accurately describe something as complex as the PCA. Various attempts have been made to categorize the PCA (Keller, Chapell, Phillips) in the past, all more complex than that and yet all inadequate in various ways.

It may be interesting in light of this thread to read Richard Phillips assessment of General Assembly: PCA GA: Moving Forward Together.

For the 'other side' see Jon Price's comments: Who Decides Who's Confessional?


----------



## Covenant Joel

Romans922 said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just because of a Study Committee being formed. It is due to the continual 'progressive' nature of the PCA.
Click to expand...


I understand that and have sympathy with it. And yet the study committee formation seems like the precipitating event here. But to discuss leaving before the committee even reports seems premature.



> This has been done time and time again with generally no gain.



I'll take your word for it that it has been done. I do know of one case in which it was done very intentionally, and it sure seems to have helped. I also wonder if this effort has been made with the founders of the NP? I.e., rather than open letters denouncing them, personal attempts to communicate?

Having said all this, would I be opposed to a gathering whose purpose was this: "Hey, we've not been very effective at communicating our concerns at the GA level. Let's meet and talk about how we can do that better." If that was the case, not to politic and stack committees, etc (which I know the NP has done unfortunately), and the focus was on how we can be more gracious and winsome and biblical and clear, then I'd be more interested.

But to say: "There's a study committee, so we should talk about whether we should stay or leave," seems premature to me. I think I'd roughly find myself where Rick Phillips in his assessment of GA that I linked to above.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Here is another analysis of the recent PCA GA by Terry Johnson. 
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/a-troubling-turn-pca-general-a.php


----------



## Edward

Covenant Joel said:


> Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.



I would suggest that it is not premature. 

1) the trajectory of the PCA has been clear for years. 
2) the committee has already been told what the end result will be. Their only job will be to draw up the justification and wrap it in proof text. 
3) waiting until a crisis has matured isn't prudent. It took over a decade from the time the initial steps were taken in the PCUS until the PCA was organized. Spontaneous actions take careful planning.


----------



## lynnie

That Terry Johnson article is good. I really liked this line:

_I should have moved that we form a study committee to reexamine "the doctrine of the Trinity" or "the dual nature of Christ." What if we moved to form a study committee to reexamine the pros and cons of racial segregation. I trust that the point is obvious. Some issues are closed. Some issues have been studied, discussed, debated, and settled. _


----------



## Covenant Joel

Edward said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that it is not premature.
> 
> 1) the trajectory of the PCA has been clear for years.
> 2) the committee has already been told what the end result will be. Their only job will be to draw up the justification and wrap it in proof text.
> 3) waiting until a crisis has matured isn't prudent. It took over a decade from the time the initial steps were taken in the PCUS until the PCA was organized. Spontaneous actions take careful planning.
Click to expand...


Rick Phillips' assessment is different:



> I am on record as opposing revisions to the PCA's polity when it comes to women in ordained office (e.g. see this post), and I voted against the study committee. I was also distressed to see a contentious matter like this come from the top in a denomination that has been committed to a bottom-up polity, and I signed the protest against the moderator's ruling. Yet, without wishing to prejudice the study committee's work, I will be astonished if it recommends the ordination of women to the office of deacon. This would be a truly divisive movement and I believe it is contrary to the majority view of our denomination. Moreover, the practice of some churches to install but not ordain women to diaconal service is already permitted by the language of our Book of Church Order (BCO) and churches have been practicing this in the PCA since its expansion in 1982. In short, churches on the left that demand women's ordination to office and those on the right who cannot tolerate women's non-ordained service with diaconates will have voted with their feet long before now. In my view, concerned PCA members should prayerfully support the work of this study committee, with what I think is a reasonable hope of a helpful and minimally provocative outcome.



I would basically agree with his assessment, and I, like him, would have voted against the study committee with the wording set up the way it was.


----------



## Edward

The best way to keep the denomination in the center is to push back as hard from the right as the other side is pushing from the left. 

Remember, it took a presbytery threatening to pull out to get actual progress (as opposed to words) on the Louisiana situation.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Edward said:


> The best way to keep the denomination in the center is to push back as hard from the right as the other side is pushing from the left.
> 
> Remember, it took a presbytery threatening to pull out to get actual progress (as opposed to words) on the Louisiana situation.



I highly doubt that a group threatening to leave would effect much change at this point, considering that it has been threatened for years. And particularly considering that many well known conservatives do not seem to be assessing the situation in the same way (see Phillips' quote above).

I do agree however that those who are concerned about these issues should push. But I believe they have been doing that, only very ineffectively. Doubling down on the current strategy seems unlikely to be effective going forward. Thus I suggest approaching it differently.


----------



## DMcFadden

Covenant Joel said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> A question for my PCA friends:
> 
> There are a number of conservative/confessional denominations in the US (both Reformed and Lutheran). Most of them have what might be called a "confessional" wing and a "missional" wing. The confessionalists hold to whatever confessional standards the denonmination claims (e.g., Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, Book of Concord). The other side tries to ape the broad evangelicals with all of the silly trendiness that applies there (e.g., flirting with church growth ideology, Big Box worship style, egalitarianism,and Biologos theistic evolution).
> 
> Does this typology apply to the PCA? And, how would you "wise heads" describe the percentages of pastors/churches on each end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a simple binary description like that cannot accurately describe something as complex as the PCA. Various attempts have been made to categorize the PCA (Keller, Chapell, Phillips) in the past, all more complex than that and yet all inadequate in various ways.
> 
> It may be interesting in light of this thread to read Richard Phillips assessment of General Assembly: PCA GA: Moving Forward Together.
> 
> For the 'other side' see Jon Price's comments: Who Decides Who's Confessional?
Click to expand...


OK, I get that you don't like my question or the continuum that is implied by a "left to right" typology. The same could be said about American politics categorized in terms of left and right. It will always be more complex than that. But, political scientists regularly speak of the percentages of people in America who self-identify as left, middle, and right. All I'm asking is that someone in the PCA who can speak knowledgeably (this does not mean authoritatively), could give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully. 

Thanks, btw, for the articles. They were quite helpful.


----------



## Covenant Joel

DMcFadden said:


> OK, I get that you don't like my question or the continuum that is implied by a "left to right" typology. The same could be said about American politics categorized in terms of left and right. It will always be more complex than that. But, political scientists regularly speak of the percentages of people in America who self-identify as left, middle, and right. All I'm asking is that someone in the PCA who can speak knowledgeably (this does not mean authoritatively), could give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.
> 
> Thanks, btw, for the articles. They were quite helpful.



Fair enough. My own guess is that on the continuum, the far left side and far right side are actually both pretty small, not more than 10% each. So the middle is probably the largest section, with probably pretty even distribution on which side of the line they lean (if we were to use left and right in this way, which is not entirely fair I think). But considering that in 2015, only 1,400 commissioners attended (roughly 1000 of which were TEs), that leaves an awful lot of both TEs (I think they total over 4,000 if memory serves) and REs (way more) unrepresented. So even GA votes probably don't really tell us that much about the large majority of elders' views. 

Perhaps more useful is comparing the different attempts that have been made:

Bryan Chapell: The State of the PCA (2015) 
Rick Phillips: Dear Bryan: Replying to the State of the PCA (2015)
Dewey Roberts: Qualifying the State of the PCA (2015)
Tim Keller: What's so Great about the PCA (2010, long)

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I could locate quickly.


----------



## Edward

Covenant Joel said:


> But I believe they have been doing that, only very ineffectively. Doubling down on the current strategy seems unlikely to be effective going forward. Thus I suggest approaching it differently.



And that is what the North Carolina folks are trying to do - brainstorm on what the response should be. While you seem to be arguing for the status quo.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Edward said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I believe they have been doing that, only very ineffectively. Doubling down on the current strategy seems unlikely to be effective going forward. Thus I suggest approaching it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what the North Carolina folks are trying to do - brainstorm on what the response should be. While you seem to be arguing for the status quo.
Click to expand...


If that's all it is, that's great. But it seemed to me--perhaps I'm mistaken--to be, "The PCA is lost, so let's decide when and how we should leave, and what we should do in the meantime before we do." But if it's really to be about how to be more winsome and clear and effective in articulating biblical fidelity, then I'm all for it.


----------



## Edward

DMcFadden said:


> give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.



depends on 1) where you draw the lines and 2) whether you are counting members, churches, or presbyteries. 

As for the first:

ordaining women as elders - tiny minority
ordaining women as deacons - larger, but still small minority
unordained women deaconesses - larger still minority
women reading scriptures in service - perhaps a small majority 
women helping in care ministries - probably a sizable majority


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Here is yet another take on the PCA GA, from an elder's wife. This is particularly good getting at the main issue. http://heidelblog.net/2016/06/how-t...-of-women-in-the-church-appears-to-one-woman/


----------



## DMcFadden

Edward said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depends on 1) where you draw the lines and 2) whether you are counting members, churches, or presbyteries.
> 
> As for the first:
> 
> ordaining women as elders - tiny minority
> ordaining women as deacons - larger, but still small minority
> unordained women deaconesses - larger still minority
> women reading scriptures in service - perhaps a small majority
> women helping in care ministries - probably a sizable majority
Click to expand...


Thanks! The PCA is outside my own gated community. I am still hoping to fellowship with you in heaven, however, albeit separated by barbed wire and barking dogs. Still, I have long thought that the PCA is to PCUSA as LCMS is to ELCA or the CBA is to the ABCUSA. Both the PCA and the LCMS are confessional (the CBA being "conservative" since Baptist denoms of that size typically don't have confessions these days), inerrancy affirming, denoms standing against egalitarianism in a culture that embraces it. Last year the LCMS faced a "study committee" moment in the form of a popular and prominent college professor advocating for the ordination of women to the pastoral office and Biologos theistic evolution. He was dealt with in this crisis de jour by some leaders "encouraging" the academic to relocate to the more harmonious (for him) environs of mainline ELCA. 

It seems to me that the standard higher critical approach leads to a "nuanced" hermeneutic that reasons like this: the pastoral epistles deny the office of the ministry to women for cultural reasons, to whit, the Ephesian women who had been in the various goddess cults would give Christianity a bad name. But, now that we are in a culture that has practically made a religion out of egalitarianism, denying the office of the ministry to women will (in this cultural context) give Christianity a bad name. Hence, we must all ordain women to the pastoral ministry if for no other reason than the apologetic and evangelistic one. This juggernaut has already rolled over the mainlines and almost conquered broad evangelicalism in toto. It will take a VERY strong and concerted effort to keep the PCA from going the same direction. It would seem that this study commission, albeit set up to deal with the issue of women as deacon office holders, may presage a wider discussion of egalitarianism.

Some of the other conservative confessional bodies in the US are dealing with the same issues as the PCA. Many of them have a minority (10-20%???) who want to ape the evangelicals, as much out of size envy as a desire for faithfulness (in my opinion) and another minority (10-20%???) striving to keep the church pointed in a confessional direction. The vast middle of these bodies include folks who consider themselves "conservative, but not narrow; practical, but not willing to do everything the evangelicals (or liberals) do. Appealing to the middle is where the votes are decided. Any pitch which seems more doctrinaire than winsome pushes the middle to the left or the right on any given issue. Part of this problem relates to the lack of deep convictions by those in the middle and their susceptibility to smooth talk. 

Given that confessional true believers often come off as angry and more concerned with truth than love in their public presentations, the left (however a group defines "left") end of the spectrum often wins the day.


----------



## Romans922

Covenant Joel said:


> But it seemed to me--perhaps I'm mistaken--to be, "The PCA is lost, so let's decide when and how we should leave, and what we should do in the meantime before we do." But if it's really to be about how to be more winsome and clear and effective in articulating biblical fidelity, then I'm all for it.




Please read again. 

There are very clearly 3 options, not 2 and not 1, but 3:




> _Dear Confessional PCA Brothers, I have asked our session to consider hosting a convocation of sessions this fall, and we will officially vote on the matter on July 9th._
> _The aim of the convocation would be to gather theologically conservative PCA elders so that we might hear from leading lights on the Confessional side of the aisle and consider, discuss, and pray about the following question:_
> _"In light of recent events in the PCA, should theologically conservative congregations:_
> _1) Stay in the PCA and continue to fight for her theological integrity? (If so how?)_
> _2) Break with the existing PCA and create a continuing PCA denomination? (if so how and when?)_
> _3) Attempt to Join en masse with one of the more conservative Reformed denominations or join individually with whichever denomination would fit the theology of our congregation best? (If so, which option and which denomination?)"_
> _While the final form of the question will be framed by our session, I imagine that we will ask speakers to choose and defend the option they support and recommend._
> _More details to follow..._


----------



## Covenant Joel

Romans922 said:


> Please read again.
> 
> There are very clearly 3 options, not 2 and not 1, but 3:



Clearly, three were stated. So fair enough. But given that it was only in 2014 that Andy Webb (or his session to be precise I think) submitted "5 Reasons Why it Might be Time to Leave the PCA" it's not unreasonable to read this is as leaning in a certain way.

But regardless, I suppose I should read it as written, so sorry for that. I do genuinely hope that there will be those who speak for option 1, not in terms of doing politicking, but in terms of prayerfully considering how to speak in ways that are persuasive.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Upon further reflection, perhaps a few more comments are in order:

(1) My tone may have suggested that I don't appreciate the efforts of our brothers to hold the PCA to her confessional commitments. That is not the case. While I am concerned about the way that has been done many times, I am deeply grateful for the men who are committed enough to the Scriptures and the Reformed faith to stick their necks out and seek to communicate their perspective even when they know their words may not be appreciated.

(2) Related to the first, part of my concern is that an overreaction to a study committee on this issue would remove some men that we really need to stay. I believe we need the voices of those who are concerned about holding fast to the Confession, and so if this convocation happens, I hope there are voices that will speak for that.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Covenant Joel said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I get that you don't like my question or the continuum that is implied by a "left to right" typology. The same could be said about American politics categorized in terms of left and right. It will always be more complex than that. But, political scientists regularly speak of the percentages of people in America who self-identify as left, middle, and right. All I'm asking is that someone in the PCA who can speak knowledgeably (this does not mean authoritatively), could give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.
> 
> Thanks, btw, for the articles. They were quite helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. My own guess is that on the continuum, the far left side and far right side are actually both pretty small, not more than 10% each. So the middle is probably the largest section, with probably pretty even distribution on which side of the line they lean (if we were to use left and right in this way, which is not entirely fair I think). But considering that in 2015, only 1,400 commissioners attended (roughly 1000 of which were TEs), that leaves an awful lot of both TEs (I think they total over 4,000 if memory serves) and REs (way more) unrepresented. So even GA votes probably don't really tell us that much about the large majority of elders' views.
> 
> Perhaps more useful is comparing the different attempts that have been made:
> 
> Bryan Chapell: The State of the PCA (2015)
> Rick Phillips: Dear Bryan: Replying to the State of the PCA (2015)
> Dewey Roberts: Qualifying the State of the PCA (2015)
> Tim Keller: What's so Great about the PCA (2010, long)
> 
> I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I could locate quickly.
Click to expand...


The problem seems to be that the 80% middle is itself well to the left of most of the NAPARC and that 10% on the far right would probably represent an ordinary, average OPC or URC confessionalism. The state of the fourth commandment and that it's nearly impossible to deal with that far left 10% makes that pretty clear in my opinion.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

How many PCA churches have regular teaching on the PCA's doctrine as exhibited in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and of those how many at the very least give equal fair time to it instead of to the exceptions they were taught in seminary?


----------



## Covenant Joel

NaphtaliPress said:


> How many PCA churches have regular teaching on the PCA's doctrine as exhibited in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and of those how many at the very least give equal fair time to it instead of to the exceptions they were taught in seminary?



Obviously, no one knows. Any perspectives we have would likely be pretty subjective. But in that vein, in the past few years, I have worshiped/preached/taught in 20+ different PCA churches in different parts of the country (so various presbyteries). In that limited experience, I'm not sure it's as rare as one might think, at least to teach through doctrines of the Standards. Indeed, officers classes, from what I've been able to tell, commonly go through the Confession from beginning to end.

This is not to deny, of course, that the exceptions you reference aren't common. We are not currently a full subscription denomination. I know many on here wish that was not the case, but in and of itself I'm not convinced that is a sign that it's time to leave the denomination (or else that should have taken place a while back).


----------



## Beezer

NaphtaliPress said:


> How many PCA churches have regular teaching on the PCA's doctrine as exhibited in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and of those how many at the very least give equal fair time to it instead of to the exceptions they were taught in seminary?



I have only been a member of the PCA for a couple years now and my direct experience has only been in two PCA churches in Central Virginia. Sure I've visited other PCA churches when I've been out of town on travel, but my thumb has only ever been on the pulse of two in Central VA. If I had to apply a label on them I'd describe them both as falling pretty far left of center and in no way churches that would be considered confessional. When taking the membership class at one of these two churches there was never any mention of the Westminster Standards and when I asked the senior pastor whether the elders took any exceptions to the WCF was told "Hmm. I don't know. I've never asked them." The new members booklet quoted Rick Warren extensively in the section on the importance of church membership. Not making that up. I never heard the WCF taught/referenced in Sunday School for adults or for children. Needless to say, my family only stayed there a year before driving three times farther to go to the other PCA church in the area. The other PCA church is hyper-egalitarian and preaches/teaches a social gospel. I've never heard the WCF mentioned at this church either. My family and I are currently at a KAPC church that has a PCA pastor running the English service. Sigh.


----------



## johnny

DMcFadden said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depends on 1) where you draw the lines and 2) whether you are counting members, churches, or presbyteries.
> 
> As for the first:
> 
> ordaining women as elders - tiny minority
> ordaining women as deacons - larger, but still small minority
> unordained women deaconesses - larger still minority
> women reading scriptures in service - perhaps a small majority
> women helping in care ministries - probably a sizable majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the standard higher critical approach leads to a "nuanced" hermeneutic that reasons like this: the pastoral epistles deny the office of the ministry to women for cultural reasons, to whit, the Ephesian women who had been in the various goddess cults would give Christianity a bad name.
Click to expand...


I have heard this reason used to deny head covering as well,


----------



## Pilgrim

TheOldCourse said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the old Presbyterian Journal, and Presbyterian Guardian were, whether intentionally or not, killed off by the PCA and OPC starting denominational magazines, an effective independent voice was lost. This makes it more difficult; to call to the attention of the average ruling elder, errors floating around in their denomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the Journal that Chris puts out is technically independent (if I recall). I just got the new issue last week and in there he points out that the Sabbath is being lost (well...its being killed) by progressives in the PCA. Good read. I'd highly recommend the Journal and this issue in particular.
> 
> https://www.cpjournal.com/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I visited a PCA congregation today that seemed, from what I could tell ahead of time, to be more towards the confessionally conservative side of the denomination and by no means progressive (at least as far as the region in question goes). After worship the pastor came over and invited my wife and I out to lunch with some other couples who do this regularly (and out meaning to a restaurant, not their home). Surprised, I said that it is not my wife and I's practice to eat at restaurants on Sundays and the pastor seemed to not recognize in the least that we were referring to any sort of scruples regarding the 4th commandment. I can understand to some extent one taking an exception with confessional language and differing on exegesis on the point, but it's astonishing that a long-time minister would flout the confession openly with a visitor from another NAPARC church without any consciousness of the issue. Has it really gone so far in the denomination?
Click to expand...


I had that happen in the same Presbytery. Unless there has been a drastic change in the past 8 years, you might have at most 15-20% of TEs in that presbytery that don't take exception on the 4th Commandment. It may be closer to 10%. At that time there might have been 3-4 who didn't take exception, and I think maybe one or two of them aren't there anymore. (Some of the ones who take exception say they hold to the "continental" view but it seems that at least some may behave as if it is the dispensational view.)


----------



## Pilgrim

Beezer said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many PCA churches have regular teaching on the PCA's doctrine as exhibited in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and of those how many at the very least give equal fair time to it instead of to the exceptions they were taught in seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have only been a member of the PCA for a couple years now and my direct experience has only been in two PCA churches in Central Virginia. Sure I've visited other PCA churches when I've been out of town on travel, but my thumb has only ever been on the pulse of two in Central VA. If I had to apply a label on them I'd describe them both as falling pretty far left of center and in no way churches that would be considered confessional. When taking the membership class at one of these two churches there was never any mention of the Westminster Standards and when I asked the senior pastor whether the elders took any exceptions to the WCF was told "Hmm. I don't know. I've never asked them." The new members booklet quoted Rick Warren extensively in the section on the importance of church membership. Not making that up. I never heard the WCF taught/referenced in Sunday School for adults or for children. Needless to say, my family only stayed there a year before driving three times farther to go to the other PCA church in the area. The other PCA church is hyper-egalitarian and preaches/teaches a social gospel. I've never heard the WCF mentioned at this church either. My family and I are currently at a KAPC church that has a PCA pastor running the English service. Sigh.
Click to expand...


We've recently been attending an EPC congregation that is actually going through the WCF in one of its Sunday School classes. It is the modernized version, which isn't my preference, but at least the people (this is a former PCUSA congregation) are learning that it exists. This is more evidence that in some cases there isn't a whole lot of difference between the more broadly evangelical PCA congregations and more solid EPC ones. Some former PCUSA congregations like this are moving to the "right" while some PCA ones are moving to the "left" or started that way to begin with in the case of some trendy church plants.


----------

