# PCA intinction vote



## Kevin (Dec 20, 2012)

After the discussion here I got curious as to how the vote was shaping up. Here is the results as of Dec 5.

http://byfaithonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/BCO-58-5-votes-12-4-12.pdf


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 20, 2012)

A quick reminder of what "for" and "against" represent?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 20, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A quick reminder of what "for" and "against" represent?



For is affirming the BCO change which would prohibit intinction.

Against is for staying with the status quo.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2012)

One thing to keep in mind,
some of us believe the PCA BCO does not need to be amended because it already prohibits the invention.
Restating what it already says can have the effect of undermining what it says.

Some of us are hesitant to start making a positive statement of law (as in the Lord's Supper BCO section) amended to include everything it does not allow. Like trying to prove a negative when an implicit truth has already been stated.

That was one of the reasons stated in the OC at last year's General Assembly.
so this is not entirely an overture on the invention.

E.g. the BCO is so clear there are not women deacons,
and some voted against overtures that would say that,
because the BCO already prohibits them.

One of the constant trappings of infidelity to our oaths
is to rationalize that's not really what it says.

We don't know how many voting view it this way,
but we have reason to believe it is a significant number, based on GA discussion.

I'm quite confident this will make its way through the courts or perhaps to GA as a reference,
to settle the disunity being caused over our Lord's Supper by those practicing the invention.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 21, 2012)

So is this vote basically pointless? If the BCO is definitive already and doesn't need to be amended and the stronger language is voted down, what is the purpose of this practice? Is this a practice in futility?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 21, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So is this vote basically pointless? If the BCO is definitive already and doesn't need to be amended and the stronger language is voted down, what is the purpose of this practice? Is this a practice in futility?



Well, you will find many views about that. I'm sure many anti-intinction elders will continue to see it as against our current constitution. But the pro-intinction (or at least pro-allowance of intinction) will see it as vindication of intinction being allowable. So it's hard to say what will come out of the vote. Chances are we will go on with the status quo, with many thinking it is a problem but others continuing to practice it.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Joel,
I don't think anyone considers themselves "anti-intinction" as an elder. What a category for the brethren!

Many never even heard of this invention being done on the Lord's Supper before 3 General Assembly's ago when it happened at General Assembly.
Remember, there was an earlier overture prohibiting it then that was declined. A main reason stated for declining it then was that the remedy was through the courts.

It was actually a surprise that the Overture last year came out of General Assembly. The version that came out of Overtures does not even mention intinction,
but the Overture merely restates what the constitution section 58 already says-
separate contemplation of the elements, bread and wine, as the body and blood and implicitly prohibits its mishandling by conflagrating the elements in a holy ordinance under care of the teaching elder.


It's clear how divisive this is. That's reason enough for elders doing it or countenancing it to stop- it's a clear command of Scripture not to be divided over the Lord's Supper. I Corinthians 11:17-34 is all about this. Nothing has changed in 2,000 years, and we need to be obedient, especially those who lead Christ's Church.

The PCA Book of Church Order states in "Preliminary Principles" the issue well:



> Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the
> Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty. It is incumbent upon these officers and upon the whole Church in whose name they act, to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous, observing in all cases the rules contained in the Word of God.



This is in no way to be diminished to an argument of "pro" and "anti" invention-
its a deeply spiritual issue,
it's about preserving the sanctity of the sacrament in the church,
and unity over it.

That is of highest importance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 21, 2012)

So Scott, How would you answer my question? Is this a pointless vote or consideration at this time?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So Scott, How would you answer my question? Is this a pointless vote or consideration at this time?



Randy,

The vote is not pointless but, as I noted in the intinction paper thread, the reasons why many either argue for it or find the issue inconsequential reveals a broader erosion of our system of doctrine.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Randy,
It's a good question and is often not readily apparent to those who might be looking in at presbyterian processes from the outside. And the PCA has its own distinctives of process too.

The processes are slow and deliberative and might not make sense if not viewed with their full biblical context and objectives.

No one ought merely want to win a vote 51/49 on a central spiritual issue.
The world operates like that, but not the Kingdom of God.

There are many methods to "settle" a controversy and promote the peace and purity of the church within the denomination, and within presbyterianism generally.

It's not pointless because the charge is that the spiritual courts (general assembly, presbytery and session) are to seek God's will, and to uphold their vows- one of which is to uphold, further and promote peace and purity based on the truth confessed by the church, and upheld by vow.

And this gets into a more technical question about polity here.

Suffice it to say, 
God has brought this to the attention of the church, that it is going on.
A majority of the highest court voted to send a double statement of the truth of separately handling the elements in the Lord's Supper.
The discussion that is going now, believe it or not, is actually a form of discipline.

A loving, gentle kind that God is giving us chance to correct before swifter, more stern falls upon it.

The prayer of God's people is not so much that a majority in 2/3 of the the Presbyteries vote to double state, explicitly, that the elements are to be carefully protected and each contemplated separately,
but that the invention will be corrected,
disunity stopped,
unity restored.

For God's Honor and God's Glory.

It's an ongoing work of our Lord through His church.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 21, 2012)

The PCA vote is carried by number of voting delegates and not by number of presbyteries?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 21, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> The PCA vote is carried by number of voting delegates and not by number of presbyteries?


A change to the BCO requires a 2/3 vote at General Assembly, then approval by 2/3 of Presbyteries, then 2/3 vote again at the next GA.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Tim,
The process for amending the Constitution of the Church (Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order) is:

BCO
majority vote at General Assembly
vote of majority in 2/3 of all Presbyteries
majority vote at next General Assembly

Westminster Standards
3/4 vote at General Assembly
vote of majority in 3/4 of all Presbyteries
3/4 vote at next General Assembly

So, the proposed amendment (which does not mention 'intinction') is at the point of having been approved by a majority at General Assembly (initial approval).


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

The following grounds were given by the Committee in approving the proposed amendment. (The process is a bit more complicated, this was actually a minority report that General Assembly adopted as the majority report. The ground are not adopted by General Assembly, but are merely explanatory of the committee's reasoning).

Note the first point, and especially the last:



> Grounds
> 
> While some have argued that BCO 58-5 clearly prohibits the practice of intinction, it is apparent that a number of PCA churches would benefit from language that is even clearer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward (Dec 21, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So is this vote basically pointless?



While it might give some comfort to say that failure of the overture doesn't indicate an acceptance of intinction, that result will be taken by advocates of the practice as license to continue. And there does seem to be overlap between the presbyteries that tolerate/advocate deaconesses and those who oppose a clear ban on intinction. So the vote is useful in helping shed some light on the deep divisions that lie within the denomination.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 21, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Joel,
> I don't think anyone considers themselves "anti-intinction" as an elder. What a category for the brethren!
> 
> This is in no way to be diminished to an argument of "pro" and "anti" invention-
> ...



Scott, I am not saying that one can boil down elders' theology to pro- or anti-intinction. But when it comes to intinction, there are some who are for and some who are against it. That's all I said by that.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Edward said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > So is this vote basically pointless?
> ...



As a point of polity, that's not necessarily the case.
The processes that God rules and overrules through are often hard to understand.
Back in the 'deaconess' debate many overtures proposing constitutional amendment explicitly saying no women deacons were rejected- 
many believed it to be like taking the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and adding an amendment right after, "and the government cannot take your guns". It almost removes all meaning of words or the truth represented by them (The PCA BCO preliminary principles speak to this).

Eventually, an amendment was adopted, it didn't mention 'deaconess' or 'women deacon,' it merely re-stated and referred back to existing BCO sections (that were being violated by churches that promoted 'deaconess.').

This stopped the momentum for the initially unchallenged (and no reasonable basis) arguments that the BCO did not prohibit women deacons.
But it was the court, the General Assembly through its Committee on Review of Presbytery Records that settled it. That's when a Presbytery repented, and stated, they understood, and agreed with our doctrine.

Constitutions, laws, the Word of God
is meaningless without enforcement.

That's what we need here.
Preceeded by repentance.

May God grant us all that.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 21, 2012)

In a nutshell. 

A BCO amendment needs to pass at a first GA by a simple majority. This one did.

Then it must pass 2/3 of the presbyteries. This one seems that it likely will not meet this test. At this point it is failing at the presbyteries by (almost) a two to one margin. An interesting number on the chart is that the number of individual elders voting is 35% in favour of the amendment and 60% against. That seems to indicate that the vote of the presbyteries (10 in favour, 18 against) is not a matter of a popular vote going one way and the electoral college voting an other.

If it fails the 2/3 test at the presbyteries then it will be defeated and will not be voted on again at GA.

What will it mean if it does pass? Intiction will be banned. It will be declared by the PCA to be an invalid conclusion to arrive at from scripture or our standards. 

What will it mean if it fails? I think the only fair assessment is that intinction will then be allowed the PCA. The amendment states clearly that intiction is contrary to our Lords institution and scripture. For the church to vote against that motion is to affirm the contrary. ( i.e. that it is not contrary to scripture)


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> In a nutshell.
> 
> A BCO amendment needs to pass at a first GA by a simple majority. This one did.
> 
> ...



For those following, and it can be difficult following the process,
many of us who oppose invention on the Lord's Supper and the disunity it causes did *NOT *favor the amendment, because it was not necessary and empowers those proposing "loopholes" to their laws and oath.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 21, 2012)

What the vole should mean and how it is being interpreted are two different things. Judging from the way things went in the one vote I had a personal report about, the majority voting against were very much persuaded they needed to not "be mean" to those in the Presbytery that practiced it. And at least in the case as it was reported to me, while all the solid argument we have seen against the practice was presented, that was essentially the rebuttal: we shouldn't be mean and deny the freedom to do this. I was not surprised; but it was still rather sickening.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 21, 2012)

I'm sorry if I am being dense here. The pdf linked in the OP tallied the total number of delegates voting, but are you saying those numbers are basically irrelevant, that what still matters is how the presbyteries themselves actually vote; i.e. 2/3 of the total number of presbyteries must pass it?

In other words, it wouldn't matter if Presbytery A passed it 28-25 and Presbytery B passed it 49-1 -- both would be yes votes in the end. Am I understanding this correctly?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> I'm sorry if I am being dense here. The pdf linked in the OP tallied the total number of delegates voting, but are you saying those numbers are basically irrelevant, that what still matters is how the presbyteries themselves actually vote; i.e. 2/3 of the total number of presbyteries must pass it?
> 
> In other words, it wouldn't matter if Presbytery A passed it 28-25 and Presbytery B passed it 49-1 -- both would be yes votes in the end. Am I understanding this correctly?



Yes,
it's a majority voting in each Presbytery that counts.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 21, 2012)

Tim, it is only the total number of presbyteries that matter for the pass/fail of the amendment. 

At this point it is 64% (of presbyteries) against passage. It requires 66% in favour to pass.

The total number of elders voting is interesting from the standpoint of an analysis of the mood of the PCA on the issue. A vote at GA is a self-selcting minority. Presbytery is presumably more representative


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 21, 2012)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I was confused when I saw the totals of the individuals.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> The amendment states clearly that intiction is contrary to our Lords institution and scripture. *For the church to vote against that motion is to affirm the contrary. *( i.e. that it is not contrary to scripture)



Would you like to put together the syllogism that demonstrates this conclusion based on the rules by which our Constitution is amended? It may help you to discover the obvious flaw in your conclusion once you go through this exercise. There are also a number of reductio ad absurdum arguments that could be made taking your conclusion as its premise. You might want to consider those as well.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 21, 2012)

Last year the Assembly voted against having the Apostle's Creed as part of the membership requirements to become a member in the PCA. Does that mean that you can deny the Apostle's Creed and still be a member in the PCA?

The Assembly voted against adopting a statement which condemned theistic evolution. Does that mean the Assembly affirmed theistic evolution?

The Assembly voted against sending a letter to the President of Palestinian Authority, so a Church could be recognized. Does that mean we don't support that Church?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Not to get lost in the voting, but to put this in some perspective:

2/3 of the 80 PCA Presbyteries would be rounded to requiring 54 Presbyteries to pass (then the next General Assembly must vote by a majority of those present and voting to finally approve).

Here is a scenario that illustrates what is technically possible. Let's say every Presbytery has 20 voters. 
It could be that in 53 Presbyteries that the vote is 20-0 in favor, in 27 Presbyteries 9-11 against and the Proposed Amendment WOULD STILL FAIL.

One of the points, biblically to remember is that if that happened, with 53 Presbyteries actually in favor, 27 against-
this would BY NO MEANS be an endorsement of the invention.

There are many, many reasons this is not a simple referendum on the invention, nor a basis to take it as being so even if the amendment, at this point, is defeated.

The bar is deliberative and high to amend the constitution of the church.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 21, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Not to get lost in the voting, but to put this in some perspective:
> 
> 2/3 of the 80 PCA Presbyteries would be rounded to requiring 54 Presbyteries to pass (then the next General Assembly must vote by a majority of those present and voting to finally approve).
> 
> ...



your hypothetical is not a fair representation of how the voting is going (as of now). 64% of presbyteries against. 60% of elders against.

It will be interesting to see if this trend holds.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 21, 2012)

Rich I would look at it like this.

Some congregations currently practice intinction. An overture was forwarded that would have ended this practice. The process resulted in the GA passing an amendment to the BCO that would have had this effect. If the presbyteries do not concur then we will return to the status quo ante. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that nothing has changed.

In other words the practice of those churches will continue. i.e. intinction will be allowed.

Andrew, it is different from the examples that you cited because they were not overtures with the purpose of ending an existing practice.

For example if PCA congregations were currently admitting member that disagreed with some part of the creed. And an overture was sent up to end this practice by requiring the use of the creed then the situation that you put forward would be similar. 

peace,


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Not to get lost in the voting, but to put this in some perspective:
> ...



You're right, Kevin, it's only an illustration of how the system can work.

The point being that if majorities in a majority of Presbytery vote for the amend, it still fails, and that is nothing, nothing like an endorsement of the invention.

Likewise, your assumptions based on only 35% of Presbyteries having voted is not a fair characterization of opinion. We have to wait for all the votes to know.

I would not be surprised if this ends up being a closely divided vote as these tend, not always, but tend to mirror the representative opinion of the Overtures Committee.

Again, its important to understand that some who will vote against the amendment very much oppose the invention, and believe it unconstitutional, and unbiblical- and very harmful to the peace and purity of Christ's church.

Take Dr. Coffin's preliminary, personal published notes, offered with his disclaimer


> PLEASE NOTE:
> For conscience sake, a word of explanation about this review: I prepare these materials for myself, as a discipline to help
> me reflect on the business of the Assembly beforehand, and also, so that in the press of Assembly business on the floor, I can
> quickly reorient myself to the issues. In no sense is this material prepared for the purpose of encouraging a party spirit, or a precommitted voting block. Although these views reflect my current convictions, I am not even sure that I will vote as specified,
> ...



It shows how some might well be opposed to the proposed amendment, yet oppose the invention, believe it unconstitutional, unscriptural, and harmful to the church, our Lord's witness, etc.



> Dr. David Coffin
> Notes on 2012 PCA Overtures
> 
> Subject
> ...



So, the no votes cannot at all be counted as an endorsement of the invention.
Or that it is biblical.
Or constitutional.

Or that somehow ignoring the admonition of 1/2 the Presbyteries, or their passion to protect will further peace and purity in Christ's church.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Andrew, it is different from the examples that you cited because they were not overtures with the purpose of ending an existing practice.


Brother, the practice is in rebellion already. Do you need additional reproof than what is extant to convince? Why? What could possibly be the import of this innovation to drive you to such intransigence?


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Andrew, it is different from the examples that you cited because they were not overtures with the purpose of ending an existing practice.



Kevin, Theistic evolution is a case where there are people holding these views and teaching these views within the PCA. But I would tend to agree, I don't know of any who allow members who don't agree with the Apostle's Creed. So in the case of Theistic Evolution it is same.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 21, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Theistic evolution is a case where there are people holding these views and teaching these views within the PCA.



Is this something that can be easily documented? I don't want to get into anything specific in a public forum, but I do know someone of note within the PCA announcing in an official setting that this was not a problem in the PCA and he knew of no one who held to the theistic evolution position (although I forget the exact way it was worded).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Rich I would look at it like this.
> 
> Some congregations currently practice intinction. An overture was forwarded that would have ended this practice. The process resulted in the GA passing an amendment to the BCO that would have had this effect. If the presbyteries do not concur then we will return to the status quo ante. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that nothing has changed.
> 
> In other words the practice of those churches will continue. i.e. intinction will be allowed.



Kevin,

You still haven't demonstrated that the rejection of an amendment is, ipso facto, the _adoption_ of its opposite. Even a cursory understanding of our RAO and Robert's Rules makes that plain.

As you note, if defeated, the BCO remains unchanged. Our Constitution remains what it was before an amendment to it was proposed. No change to our Constitution will have been made with respect to a decision on propriety of intinction. Churches may continue to practice intinction but there is no amendment before the PCA to _positively_ permit intinction and a Presbytery will still be allowed, under our Constitution, to exercise discipline as an exception to our Standards. Presbyteries will also still be permitted to reject a man for ordination whose views on the RPW, Liberty of Conscience, or Sacramentology are not in accord with our Standards.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 21, 2012)

Rich do you know of a case where a man was denied ordination because of his views on intinction? Or do you know of a presbytery that considers it an exception to be declared?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Rich do you know of a case where a man was denied ordination because of his views on intinction? Or do you know of a presbytery that considers it an exception to be declared?



Yes.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 21, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > Rich do you know of a case where a man was denied ordination because of his views on intinction? Or do you know of a presbytery that considers it an exception to be declared?
> ...



Was it a denial of ordination or an exception? And if an exception how did they handle it?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 21, 2012)

And what if Rich says "not here"?


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 21, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Theistic evolution is a case where there are people holding these views and teaching these views within the PCA.
> ...



If you read Wes White's blog there is significant documentation, links, etc. of Ron Choong, Tim Keller, and a few others who supported, espoused, and taught theistic evolution. 

Also, Rachel Miller's blog here: A Daughter of the Reformation has some stuff.


----------

