# ByFaithOnline Reaction to PCA GA



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I have been reading the comments on the ByFaithOnline article (Find it here) and wanted to know from our PCA brethren if the views expressed by the (seemingly vast majority of commenters) is an accurate picture or not of the thoughts of your general PCA member on the Deaconess issue and the understanding of the role of women in general?

Thanks and Blessings,


----------



## he beholds

NO!! I don't know of one woman in our church who feels like many of the commenters do.

I wish the people complaining on it would give specific examples of what the church is holding them [us] back from. 

I don't see clear enough evidence that supports deaconesses, and so I am fine without that being a role in the church. I know there are solid Reformed churches that do, the RPCNA at least, and I am sure they studied the issue--so I see that there may be two possible understandings, but I do not think the PCA should re-introduce this idea of a study committee every year until it passes. Which is likely to eventually happen. We have come to believe that it is unscriptural, and I don't think we should keep voting until that changes. Our votes do not make Scripture.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

I wasn't at the GA obviously, but from my experiences in a number of PCA churches the views expressed on that site are fairly representative of the spectrum of views in the congregation. There are those who believe women are given an un-Scripturally large role, those who believe that are given an un-Scripturally small role, and a few who are satisfied the way things are. I don't think the issue of women's work in the church is necessarily tied to the deaconess issue. While I do believe most lay members of the PCA would agree with the pro-deaconess view, I don't think the most of the comments are necessarily pushing for deaconesses as much as a broader women's ministry within the church. The two are sort of linked, but I don't think quite as closely as some think.

Interestingly, I find the role of women to be bigger in larger churches. To me this is counter-intuitive: I would think smaller churches would need women to do more work simply to make up for the lack of numbers. But almost invariably women seemed to more formally involved in larger congregations. I'm not sure why that is, but to me it highlights the gray area between what women absolutely can do within a church, and what they absolutely cannot do. Can women be administrators? How broad can their responsibility go before it becomes a position of authority? Can they lead some ministries? At what age group should they no longer teach male members? Of course there are many other similar questions - these would have been addressed with the study committee, which is why it is unfortunate that it failed - the debate will only continue, rather than be settled for good.


----------



## TimV

> Sheryl
> 
> Location:
> North Carolina
> 
> Comment:
> 
> 
> It is achingly sad to me that the denomination I love refuses to look at an issue that I struggle with nearly every Sunday as I try to reconcile the gifts God has given me with a church that does not recognize them. I am in tears.



 I guess to keep some of these ladies from tears you guys in the PCA should just turn the denomination over to them. I mean if you were REALLY gentle, you wouldn't make a lady cry. You big, fat meenies.


----------



## Wayne

To this point there have been just under fifty comments on that page, and it seems kind of evenly divided. How much weight do we give those 25 comments? How many people do they represent? Besides, we live in the era of the sock puppet and Sheryl from North Carolina, for all her display of emotion over reason, could just as easily in reality be Mike from New Jersey who likes to mess with Christians' heads. Can't tell much from comments, especially when poorly identified. Nor do a few comments a denomination make.


----------



## TimV

I also notice the comments have to get approved, and that leads one to the next question: who's doing the approving, and how does that affect the over all look of the responses.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

The commenter "Sheryl" needs to stop moping and join an EPC church.


----------



## Sven

Ben,

I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling. 

Jessi,

Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.

Pastor Brown,

We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.


----------



## fredtgreco

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I wasn't at the GA obviously, but from my experiences in a number of PCA churches the views expressed on that site are fairly representative of the spectrum of views in the congregation. There are those who believe women are given an un-Scripturally large role, those who believe that are given an un-Scripturally small role, and a few who are satisfied the way things are. I don't think the issue of women's work in the church is necessarily tied to the deaconess issue. While I do believe most lay members of the PCA would agree with the pro-deaconess view, I don't think the most of the comments are necessarily pushing for deaconesses as much as a broader women's ministry within the church. The two are sort of linked, but I don't think quite as closely as some think.
> 
> Interestingly, I find the role of women to be bigger in larger churches. To me this is counter-intuitive: I would think smaller churches would need women to do more work simply to make up for the lack of numbers. But almost invariably women seemed to more formally involved in larger congregations. I'm not sure why that is, but to me it highlights the gray area between what women absolutely can do within a church, and what they absolutely cannot do. Can women be administrators? How broad can their responsibility go before it becomes a position of authority? Can they lead some ministries? At what age group should they no longer teach male members? Of course there are many other similar questions - these would have been addressed with the study committee, which is why it is unfortunate that it failed - the debate will only continue, rather than be settled for good.



Mason,

I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.

I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report _"Women should not be business administrators"_ (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not in my opinion speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it." 

Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO *actually speaks *and should prevail.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Sven said:


> Ben,
> 
> I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.
> 
> Jessi,
> 
> Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.



Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.

Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.


----------



## BJClark

I don't know of any women in my church who desire this either..there might be, and I'm just not aware of them..but yet many women serve..

The only one I know of who complained about things re: women..left our church and went else where..


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

On another note: All of my PCA friends should be thanking God that your denomination has no claim on a congregation's property! Take it from the mostly dead PC(USA)--you _want_ congregations to be allowed to depart if the time comes!


----------



## lynnie

I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.

Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.

I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).

So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.


----------



## Sven

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben,
> 
> I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.
> 
> Jessi,
> 
> Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.
> 
> Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
Click to expand...


Pastor Brown,

Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.

The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.


----------



## Prufrock

lynnie said:


> I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.
> 
> Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.
> 
> I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).
> 
> So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.



Lynnie, I don't think [m]any will disagree with you that such personal, domestic issues should be addressed and taught from our pulpits and in personal pastoral counseling. But we're comparing apples and oranges here. The deaconess issue is one of an _ecclesiastical_ practice out of accord with the BCO; the other is an issue of continuing sanctification of all Christians. One is addressed by synods; another by individual pastors. These things are dealt with differently.


----------



## he beholds

Sven said:


> Ben,
> 
> I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.
> 
> Jessi,
> 
> Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.


I obviously know that mine is anecdotal, but I have been a member of another PCA church where the results would have been the same.

I was just trying to answer the OP, as I do feel very much that I am your "general" PCA member


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Sometimes I really don't like women.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Sven said:


> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben,
> 
> I don't know the figures on this, but it seems to me that since it is such a big issue in the PCA there must be quite a few that are upset by the GA's ruling.
> 
> Jessi,
> 
> Your one church doesn't speak for the entire denomination. I wish it did though; sounds like the women there are content and godly. Not every Church in the PCA is like that. I served on an IMPACT missions group two years ago where one of the groups had a leader that was a woman. She was quite outspoken and strongheaded. It was hard for me to work with that group.
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> We should be encouraging submission to Church authority not splitting with a Church because of not getting one's way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.
> 
> Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
Click to expand...


We can sit around all day discussing what people _need_ to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.

As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!

Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

fredtgreco said:


> Mason,
> 
> I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.
> 
> I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report _"Women should not be business administrators"_ (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not in my opinion speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."
> 
> Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO *actually speaks *and should prevail.



Pastor Greco,

Other than the size of the church and involvement of women, I agree with everything you say. I'm all for the local option outside of the offices, but the problem is that there are plenty of people in the PCA who think it is wrong for women to have any sort of "title;" they believe this puts her in a position of authority and should be forbidden. I don't see why a study committee couldn't simply affirm the "local option" outside of offices. They wouldn't have to rule in particular on every possible scenario (such as women business administrators), but simply make a general, blanket report that women can have formal roles outsides the offices at the discretion of the local session and presbytery. Don't you think this would be a good, unifying report?


----------



## fredtgreco

ColdSilverMoon said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.
> 
> I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report _"Women should not be business administrators"_ (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not in my opinion speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."
> 
> Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO *actually speaks *and should prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Greco,
> 
> Other than the size of the church and involvement of women, I agree with everything you say. I'm all for the local option outside of the offices, but the problem is that there are plenty of people in the PCA who think it is wrong for women to have any sort of "title;" they believe this puts her in a position of authority and should be forbidden. I don't see why a study committee couldn't simply affirm the "local option" outside of offices. They wouldn't have to rule in particular on every possible scenario (such as women business administrators), but simply make a general, blanket report that women can have formal roles outsides the offices at the discretion of the local session and presbytery. Don't you think this would be a good, unifying report?
Click to expand...


No I don't think it would be unifying. That was why I voted against it. The fact that the Minority Report had supporters(as it did last year) who varied from those who wanted a report to shut down all options and discipline churches in our denomination who are playing on the edge of the deacon(ess) issue and those who want deaconesses now highlights this.


----------



## WarrenInSC

lynnie said:


> I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.
> 
> Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.
> 
> I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).
> 
> So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.



Is this one of those examples of what a growing number of folks mean when they say the PCA is becoming schitzophrenic?
Ok, I know it's serious and very personal as well.
To answer the original question on this thread, after almost 25 years in two different PCA churches (GA - heavy with PCA committee families & SC - mostly Northerners), I saw no instance of women using their gifts and demanding a title. However, over the last few years, I am seeing a subtle attempt to purposely 'grow' that issue from some newer leadership.


----------



## Sven

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are times where one must follow one's conscience. Our own polity affirms this quite well. Yes, there are times to submit to our elders. But there are times where remaining can lead to such divisiveness that one must encourage those who cannot/will not submit to just move on. It's one of the blessings of living in a free country.
> 
> Case in point: If the Auburn Affirmation liberals had been asked to move to another denomination in the 1920's the PC(USA) today might actually be orthodox. But, we chose to keep them with us and they did not submit to sound teaching. And mainline heresy was accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can sit around all day discussing what people _need_ to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.
> 
> As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!
> 
> Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
Click to expand...


Are you talking about Church history or your own personal history here? Furthermore, since when did the judgments of the individuals conscience suddenly become more important than the judgment of the Church? This view of Church discipline and Church authority is one of the main problems of Christianity in America. The Church would do better if we would instead of saying, "Go your way," said, "it is better before God to be in submission to your Church in these matters." I am referring to matters that do not clearly contradict Scripture. This view of Church authority and discipline has more historical weight than the individualism you are promoting.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> I think the PCA is a mixed bag on this issue, as evidenced that my assessment would be opposite yours with respect to size of churches. I have found that women tend to be more involved in both smaller churches and in "more conservative" churches. We likely have the most vibrant WIC in our Presbytery, on both the local and national level. Women are heavily involved in our mercy ministry (meals, flowers, grief ministry, counseling, etc) without having (or wanting) any titles or offices.
> 
> I would also say that David Coffin's point re: the study committee is well taken. If there were a committee, and it said in its report _"Women should not be business administrators"_ (which is not a Biblical office, and the Bible does not in my opinion speak to it) then Sessions/Presbyteries would be reluctant to permit them to do that because the Study Committee "was against it."
> 
> Local context is best, except for offices (deacon/elder), where the BCO *actually speaks *and should prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Greco,
> 
> Other than the size of the church and involvement of women, I agree with everything you say. I'm all for the local option outside of the offices, but the problem is that there are plenty of people in the PCA who think it is wrong for women to have any sort of "title;" they believe this puts her in a position of authority and should be forbidden. I don't see why a study committee couldn't simply affirm the "local option" outside of offices. They wouldn't have to rule in particular on every possible scenario (such as women business administrators), but simply make a general, blanket report that women can have formal roles outsides the offices at the discretion of the local session and presbytery. Don't you think this would be a good, unifying report?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't think it would be unifying. That was why I voted against it. The fact that the Minority Report had supporters(as it did last year) who varied from those who wanted a report to shut down all options and discipline churches in our denomination who are playing on the edge of the deacon(ess) issue and those who want deaconesses now highlights this.
Click to expand...


I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?

Also, what do you (or anyone else) think the odds are of the same overtures being bright again next year, and if they are brought, what the odds are of them passing given the extremely tight vote this time around?


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Sven said:


> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Brown,
> 
> Your Auburn Affirmation example is extreme, and has little bearing on the issue before us. However, even in their case it would have been better for them to submit to Ecclesiastical authority and return to true orthodoxy. Submission to Ecclesiastical authority is the better road to take, unless it means going against the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> The malcontented men and women in the PCA need to learn to submit to the GA. The PCA's historic understanding of women in the Church is in line with the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can sit around all day discussing what people _need_ to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.
> 
> As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!
> 
> Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Church history or your own personal history here? Furthermore, since when did the judgments of the individuals conscience suddenly become more important than the judgment of the Church? This view of Church discipline and Church authority is one of the main problems of Christianity in America. The Church would do better if we would instead of saying, "Go your way," said, "it is better before God to be in submission to your Church in these matters." I am referring to matters that do not clearly contradict Scripture. This view of Church authority and discipline has more historical weight than the individualism you are promoting.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. This is not 'individualism', this is presbyterian polity. People can move from churches and they do. 

Being a pastor involves far more than disciplining members and it certainly does not involve any form of rhetorical coercion when a member of the church reaches differing conclusions on matters of belief. As pastors, we are also called lead people to discernment in the Word of God as to where they are called and what they are called to do. There is a line between counsel and coercion. Let's leave the latter to the papacy and the cults.


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> . If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?



If by 'settle the issue' you mean a split sooner rather than later, yes. 



> Also, what do you (or anyone else) think the odds are of the same overtures being bright again next year, and if they are brought, what the odds are of them passing given the extremely tight vote this time around?



Based on what we've seen in other denominations that have turned from the mandates of scripture, the liberals are likely to keep returning with the issue until they prevail. Then it's on to the next item on the agenda. 

Some of us here are old enough to remember how this story ends.


----------



## Scott1

> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?



Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.

There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.

It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.



> Judges 17:6
> 
> 6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.




God withdraws his blessing and chastisement begins as He gives His people over to the chastening of the darkened imaginations of men, clouded by confusion, disorder and rebellion.

We can see the effect of sin clearly in Scripture. It's something that ought strike a holy fear in all of us... what we can become if we get our own way.

Remember, reformed theology teaches that unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement. That's why we are called "confessional."

In the PCUSA, which the PCA separated from over issues like this, it went this way:

women as trustees denying infringement on elder or deacon authority
study committee on women as deacons without authority
women as local option deacons with authority
women as deacons required by presbytery
women required as deacons by constitution (which was not followed by those who wanted them in the first place, but would be by those who did not want them later)
study committee on 'women'
local option on elder
women may infringe on duties of elders and deacons as trustees
women elders optional by not commissioners at general assembly
women elders required by constitution but not commissioners at general assembly
women attend general assembly but without authoritative 'voice'
women go to general assembly with full ecclesiastical authority
study committee on eliminating discrimination against women in office
'affirmative action' for women elders, deacons, trustees and moderators
church discipline against teaching I Timothy 3, Titus I, etc.


----------



## TimV

> Based on what we've seen in other denominations that have turned from the mandates of scripture, the liberals are likely to keep returning with the issue until they prevail. Then it's on to the next item on the agenda.
> 
> Some of us here are old enough to remember how this story ends.



Exactly.


----------



## he beholds

Scott1 said:


> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.
> 
> There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.
> 
> It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges 17:6
> 
> 6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> God withdraws his blessing and chastisement begins as He gives His people over to the chastening of the darkened imaginations of men, clouded by confusion, disorder and rebellion.
> 
> We can see the effect of sin clearly in Scripture. It's something that ought strike a holy fear in all of us... what we can become if we get our own way.
> 
> Remember, reformed theology teaches that unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement. That's why we are called "confessional."
> 
> In the PCUSA, which the PCA separated from over issues like this, it went this way:
> 
> women as trustees denying infringement on elder or deacon authority
> study committee on women as deacons without authority
> women as local option deacons with authority
> women as deacons required by presbytery
> women required as deacons by constitution (which was not followed by those who wanted them in the first place, but would be by those who did not want them later)
> local option on elder
> women may infringe on duties of elders and deacons as trustees
> study committee on 'women'
> women elders optional by not commissioners at general assembly
> women elders required by constitution but not commissioners at general assembly
> women attend general assembly but without authoritative 'voice'
> women go to general assembly with full ecclesiastical authority
> 'affirmative action' for women elders, deacons, trustees and moderators
> study committee on eliminating discrimination against women in office
> *church discipline against teaching I Timothy 3, Titus I, etc.*
Click to expand...


Has there really been church discipline against teaching the BIBLE? YIKES.

I think a committee is unnecessary. I think the Pastors should just go home from GA and address their congregation with the Bible.


----------



## WarrenInSC

Scott1 said:


> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.
> 
> There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.
> 
> It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges 17:6
> 
> 6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the PCUSA, which the PCA separated from over issues like this, it went this way:
> 
> women as trustees denying infringement on elder or deacon authority
> study committee on women as deacons without authority
> women as local option deacons with authority
> women as deacons required by presbytery
> women required as deacons by constitution (which was not followed by those who wanted them in the first place, but would be by those who did not want them later)
> local option on elder
> women may infringe on duties of elders and deacons as trustees
> study committee on 'women'
> women elders optional by not commissioners at general assembly
> women elders required by constitution but not commissioners at general assembly
> women attend general assembly but without authoritative 'voice'
> women go to general assembly with full ecclesiastical authority
> 'affirmative action' for women elders, deacons, trustees and moderators
> study committee on eliminating discrimination against women in office
> church discipline against teaching I Timothy 3, Titus I, etc.
Click to expand...


Then there was the NEXT stage of 'gender confusion' - instead of 'women this and women that', the PCUSA is now going through the 'homosexual this and homosexual that' routine. It is a grave error to think that allowing 'gender confusion' between the sexes will not lead to 'gender confusion' within the sexes.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Scott1 said:


> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.
> 
> There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.
> 
> It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
Click to expand...


Scott,

Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?


----------



## ww

Classical Presbyterian said:


> The commenter "Sheryl" needs to stop moping and join an EPC church.



I have to say in my last PCA church that several of the couples who were members had been part of the EPC at one time. The Pastor in my estimation is supportive of women deacons so they probably were hoping for a better outcome with the study committee.


----------



## Sven

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can sit around all day discussing what people _need_ to do/should do and we should! But history teaches us that some people will not submit, period.
> 
> As a pastor I have seen instances where someone should just agree to move to another faith community, one that is in line with where they are on a subject of conscience. How many of us currently reside in the same church, same denomination of our birth? It seems like we always read here of people changing churches over matter of conviction. Are we now to condemn the judgments of conscience of our brothers and sisters? I hope not!
> 
> Again, in my pastoral experience, unhappy people who refuse correction and teaching are often better served by moving on. And so are our congregations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Church history or your own personal history here? Furthermore, since when did the judgments of the individuals conscience suddenly become more important than the judgment of the Church? This view of Church discipline and Church authority is one of the main problems of Christianity in America. The Church would do better if we would instead of saying, "Go your way," said, "it is better before God to be in submission to your Church in these matters." I am referring to matters that do not clearly contradict Scripture. This view of Church authority and discipline has more historical weight than the individualism you are promoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. This is not 'individualism', this is presbyterian polity. People can move from churches and they do.
> 
> Being a pastor involves far more than disciplining members and it certainly does not involve any form of rhetorical coercion when a member of the church reaches differing conclusions on matters of belief. As pastors, we are also called lead people to discernment in the Word of God as to where they are called and what they are called to do. There is a line between counsel and coercion. Let's leave the latter to the papacy and the cults.
Click to expand...


A. You must be mistaking what I've said for something else. At no time have I said that we must coerce people. I fully agree with the Book of Church Order (PCA) which states that Church power is "ministerial and declarative" and is "wholy spiritual." 

B. Encouraging Church members to submit to the actions and declarations of the Church, so far as they are in line with the clear teaching of Scripture, or face discipline is no where near the same as the coercive discipline acted out by the papacy. 

C. If by "Presbyterian polity" you mean the kind exercised by American presbyterian churches for the last hundred years, I'll grant you that. But this is not the presbyterian polity of the Reformers or the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states in Chap. 30 Of Church Censures, "III. Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from like offenses; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person."
Where does it say, "Let them go find their happy home in another denomination?" This is not Presbyterian polity; this is American individualism.


----------



## Scott1

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.
> 
> There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.
> 
> It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?
Click to expand...


I don't believe most are. There is real confusion being generated out there, though. 

For starters, 
in a confessional denomination like the PCA, we do not establish our polity by "study committee"

we do not teach our confession by "pastoral letter"

we do not independently determine our own doctrine and then proceed to follow what we will by majority and minority vote.

In a confessional denomination we are accountable when we refuse to qualify deacons and their wives by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elect them, ordain them, and install them, or to teach the holy doctrines upon which each is based to our congregation BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VOWS OFFICERS TAKE.

There is accountability first to God, then to session through vows, and even to the congregation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Scott1 said:


> Scott,
> 
> Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe most are. There is real confusion being generated out there, though.
> 
> For starters,
> in a confessional denomination like the PCA, we do not establish our polity by "study committee"
> 
> we do not teach our confession by "pastoral letter"
> 
> we do not independently determine our own doctrine and then proceed to follow what we will by majority and minority vote.
> 
> In a confessional denomination we are accountable when we refuse to qualify deacons and their wives by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elect them, ordain them, and install them, or to teach the holy doctrines upon which each is based to our congregation BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VOWS OFFICERS TAKE.
> 
> There is accountability first to God, then to session through vows, and even to the congregation.
Click to expand...


Scott, you know I admire you greatly and have really learned a great deal from you on the PB. I think we have the same end goals in mind, namely to first and foremost glorify God in all that we (meaning the PCA) do, to uphold the clear teaching of the Bible, WCF, and BCO, and to promote peace and purity within the church. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to the issue of deaconesses and women in the church in general, we approach those end goals from different directions. To address your points:

- No one is saying we should establish our church polity by a study committee. The purpose of the committee, as I understand it, is to delve into the topic more intensely and carefully scrutinize the Biblical and traditional arguments on both sides to determine the best standard for the congregation. The report of the committee is not binding, of course, and must be affirmed by the GA to be policy. I am in favor of the committee because I hope the congregation can reach an agreeable decision - even if it's not one that I favor. 

- No one is saying the Confession should be taught by pastoral letter. The purpose is to show unity and affirm a common view on the topic. When there is an intra-mural disagreement on an issue like this that does not directly touch upon the Confession or BCO (except the deaconess issue), it is important to reach Biblically-based conclusion as a church. 

- No one is independently determining their own doctrine. Doctrine isn't decided by majority vote, but these issues, as I see them, aren't matters of doctrine for the most part. They are disagreements about the practical boundaries of Scripture when it comes to the role of women in the church. No one disagrees on the Scriptural standards, but rather the practical application in the nebulous zone outside those clear standards. 

Finally, the issue isn't about the offices of the church, and thus the responsibility to teach the Scriptural standards contained in the vows of ordination - those are being taught, and there is really no disagreement on them. Rather it is about the intepretation of the denomination's Constitution, and it's clarity on these matters (or lack thereof). 

Regarding the deaconess issue, everyone agrees that women should not be ordained. The disagreement is about whether or not there is a requirement to ordain Deacons BCO, and if women can serve in the capacity as un-ordained deaconesses. The disagreement really has nothing to do with the Scriptural standards or the WCF - everyone agrees on those. It all comes down to what is allowed in the BCO - that is the heart of the debate. 

Regarding women in the church in general, the issue is much less clear. Like Fred Greco, I favor the local option. But there are plenty of people, particularly in the majority that opposed the study report, who don't favor this option, and would like a set of absolute standards, which they believe are clear. But obviously it isn't clear: if it were, 49% of the GA delegates would not have voted for the study. 

So while I think we have the same end goals in mind, our approaches are different. I don't think it's helpful to say those in favor of the study committee or deaconesses are acting contra-WCF and/or Scripture; on those standards I think we all agree.


----------



## Scott1

> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I think we have the same end goals in mind, namely to first and foremost glorify God in all that we (meaning the PCA) do, to uphold the clear teaching of the Bible, WCF, and BCO,



I agree that for the large majority, including those who voted for this (even though the action would undermine all that).

There is much confusion out there, and we must pray this becomes clear for what it is.

If this is true that everybody wants to follow their Book of Church Order (and their vows to uphold it) why are the ( very few churches) not qualifying, electing, ordaining and installing deacons per BCO 1,9, et. al.?

Why do church lawsuits have to be filed, and even after suit, refuse to comply? Will they comply, for the sake of submission to their brethren to honor our Lord and further the peace and purity of His church?


----------



## Romans922

Maybe the problem is laziness. I don't know how many times I heard at GA that there were many (one whole section) resources available in the CE/P bookstore concerning women. Yet, some want a committee to settle it (which will be divided anyway). My advice to the laziness...pick up some books and read on the subject.


----------



## Mushroom

I wish the egalitarians would leave. I'd call that revival. The EPC is waiting for them with open arms and minds.

[personal comment deleted, apologies proffered to any offended and thanks to a brother for a gentle rebuke]

Why are these folks determined to destroy our denomination? Is it demonic influence, or just plain cynical hatred for the bride of Christ?


----------



## Ravens

I simply don't understand the hullaballoo over women "using their gifts" in church, or being traumatized over not being able to participate in the service in certain ways. The majority of congregants in well nigh every church in America are decidedly un-involved in the preaching, administration of sacraments, Bible readings, "announcements" (if you have those; not saying whether you should or not), etc.

I simply don't understand what the big deal is. It baffles me. I'm a layman. I have no problem being a layman. If I need to "express myself" or use my gifts, then I'll do that in my family, with my friends, at my job, on the basketball court, in writing or painting, etc. Whatever. There are a thousand ways to use whatever "gifts" or "talents" you have in life, both for secular purposes and for spiritual purposes (if I can make an ad hoc distinction). 

And if these women really wanted to be a blessing in the church, there are still a thousand ways they could do it. Being excellent mothers, excellent wives, and excellent friends. Visiting the sick and needy just to cheer their spirits. One doesn't have to have a title to do that. Sprucing up the church. Cooking for those who are ill. Praying. Whatever.

It just seems like this tremendous amount of energy and tension is being created over so very little. What? A title? The ability to get in front of the church and read 18 sentences for the morning sermon? 

I have opinions on the issue, and they definitely fall on the "conservative" side. But this isn't even an issue I'm that passionate on nowadays. My mind is consumed by other things.

But speaking simply as a layman and a church member, it literally baffles me that this is a problem, or that women feel "under-represented". I just think it's goofy, to be frank.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have been reading the comments on the ByFaithOnline article (Find it here) and wanted to know from our PCA brethren if the views expressed by the (seemingly vast majority of commenters) is an accurate picture or not of the thoughts of your general PCA member on the Deaconess issue and the understanding of the role of women in general?
> 
> Thanks and Blessings,



I would have to say that this is ridiculous. I wrote a retort about Overture 18, and it seems like the constituients that tend to read ByFaith are clearly not as confessional and presbyterian as I would like. I am shocked that the PCA ruled against Overture 18, which would have drafted a letter to the president to inform him that the church in America does not approve of homosexual activity within the military. The main reason was that it contradicts WCF 31.4. As a presbyterian and as a pronomian, I was shocked that it would use that article of faith as a valid reason to not send the president a significant letter. I then took a step back and began to evaluate the arguments objectively. I conceded that maybe (by a small fraction) the church wasn't qualified in passing that overture. Then I quickly retorted with this: So maybe we won't send a letter, but the churches within the PCA should preach on it and let the church know that we abhor this sort of behavior, and its reaction could lead to individual action. But then another quick rejoinder might be thus: the pastor cannot bind the conscience in this manner. At that point, I hit a wall. Is the church, then, to be silent on the issue? This is clearly an issue of the church's relation to culture and its influence on ethics in the public domain. What do you guys think?


----------



## Grimmson

JDWiseman, 
I think to some part we let women, wanting to rebel against what God ordained in his law from Genesis 3:16, but doing so in a way that seems spiritually good. And in a sense makes it that much more wicked. Your list of what women should be doing is great and I entirely agree, especially on the issue of titles which overall I think is a problem with the laity; which the result being the downgrading role of an elder, pastor, or minster in daily minster and preaching. At least in regards to the understanding of what the title represents biblically. Women should be happy with the role God has given then, or least submit and us men we need to do what God has ordained for us to do and be men instead of allowing their wickedness by being wicked ourselves by not leading in our homes and in the church. We have been lazy, allowing society views to creep in instead of holding to the biblical mandate from creation This is not just reflected in the PCA, but in just about all of the denominations in God’s Church Universal.


----------



## Montanablue

> I simply don't understand the hullaballoo over women "using their gifts" in church, or being traumatized over not being able to participate in the service in certain ways.



I am not a member of the PCA (unfortunately), so my experience may not be relevant to the PCA or its churches. However, I will say that in some churches, women really are kept from being involved in the church at all. I don't support women deacons, but I do think its a good idea to have some sort of "Women's Auxiliary" by which women can use their gifts in the church (under the oversight of elders and deacons, of course). In my church, women have at various times visited the sick/shut ins, organized meals and other services for families with newborns, medical issues, or other crises, organized and taught ESL classes, and aided in the organization and administration of other mercy ministries. For example, we have a female accountant in the congregation who taught a money management seminar for young people. 

The church I grew up in would not have allowed any of this. Women were allowed to play the piano, do nursery, and they could make meals or visit the sick, but they weren't allowed to do any type of organization. Its possible that some in the PCA may be reacting against this type of extreme view. I'm not saying that their reaction is necessarily right, but I can understand why some women might feel distress at feeling unable to be active in the church. 

Having said that, most of the reactions to that article seem extreme.


----------



## Scott1

In the PCA there are many ways women are involved.

Believe it or not, Deacon's wives, if the Deacon is married, play a real support role in their husband's Deacon duties. And they are examined for the qualifications necessary in I Timothy 3.



> 11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.



Women in the Church (WIC) is a main organization in the PCA where women are involved in many activities- it was designed to foster that.

As far as I have seen, women are involved in meals ministry, welcome baby ministry, comfort and care ministry, stephen's ministry, serve on committees, in music ministry, and much more.

Honestly, involvement varies between congregations and from time-to-time. Sometimes women are more or less involved. But ultimately, biblically the officers (deacons and elders) are responsible to 'set the tone' for this. It's also a responsibility for unordained women and men to seek out to serve, not merely complain about it.

From what I have seen, the PCA is quite generous in this while at the same time biblical as ecclesiastical office is very very important to get right. If Scripture is not followed here, it tends to bring confusion on down.

There is absolutely no shortage of mercy ministry to be done. We need more of it. If more unordained men and women would seek out to do this, not for title or recognition, but only to be available to use whatever time and abilities God gives them- we would all be the better.


----------



## SolaScriptura

*MODERATOR Edited: 

Sheryl is not here. No need to pretend as if she is to make a point. Let's calm that portion of the rhetoric*


----------



## Romans922

*MODERATOR Edited: 

Sheryl is not here. No need to pretend as if she is to make a point. Let's calm that portion of the rhetoric*


----------



## lynnie

Romans922 said:


> Maybe the problem is laziness. I don't know how many times I heard at GA that there were many (one whole section) resources available in the CE/P bookstore concerning women. Yet, some want a committee to settle it (which will be divided anyway). My advice to the laziness...pick up some books and read on the subject.




ummmmm.....

here is the link to the PCA video loaning library:

http://www.pcacep.org/Video/catalog.PDF


Plenty of good stuff we can borrow from the PCA video library. And then we have:

Lots of Beth Moore for the ladies ( theology doen't matter and when it does Arminian is better)

Anne Graham Lotz (who is shocked that men are against her public preaching)

Barna....yup, Barna can help you with principles for your family

Dobson ( please don't get me started)

Allender (who I will conceed is marvelously wise about sexual abuse victims, but is also egalitarian in marriage)

NT Wright on Paul (but never mind, the ladies will probably choose the Beth Moore ones anyway)

I'm just saying, don't point anybody to the PCA resources, books or videos, without giving them titles and authors. ( like I said, some real great stuff in there too)

And if the resources page is anywhere typically reflective of my denomination, please pray for us!


----------



## Mushroom

Yep. Lots of Focus on the Family SS material in the PCA. And the sad part is that so many of our leaders haven't a clue why that might be a problem. And they vote at GA.

Hence the constant drain-circling.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

[bible]Hebrews 5:2[/bible]

Compare with other verses where we are to bear gently with one another and exhort one another in the faith.

I am frankly shocked and appalled at the lack of a caring, gentle, and Pastoral spirit evidenced by some of the comments here. I can testify to more appalling and impious views of the Scriptures and roles in the Church uttered by people I've shared the name of Christ with. When in leadership you should not let them slide but the solution is not to kick them to the curb. I cannot fathom how anyone can read repeated exhortations to encourage one another in the faith and come to the conclusion that this translates to shooting the troublemakers in the head and moving on at the pace of the strongest members.


----------



## BJClark

Montanablue;



> I am not a member of the PCA (unfortunately), so my experience may not be relevant to the PCA or its churches. However, I will say that in some churches, women really are kept from being involved in the church at all. I don't support women deacons, but I do think its a good idea to have some sort of "Women's Auxiliary" by which women can use their gifts in the church (under the oversight of elders and deacons, of course). In my church, women have at various times visited the sick/shut ins, organized meals and other services for families with newborns, medical issues, or other crises, organized and taught ESL classes, and aided in the organization and administration of other mercy ministries. For example, we have a female accountant in the congregation who taught a money management seminar for young people.



We have those things as well in the PCA, which is also why I don't understand what the uproar is about..


----------



## SolaScriptura

Semper Fidelis said:


> [bible]Hebrews 5:2[/bible]
> 
> Compare with other verses where we are to bear gently with one another and exhort one another in the faith.
> 
> I am frankly shocked and appalled at the lack of a caring, gentle, and Pastoral spirit evidenced by some of the comments here. I can testify to more appalling and impious views of the Scriptures and roles in the Church uttered by people I've shared the name of Christ with. When in leadership you should not let them slide but the solution is not to kick them to the curb. I cannot fathom how anyone can read repeated exhortations to encourage one another in the faith and come to the conclusion that this translates to shooting the troublemakers in the head and moving on at the pace of the strongest members.



Rich,

First, I don't think that anyone here was suggesting that Sheryl (or any of the pro-women-in-church-office crowd) should be shot at all, much less in the head.

Second, proponents of this position - particularly form the laity - aren't poor young Christians just trying to figure things out. On the contrary, they are for the most part not interested in such patriarchal notions as the confessional position. They're not interested in being "taught." They're interested in agitating for change. And while you're right that the Bible teaches that the weak should be taught with gentleness, the Bible seems to speak differently of those who by their lack of conformity with apostolic doctrine cause divisions... (See, for example Rom 16:17.)

As an illustration that is closer to home on this site, let's take the issue of the 4th Commandment and how it applies to today. If someone is a "weaker brother" and has questions or does whatever he wants on the Lord's Day, he is typically dealt with patiently. 
BUT...
The someone who begins denouncing the confessional position and agitating in every way for a change to the position is promptly, and oftentimes tersely, silenced. 

I'm not saying that this is wrong. I'm in fact saying that the principle is ok, and that it applies here too in the case of those who want to reject the teaching of Scripture in regards to women.

I know that I have ZERO patience for "evangelical feminists" because 1) my experience with them has been uniformly frustrating and 2) because as Al Mohler said in class, the hermeneutic employed to allow the Scriptures to be read in such a way as to allow women to serve in public offices invariably leads to liberalism, because it is the hermeneutic of liberalism. 

The folks in these rich suburbs who are agitating for women in official positions are doing so because they want the Bible to conform with the culture, and we've been going over this issue for long enough that if they were really wanting to learn they would have done so.

No, they're disturbing the peace and purity of the church. And I say that they should just leave. (Well, actually, I think they should be disciplined, but that isn't going to happen...) Since they have a set of values that is at odds with our Confessional Standards, instead of living in a state of constant agitation and making us divert attention from other pressing issues to deal with them, they should just leave for denominations more suited to their beliefs. At least that's what I would do...

In fact, if the reverse situation was occuring, everyone here would be saying to leave. If someone is in a denomination that teaches women CAN be ordained, and someone says they don't agree with it, we don't tell that person to stick around agitating for change. No, we tell them to leave and go to a good church. 

Anyway, I think that the comments you're responding to are for the most part justified.


----------



## he beholds

jmartinez83 said:


> I would have to say that this is ridiculous. I wrote a retort about Overture 18, and it seems like the constituients that tend to read ByFaith are clearly not as confessional and presbyterian as I would like. I am shocked that the PCA ruled against Overture 18, which would have drafted a letter to the president to inform him that the church in America does not approve of homosexual activity within the military. The main reason was that it contradicts WCF 31.4. As a presbyterian and as a pronomian, I was shocked that it would use that article of faith as a valid reason to not send the president a significant letter. I then took a step back and began to evaluate the arguments objectively. I conceded that maybe (by a small fraction) the church wasn't qualified in passing that overture. Then I quickly retorted with this: So maybe we won't send a letter, but the churches within the PCA should preach on it and let the church know that we abhor this sort of behavior, and its reaction could lead to individual action. But then another quick rejoinder might be thus: *the pastor cannot bind the conscience in this manner. *At that point, I hit a wall. Is the church, then, to be silent on the issue? This is clearly an issue of the church's relation to culture and its influence on ethics in the public domain. What do you guys think?



Well dealing with this issue of the Church sending the President a letter, I don't see any reason why we would do it. First, it is a waste of time. Second, it is a symbol, but one that should not be needed. 
Third, the only letters that the president cares about are V-O-T-E-S. That is how I will write my letter. 

As far as your hypothetical rejoinder, I disagree. Although I am fully against the church writing a letter, I fully embrace the role of the Pastor to teach the truth to his sheep. This is not an issue of conscience, but of Scriptural authority (to which our consciences are bound). The church is NOT to be silent on this matter, and I expect my pastor to be vocal. But I want him to spend his time talking to me, not writing to a godless man.


----------



## tgoerz

solascriptura said:


> i know that i have zero patience for "evangelical feminists" because 1) my experience with them has been uniformly frustrating and 2) because as al mohler said in class, the hermeneutic employed to allow the scriptures to be read in such a way as to allow women to serve in public offices invariably leads to liberalism, because it is the hermeneutic of liberalism.
> 
> The folks in these rich suburbs who are agitating for women in official positions are doing so because they want the bible to conform with the culture, and we've been going over this issue for long enough that if they were really wanting to learn they would have done so.
> 
> No, they're disturbing the peace and purity of the church. And i say that they should just leave. (well, actually, i think they should be disciplined, but that isn't going to happen...) since they have a set of values that is at odds with our confessional standards, instead of living in a state of constant agitation and making us divert attention from other pressing issues to deal with them, they should just leave for denominations more suited to their beliefs. At least that's what i would do...




amen, amen, amen, amen!!!!!


----------



## Christusregnat

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> I understand, but surely the majority view was divided as well - at least to some extent. If a report came out affirming the local option and was affirmed by the GA, wouldn't that, to a degree, silence the critics on both sides? Or at least settle the issue so it won't come up year after year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you establish that in a confessional church the "confession" does not have to be followed and officers do not have to follow their vows to uphold it, everything is up for grabs.
> 
> There is no unity. There is not peace. There is no purity. There is no clarity.
> 
> It becomes each man doing what is right in His own eyes. We follow personality of men, not God and transfer our focus off of obedience to God and submission to Him and the brethren for His sake to our own imagination, or following our leader or faction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?
Click to expand...


Come join us for a N Ca Presbyterian meeting. You can see it for yourself.

I'll try to find a choice quotation with a date of the meeting, if you are interested.

Cheers,


----------



## TimV

> Come join us for a N Ca Presbyterian meeting. You can see it for yourself.



At NorCal they wear it as a badge of honor.


----------



## SueS

lynnie said:


> I find this whole subject to be just plain weird. When we lived in PA we went to a PCA church that had deaconesses (who were feminine servants and not authoritative). And it seemed like a basic Christian cultural understanding that when women have babies and toddlers you do everything possible to stay home with them. Plenty of people lived in fixer uppers and old row homes and we all had old furniture and no extra money and didn't eat out or go to Disney World.
> 
> Now I am in a PCA in NJ that will never have deaconesses and is fully committed to the BCO. But it seems like too many women think nothing of full time careers and being stressed out all the time. Women have a baby and go back to work full time and nobody blinks. But we don't have deaconesses.
> 
> I think the focus is on the wrong battle. The right battle isn't deaconesses, it is Titus 2 and women trying to be at home at the very least with preschoolers. Or at least only working part time with toddlers if they are desparate for money (and the beautiful home does not qualify one as desperate).
> 
> So the PCA GA passes a rule that deaconess are out. Fine, I will agree. And then PCA women everywhere have babies and go back to work full time and nobody utters a peep about it? Sorry but I think the whole discussion is just so wierd and wrongly focused.





Excellent point Lynnie!


----------



## Cranmer1959

I have been visiting a PCA while I'm working out of town. It's a very conservative and traditional church holding tothe regulative principle of worship, etc. The guest speaker said that the vote was only 16 deciding against studying this issue. You can bet that it will be overturned soon.

If not, half the ministers will be divorced by their wives and even more of the lay representatives will be divorced. After all, their wives are in tears over this issue.

Personally, I think it is a sad day when even the PCA begins to cater to the cultural values of the world rather than the Scriptures. I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?

Good grief! 

The PCA is struggling with the Federal Vision issue already. Now its the ordination of women. What NEXT?

I see no reason for women to be ordained ministers. That is not their role in the Scriptures and only a biased reading of the texts can even come close. 

As in the Old Testament nation of Israel with its ups and downs and gross apostasies, restoration, then more apostasy.... the endless cycle of conservative, biblical denominations degenerating into apostasy is a slow process taking place over several generations. But that process seems to be at work in the PCA. How long will it be before the homosexuality issue is being presented for study???? Ten years? Twenty?

Call me a fundamentalist.

Charlie


----------



## he beholds

Cranmer1959 said:


> I have been visiting a PCA while I'm working out of town. It's a very conservative and traditional church holding tothe regulative principle of worship, etc. The guest speaker said that the vote was only 16 deciding against studying this issue. You can bet that it will be overturned soon.
> 
> If not, half the ministers will be divorced by their wives and even more of the lay representatives will be divorced. After all, their wives are in tears over this issue.
> 
> Personally, I think it is a sad day when even the PCA begins to cater to the cultural values of the world rather than the Scriptures. *I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?
> *
> Good grief!
> 
> The PCA is struggling with the Federal Vision issue already. Now its the ordination of women. What NEXT?
> 
> I see no reason for women to be ordained ministers. That is not their role in the Scriptures and only a biased reading of the texts can even come close.
> 
> As in the Old Testament nation of Israel with its ups and downs and gross apostasies, restoration, then more apostasy.... the endless cycle of conservative, biblical denominations degenerating into apostasy is a slow process taking place over several generations. But that process seems to be at work in the PCA. How long will it be before the homosexuality issue is being presented for study???? Ten years? Twenty?
> 
> Call me a fundamentalist.
> 
> Charlie



Sorry, Charlie, (I rarely get to use that phrase with a Charlie!) Every deacon I know is married to one woman and has been his whole life. My father-in-law is not gay, nor are the other faithful men whom I know do serve the church in this office. I am hoping your experience is atypical of PCA churches in general.


----------



## Cranmer1959

I was referring to the General Assembly, not to the local church I'm attending. The visiting minister announced that the General Assembly voted against studying the issue of ordaining women as deacons. The measure failed to pass by only 16 votes.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 08:43:38 EST-----

Just to clarify, I do not think "all" PCA parishes, local churches are bad or liberal. In fact, I like the local church where I have been visiting. It is Church Creek PCA in Charleston, South Carolina. My comment was in reference to the general assembly where the proposed measure to study the place of women in ministry failed by only 16 votes. In other words, I'm siding with the conservatives who voted against the measure even though I am not a Presbyterian.

If you wish to hear the remarks I'm referring to, listen to the sermon by Danny Clark on June 14th in the sermon on Deborah and Barak.

History proves out that when we allow cultural values like egalitarian feminism to infiltrate the church rather than following the authoritative teaching of Scripture on issues like this, the inevitable downward spiral into theological and moral liberalism is set into motion. Does anyone remember when the PCA split from the PCUSA? Please tell me what the issue was? Pray tell?

I was accused of bordering on violating the 9th commandment here. I don't see it that way. Rather, I am merely stating in strong words the implications of such a move on the part of the PCA. If the PCUSA and ECUSA are any indication, theological liberalism is a dead end.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie



Cranmer1959 said:


> I have been visiting a PCA while I'm working out of town. It's a very conservative and traditional church holding tothe regulative principle of worship, etc. The guest speaker said that the vote was only 16 deciding against studying this issue. You can bet that it will be overturned soon.
> 
> If not, half the ministers will be divorced by their wives and even more of the lay representatives will be divorced. After all, their wives are in tears over this issue.
> 
> Personally, I think it is a sad day when even the PCA begins to cater to the cultural values of the world rather than the Scriptures. I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?
> 
> Good grief!
> 
> The PCA is struggling with the Federal Vision issue already. Now its the ordination of women. What NEXT?
> 
> I see no reason for women to be ordained ministers. That is not their role in the Scriptures and only a biased reading of the texts can even come close.
> 
> As in the Old Testament nation of Israel with its ups and downs and gross apostasies, restoration, then more apostasy.... the endless cycle of conservative, biblical denominations degenerating into apostasy is a slow process taking place over several generations. But that process seems to be at work in the PCA. How long will it be before the homosexuality issue is being presented for study???? Ten years? Twenty?
> 
> Call me a fundamentalist.
> 
> Charlie



-----Added 7/5/2009 at 08:51:34 EST-----

Someone said:

_Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?_

I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie


----------



## py3ak

he beholds said:


> Cranmer1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have yet to see a deacon who is the wife of one husband. Unless he's gay?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie, (I rarely get to use that phrase with a Charlie!) Every deacon I know is married to one woman and has been his whole life. My father-in-law is not gay, nor are the other faithful men whom I know do serve the church in this office. I am hoping your experience is atypical of PCA churches in general.
Click to expand...


I think Charlie's point was not that deacons are not happily married, but rather that since deacons are supposed to be _husbands of one wife_, you can't ordain a _wife_ as a deacon. In other words, the way the marital requirements are couched demands that only men be considered for the office.


----------



## Wayne

Charlie:
First of all, the proposed study that was defeated was to be on the role of women in the church, _not_ whether or not to have deaconesses. There was confusion on that matter, somehow, among some people.

Second, doesn't your own church have a woman sitting as a member of the vestry? How is that different? I am asking an honest question, because I don't know much about the Anglican system of church government, especially at the local level. (Also, in asking that question, I'm not in any way arguing for the ordination of women).


----------



## TimV

Hmmm...three clicks from Charlie's link gets you this:



> Elected at Convention
> ELECTED AT THE DIOCESAN CONVENTION: STANDING COMMITTEE - CLERICAL ORDER The Reverend Phyllis Bartle (4 year) The Reverend Danielle Morris (1 year)


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Cranmer1959 said:


> Someone said:
> 
> _Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?_
> 
> I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?
> 
> Charlie



The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.


----------



## fredtgreco

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Cranmer1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone said:
> 
> _Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?_
> 
> I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?
> 
> Charlie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.
Click to expand...

 
Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cranmer1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone said:
> 
> _Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?_
> 
> I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?
> 
> Charlie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.
Click to expand...


That's undoubtedly true, Pastor Greco, but is there a significant number of PCA pastors pushing for actual ordination? There may be, but I don't know of any...


----------



## brianeschen

ColdSilverMoon said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's undoubtedly true, Pastor Greco, but is there a significant number of PCA pastors pushing for actual ordination? There may be, but I don't know of any...
Click to expand...

Actually it is the _not ordaining_ that is a bigger issue right now in regards to deacon (which is contrary to the BCO). The issue for many is the making the PCA into a 1 office church by destroying the biblical office of deacon. 

I have pointed this out before . . . I think that this issue is merely symptomatic of the more serious problem of rebellion. The fact that pastors disagree with our constitution is not as much a problem as their unwillingness to fulfill their ordination vows in submitting to that constitution. Study committees are not the prescribed means for changing the order of a denomination (at least not the PCA).


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.



1 OVERTURE 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery (to CCB and OC)
2 “Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”
3
4 Whereas, Crossroads Community Church Presbyterian Church in America, a member
5 church, filed a complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the Philadelphia
6 Presbytery in accord with BCO 43-2 against the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery
7 approving a candidate for licensure who took exception, with respect to the office of
8 deacon, to the provision of BCO 7-2 that states “In accord with Scripture, these
9 offices are open to men only”; and
10
11 Whereas, the 35th General Assembly's review of presbytery records cited an exception of
12 substance (attached hereto as Exhibit B) for the Philadelphia Presbytery for liberti
13 Church as follows “Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned
14 contrary to BCO 9-3 ”;
15
16 Whereas, liberti Church responded to the General Assembly’s citation by submitting to the
17 Philadelphia Presbytery an Overture (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the General
18 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America *asking for a change to the BCO to
19 allow the election of women to the office of deacon equal with men and the freedom
20 to either ordain both or commission both men and women called to that office; and*...


http://www.pcaac.org/GeneralAssembly/Overtures/Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery.pdf
Note bolded text.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Edward said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 OVERTURE 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery (to CCB and OC)
> 2 “Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”
> 3
> 4 Whereas, Crossroads Community Church Presbyterian Church in America, a member
> 5 church, filed a complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the Philadelphia
> 6 Presbytery in accord with BCO 43-2 against the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery
> 7 approving a candidate for licensure who took exception, with respect to the office of
> 8 deacon, to the provision of BCO 7-2 that states “In accord with Scripture, these
> 9 offices are open to men only”; and
> 10
> 11 Whereas, the 35th General Assembly's review of presbytery records cited an exception of
> 12 substance (attached hereto as Exhibit B) for the Philadelphia Presbytery for liberti
> 13 Church as follows “Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned
> 14 contrary to BCO 9-3 ”;
> 15
> 16 Whereas, liberti Church responded to the General Assembly’s citation by submitting to the
> 17 Philadelphia Presbytery an Overture (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the General
> 18 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America *asking for a change to the BCO to
> 19 allow the election of women to the office of deacon equal with men and the freedom
> 20 to either ordain both or commission both men and women called to that office; and*...
> 
> 
> http://www.pcaac.org/GeneralAssembly/Overtures/Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery.pdf
> Note bolded text.
Click to expand...



Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?


----------



## Christusregnat

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?



Perhaps it is *right now*. Give the agitators some time, and they will push for it to be the norm. Then on to their next conquest: eldership. It's the same song that's been sung before. No need to pretend we haven't heard it before.

First, is the request for toleration;
Second, the request for acceptance as normal;
Third, is the calling of the granting to the old stance a form of "toleration";
Fourth, the old form is called perverse.

This is the method in the Brave New World, and such philosophy is not absent from the PCA.

Cheers,


----------



## Scott1

This Lord's Day, I've been consumed with worship and Deacon service. I've never been so aware of the spiritual charge of this office which the PCA Book of Church Order gets right, biblically:

1) overseeing mercy ministry
2) overseeing property stewardship
3) developing a spirit of liberality amongst the congregation

The impact of men leading this as qualified by I Timothy 3, examined, elected, ordained and installed is immeasurable in the local church. As with the Pastors and Elders, this sets the tone for the church, and effects its whole.

The response of the church to the leaders whom God has appointed for them and they have confirmed is such blessing!

Seeing unordained men and women following in lead of being more merciful, more hospitable, more helpful, more generous more centered on God and neighbor, and not self, is a real blessing!

If we disgrace this office by devaluing or trivializing it for any reason, or the ordination upon which it rests, or the installation upon which it is received, we will be due God's chastisement and the withdrawing of his favorable countenance upon us.

These are spiritual ordinances, (examination, ordination, installation) and they need to be taught and modeled to God's people for the Honor and Glory of our Lord and the careful and proper governance of His Church.


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?



I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.


----------



## Cranmer1959

There is no need for a study committee on this issue. The Scriptures have spoken so clearly even a child can understand them. Women are not to be ordained to any office in the church and opening the door even a crack in that direction is just an excuse to manipulate, revise, and devalue Scriptural teaching.


----------



## lynnie

To be fair to Tim Keller, I hope you realize that no truly egalitarian female in NYC would be satisfied with unordained deaconesses. They would want women elders and pastors. I am in that presbytery, near Princeton, and the mentality of feminism in this ultra liberal north east area would not be satisfied with what Redeemer is doing right now, any more than a ravenous wolf would be satisfied with a bone. Whatever the reason, it isn't to pacify feminists, there is no way this satisfies a true egalitarian.


----------



## Scott1

lynnie said:


> To be fair to Tim Keller, I hope you realize that no truly egalitarian female in NYC would be satisfied with unordained deaconesses. They would want women elders and pastors. I am in that presbytery, near Princeton, and the mentality of feminism in this ultra liberal north east area would not be satisfied with what Redeemer is doing right now, any more than a ravenous wolf would be satisfied with a bone. Whatever the reason, it isn't to pacify feminists, there is no way this satisfies a true egalitarian.



Like all compromise, it might seem at first like it would settle the issue. On one level it appeals to a notion like "finding a middle ground." The problem is, the principles are based on two very different grounds.

The underlying principles are distinctly different, that's why "finding a middle ground" will not satisfy either set of principles.

On one side is the difficult truth that church leaders have placed themselves under holy vows before God to obey and model a certain polity.

On the other is a belief that one may do what one individually wants to do, as long as they individually think it is best.

The problem is, fundamentally, this is not the way a confessional church operates. 

The peace and purity of Christ's church is bigger than us all.


----------



## Edward

Scott1 said:


> Like all compromise, it might seem at first like it would settle the issue. On one level it appeals to a notion like "finding a middle ground." The problem is, the principles are based on two very different grounds.
> 
> The underlying principles are distinctly different, that's why "finding a middle ground" will not satisfy either set of principles. One one side is the difficult truth that church leaders have placed themselves under holy vows before God to obey and model a certain polity.
> 
> On the other is a belief that one may do what one individually wants to do, as long as they individually think it is best.
> 
> The problem is, fundamentally, this is not the way a confessional church operates.
> 
> The peace and purity of Christ's church is bigger than us all.



Very well put. While reading your post, I thought back to just over 70 years ago, when Chamberlain found the 'middle ground' in Munich. Finding that 'middle ground' is rarely a good idea, even outside the Church.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Edward said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.
Click to expand...


Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...



Would you have them serve with ordained men?


----------



## ChariotsofFire

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...
Click to expand...


 I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...


----------



## Scott1

ChariotsofFire said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...
Click to expand...


Another reason this leads to confusion is-

What do we call unordained men who assist in mercy ministry?

PCA polity (e.g. BCO 9-7) is that that unordained men AND women assist the deacons, more or less in parity with one another (parity between the unordained men and women), without special titles.

If we give title to the unordained women who assist, but not the men, we undermine that. The polity is both men and women serve in their capacities as laypeople in the congregation.

There is some flexibility in practice in PCA polity within this framework. It often works out in practice that these unordained men and women are organized under various ministry groups (e.g. Comfort and Care, Single Moms, Refugee Ministry, etc.) that are administratively overseen by the Diaconate, and ultimately by the Session.

This works well in practice and tends to create a more "grass roots" participation by the whole of the congregation. It also tends to overcome the distinctions of gender, age and other factors that so easily divide in the world.

It's not wise biblically to create a tone in the local church where there is a seeking after of titles. A notion only those who have titles really serve. This really is the opposite of biblical pattern, which is the priesthood of all believers, a culture of service as unto the Lord, and a subjection to the brethren (that includes the duly constituted governance of the church God has appointed- Deacons and Elders).


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Edward said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have them serve with ordained men?
Click to expand...


Yes. Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do. Personally, I'm in favor of men being ordained to the office (which seems to be the Scriptural model), but having a group of men and women who perform diaconal work in a formal capacity - these people would be called deacons/deaconesses (also seems to be the Scriptural model). 



ChariotsofFire said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...
Click to expand...


They don't have the title of an office - they have a title, but it is not the title of an office. They do fill the role outlined in the current system. So why use the term "deaconess" you ask? The better question would be why _not_ use the term? It has been used from the New Testament onward throughout 2,000 years of church history, including for at least 25 of the PCA's 35 year history. It is only in the past few years that people have had a problem with it...


----------



## TimV

> Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do



Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?


----------



## Scott1

> I do believe that the pastor I was speaking to thinks that deacons do not have authority, as they are actually carrying out the will of the session, or serving on behalf of the session, maybe? I am not sure, and I don't want to misquote him, but I got that feeling, so women deaconesses wouldn't be an issue of authority. (I do not know whether all of this was devil's advocate or stemmed from personal opinion, as it came about in a discussion between us and not me interviewing him!)



Clearly, the doctrine of Scripture reflected by our Book of Church Order is that the church is governed by Deacons and Elders. Both are authoritative, leadership offices reflecting the explicit qualifications of Scripture that they be men (I Timothy 3, Titus 1).

Deacon is not merely a synonym word for servant. The same word for deacon (servant) sometimes describes Christ ministering. Hopefully, no one would dare represent Christ was only a servant, had no authority, no special title, etc.

The office of Deacon is a leadership one, reflecting not only the explicit qualification of Scripture, but the creation order. In the PCA, the spiritual charge, all leadership roles are:

1) oversee mercy ministry
2) oversee property stewardship
3) develop a spirit of liberality in the congregation

Off-and-on in church history there were "deaconesses" but they were patterned after I Timothy 5 (60 year old widow, vows to remain unmarried, destitute, and financially dependent on the church). There were times in church history the church deviated from those qualifications (e.g. lowered the age to 40) and got into all kinds of trouble. Younger women broke their vows to remain unmarried, left church service primarily, etc. So the practice fell into disuse. It was abandoned.

Only since about 1960, in all of church history, with the liberalism/modernism has it been promoted that I Timothy 3 was an interchangeable office men and women.

More-and-more, what is becoming clear that what is at stake is the office of deacon itself- a high office, qualified, elected, ordained and installed- a perpetual office with high spiritual reward.

By arguing it is only a substitute word for servant only we devalue it, misunderstand it, and trivialize it. When we "commission" but not ordain we devalue the holy ordinance of ordination. What's happening, it appears is that polity and the doctrines of ordinance and church governance are not being taught by some from the pulpit. That's part of their vows, but they are not doing it, and that is causing confusion.

One of the best research papers on the biblical issues and church history on this is Brian Schwerley's http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html


----------



## Mushroom

> Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...


Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you _do_ have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?
Click to expand...


I think here the BCO is referring to the position of authority of the office of deacon. The BCO considers it a perpetual office of the church, so allowing for churches not to ordain deacons, that office falls on the Session.



Brad said:


> Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you _do_ have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?
Click to expand...


Brad, as I said in an earlier post, the question could just as easily be flipped and I would ask you why _not_ give them this title? It has biblical and historical roots, so why give deaconesses a title?


----------



## ChariotsofFire

ColdSilverMoon said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think here the BCO is referring to the position of authority of the office of deacon. The BCO considers it a perpetual office of the church, so allowing for churches not to ordain deacons, that office falls on the Session.
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you _do_ have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brad, as I said in an earlier post, the question could just as easily be flipped and I would ask you why _not_ give them this title? It has biblical and historical roots, so why give deaconesses a title?
Click to expand...


There are a number of reasons not to give this title:

1. If Deaconesses are not ordained, the title is very deceptive. It gives the appearance of an office.
2. It gives a place of leadership to women in the church.
3. It gives women who help the deacons a special title, while leaving the men who help deacons without.
4. It will open the door for deaconesses being ordained, and then down the slippery slope we go.
5. I don't think the term is biblical.


----------



## Romans922

Yeah, this is something I am not understanding either (responding to #3 below). Some say that we should have 'deaconesses' who are not ordained be on the diaconate serving alongside (doing the same things as ordained deacons). Well, to be consistent then you'd have to either: have men serve alongside in the same capacity of 'deaconesses' and not ordained. So then you have Ordained deacon (men), unordained deacons, and unordained deaconesses. 

OR you'd have to ordain deaconesses. To do otherwise, would be not consistent (if you must have women have the title 'deaconess' and/or be on the 'diaconate'.

At least that is the way it seems to me. Does anyone else think that?





ChariotsofFire said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think here the BCO is referring to the position of authority of the office of deacon. The BCO considers it a perpetual office of the church, so allowing for churches not to ordain deacons, that office falls on the Session.
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you _do_ have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brad, as I said in an earlier post, the question could just as easily be flipped and I would ask you why _not_ give them this title? It has biblical and historical roots, so why give deaconesses a title?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a number of reasons not to give this title:
> 
> 1. If Deaconesses are not ordained, the title is very deceptive. It gives the appearance of an office.
> 2. It gives a place of leadership to women in the church.
> 3. It gives women who help the deacons a special title, while leaving the men who help deacons without.
> 4. It will open the door for deaconesses being ordained, and then down the slippery slope we go.
> 5. I don't think the term is biblical.
Click to expand...


----------

