# PCA General Assembly in Dallas



## Richard King

Anyone from this board going to be there next week?

Also on a nearly unrelated note, can any of you Dallas types tell me if Deep Ellum is safe or interesting anymore. I heard it had fizzled.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes, Stephen and Lane (Greenbaggins) are linking up to drive over here so if you need a ride from the hotel, they are meeting up at the entrance to the exhibit hall, which doesn't open till Monday PM I think.


----------



## HaigLaw

I lived in Dallas from '73 to '83 and we visit often as a son lives there now, and as interesting as it may be, i've never considered that neighborhood all that safe, except during state fair time when a lot of people are there.

yes, i'll be at GA next week, on the B&O committee, a lot of the time.


----------



## Richard King

Well I actually can't make it.
But our church will be represented well.
My pastor will be there. He is almost painfully shy or at least studiously quiet except when he preaches.
He came here all the way from Philly and Texas or Texans sort of have to grow on you.

I was thinking of having tons of people come up to him and greet him all week long just as a prank. 
You know, stuff like "aren't you the Jim Angehr from Lubbock that I have heard so much about online?" or "do they really call you Jim "righteous" Angehr in West Texas?"

But maybe I shouldn't. 
At any rate he is a really interesting great guy. yall should meet him.
Though he looks like a really young version of Barbie's friend Ken (the doll) but he is one wise dude.
Plays blues harp, knows more than you could imagine about American music, especially Springsteen . I was thinking of suggesting Deep Ellum for some good blues if he gets free time but I am rethinking that also.


----------



## doctorcello

*Someone from Tennessee*

Yup, I will be there, and am looking forward to seeing the old faces again. That's the best part of GA. I'll be flying in on Tuesday afternoon, and hunting for a Shuttle ticket or taxi.


----------



## bookslover

PCA...PCA...Oh, yeah. Ain't that that Presbyterian denomination which is sort of an OPC  wannabe? (heh, heh)

<runs away quickly...>


----------



## AVT

Does anyone know whether there will be any audio or video of the Overtures committee we access (like there is a webcast of the rest of General Assembly)?


----------



## doctorcello

*Highly unlikely*

I suspect that a video cast of the overtures committee is VERRRRRRYYYYYY UNLIKELY!!


----------



## AVT

Some of us are curious as to what has transpired during the pre assembly meeting of our Overtures committee today! Any news?

The General Assembly will be web cast live beginning Tuesday at 7:30pm:
PCA General Assembly WebCast


----------



## NaphtaliPress

AVT said:


> Some of us are curious as to what has transpired during the pre assembly meeting of our Overtures committee today! Any news?
> 
> The General Assembly will be web cast live beginning Tuesday at 7:30pm:
> PCA General Assembly WebCast


I have heard it has gone very well and expeditiously under Fred Greco's chairmanship; they will be handling the deaconness overtures today.


----------



## AVT

I saw on the web cast that a "minority report" was announced by the Overtures Committee, without further information.

Anyone know anything about what is transpiring?


----------



## HaigLaw

NaphtaliPress said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are curious as to what has transpired during the pre assembly meeting of our Overtures committee today! Any news?
> 
> The General Assembly will be web cast live beginning Tuesday at 7:30pm:
> PCA General Assembly WebCast
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it has gone very well and expeditiously under Fred Greco's chairmanship; they will be handling the deaconness overtures today.
Click to expand...


Yes. Fred acquitted himself honorably and capably. I was on the Overtures Committee with him. He announced something toward the end that we were not to talk publicly about the results prior to the floor report, in the interests of not spreading rumors, and I hope to honor the spirit of that, but I would like to tell a story about something not of substance, which I found amusing and moving, about Fred.

As we were about to adjourn, after Fred had warned us about no outbursts, and had been very strict about things out of order, to both sides of every issue, a member rose to move a resolution of thanks for his leadership of the committee. The committee erupted in total disorder, with a standing ovation. For the only time I can recall, Fred was totally out of control of the committee. And the only time I know ever of Fred, he was speechless. It was a deeply moving moment. 

Then, in comic relief, the movant said -- of course, it should be remembered that all three times your rulings were appealed, you got overruled all 3 times.

I must add that I dont recall that as quite true -- he was overruled by the committee only 2 of the 3 times his rulings were appealed.

I write from the floor of the GA. The report of the committee, including the majority report on women deacons and the minority report, should be made sometime today. Stay tuned. Im told that reports are going on the PCA webpage as soon as they are made on the floor.


----------



## HaigLaw

It has just been announced by the moderator that we will take a 10 minute break, at 11:23 am, CDT, and following that will be the report of the Overtures Committee.

Stay tuned.


----------



## HaigLaw

Fred has started his report for the Overtures Committee.


----------



## tcalbrecht

HaigLaw said:


> Fred has started his report for the Overtures Committee.



Has anyone found the reports online? The moderator said they were available on the web site.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #1 recommended to be answered in the negative.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #2 to add the Apostles Creed to the membership vows, recommended in the negative. Overture #1 adopted by the GA in the negative.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Fyi


> Overture 1 From Southeast Alabama Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “amend Bco 6-1, 6-4, And 6-5 To Define Methods By Which People Are Received Into Or
> Dismissed From The Church”
> 
> Overture 2 From Southeast Alabama Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “amend Bco 38-3a, Add A New 46-5, Add A New 46-6, And Move Bco 57-6 To Bco 46-6
> To Specify Transfers To Church Membership.
> [note: The Suggested Two Paragraphs Could Become 46-5a And B Or Present 46-6, 7, 8 Would
> Need To Be Re-numbered
> 
> Overture 3 From Southeast Alabama Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “amend Bco 57-5 To Require Affirmation Of The Apostles Creed For Membership”
> 
> Overture 4 From Blue Ridge Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “amend Bco 57-5 To Make Profession Of Faith Declarations Mandatory”
> 
> Overture 5 From Northwest Georgia Presbytery (to Mna)
> “include Fanning And Gilmer Counties In Northwest Georgia Presbytery”
> 
> Overture 6 From Missouri Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “amend Bco 31-2 Regarding Investigative Procedures Of A Teaching Elder”
> 
> Overture 7 From Missouri Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “amend Bco 15-3 Regarding Judicial Investigations”
> 
> Overture 8 From Rocky Mountain Presbytery (to Oc)
> “tribute To Te William B. Leonard, Jr.”
> 
> Overture 9 From Philadelphia Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “erect Study Committee On Deaconesses”
> 
> Overture 10 From Tennessee Valley Presbytery (to Mna)
> “revise Tennessee Valley Presbytery Boundaries”
> 
> Overture 11 From The Presbytery Of The Ascension (to Mtw, Rum., Mna, And Ccb)
> “sending Reformed Military Evangelists To U.s. Oversees Military Communities”
> 
> Overture 12 From Evangel Presbytery (to Mna)
> “divide Evangel Presbytery And Form Additional Presbytery”
> 
> Overture 13 From Potomac Presbytery (to Ccb And Oc)
> “revise Rao 14-6 K.; 14-9 G.; 15-8 E.; 14-9 E.; 15-8 C.”
> 
> Overture 14 From Potomac Presbytery (to Ac, Ccb And Oc)
> “form Ad Interim Committee To Revise Rao”
> 
> Overture 15 From Western Canada Presbytery (to Ac And Oc)
> “form Study Committee On Issue Of Deaconesses”
> 
> Overture 16 From Piedmont Triad Presbytery (to Mna)
> “revise Boundary Of Piedmont Triad Presbytery”
> 
> Overture 17 From Rocky Mountain Presbytery (to Oc)
> “expand Scope Of Proposed Committee On Deaconesses”
> 
> Overture 18 From Western Carolina Presbytery (to Mna)
> “revise Boundaries Of Western Carolina Presbytery”
> 
> Overture 19 From Central Georgia Presbytery (to Oc) “decline To Elect Study Committee On Deaconesses”


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #3 offered in the negative, with reference to prior ones.

#2 passed in negative.


----------



## HaigLaw

#3 passed in negative.

#4 to make professions of faith mandatory, offered in affirmative.


----------



## HaigLaw

Vote on #4 as proposed passed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #6 re investigations of TE, be answered in negative recommended.


----------



## HaigLaw

There is discussion of Overture #6, about possibly answering this in the affirmative.


----------



## HaigLaw

An elder is arguing that a TE who is in marital difficulty should be able to be suspended pending investigation, before any finding of guilt.


----------



## HaigLaw

#6 answered in negative, passed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #7 recommended in the negative.


----------



## HaigLaw

#7 passed in negative.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #8, a tribute, offered in affirmative.

received unanimously.


----------



## HaigLaw

Next item, was to strike from the minutes the rationale from Overture #9, as it discusses a pending judicial case.


----------



## HaigLaw

Dr. Morton Smith asked how this would be handled in the minutes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Dr. Roy Taylor said his intention, unless otherwise instructed, would be to print the items, with strikeouts.


----------



## HaigLaw

I.e., in the journal, struck out, the published minutes, not there at all.


----------



## HaigLaw

This proposal passed.


----------



## HaigLaw

The Moderator made some announcements, and we are being dismissed in prayer for lunch.


----------



## sastark

HaigLaw, *Thank you* for the play-by-play! It really helps!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

They don't seem to be following the published schedule. Will overtures continue after lunch?


----------



## toddpedlar

Yes, why is it so far ahead? Bills & Overtures wasn't supposed to start reporting until 1 at least (according to what I've heard) and the online schedule said 4:05pm for the start.


----------



## toddpedlar

so am i to understand right now vis a vis #9, the only thing that has happened is the rationale for the overture has been modified?


----------



## HaigLaw

sastark said:


> HaigLaw, *Thank you* for the play-by-play! It really helps!



My pleasure. I'm here, and as a member of the Overtures Committee, I'm not permitted to debate. So what else could I do besides log to PB?


----------



## HaigLaw

NaphtaliPress said:


> They don't seem to be following the published schedule. Will overtures continue after lunch?



Yes, Rev. Greco was giving the Overtures report when at noon, orders of the day were called. We should be resuming in 3 minutes.


----------



## HaigLaw

toddpedlar said:


> Yes, why is it so far ahead? Bills & Overtures wasn't supposed to start reporting until 1 at least (according to what I've heard) and the online schedule said 4:05pm for the start.



That schedule was a prediction. Some of the earlier reports went faster than predicted. When they finish with one thing, they go to the next.


----------



## HaigLaw

toddpedlar said:


> so am i to understand right now vis a vis #9, the only thing that has happened is the rationale for the overture has been modified?



I don't understand the question. The rationale was set in stone by vote of the full committee day before yesterday evening around 4:45, as I recall.


----------



## HaigLaw

It is a curiosity of recent PCA GA procedures that overtures cannot be amended on the floor of GA now. 

We are opening in prayer again.


----------



## HaigLaw

On the upcoming debate over the majority and minority reports on Overture 9, the only choices the assembly has, as I understand it, are to vote one of them up, both of them down, or recommit one or both to them to the Overtures Committee.

I.e., they cannot be amended on the floor.

The thinking being, as I understand it, the floor is too large and unwieldy to do intricate amendments, and such things are better done in committees who can hammer them out ahead of time with due reflection, and, I suppose, time to correct disastrous mistakes through emergency meetings before being implemented.


----------



## HaigLaw

An order of the day, the Report of the Nominating Committee, is being taken now.


----------



## HaigLaw

45 of the 77 or 78 presbyteries were represented on this committee.


----------



## HaigLaw

There was a lot of competition for some of the committee slots, and very little on others.


----------



## HaigLaw

All uncontested nominees are proposed for omnibus approval.


----------



## HaigLaw

Question about taking a 1-year sabbatical.


----------



## HaigLaw

Votes on committee recommendations vs. floor nominees proceeds.


----------



## HaigLaw

Most, if not all, of the nominating committee's recommendations were elected.


----------



## HaigLaw

The members of the SJC are being called forward.


----------



## HaigLaw

This is reported as a special order of the day as well.


----------



## HaigLaw

The moderator is administering the oath to all SJC members now.


----------



## HaigLaw

The Moderator prayed for the SJC.

MSP to declare them installed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Coming back to the report of the Overtures Committee now.


----------



## HaigLaw

Majority Report on Overture 9 is now being given by Rev. Greco.


----------



## HaigLaw

Bryan Chapell moved the Minority Report.


----------



## HaigLaw

Joey Pipa moved to find the Minority report out of order.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

CTS vs. GPTS


----------



## toddpedlar

HaigLaw said:


> Joey Pipa moved to find the Minority report out of order.



and he has an excellent point


----------



## HaigLaw

Ground of point of order -- study committees are not used for things that are unambiguous.


----------



## HaigLaw

Moderator consults on the point of order.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I can feel the tension here.


----------



## HaigLaw

Moderator rules that the objection is not well taken, because the minority report asks an opinion on several issues.


----------



## HaigLaw

Chair's decision appealed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Vote on appeal of the chair -- standing vote


----------



## HaigLaw

Standing votes to sustain the chair's ruling counted.

Votes to overrule the chair are being counted.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

How close does it look?


----------



## HaigLaw

The vote to sustain the chair was 518
Votes to overrule the chair were 369


----------



## HaigLaw

Majority report:

47 to 33 -- TEs to REs on the committee.

5 - 1/2 hours discussed on this issue.


----------



## HaigLaw

Not a new issue, wide range of material already available.


----------



## HaigLaw

A study committee would inevitably lead to two excellent, strong reports.

That would lead to further division.

The committee was most heated on this issue.

Other avenues are open to approach this issue.


----------



## HaigLaw

BCO amendment and references are those avenues.

Now is not the time to raise another controversy in the PCA.


----------



## HaigLaw

BCO amendment and references are those avenues.

Now is not the time to raise another controversy in the PCA.


----------



## HaigLaw

Bryan Chapell begins the minority presentation, which I will summarize as he speaks:

We had a great chair. Ovation. Great debate, sometimes testy and some apologies.

Reference p. 137 - the minority report members, a large group, not all in favor of women deacons. Reads part of the minority report -- need a balance, reads 4 proposed names, 2 of which favor, and 2 opposed, no egalitarians, on women deacons. Summarizes the 4 positions.


----------



## HaigLaw

Summarizes some of the various approaches on deaconnesses, ordained or not.

Reads the mandate proposed for the study committee.

What does the Scripture say? Not public opinion.

What changes to the BCO might be considered for future presbytery overtures?

Offer pastoral advice to presbyteries.


----------



## HaigLaw

Funded through designated gifts through administrative committee.

A hard decision. Both reports are good reports. 

The majority could have said no, but were sensitive, this needs to be discussed, but sthere are better ways. Accommodating and good language. Presbyteries work through these in their local context. Don't squash all commentary. There is a better way than Overture 9.

Why I prefer the minority report? Both boil down to -- have a study committee or not.

Appreciate the majority committee, discuss it yes, but the minority says yes, have a study committee. People of different opinions in the same room.

Why not talk? Slippery slope. Nobody is arguing for women in authoritative office. Solely as a service office. No slippery slope. 

Those who disagree have already left.

Other reason -- want status quo. Some are operating in the margins, not to talk either.

Is is a waste of money -- how will the PCA practice church life together, has not been discussed for centuries.


----------



## HaigLaw

Both report recognize overtures are coming.

Study committee could give us good guidance, regardless of the position you take.

They have the church's respect. At least 3 of them are very good friends. 

Ask the moderator to nominate a few more. Suggest give the 4th vote on the committee to one who sticks with the constitution as it is now.

Dr. Chapell concludes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Rev. Greco resumes:

Vote down the minority report as a substitute.

Study committees are not helpful where most have their minds made up. 

There are few Scriptures on this issue.

There are other ways to discuss this.


----------



## HaigLaw

Greco: 

Analogize our nation's constitution. Amendments from local bodies.

The PCA has studied this issue extensively. It's part of PCA history. PCA is traditional on the role of women in church office.

Difficulties with minority report: suggests potential changes to the BCO -- an inappropriate issue. offer pastoral advice in committees, instead of presbyteries.

There is diversity of thinking in Reformed scholars, but on other matters too. We don't need study committees for such issues.


----------



## HaigLaw

We welcome overtures on core matters -- Apostles Creed, for example.

Trust the process. The 13 hours from our committee to have this debate.

Trust yourselves to debate in presbyteries. A small study committee -- will make us partisan.

Rev. Greco concludes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Speaker in favor of minority report: Does not believe in women deacons.

Study committees discuss issues in culture. We do not model how to disagree in a Christlike manner. Observe in the blog-sphere what we're saying about each other.

We are talking in ways that are not edifying.

How do we disagree?

Not by exchanging information (inaudible).


----------



## HaigLaw

We need to be in a room with one another.

Previous exegetical studies are good, but we need men who differ in the same room discussing it. It's how we've addressed issues in the past.


----------



## HaigLaw

Second speaker, against the minority report:

Easy to offend without even trying. Don't want study committee. Deal with these issues; but study committee is not the way to do it.

We can offend without even trying. Study committee -- sorry for the way the church deals with women -- study committee will not fix that problem. 

Assembly debates over a study committee. We should debate the outcome. 

How to fully love half the body of Christ -- repent and believe.


----------



## HaigLaw

Point of order -- standing vote previously was irregular. It was an improper count.

Moderator says there will be no ruling on that.

Speaker for the minority report: Both speakers appreciated.

Significant churches in the PCA have or have had deaconnesses. if the language is not ambiguous, we are cowardly or slack, or there is some room for this possibility.

If a study committee will lead to further divisions, then it's already there, and that never stopped us in the past. Not a good argument not to do something.

No secret this minority report comes as a result of the desires of several young pastors in the PCA. I'm 50 years old, and Frank Barker, etc. still think I'm young. We never got involved like these young men have. We need to celebrate that they dive in to define who we are. 

Moderator -- time is up.


----------



## HaigLaw

Moderator rules - - another 5 minutes of debate.

Moderator asks whether those waiting are for or against.

All are for the minority.

Moderator keeps looking for someone against it.

Finds one. Another speaker against: Pleased we have the minority report.

Dave Coffin, Potomac Presbytery: well persuaded, men who differ on the point, but wonderful unanimity on Scriptures alone, rule of practice. Tremendous demonstration of what we share, on the committee. 

Well framed, argued graciously. But, opposed, concur with the chair. Asks pastoral advice on appropriate range of practices. Couched gently. Kinds of questions asked. Gently, but a threat to constitutional order. Presbyteries are courts of original jurisdiction, on appropriate ranges of practices, subject to review and control by higher courts. 

Moderator rules - time out.

Speaker in favor of minority report: When a presbytery asks for help, we should not tell them it's already clear.

Specific questions not answered by majority report.

Vastly preferable to gain the best minds of the church, not just one presbytery, not merely BCO amendments.

There is a real need in the PCA now, should not be dealt with in bits and pieces.

Moderator -- extend debate another 5 minutes?

Moderator rules, vote was to not extend debate.


----------



## HaigLaw

A division was called.

Chair rules, we will have to have a floor count.


----------



## HaigLaw

Votes to extend debate by standing vote counted.


----------



## HaigLaw

Votes not to extend debate by standing vote counted.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What time are they supposed to finish?


----------



## HaigLaw

The vote on whether to extend debate was 420 to 467.


----------



## HaigLaw

Rev. Greco resumes: recommend vote against minority report as substitute.

There is no time limit in committee, it takes 3/4ths to cut off debate.

If the substitute is the main motion, you should recommit it back to the Overtures Committee, because it's not amendable on the floor.


----------



## HaigLaw

Minority report has failed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Division was called.

Moderator called for standing vote.

Moderator: minority report has failed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Main motion now. Discussion called. 

Each generation should talk these things in great detail, and own things in every generation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I've lost track what is the main motion now?


----------



## HaigLaw

Speaker in favor of the majority report: committee did excellent job. 

Speaker against the majority report: Chaired the committee that produced Overture 9. Philadelphia presbytery has tried to work this through the local level, and that's why we asked help. The PCA has since 1984 recognized that a Biblical case can be made for women as deacons, but not practice it, as an exception, for ordination. 

But what do you practice? "The role of women in diaconal ministries" was our phrase. We find ourselves in difficulty defining that. Speak against the majority report.


----------



## HaigLaw

The majority report is on the floor now, having voted down the minority report.

Speaker against feminism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

HaigLaw said:


> ...The PCA has since 1984 recognized that a Biblical case can be made for women as deacons, but not practice it, as an exception, for ordination.



Really???


----------



## HaigLaw

Talking about this gives legitimacy to feminism.

Moderator calls for a speaker against the majority report.

Speaker has a question -- what is the status if this motion is defeated?


----------



## HaigLaw

I am giving a running account of what various speakers are saying.


----------



## HaigLaw

Moderator ruled that a negative vote would return the overture to the Overtures Committee.

Speaker said churches tried to follow the BCO and got exceptions to their minutes. This needs to be studied more, and not lead to slippery slope. Speaker was on trial during his adoption for being in the PCA and possibly harming his adoptive daughter, because of the PCA's position on women. This needs to be discussed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Moderator calls time, asks whether to vote to extend debate.

Vote to extend debate fails.


----------



## HaigLaw

Rev. Greco repeats the proposal of the committee on Overture 9.

Moderator calls for a vote.


----------



## HaigLaw

Answer to Overture 9 in the negative passed.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture 11 proposed to be answered in negative.


----------



## sastark

No Overture 10?


----------



## HaigLaw

Correction - Overture #14.

Passes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture 15 to be answered with reference to the answer to Overture #9.

It passes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture #17 be answered with reference to #9.

Passes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Overture 19 be answered with reference to #9, with a minute explanatory.

Overture 19 asks to decline to have a study committee on women deacons.

It passes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Communication #2 be answered with reference to Overture 9.

It passes.


----------



## HaigLaw

Rev. Greco concludes his committee's report in prayer.


----------



## HaigLaw

Speaker: Those who said that the ones who favored the study committee being "tools of feminism" caused offense.

The tone was un-Christian, and needs to be addressed. It was inflammatory.

Moderator: I pray no one was offended. If so, speak to me personally, I will pray with you. We are family. Christ was Somebody; we were nobodies. In humility, consider others better than yourself. No stronger words than the Bible.


----------



## HaigLaw

Another point of order: I was the brother accused of offense. My desire was for the purity, health, and love of Christ of the church. I stand by that. My brother has a right to be offended. I have no power over that. 

Moderator: Thanks. 

Another speaker: Apologize for speaking on points that were not necessary.

Moderator: We knew this was the biggest issue. A little tension should not surprise us. I think there is a lot of support and love in this auditorium. 

Speaker: Impressed with Moderator's gracious demeanor. Lead us in prayer now.

Moderator: Let's pray.


----------



## HaigLaw

Committee on Review of Presbytery Records coming up.


----------



## HaigLaw

70 presbyteries got approval and can be voted omnibus.

6 presbyteries did not -- got disapprovals.


----------



## Me Died Blue

sastark said:


> No Overture 10?



It was dealt with yesterday.


----------



## sastark

Me Died Blue said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Overture 10?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was dealt with yesterday.
Click to expand...


Yes, I caught that after having posted my question. Thanks, though.


----------



## HaigLaw

This concludes my report. My attention span has been exceeded.

Apologies to anyone asking questions that I didn't see.

Keeping up with the floor action was all I could do.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A Gazillion Thanks!!!


----------



## sastark

Yes, many thanks, in deed! Give those fingers some rest now.


----------



## jogri17

Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter


----------



## Dwimble

jogri17 said:


> Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter



Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.


----------



## Scott1

Thanks Mr. Haig for "live blogging" this.

Watching by web cam, I came away with a great appreciation for the way our PCA does business- a combination of head on dealing with difficult issues interspersed with worship and much prayer. I really sense God's providence through the twists and turns.


----------



## manito2000

Anybody know the name of the brother that lead in worship in last night's worship service??

Abraham Armenta
Senior Pastor, Iglesia Cristiana Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California


----------



## Scott1

When I first realized about a year and half ago that some PCA churches had deaconesses I was concerned because I had not thought that was possible in our denomination. It seemed to be like they were breaking the law- does their Presbytery know? Indeed, ordaining women, with all its scriptural implications was one reason our denomination had to separate from the larger denomination to remain a continuing Church.

So, when I first heard of a study committee, I was reluctant thinking it might only lead to confusion, division and actually encourage disunity. A divided report would likely result and there would not be clarity because, in our system, study committees while not absolutely binding, carrry great weight. However, if they were divided, that tends to lessen that and lessen clarity. 

Then, I came to believe a study committee would be helpful if it was based on Scripture exegesis. A resource for the denomination, and maybe for others. 

So, when Brian Chappel, President of Covenant Seminary, spoke in favor of a study committee he said some who wanted it believe it would only strengthen the valuation of the office of Deacon, he was describing me.

When Reverend Fred Greco spoke, I changed my mind. 

He pointed out that the Constitution (Book of Church Order) is clear, the denomination studied this issue thoroughly when we were formed, and has spoken that it believes Scripture says what our Book of Church Order says. If some disagree, they can persuade others and overture to change the Book of Church Order. 

It particularly made sense when Mr Greco said, like our US government system, change generally goes from "bottom up" (local or session, presbytery) level and then moves up. Our system allows sessions and presbyteries to "reference" questions about practice already to the General Assembly in various ways and they can always initiate overtures if they do not believe the Constitution reflects Scripture.

Amazingly, shortly after that carried the argument, a big debate occurred over similar issues reviewed by the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records. Many got involved, and I saw that the process is there already, and it works.


----------



## HaigLaw

Scott1 said:


> Thanks Mr. Haig for "live blogging" this.
> 
> Watching by web cam, I came away with a great appreciation for the way our PCA does business- a combination of head on dealing with difficult issues interspersed with worship and much prayer. I really sense God's providence through the twists and turns.



My pleasure. That was my sense too. There was much graciousness and thoughtfulness between people who sincerely disagreed. 

We disagreed agreeably. That is rare. I was honored and humbled to be a part of this historic process.

It was also very exhausting. I'm on my first glass of pre-dinner wine now.


----------



## HaigLaw

Scott1 said:


> .... I came to believe a study committee would be helpful if it was based on Scripture exegesis. A resource for the denomination, and maybe for others.
> 
> So, when Brian Chappel, President of Covenant Seminary, spoke in favor of a study committee he said some who wanted it believe it would only strengthen the valuation of the office of Deacon, he was describing me.
> 
> When Reverend Fred Greco spoke, I changed my mind.
> 
> He pointed out that the Constitution (Book of Church Order) is clear, the denomination studied this issue thoroughly when we were formed, and has spoken that it believes Scripture says what our Book of Church Order says. If some disagree, they can persuade others and overture to change the Book of Church Order.
> 
> It particularly made sense when Mr Greco said, like our US government system, change generally goes from "bottom up" (local or session, presbytery) level and then moves up. Our system allows sessions and presbyteries to "reference" questions about practice already to the General Assembly in various ways and they can always initiate overtures if they do not believe the Constitution reflects Scripture.
> 
> Amazingly, shortly after that carried the argument, a big debate occurred over similar issues reviewed by the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records. Many got involved, and I saw that the process is there already, and it works.



Yes. In retrospect, I think Philadelphia Presbytery made a calculated guess that an overture to change the BCO to allow deaconnesses, perhaps as a separate board not in authority over men, would not pass, but perhaps a study committee to even discuss it might pass, they guessed wrong.

Maybe next year, they will propose that, and many will argue -- no, you should have asked for a study committee instead.


----------



## HaigLaw

Dwimble said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.
Click to expand...


That argument was made, but it escapes me how wanting to discuss whether women can serve as deaconesses, pursuant to Scripture, is a tool of feminism. The "slippery slope" argument was on many minds, but I don't see it at all.

You find deaconesses in Scripture. The burden is on those who defend its prohibition in the BCO, in my view. 

Some seem to think they ought to be more conservative than God and that somehow that's a good thing.

I don't get it.


----------



## Scott1

Dwimble said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.
Click to expand...


Trying to be fair and charitable to all here,

I think the brother who said something like this had just come out of a bad experience in the larger denomination which has fallen away from the authority of Scripture. Being new to our denomination, he saw signs of alarm of this happening in his new "safe haven" home.

We all know we have that tendancy as sinners, save for the constant abiding presence of God's grace.

I really don't believe the vast majority of people voting for a study committee are committed to a non Scriptural philosophy. I was glad to hear from Reverend David Coffin how, in his observation (he said this while speaking to not create a study committee) that all on the Overtures Committee, both sides, were united in their commitment to Scripture and to the doctrines of the Reformed faith.

Having said that, I think some are confusing "diaconal" (mercy) ministry with the ordained office of Deacon. If anything, our Book of Church Order might make more explicit the role of the Board of Deacons in overseeing mercy ministry, prioritizing it, and the Board involving men and women under its oversight to carry out the very very important work of mercy, servant, diaconal ministry.


----------



## HaigLaw

Scott1 said:


> .... I think some are confusing "diaconal" (mercy) ministry with the ordained office of Deacon. If anything, our Book of Church Order might make more explicit the role of the Board of Deacons in overseeing mercy ministry, prioritizing it, and the Board involving men and women under its oversight to carry out the very very important work of mercy, servant, diaconal ministry.



Actually, it already does. The BCO already says women may be deacons' assistants. The rub is, the BCO also says that the only perpetual church officers are elders and deacons and must be men. 

I think a given congregation in the PCA could legally designate the Women in the Church (WIC) officers as deaconesses. These would thus not be perpetual, would not be on the same board with the deacons, and would not exercise any authority over men. Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Here's the official online byFaith article on the decision regarding the study committee:

General Assembly Rejects Deaconess Study Committee


----------



## DMcFadden

Most impressive young man, that Rev. Greco. And he took on a seminary prez too? Watching a group debate a controversial issue and really, really, really try to be biblical is so refreshing! It is almost enough to make me want to join the PCA!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Praise Jesus! The egalitarian hordes have been beaten back!


----------



## Josiah

Praise God for this! I am thankful that this minority report was voted down, but I wonder what will happen at the next GA? What will be the next move for those who are pushing the egalitarian issue? I hope that the younger generation will not fall for the emotional arguments pro-minority report.

May the Lord Bless the PCA and keep her strong.


----------



## DMcFadden

For you PCA brethren . . .

Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Good Question D MAc...


----------



## non dignus

DMcFadden said:


> Most impressive young man, that Rev. Greco. And he took on a seminary prez too? Watching a group debate a controversial issue and really, really, really try to be biblical is so refreshing! It is almost enough to make me want to join the PCA!



I, too, enjoy the distinction of being rebuked by brother. Fred!


----------



## TimV

> Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.



Interesting, but if the BCO says Deacons have to be ordained to be Deacons, and only men can be Deacons how would a WIC person be legally called a Deacon without being ordained?


----------



## toddpedlar

DMcFadden said:


> For you PCA brethren . . .
> 
> Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.



At one point in the discussion yesterday, a pro-overture man spoke about the increasing numbers of young men pursuing ministry in the PCA who favor the position that women should be ordained as deacons. This is, I suspect, part of the motivation for pursuing the changes.


----------



## toddpedlar

Did anyone else find the comment by Stephen Smallman about how hard Philadelphia Presbytery had tried to study this issue (which comment he offered about why a global uber-committee was necessary) to be whiny? "We want the wisdom of the WHOLE DENOMINATION," he said... as though a small uber-committee is going to deliver said wisdom. It seems to me this debate was really about what kind of method would be used to effect large-scale denominational change... and whether the PCA wants to be presbyterian, and do as presbyterian denominations ought to do - effect change first by studying issues at the presbytery level, and offer up overtures for change to the broader court, or if the PCA will be guided/ruled by select committees who decide which way the river ought to flow, and then pass down mandates from on high.


----------



## SolaScriptura

toddpedlar said:


> At one point in the discussion yesterday, a pro-overture man spoke about the increasing numbers of young men pursuing ministry in the PCA who favor the position that women should be ordained as deacons. This is, I suspect, part of the motivation for pursuing the changes.



This doesn't surprise me. 

I believe I've related my experience from when I visited Covenant Seminary... 

(For those who don't know, for a period of time I considered leaving SBTS for Covenant... sure glad I didn't though... the folks at SBTS do a much better job of preparing the heart and mind for confessionalism than do the folks at Covenant... but anyway...)

I visited the campus and in ONE DAY had confirmed all the crazy reports that I'd heard about the school. 

Most relevant here was the fact that I sat in on a NT class where the professor was going through 1 Tim 2 and 3... much time was spent on the whole women in ministry subject. The professor stated that THE PRIMARY reason he didn't support the ordination of women was because "my denomination doesn't support it." He then went on to say that he didn't care for the the CBMW folks because they are "mean spirited." 

My mouth dropped. With such wimpy conviction regarding the biblical soundness of our position is it any wonder that young ministers question our Standards on the subject? 


But the events of the past two GAs demonstrate that our elders still have enough sense, conviction, and nerve to hold the line: last year we defeated FV, this year we rejected egalitarianism. In both instances the Standards were upheld. Praise God!


----------



## HaigLaw

DMcFadden said:


> Most impressive young man, that Rev. Greco. And he took on a seminary prez too? Watching a group debate a controversial issue and really, really, really try to be biblical is so refreshing! It is almost enough to make me want to join the PCA!



With all due respect, Dennis: No, the seminary prez took _*him*_ on. Fred had nothing to do with the selection of the speaker for the minority.

But if you're almost persuaded, who am I to stand in your way.


----------



## HaigLaw

DMcFadden said:


> For you PCA brethren . . .
> 
> Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.



Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was _*the opinion of only one speaker*_ in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."

And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.

The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.


----------



## HaigLaw

TimV said:


> Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but if the BCO says Deacons have to be ordained to be Deacons, and only men can be Deacons how would a WIC person be legally called a Deacon without being ordained?
Click to expand...


Interesting. In my view, a session could declare that it's WIC officers were deaconesses to assist the deacons, without the ladies having a vote on the deacon board, and be in compliance with existing PCA law. And I intend to so propose, at our next session meeting.


----------



## TimV

> Interesting. In my view, a session could declare that it's WIC officers were deaconesses to assist the deacons, without the ladies having a vote on the deacon board, and be in compliance with existing PCA law. And I intend to so propose, at our next session meeting.



I personally think that's very reasonable. I just wonder how one would write a clean, clear cut ruling on the matter to prevent Tim Keller type "Our denomination is wrong on the issue of women Deacons, therefore we have no women Deacons, only unordained women Deacons. Now please welcome Ms. Chung, the new head of the board of Deacons".

My personal problem with allowing women Deacons hasn't much to do with having women Deacons, but rather that in the PCA the issue is something of a common denominator among those young guys with views that truly scare me.

And thanks so much for the reporting!!!


----------



## DMcFadden

HaigLaw said:


> Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was _*the opinion of only one speaker*_ in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."
> 
> And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.
> 
> The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.



Thanks for the correction. I must have over-interpreted the quote from the byfaithonline.com description of the event:



> And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”



That sounded like an egalitarian argument to me. But, it is always good to be corrected by a real live steely-eyed lawyer man posting from the floor of the meeting. Thanks for correcting my misapprehensions due to distance, both geographic and ecclesiastical.

Given the strong bias against CBMW by almost all broad evangelicals and by an increasing number of conservatives, even in the Reformed schools, perhaps I am seeing ghosts were they don't exist. I had thought that the complementarian position was taking a pretty good beating in most seminaries these days.

(BTW, Sunday morning I am teaching through Galatians and will do an extended discussion of egalitarian vs. complementarian views of 3:28).


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was _*the opinion of only one speaker*_ in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."
> 
> And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.
> 
> The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction. I must have over-interpreted the quote from the byfaithonline.com description of the event:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounded like an egalitarian argument to me. But, it is always good to be corrected by a real live steely-eyed lawyer man posting from the floor of the meeting. Thanks for correcting my misapprehensions due to distance, both geographic and ecclesiastical.
> 
> Given the strong bias against CBMW by almost all broad evangelicals and by an increasing number of conservatives, even in the Reformed schools, perhaps I am seeing ghosts were they don't exist. I had thought that the complementarian position was taking a pretty good beating in most seminaries these days.
> 
> (BTW, Sunday morning I am teaching through Galatians and will do an extended discussion of egalitarian vs. complementarian views of 3:28).
Click to expand...


As Ben reported, it is definitely taking a beating at Covenant, and that isn't the only Reformed school at which it is happening.


----------



## Mushroom

What a mess of pottage! This is the head of worldly egalitarianism rising up in the PCA, regardless of what color dress you want to put it in. Women in the PCA have not been offended, they've inhabited the offices that God in His Word has commanded for them, and for the most part have been happy to do so.

The world conforms to the fleshly desires of its inhabitants, and as such has embraced another rejection of God's order; feminist egalitarianism, and our weak little denom tries to follow suit. Next it'll be sodomite marriage or some similar strain of the pagan's anthem our looser Elders will be mouthing with a post-modernist wink. I see that a good many have forsaken their manhood for mealy-mouthed non-confrontational androgeny anyway, so skirts in Church Office is not a big leap for most of them. Why must they constantly assail my beloved denom? Go to the EPC or PCUSA or some similar apostate club and leave the faithful alone.

This has been hashed out ad infinitum ad nauseum. The scriptures are clear as to the offices of Elder and Deacon. What's the motivation? I suspect it has something to do with executive females upset over not being able to break the 'glass cieling' in Church as they have in the world (which has contributed woefully to the degradation of the family, the fall of real incomes for families, and the abdication of responsibility on the part of men), along with feeble men unwilling to do the diaconal work looking for more members to draw from to get it done. It really makes me want to toss my cookies and search for a truly biblical denom that would never waste time with such an obviously unbiblical issue. But they seem to want to invade them all. What? Not enough well-paying pulpits available in the lib Presbyterian denoms? Then go learn how to pump gas and leave mine alone.

Edit: My wife just pointed out that these men are attempting to lead women into sin. I suppose that issue wasn't raised at GA. My wife has managed many women's mercy ministries throughout our time in the PCA, and never needed any ordination to do so.


----------



## HaigLaw

DMcFadden said:


> Thanks for the correction. I must have over-interpreted the quote from the byfaithonline.com description of the event:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounded like an egalitarian argument to me. But, it is always good to be corrected by a real live steely-eyed lawyer man posting from the floor of the meeting. Thanks for correcting my misapprehensions due to distance, both geographic and ecclesiastical.
> 
> Given the strong bias against CBMW by almost all broad evangelicals and by an increasing number of conservatives, even in the Reformed schools, perhaps I am seeing ghosts were they don't exist. I had thought that the complementarian position was taking a pretty good beating in most seminaries these days.
> 
> (BTW, Sunday morning I am teaching through Galatians and will do an extended discussion of egalitarian vs. complementarian views of 3:28).
Click to expand...


Aw, shucks! Far be it from me to speak against our official denominational magazine. In fact, the statement quoted above was made. Whether it's necessarily egalitarian, though, is a matter of opinion. 

As one of the 26 signatories to the minority report on women deacons, as popularly described, but as more particularly known, the Overture to commission a study committee to discuss the role of women in diaconal ministries, my view is that the BCO restriction saying only men may be deacons is narrower than scripture, since scripture records there were women deacons during the time the N.T. was written. 

So this speaker could be construed simply as apologizing to women who may have been called of God to serve as deacons, whom the PCA would not permit to serve. Or, at least to be called deacons -- which to me is much ado about very little, because the Gk. word diakonos means a menial servant. 

Should I apologize to the lady who takes out my office trash, assuming my agency refused to call her a "maid," because in my view she's doing the work of a maid? 

That's essentially what was at stake, in my view. So all this talk about the PCA going egalitarian is really overdone, if not totally out of order.


----------



## HaigLaw

TimV said:


> Interesting. In my view, a session could declare that it's WIC officers were deaconesses to assist the deacons, without the ladies having a vote on the deacon board, and be in compliance with existing PCA law. And I intend to so propose, at our next session meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think that's very reasonable. I just wonder how one would write a clean, clear cut ruling on the matter to prevent Tim Keller type "Our denomination is wrong on the issue of women Deacons, therefore we have no women Deacons, only unordained women Deacons. Now please welcome Ms. Chung, the new head of the board of Deacons".
> 
> My personal problem with allowing women Deacons hasn't much to do with having women Deacons, but rather that in the PCA the issue is something of a common denominator among those young guys with views that truly scare me.
> 
> And thanks so much for the reporting!!!
Click to expand...


You're welcome. I have not read Rev. Keller's position, but he was named as one of the 4 proposed study committee members in the minority report on Overture 9 at the PCA's 2008 GA, just concluded.

I personally read scripture as recognizing there were women deacons, using the Gk. word diakonos, the same as for male deacons, but Paul says he does not allow a woman (Gk. gune, meaning woman or wife) to teach or exercise authority over a man. 

To honor that latter passage, I think any Biblical approach should not have women with equal voting rights to men on the same board.

In my view, either having a separate deaconess board, or having the same board, without women voting, would be Biblical. 

I would have problems with a female chair of the joint deacon board. Assuming the chair had any authority, which most chairs do. 

So, will someone file charges on me for being egalitarian? I predict you would lose.


----------



## Scott1

HaigLaw said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they could say -- we have women deacons -- and it would be totally legal in the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but if the BCO says Deacons have to be ordained to be Deacons, and only men can be Deacons how would a WIC person be legally called a Deacon without being ordained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. In my view, a session could declare that it's WIC officers were deaconesses to assist the deacons, without the ladies having a vote on the deacon board, and be in compliance with existing PCA law. And I intend to so propose, at our next session meeting.
Click to expand...


I greatly respect your opinion and am generally aware of your fine service to our denomination during the "Federal Vision" process and also serving on the Overtures committee (many long hours I have heard).

Here's what I understand our Book of Church Order to say about Deacons:

1) It is an office with administrative authority over property stewardship and mercy ministry

2) It is an elected office (like Elder)

3) It is an ordained office (like Elder)

4) The congregation vows its submission to the authority of Deacons (like Elder)

5) The Elders may appoint assistants to help the Board of Deacons in doing mercy ministry.

I do not see how one could substitute women for an office with the above characteristics and be conformed to Scripture, let alone not create confusion or disturb the peace and purity of the church.

In our church, we have Women in the Church, Stephen's Ministers, Comfort and Care, as well as several other mercy ministries (e.g. "new baby", "military moms", "caregivers support group" etc. which have much participation by women.

The women serving in these capacities (and men) are not usually given formal titles, not "deaconess" but are fully involved. It is clear to the congregation and to outsiders, these women and men are not elected, ordained, and no vow of submission is taken by the congregation.

As far as I am aware, there is not any confusion between those in the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon and others engaged in "diaconal" work (mercy, servant). Both are very necessary for a "full-orbed" church.

Having been through officer's training for Deacon under two different Pastors, it seems to me that we in the Reformed and Presbyterian world would not think a church ordinarily was fully and properly constituted if it did not have a Board of Deacons. A Board of Deacons responsible and with authority to oversee property stewardship and mercy ministry. The Board of Deacons is a vital part of the life of the Church, and a great aid to the Elders.


----------



## HaigLaw

Yes; and thank you for your kind words.

I would think the only role of "deaconesses" would be under #5 of your excellent summary.

Thanks again.


----------



## HaigLaw

And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.

If I were to go back to my session and propose something, and find that, say, all of the WIC officers were uncomfortable with the title of deaconess, I would not pursue it.

And it is highly likely all ours would be uncomfortable with that. There are no feminazis among out WIC officers, to use Limbaugh's term. 

I am highly supportive of what our women do. At a recent event they planned, which resulted in over $60,000 pledged to our building fund, I was content to take out the trash for them. When we were loading up all the stuff after the event, I passed along advice from my wife, who is one of them, that certain stuff was to be loaded in our car and some other stuff in someone else's car. One of the other women leaders informed me that was not the case, and I acceeded to her advice, because I quickly realized that she, and not my wife, was in charge of that particular part of the arrangements. If the lady in question even thought she was condradicting an elder, she would have apologized to me, I'm sure. It occurred to me that this is the kind of mutual submission that Ephesians 5 calls for, and that it was not a prohibited matter of women being in authority over men. 

Make sense?


----------



## Scott1

Absolutely makes sense.

A Pastor friend reminded me of 2 Corinthians 5 regarding being "ministers of reconciliation," which applies to the ways men and women relate with one another in the church.


I Corinthians 5:16-7-19:

"Therefore if any man _be_ in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

And all things _are_ of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."


Somehow, by God's grace, we must model this in the way men and women relate within the Body of Christ so we have both biblical form and show we are truly reconciled to one another in Christ... something the world just cannot understand... all to the glory of God.


----------



## HaigLaw

Amen to that and thanks!


----------



## ahavah7

> HaigLaw;420126]
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> so am i to understand right now vis a vis #9, the only thing that has happened is the rationale for the overture has been modified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the question. The rationale was set in stone by vote of the full committee day before yesterday evening around 4:45, as I recall.
Click to expand...


The overtures committee produced "grounds". The rationale was part of the original overture. Overtures customarily start with a string of statements beginning with "Whereas", which give the reasons for their request. Overture 9 also had a very long rationale after the "therefore be it resolved"-statement. What was most controversial is that it talked about on on-going judicial case, which was viewed by some as "circularizing the court". "Circularizing the court" is prohibited by the BCO. So that was the controversy.


----------



## HaigLaw

Yes, thanks, Jamie. That is correct. I just didn't understand the prior question.

The assembly sustained the Overtures Committee's recommendation to strike that portion.

The effect, as explained by current Stated Clerk Dr. Roy Taylor, in response to a question by former Stated Clerk Dr. Morton Smith, is that in our internal minutes, the offending material is printed with strikethroughs, and in published minutes, it is excised entirely.


----------



## ahavah7

Dwimble said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.
Click to expand...


In defense of the brother who made that comment, he may have meant unwhitting tool of feminism. I think the argument was: the feminist movement will see our division over this issue enshrined in the majority and minority report from a study committee and will try to use it to their advantage.

Personally, i doubt the feminist movement has it's eye on our relatively small denomination.


----------



## ahavah7

HaigLaw said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you PCA brethren . . .
> 
> Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was _*the opinion of only one speaker*_ in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."
> 
> And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.
> 
> The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.
Click to expand...


I think it is the opinion of more than that one speaker. The thing is you can't really say it out loud for two reasons:

1) it is viewed by many to be intemperate. Therefore, it is more likely to loose you votes than gain them.

2) it may be ruled out of order, if the moderator were to see it as questioning the motives of others on the floor, which is prohibited by Robert's Rules of Order.


----------



## HaigLaw

ahavah7 said:


> Dwimble said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In defense of the brother who made that comment, he may have meant unwhitting tool of feminism. I think the argument was: the feminist movement will see our division over this issue enshrined in the majority and minority report from a study committee and will try to use it to their advantage.
> 
> Personally, i doubt the feminist movement has it's eye on our relatively small denomination.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think the brother quoted actually used the term "unwitting tool of egalitarianism," or words to that effect. 

I have not seen any secular press or blogs presenting us in a bad light relative to our treatment of women.


----------



## HaigLaw

ahavah7 said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you PCA brethren . . .
> 
> Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was _*the opinion of only one speaker*_ in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."
> 
> And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.
> 
> The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is the opinion of more than that one speaker. The thing is you can't really say it out loud for two reasons:
> 
> 1) it is viewed by many to be intemperate. Therefore, it is more likely to loose you votes than gain them.
> 
> 2) it may be ruled out of order, if the moderator were to see it as questioning the motives of others on the floor, which is prohibited by Robert's Rules of Order.
Click to expand...


That may very well be. I limited my comments to what was actually said while I was there. I cannot comment on secretly held opinions or feelings of any speaker. Overall, I felt the debates were very gracious and respectful of each side.


----------



## ahavah7

HaigLaw said:


> And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.



No one disputes that Phoebe was referred to using the Gk. word diakonos. The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church.



HaigLaw said:


> If I were to go back to my session and propose something, and find that, say, all of the WIC officers were uncomfortable with the title of deaconess, I would not pursue it.



Why is the opinion of your congregants the controlling consideration here? If your current deacons said that they were uncomfortable with the title of deacon, what would you do? There is enough biblical data to come to a conclusion on these questions. It is better to come to a conclusion of what the Bible teaches and apply that uniformly in the church rather than polling our members and deciding from that.


----------



## HaigLaw

ahavah7 said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one disputes that Phoebe was referred to using the Gk. word diakonos. The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church.
Click to expand...

Actually, some erroneously do. I was sitting on the Nominations Committee, and while we were awaiting the appointed hour, some were gossiping about how Overture 9 might be dealt with, and the general tone was anti-feminist, with one TE actually arguing that Phoebe was addressed with the feminine form of diakonos, with which dialog I chose not to engage.



ahavah7 said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to go back to my session and propose something, and find that, say, all of the WIC officers were uncomfortable with the title of deaconess, I would not pursue it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the opinion of your congregants the controlling consideration here? If your current deacons said that they were uncomfortable with the title of deacon, what would you do? There is enough biblical data to come to a conclusion on these questions. It is better to come to a conclusion of what the Bible teaches and apply that uniformly in the church rather than polling our members and deciding from that.
Click to expand...


Good question. I would answer that in part with your own answer to the Phoebe, diakonos passage: "The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church." My suggestion is only one possible application, and it would be my suggested application to the most likely candidates in our current congregation to fit the Phoebe, diakonos precedent in Scripture. It would be a suggestion to benefit those likely candidates; so if the candidates were not interested, I would not force it on them. My role as an elder is not to lord it over anyone, but rather act as a member of the covenant community with leadership responsibilities.

As to your hypothetical about the men deacons, we have more Scriptural authority and denominational precedent. Your hypothetical has the deacons going against it all. I would not countenance that. If they did that, I would encourage them to resign, and seek candidates willing to step up to the Biblical and precedental challenges. 

But thanks very much for your challenging question.


----------



## toddpedlar

HaigLaw said:


> And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.



Well, it's the female form of the word diakonos, whereas in 1 Tim 3, the male form is used when describing qualifications of the officer. The word diakonos is more commonly termed servant - and is used many more times in the New Testament to be just that - servant, and not the office of deacon. Whether diakone (fem form) in Romans 16.1 should be used as "deaconess" (implying office) and not "servant" (implying a servant of the church in some capacity) needs to be determined from the context of its use and the statements made about the office of deacon elsewhere. It is in this particular that it seems quite clear to me that there is no justification whatsoever for calling women deaconesses. To actually give them the name 'deaconess' (even if you don't ordain them) is to put them on par with the ordained deacons. Deacon is a special term now - it has implications that the simple term 'servant' doesn't. Diaconal assistants is far better, and is consistent with both todays usage and implications. 

As regards the context of 'deacon' vs. 'servant': oftentimes egalitarians go to the passage in 1 Timothy 3 and insist that the word that can be translated "women" or "wives" in verse 3:11 must mean 'deaconesses' because otherwise the construction is awkward... but this seems completely unreasonable to me. First of all, the people being called 'deacon' in 1 Tim 3:2 are clearly men - since they must be husbands of one wive, and must be good rulers of their own house. Second, if the qualification given in 1 Tim 3:11 about "the women" or "wives" were meant to specify qualifications of deaconesses, then Paul very well, who wrote both 1 Timothy and Romans, could have and would have been expected to use the word deaconess and not "women" which is better there translated as "wives" given the context. 

So the short of it - Romans 16:1 does not prove that women are properly called "Deaconess" in the sense of the male term "deacon". It just doesn't line up with Scripture in other places, and the fact is that the majority of uses of the word "diakonos" does not speak about officers in the church, but people who helped in one way or another. Women in the church serving in mercy ministries may be called servants - but given what "deaconess" means today, and that one cannot very well distinguish "deaconess" from "deacon" as "non-officer" and "officer" very easily... I think it exceedingly unwise to promote the idea of female diaconal assistants being given that title.


----------



## HaigLaw

toddpedlar said:


> Well, it's the female form of the word diakonos, whereas in 1 Tim 3, the male form is used when describing qualifications of the officer. The word diakonos is more commonly termed servant - and is used many more times in the New Testament to be just that - servant, and not the office of deacon. Whether diakone (fem form) in Romans 16.1 should be used as "deaconess" (implying office) and not "servant" (implying a servant of the church in some capacity) needs to be determined from the context of its use and the statements made about the office of deacon elsewhere.



Todd, I've only had one semester of Greek, which is long forgotten, but my e-Sword download shows Strong's Exhaustive Concordance having the male form, diakonos, in both passages (the Phoebe address, and the officer qualifications), in both NASV and KJV.

Where do you get that the feminine form is used in Rom. 16:1, brother?

Thanks!


----------



## HaigLaw

Well, almost 6 hours have gone by and Todd has not responded to my question about the notion (erroneous, in my view) that Phoebe is addressed in Romans 16:1 by the feminine form of the word deacon.

I have referred above to others doing the same. Elder Bob Mattes has an article on Green Baggins in which he does the same, and I respectfully dissent there as well.

If I am wrong on this, I hope someone will respond and show me. Thanks.


----------



## doctorcello

*Common gender noun*

You can find all kinds of claims about the Greek word for deacon! Here's what I found, and I believe it is correct...

Perhaps in your learning of NT Greek you didn't learn about common- 
gender nouns, which may be either masculine or feminine just as there 
are adjectives of two terminations, one termination serving for both 
masculine and feminine and another for the neuter, e.g. AGAMOS, 
AGNAFOS, AGNWSTOS, or even the word for wilderness/desert that is 
very common in the gospels, ERHMOS, an adjective usually written as 
a substantive hH ERHMOS, probably with the noun GH normally 
understood. At any rate, ANQRWPOS and DIAKONOS are indeed common- 
gender nouns. What makes it clear in Romans 16:1 that DIAKONOS must 
be understood as feminine is the participle OUSAN that construes with 
it.

I hope you're not arguing that word-usage in the GNT is somehow 
different from standard Greek usage outside of the GNT. That is a 
notion that has generally been laid to rest for the better part of a 
century.

You have left your message without a signature and from your 
transliterations it seems evident that you're a new list-member. You 
should have read but now should read our FAQ at http:// 
www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/faq.txt or EarthLinkÂ® - Page Not Found
There you will find our rules of list netiquette -- including our 
requirement that all messages sent to the list include a full-name 
signature and our standard transliteration scheme for representation 
of Greek text. Please use a full-name signature when next you write 
to the list.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: C.W.Conrad Home Page

a link: [B-Greek] Diakonon in Romans 16:1


----------



## HaigLaw

Thanks, Pastor St. John, for posting Professor Conrad's article.

It certainly would make sense that a feminine article was used to address Phoebe in Romans 16:1, but what I have been reading by some posters here is that the word describing her, diakonos, is somehow feminine, when in fact that same word is used in the passage with qualifications for the office of deacon.

As for the lack of a signature in posts here on this thread, that is a function of the PB software, which, after multiple posts by the same person on the same thread, omits the signature. Having made over 700 posts on PB now, my signature is available on many of them.

Thanks again, sir.
HaigLaw, RE, Shreveport, LA- Grace PCA


----------



## ahavah7

HaigLaw said:


> Good question. I would answer that in part with your own answer to the Phoebe, diakonos passage: "The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church." My suggestion is only one possible application, and it would be *my suggested application *to the most likely candidates in our current congregation *to fit the Phoebe, diakonos precedent in Scripture*.



This is what I'm trying to get at. I think you would agree that the word diakonos in the greek has a general meaning of servant and a specific meaning of church officer we now refer to as Deacon.

In English, when we want to use the general meaning of servant ,we say servant. However, when we want to speak of the office, we say Deacon.

What I think I hear you saying is this: you are not in favor of women serving on the Board of Deacons or as an ordained Deacons. However, you would like to be able to call women "deaconess" since Phoebe was referred to using Diakonos. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming I have your position correct, this is my problem with it: it blurs the distinction b/w the office of Deacon and the general concept of a servant. We find this distinction in Bible although not by virtue of word usage (same word means either one or the other depending on the context). In English we have made the distinction more explicit by using two different words. I think it is important to maintain that distinction and justifiable from scripture.


----------



## HaigLaw

I think you have characterized my concerns fairly, and I appreciate yours.

If there is a blurred distinction, however, it is probably due to the fact that tradition has put more emphasis on the honor of the position than the servanthood of the position.

We have on our deacon board various men who see the main job of the deacon to be: 
1. taking up the offering; 2. taking care of the building; and 3. doing helps ministries.

The fact that we have all these 3 very different visions is not the fault of Scripture in not being clear enough. The fault is in the lack of vision of some of these men.

Sometimes we need to shake things up and risk blurring things to get at what Scripture says, in my view. Particularly when we make rules like the PCA does in saying that all deacons must be men, when Scripture recognizes there were women deacons in N.T. times.


----------



## Stephen

Josiah said:


> Praise God for this! I am thankful that this minority report was voted down, but I wonder what will happen at the next GA? What will be the next move for those who are pushing the egalitarian issue? I hope that the younger generation will not fall for the emotional arguments pro-minority report.
> 
> May the Lord Bless the PCA and keep her strong.




As it has already been stated earlier in this thread many on the minority report are not in favor of ordaining women to office of deacon. The issue that led to the minority report had nothing to do with ordaining women but addressing the issue of overture # 9 which came from Philadelphia Presbytery. Be careful in accusing those who voted for the minority report of being egalitarian because this is not the case.


----------



## ahavah7

HaigLaw said:


> If there is a blurred distinction, however, it is probably due to the fact that tradition has put more emphasis on the honor of the position than the servanthood of the position.



Who do you see elevating honor of position over spiritual nature of the office?



HaigLaw said:


> We have on our deacon board various men who see the main job of the deacon to be:
> 1. taking up the offering; 2. taking care of the building; and 3. doing helps ministries.
> 
> The fact that we have all these 3 very different visions is not the fault of Scripture in not being clear enough. The fault is in the lack of vision of some of these men.



If your Deacon's have a deficient understanding of the duties of their office, it is the responsibility of the elders of your church to remedy that by teaching, exhortation, and reproof.



HaigLaw said:


> Sometimes we need to shake things up and risk blurring things to get at what Scripture says, in my view.



This is the kind of thinking that corporate executives use. If Lehman Brothers wants to fire their CFO and COO to "shake things up", that's fine. But we ought not import their ways into the church.



HaigLaw said:


> Particularly when we make rules like the PCA does in saying that all deacons must be men, when *Scripture recognizes there were women deacons* in N.T. times.



So I'm confused. Now it appears you are arguing in favor of ordaining women to the office of Deacon. Is that right?


----------



## ahavah7

Stephen said:


> [As it has already been stated earlier in this thread many on the minority report are not in favor of ordaining women to office of deacon. The issue that led to the minority report had nothing to do with ordaining women but addressing *the issue of overture # 9* which came from Philadelphia Presbytery. Be careful in accusing those who voted for the minority report of being egalitarian because this is not the case.



Overture 9 called for a study committee to study "Scriptural teaching bearing on women's eligibility for election and ordination to the office of deacon and recommending, if necessary, changes to the BCO in keeping with any findings proceeding from the study of Scripture; ..."

In light of BCO 9-7, which already allows the session to appoint godly men and women to assist in diaconal ministry, one can only conclude that those submitting the overture hoped that the BCO would eventually be amended to allow women to be ordained.

no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women? 

I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.


----------



## doctorcello

*Lots of photos of 36th GA in Dallas*

I have finished my photo report on the 36th GA. Enjoy!

http://www.waysidechurch.org/2008ga/ga01.htm


----------



## HaigLaw

ahavah7 said:


> no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women?
> 
> I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.



It is interesting to me that all this talk about egalitarianism is from those who oppose it. No one who supported Overture 9 said they were doing so because they wanted to advance the issues of egalitarianism.

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.


----------



## Mushroom

> It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.
> 
> The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.


The scriptures say there were women who served the Church, not women who held the ordained office of Deacon in the Church. The scripture elsewhere gives the qualifications for that Church office as limited to men. Why all the semantic gymnastics?

Why would this be an issue? This seems to be intentional myopia. It has been explained repeatedly.


----------



## HaigLaw

Moderators, it seems that both "sides" to this have repeatedly made their points, and some are on the verge of name-calling. I suggest this threat be closed. It has been a pleasure. Thanks to all on all sides.


----------



## jfschultz

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?


----------



## Me Died Blue

jfschultz said:


> Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.



Each file starts out with part of the nominating report, but after a little while (I can't remember how long), it gets to the right one. It's definitely somewhat annoying, but it is all there.



LadyFlynt said:


> Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?



It's in the report of the Overtures Committee.


----------



## fredtgreco

jfschultz said:


> Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.





LadyFlynt said:


> Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?



I don't know why, but probably because the Assembly was running 4-5+ hours _ahead_ of schedule, all the links lead to the same file, which is the video of the entire afternoon session. It starts with the nominating committee report. That goes on until about the 29th minute, and then the Overtures report comes back on. So start the video, wait for it to load (the gray bar going across) and then drag the time indicator a bit until you reach 29 minutes.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Thank you, Fred  It was interesting to watch, but I only caught parts of it (I was running around doing all the things mothers have to do).


----------



## greenbaggins

I have addressed HaigLaw's position here.


----------



## BJClark

HaigLaw;



> It is *anti-feminism* that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.



Why does it come across as if that a bad thing? 

What is the deal, that women 'feel' they should have titles or be ordained? Are they that unsatisfied with who they are in Christ, that they must be given a title or be ordained? Are they so afraid they will be overlooked or not heard if they don't have what men have?

I can certainly serve God by ministering to other women without using a 'title', 
which is what this issue seems to be about, people wanting to be given a title, because they some how *feel* like less of a child of God without one.

What's next give everyone in the congregation a title so that they can 'feel' more a part of God's family? Or so they can 'feel' as if they are more important in God's kingdom? How childish.

How about we give them a title more consistent of what we are as part of the BODY of Christ.. such hand, foot, big toe, finger, liver, nose, colon, large intestine, kidney, thyroid, all of which are important functions to a BODY. Oh wait, some would complain they weren't the mouth, or the ear, or the left arm. To me this all seems like utter foolishness to be tearing apart the body in such a fashion so that everyone is happy, just so one 'feels important in their own mind..it seems time the church grow up and get over themselves..as it's not about them, it is about Christ..and until they accept that truth, they will continually bicker and tear each other apart..

It seems to me this type of argument was addressed a couple times in Scripture..

Mar 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who [should be] the greatest. 
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all. 
Mar 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 
Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. 

and again here:

1Cr 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many. 
1Cr 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 
1Cr 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 
1Cr 12:17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling? 
1Cr 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 
1Cr 12:19 And if they were all one member, where [were] the body? 
1Cr 12:20 But now [are they] many members, yet but one body. 
1Cr 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 
1Cr 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 
1Cr 12:23 And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness. 
1Cr 12:24 For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked: 
1Cr 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another. 
1Cr 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 
1Cr 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 
1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 
1Cr 12:29 [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? 
1Cr 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 
1Cr 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.


----------



## ahavah7

HaigLaw said:


> ahavah7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women?
> 
> I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting to me that all this talk about egalitarianism is from those who oppose it. No one who supported Overture 9 said they were doing so because they wanted to advance the issues of egalitarianism.
> 
> It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.
> 
> The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.
Click to expand...


I started a new thread in Church Office to discuss the biblical arguments for and against men only as deacons.


----------

