PCA General Assembly in Dallas

[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]

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).

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]

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!!!

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]

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?

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 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]

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.

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]

Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter

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

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]

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.

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]

Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 EarthLink® - 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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

[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]

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.