Complaint filed against PCA Metro NY Presbytery (Deaconesses)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.
Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so.

Private conversations with a few of the men involved, and reading some of the material in connection with the threat of a Presbytery to withdraw a few years ago. Probably not worth a thread from me, because I don't think I'd say much beyond that, and would likely not defend my point further if someone could refute it.
 
The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books. :2cents:

Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.
 
The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter.

I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.
 
The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books. :2cents:

Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.

From a Position Paper approved by the ARP General Synod:
( Women in the Life of the Church )

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church discussed and debated these matters with vigor from the 1960's until the early 1980's. A key development was the defeat of a 1969 proposal to rewrite the Form of Government so as to open all offices to women. The 1969 General Synod declined to open the offices of elder and minister to women but did permit
Sessions to allow women to serve in the office of deacon
 
The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter.

I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.

Eh, you may be correct. I understand your point. I only meant that the conservatives who left in 1973 did so for the "right" reasons. If a disgruntled group leaves now b/c of egalitarianism, that is not the right reason. :2cents:
 
No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.

I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.

The primary issue I have is that the office of deaconness is not Scriptural, and is certainly contrary to the confession, and without a doubt contrary to the BCO.

So what has been done at Redeemer and other churches is to dispense with the "office" of deacon entirely so that men and women can equally well fill exactly the role that ordained deacons do in churches that hold to the BCO they claim as their own as part of the PCA. The deaconesses at Redeemer and other places that have merely "commissioned" people doing the diaconal role do just what deacons do at places that properly ordain deacons.

So the other problem, which is not much less significant than the Biblical issue, is that these churches are skirting (no pun intended) the BCO which they claim to uphold. They are doing what they want to do in such a way that they are not violating the letter of the BCO, but are CLEARLY violating the intent. This is the source of the complaint, and in my opinion a highly dishonest way of operating. It would be far better and more respectable to practice according to the BCO as it is written, and work to change it, than to sidestep the BCO and practice the way you'd rather (with male and female deacons holding office equally, though you argue strenuously that they really aren't holding office) and pretend you're not violating the church constitution.
 
I will say that I'm disturbed by the number of these reformed womens' conferences and retreats (from a variety of reformed denominations) where women travel around and speak. I stopped attending these because they annoy me no end. These women already have a podium, and have made a business career out of traveling around to these conferences. Certainly they belong to churches which forbid women elders, but if they're lecturing and teaching publicly in "business suits" behind a podium, what's the next step? Why do they need a podium to minister to other women? :think:

Further, while I think it's wonderful for women to get together and teach one another, I'm uncomfortable with women's theological bible studies. I think this is where the trouble can start. They're already teaching theology like an elder instead of teaching according to Titus II. The Greek in the Titus II passage for teach is "sophronidzo" - different than the Greek "didaktikos" used for passages which speak of elders teaching. "Sophronidzo" means sober-mindedness, and that is what is to be communicated to other women in the areas of keeping the home and loving their husbands and children.
And if women are going to teach women these things, the home, not the public sphere, is where this all needs to take place.
 
Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution.

Pastor Barnes,

Redeemer doesn't believe they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution. Did you read the lengthy resolution that the Metro NY Presbytery and others passed? They make a lengthy argument that they ARE submitting to the BCO. I understand why you and others disagree - I suppose this will be resolved when it comes before the SJC.

Mason,

Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up?

Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst?

Andrew,

No it is not disingenuous or deceitful, and your point is at the core of Redeemer's philosophy on non-ordained female deacons. The BCO makes it clear that the role of the deacon is one of service, mercy ministry, and is at times advisory (BCO 9-1, BCO 9-6). So even if you ordain a male deacon, there is no practical (day to day) role of authority (teaching, exhortation, rule, policy-making, etc) that he has that precludes a woman from serving in the same capacity. Thus an ordained male deacon has no clear role that distinguishes him functionally from an unordained deaconess - the only difference would be that he is in a church office and she is not.

I think the problem people have with Redeemer's practice is the fact that they do not ordain male deacons at all. People view this as a violation of the BCO, because it makes women and men equal within the diaconate, even though women aren't ordained into the office. So it seems everyone would be satisfied with the result if Redeemer (and other churches) simply ordained male deacons, even if the daily function of the diaconate didn't change - I don't think this would be disingenuous at all.

There is a method set up in the BCO for legitimate discourse, even such as would lead to changes in the BCO. But that is not the route chosen by the sneaks and liberals. They would rather constantly chip and erode. First this issue, then the next, and the next and so on.

They, if they get their way on this issue, will use the same technique, which will be to ignore their vows, openly flaunting the BCO until they can bring the debate to a field of their own choosing.

Tim,

I don't think anyone is openly flaunting the BCO. If you read the rationale for their practice (in the link Pastor Barnes provided), you will find they make a strong case for why they are in submission to the BCO. You (and plenty of others) may disagree, but it is anything but ignoring or flaunting the BCO.

Also, this practice has not been one of "sneaks and liberals." The fact that they have made their views and practices widely known for 20+ years flies in the face of that argument. I know you've had a bad experience and want to see the integrity of the BCO upheld, as we all do. Hopefully this complaint and the procedures that follow will resolve this issue for good.
 
The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.

The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.
 
The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.

The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.

I'm a little confused of your point here, since (I believe) Redeemer is not ordaining their deaconesses. Could you clarify?
 
The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.

The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.

I'm a little confused of your point here, since (I believe) Redeemer is not ordaining their deaconesses. Could you clarify?

1) My point was stating that the office of a deacon (which is an ordained office NOT an UN-ORDAINED office, one can't be a deacon without being ordained) is an authoritative office (meaning it cannot be held by a woman, because women can't have authority over men within the Church).

2) Redeemer does not ordain men or women (they aren't supposed to ordain women, but to make men/women seem equal as it has to do with the office of deacon, they don't ordain either). This is another major problem I wasn't even addressing. For they are forsaking the ordination of deacons (who are to be male).
 
The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.

The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.

I'm a little confused of your point here, since (I believe) Redeemer is not ordaining their deaconesses. Could you clarify?

1) My point was stating that the office of a deacon (which is an ordained office NOT an UN-ORDAINED office, one can't be a deacon without being ordained) is an authoritative office (meaning it cannot be held by a woman, because women can't have authority over men within the Church).

2) Redeemer does not ordain men or women (they aren't supposed to ordain women, but to make men/women seem equal as it has to do with the office of deacon, they don't ordain either). This is another major problem I wasn't even addressing. For they are forsaking the ordination of deacons (who are to be male).

This is a helpful clarification, Pastor Barnes - thank you for posting this. Just to present Redeemer's viewpoint so Kathleen and others know:

1) Redeemer is not advocating for ordaining women to deacon or any other office. In fact, Tim Keller wrote a paper in August 2008 titled "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Deacons." So no one saying women should be ordained into an office of the church.

2) Redeemer's argument is that while men only are to be ordained deacons, the BCO does not mandate any deacons be ordained at all. BCO 9-2 even says that if there are no ordained deacons for "any reason" the responsibility of the deacons falls to the Session. Pastor Barnes and others may say this provision was intended for a small church that lacks enough men to fill a diaconate, but Redeemer's position is that this is not at all clear in the BCO. So at Redeemer, the Session fills the role of the ordained diaconate, and they have the unordained men and women assistants explicitly allowed in BCO 9-7.
 
Thanks for the explanation, Mason. I rather expected that that was what Redeemer's stance was, but its nice to have it confirmed from someone who is a member there.
 
So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"? :um:
Can someone give the text of the BCO 9-7? It would seem to me the BCO would be dealing with a case of cannot, not will not as to ordaining deacons.
 
So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"? :um:
Can someone give the text of the BCO 9-7? It would seem to me the BCO would be dealing with a case of cannot, not will not as to ordaining deacons.

BCO 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and
appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in
caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who
may be in any distress or need.

That's kind of funny, as I read it now. "The Session of a church should select" If I am not mistaken, the Session does not do this at Redeemer the congregation nominates and elects them. {I could be mistaken about this}. "appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons" But Mason has said that there are no deacons. And if there are then it is VERY confusing, for those who are considered deacons, are described here (in Mason's view) in 9-7 as one's who are appointed to assist the deacons. And we know that the deacons are not the elders. For that is a different office altogether.

BCO 9-2 states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?
 
So then the Session does not fill the role of the diaconate, as you said?

The Session fills the role of the ordained deacons. The unordained (or commissioned) diaconate performs the practical, day-to-day work of service, mercy ministry, etc.

Just to add: this is a great discussion, but I'll be away most of the day. It's beautiful day here in NYC - we'll be at Central Park with everyone else in the city...
 
What does the portion say that speaks of if a session is unable to ordain deacons?
As to this section, how is expediency not over turned by potential scandal in this case? This whole thing seems to reek of willfulness not subjection.

So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"? :um:
Can someone give the text of the BCO 9-7? It would seem to me the BCO would be dealing with a case of cannot, not will not as to ordaining deacons.

BCO 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and
appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in
caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who
may be in any distress or need.
 
Not being a Presbyterian may cause me to miss some (much? all?) of the nuance here.

However, having gone to Fuller when the PCUSA was in the midst of struggling with the outcome of the Kenyon case in 1974 (Kenyon was a student of Gerstner who dissented from the ordination of women and was denied ordination in the PCUSA), I vividly remember the arguments. Interestingly enough, Jack Rogers (my old Fuller prof) quite prominent in the arguments regarding Kenyon has gone on to recount the facts of the Kenyon case in his latest book defending the ordination of homosexuals. He uses the issue of ordination of women as a case study of how to interpret/reinterpret the Bible in times of controversy.

Follow Rogers' logic on ordaining women and ordaining gays and you have the grist for the mill of Wayne Grudem's objections as to where egalitarianism inevitably leads.

Mincing words over constitutional fine points in your BCO or even in the confessions misses the larger cultural trend of which Presbyterian churches are not immune. The logic of egalitarianism is utterly totalitarian in its breathtaking scope and claim upon pride of place in our thinking. It brooks no dissent, will tolerate no demurrers (no matter how deeply held for reasons of conscience -- ask Kenyon!), and knows no conclusion other than becoming enshrined in the common conscience as the only acceptable moral position.

The tepid "toes touching the edge of the water" initiatives of some of the conservative Presbyterian denominations are not being done in an intellectual or cultural vacuum. The debate over women's roles underlies the entire discussion. And, the course on which some of them are on, if Dr. Grudem is correct in his historical judgment, is also pretty predictable. Grudem avers that egalitarianism is a "new path to liberalism." Reading Jack Rogers (now remembered by me 35 years later mostly as the guy who made fun of Warfield, Henry, Gerstner, Sproul, and Schaffer in class) would tend to support Grudem's claim.

The actions being advocated should not be considered in isolation from the drift of cultural and intellectual history in this country. Taken in isolation, the accommodations may seem reasonable and even wise to avoid institutional upset. However, the history of the PCUSA suggest a different trajectory. Remember that in the 70s Rogers was an icon of "evangelical" mainline Presbyterianism who worked within the system well enough to become eventually the stated clerk (or whatever you folks call the PCUSA mucky muck).
 
In case everyone missed it, like Chris probably :) I edited my last post to this:

BCO 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and
appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in
caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who
may be in any distress or need.

That's kind of funny, as I read it now. "The Session of a church should select" If I am not mistaken, the Session does not do this at Redeemer the congregation nominates and elects them. {I could be mistaken about this}. "appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons" But Mason has said that there are no deacons. And if there are then it is VERY confusing, for those who are considered deacons, are described here (in Mason's view) in 9-7 as one's who are appointed to assist the deacons. And we know that the deacons are not the elders. For that is a different office altogether.



BCO 9-2 states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?
 
So then the Session does not fill the role of the diaconate, as you said?

BCO 12-5 "The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the church, for which purpose it has power:

...

b. To examine, ordain, and install ruling elders and deacons on their election by the church, and to require these officers to devote themselves to their work; to examine the records of the proceedings of the deacons;..."



I suppose that if the Session takes for itself the liberty to choose not to ordain and install deacons then it appears the "unordained deacons" can take the liberty to tell the Session to also refrain from "requiring the deacons to devote themselves to their work". :think:
 
Thanks very much Andrew. This is really pretty stinky; defenders of this have to tie themselves in pretzels to defend it. This is just placing their own agenda ahead of subjection to the brethren in the PCA and our very clear BCO. It is scandalous.

In case everyone missed it, like Chris probably :) I edited my last post to this:

BCO 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and
appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in
caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who
may be in any distress or need.

That's kind of funny, as I read it now. "The Session of a church should select" If I am not mistaken, the Session does not do this at Redeemer the congregation nominates and elects them. {I could be mistaken about this}. "appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons" But Mason has said that there are no deacons. And if there are then it is VERY confusing, for those who are considered deacons, are described here (in Mason's view) in 9-7 as one's who are appointed to assist the deacons. And we know that the deacons are not the elders. For that is a different office altogether.



BCO 9-2 states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?
 
ColdSilverMoon
I do agree with you that this can indeed work to the good of our denomination and to the glory of God. We all need to be praying toward that end. Thank you for explanation of the likely process.

While some of the expectations expressed are reasonable (such as in the end the church will ordain deacons), it seems there is more to this.

Every officer in the PCA is under vows to seek the peace, purity and unity of the church. Part of this is following the polity and doctrine of the church's constitution. In effect, they confess and receive it as a condition of their ordination and receiving by the congregation (installation).


ColdSilverMoon

If that happens, I suspect the Metro NY Presbytery will disagree with the decision but will comply, and as a result Redeemer will ordain male deacons - I think it is highly unlikely that Redeemer would leave the PCA over this. In practice, I doubt anything will change - a handful of male deacons will be ordained,
I think the issue is not really a cosmetic ordination of a few deacons. It is following the system of government of our denomination. That system reflects doctrine, things that are to be taught from the pulpit to the people as part of the truths we confess in a confessional church.

The PCA Presbyterian polity is governance through deacons and elders with unordained men and women assisting them. The unordained men and women function more or less in parity to one another, each doing actual ministry (service) in the church. But in no way do they do so under color of authority of office. Nor do they replace the oversight authority of the officers (elders and deacons).

Whole worship services in the PCA are dedicated to the doctrines of ordination and installation. There is a formal recognition of what God has done in appointing officers (deacons and elders) to govern God's people. Sermons are often directed toward the officers and to the congregation regarding eac and their part in receiving authority God has placed over them for their own good- Deacons and Elders.


but the day to day function of the diaconate will likely remain completely unchanged.

The Diaconate is constituted of the men elected, ordained and installed as Deacons, there are no un-ordained men or women in Diaconate.

There are many men and women involved in mercy ministry, however, and some of them do assist the Deacons in their work. But in PCA polity, the Deacons are in overseeing authority over that. It is the Deacons responsibility to see that mercy is "getting done" in the local congregation. There are many, many vehicles for doing that, including ministry groups, but they are all under authority of the church officers (elders and deacons).


So in the end, I think everyone will be satisfied: Redeemer can retain its strong female presence in the diaconate, only now with some ordained male deacons, and the anti-deaconess camp will be happy because the BCO will be strictly upheld and it will be viewed as a repudiation of liberalization (as much as I personally disagree).
I think it will be more an encouragement that we are a "confessional" church and a "connectional" one, in accordance with the precepts of Scripture- we do not operate as an island unto ourselves. God appoints leadership for accountability and He holds them accountable. Even membership vows are a serious thing, and something that needs to be taught- the nature and seriousness of vows.:)

So in the end, this complaint could actually be a good thing overall for the PCA.
I believe that and am earnestly praying for that. We have to admit there has been some blindness to sin here, and repentance leads to forgiveness, growth and reconciliation. That is something church members and the outside world need to see modeled in those who would presume to lead God's people.

While I personally hate to see my church under fire, I am glad this issue is being addressed, and will hopefully be resolved once and for all.
I know it is hard not to view things like this personally, that's only normal.

But have faith, God has His purposes in this. Remember, it is elders from within this presbytery (I do not know which churches) that have brought this to light through this process. They are good people, who are seeking the peace and purity of the church, in Metro New York and generally.

In the end, this is about God being glorified through people He has chosen behaving differently than those governed by ways of pride, the ways of this world.
 
Last edited:
Not being a Presbyterian may cause me to miss some (much? all?) of the nuance here.

However, having gone to Fuller when the PCUSA was in the midst of struggling with the outcome of the Kenyon case in 1974 (Kenyon was a student of Gerstner who dissented from the ordination of women and was denied ordination in the PCUSA), I vividly remember the arguments. Interestingly enough, Jack Rogers (my old Fuller prof) quite prominent in the arguments regarding Kenyon has gone on to recount the facts of the Kenyon case in his latest book defending the ordination of homosexuals. He uses the issue of ordination of women as a case study of how to interpret/reinterpret the Bible in times of controversy.

Follow Rogers' logic on ordaining women and ordaining gays and you have the grist for the mill of Wayne Grudem's objections as to where egalitarianism inevitably leads.

Mincing words over constitutional fine points in your BCO or even in the confessions misses the larger cultural trend of which Presbyterian churches are not immune. The logic of egalitarianism is utterly totalitarian in its breathtaking scope and claim upon pride of place in our thinking. It brooks no dissent, will tolerate no demurrers (no matter how deeply held for reasons of conscience -- ask Kenyon!), and knows no conclusion other than becoming enshrined in the common conscience as the only acceptable moral position.

The tepid "toes touching the edge of the water" initiatives of some of the conservative Presbyterian denominations are not being done in an intellectual or cultural vacuum. The debate over women's roles underlies the entire discussion. And, the course on which some of them are on, if Dr. Grudem is correct in his historical judgment, is also pretty predictable. Grudem avers that egalitarianism is a "new path to liberalism." Reading Jack Rogers (now remembered by me 35 years later mostly as the guy who made fun of Warfield, Henry, Gerstner, Sproul, and Schaffer in class) would tend to support Grudem's claim.

The actions being advocated should not be considered in isolation from the drift of cultural and intellectual history in this country. Taken in isolation, the accommodations may seem reasonable and even wise to avoid institutional upset. However, the history of the PCUSA suggest a different trajectory. Remember that in the 70s Rogers was an icon of "evangelical" mainline Presbyterianism who worked within the system well enough to become eventually the stated clerk (or whatever you folks call the PCUSA mucky muck).


Very good points. While I agree with you that "The debate over women's roles underlies the entire discussion." it also seems that the issue of "titles" in the church is also at issue. BCO 7-3 addresses this as well. "No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scripture."

Your observation of egalitarianism is well made and timely.
 
BCO 9-2 "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?

This will be the sticking point in all this I think.

If they have several men called commisioned or unordained "deacons" in the Church, performing the role of deacons for the session, then how is it impossible to secure actual deacons?

I'm not in the PCA, so this isn't my fight yet, but it seems pretty clear that not ordaining deacons when you have plenty of qualified men to do it, is motivated by another reason than the impossibility of available candidates.

The only loophole I see is the ambiguous phrase "impossible for any reason."

:2cents:
 
BCO 9-2 "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?

This will be the sticking point in all this I think.

If they have several men called commisioned or unordained "deacons" in the Church, performing the role of deacons for the session, then how is it impossible to secure actual deacons?

I'm not in the PCA, so this isn't my fight yet, but it seems pretty clear that not ordaining deacons when you have plenty of qualified men to do it, is motivated by another reason than the impossibility of available candidates.

The only loophole I see is the ambiguous phrase "impossible for any reason."

:2cents:

There's no loophole.

"For any reason" modifies impossible.

In addition, if it is impossible, all the deacon responsibilities (overseeing property stewardship, overseeing mercy ministry, developing a spirit of liberality in the congregation, falls back on the elders- not an unordained group of men or women.

This section was written for very small start-up churches.

The functions of deacons falling back on elders is not practically even possible in a church with more than a few score members, as the elders' have many other areas of responsibility.


WDG

Chris said: "So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"? "HHMMNN? Good Question. I wonder if it is already happening?

I have never heard of any officer in the denomination calling for that and really do not believe that is the case.

In fact, Dr. Keller has specifically taught that he clearly sees the elder function qualified as men, in accord with Scripture. Even in the (very) few cases where individual churches have violated our BCO with these practices, most have made a point they believe the office of elder is qualified for men only.

While falling away can happen quickly, there appears to be virtually no one advocating this in the PCA at this time. And while being realistic, we also need to be charitable- and give credit where credit is due.
__________________
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top