I’m back from General Assembly.

Before I left, I offered my hopes and expectations; here’s a follow-up:

Expectations and Anticipations:

• Fellowship-- This was great, of course. I saw many guys I was eager to see, and a number of guys I wish I had time to visit with. Last year I missed most of the floor activity because I was with people; this year I devoted more attention to the floor, at the expense of the fellowship. Still, it was great.
• Worship-- This was great also. My friend Greg literally blew everyone away-- some guy shouted, “now that was preaching!” from the back of the assembly hall when he was done. The rest was great too.
• Doulos Resources-- I am pleased to report that we got Doulos Resources off the ground, and more. This is really going to be a great endeavor.
• Seminars-- My seminar went very well. I actually only went to one other seminar, but I’m grateful that they are/will be available online.

Hopes:

• BCO Amendment-- I missed this part of the reports, but from what I heard and saw it was never addressed. That’s because not all presbyteries have reported their votes on the matter, and it takes a 2/3 majority vote of ALL presbyteries to pass a BCO amendment. Hopefully it will pass by next year.
• Overtures-- As usual, the overtures portion of the floor activities were the best-attended and most interesting, as well as the most contentious. There was an amendment to the BCO which had a number of difficulties, but it passed. The Overtures Committee recommended to answer the overture about the women’s ministry study committee in the negative-- which means they recommended that we NOT erect a study committee. A “minority report” was offered in favor of erecting the study committee. (This is exactly what happened in the 2008 G.A., as well.) The minority report was defeated by less than 20 votes, and in the end that overture was answered in the negative (no study committee). We’ll see this one again next year, I’m certain.
• Ridgehaven-- This was basically a non-starter. Last year’s G.A. installed an audit committee who have basically turned the ship around for Ridgehaven, and they are now in the black and on a healthy trajectory, at the expense of salary cuts and removing most executive staff. Still, Ridgehaven remains intact as a ministry of the PCA, and that ain’t nothin’.
• Brotherhood-- Prevailed. I sensed a greater spirit of brotherhood than before, even in the debates. We have a long way to go, but we’ve also come a long way.

If you’d like to read a great analysis from someone else’s view, check out Joel Belz’s “Closing Comments” at ByFaith online.

Tags: PCA, PCA Polity, presbyterians, General Assembly, Pastoral ministry

The PCA’s 37^th General Assembly is next week. I’ll be attending (which means I won’t be blogging!-- see you soon), and there are a number of things I have hopes and expectations about. I thought I would offer them here.

Expectations and Anticipations:

• Fellowship-- General Assembly is always a great season of fellowship for me. I see guys I haven’t seen in a while, even years; meet new people and get to know others better. I love this part of G.A., even though (as in introvert) it is exhausting!
• Worship-- the worship at G.A. is always great. This year, one of my very good friends, Greg Thompson, will be preaching for one of the evening worship services. Greg and I were in college together, and have remained close friends ever since. Greg is a fantastic preacher, and I love his vision for the PCA, so I have great expectations about this.
• Doulos Resources-- I have been working with a few others to begin a ministry called Doulos Resources, and we will have our first annual Board meeting to incorporate at this General Assembly. I’m excited about the opportunities this ministry offers, and about working together with these men for Kingdom-minded ministry.
• Seminars-- there are always a number of great seminars offered as a part of G.A., and this year is no different. The discussion between Ligon Duncan and Tim Keller on “deaconing women” should be great. A few others I’m looking forward to are: Paul Tripp on the Already and Not Yet; Ken Sande’s lectures on Peacemaking; and Steve Smallman on the continuum of evangelism and discipleship. Oh yeah-- I’m doing a seminar, too.

Hopes:

• BCO Amendment-- there is an amendment of the Book of Church Order of the PCA under consideration that would allow Pastors to use variations of the questions for membership, rather than requiring their precise language. I think this is a great step in the right direction, and I don’t believe it weakens any adherence to the standards for membership at all. I hope this vote will pass.
• Overtures-- there are a bunch of overtures on hand for things like forming new presbyteries, etc. Of course, I hope (and trust) that these will pass. But the overtures I’m most interested in (and so, likely, are most folks) are #5, 10, 13, and 15 which deal with women’s roles in diaconal and other ministry; and #2, 4, 8, 9, and 14, which are all proposed amendments to the BCO that I think are all valuable. I’d really like to see a study committee erected for the women’s roles and diaconal ministry, etc.-- last year’s rejection felt like a procedural matter, not one that had substance. As I said then, many will offer the counter-argument that “we have already decided this issue-- it’s in the BCO”-- but what became clear at last year’s G.A. is that some of the best minds disagree about just how clear the BCO is on the subject, and more work needs to be done to offer pastoral clarification.
• Ridgehaven-- I think Ridgehaven is probably the best-kept secret of the PCA, and a few things came up at last year’s G.A. that suggested that there might be some trouble for this fine ministry. Since then, the long-time director has stepped down, and I know they have been in debt for over a year. I’m concerned about the future of Ridgehaven as a ministry of the PCA, and I hope that steps will be taken to protect and help that ministry thrive. I’ll be serving on the Committee of Commissioners for Ridgehaven, so I’ll probably get my answers before the assembly actually begins.
• Brotherhood-- perhaps my greatest hope and prayer is for ever-increasing brotherhood among the commissioners. Every assembly of recent years has included an issue or two of substance, and one over which it is easy to become emotional. I long to see an attitude of love, deference, dignity, and humility embodied by all who participate in G.A.-- starting with myself.

Are you going to General Assembly? If not, you might tune in to check it out-- for the past several years, they have webcasted the whole thing! Check in here or here to find webcasts. Whether you are going, watching webcasts, or none of the above, please join me in praying for this year’s General Assembly.

Tags: Pastoral ministry, PCA, PCA Polity, presbyterians, General Assembly

There are lots of things I like about the PCA. Two things that have come to mind recently, both of which seem to be on the rise, and both of which make me quite content to minister in the PCA, are these. We could do a much better job at both, and there is plenty of room for growth. Still, I love these:

• Striving to be inclusive when we don’t have to be exclusive. There is a certain required exclusivity in the church, and the Gospel presents that clearly. I’m OK with that. And I certainly acknowledge that there is a very vocal minority in the PCA that would prefer that we be as exclusive as we can be. But it seems to me that the majority (and a growing majority, at that) strives for being inclusive when we do not have to be exclusive. This is an encouraging counterpoint to dangerous sectarianism, and makes the PCA a friendlier environment to minister (and, incidentally, a friendlier place to hear the Gospel and get converted!).
• Willingness to admit when we’re wrong. The Westminster Confession of Faith says plainly, “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both” (WCF 31.4). The more we remind ourselves of this, the better-- this sort of humility ought to ooze out of our meetings of Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly. I love the fact that this is a part of our confessional standards, and that I see more and more men in the PCA approaching their leadership with this spirit.

Tags: PCA, presbyterians

One thing that we in the PCA-- and in the broader church-- must be careful of is the difficulty of sectarianism. Frankly, it is something that we have been far too careless about, and that must change for the church to move forward in this century in the United States.

When I say sectarianism, this is what I mean: when we are quick to dismiss, divide from, or decry because of a disagreement over ANY issue, large or small, we might be sectarians. When our nuances are different from someone else’s, so we determine that they are wrong by default, we are being sectarian. When we decide that we understand what someone else believes better than they do, and we castigate them for those beliefs, we are acting in sectarian ways.

Let me illustrate: the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith-- our denominational confession-- on the observance of the Sabbath, is fairly straightforward. Essentially, the Sabbath day must be preserved from ALL activities apart from worship and passive rest (the one accepted exception to this being “deeds of mercy”). Basically, a Christian ought to return home from corporate morning worship and retire to his prayer closet until rejoining the congregation for evening worship, according to the WCF.

This raises a lot of questions, like what should a Christian do about meals? Must they be simple and plain, requiring the sparsest of work? Is a parent who attends to the needs of an infant child sinning because of the work involved (or is this a deed of mercy)? How does this apparently strict observance of the Sabbath square up to the New Testament portrayal of the Lord’s Day as a time of celebration, feasting, and delight?

Consequently, I don’t know ANYONE who is ordained who doesn’t take some exception to the WCF’s position on the Sabbath; the classic exception is phrased something like, “I think it’s okay to throw the baseball with my kid in the backyard.” In some (many?) presbyteries, this is not even considered an exception of any substance; in ours, for example, this is normally judged as an exception of primarily semantic nature (although I’m personally confident that the Westminster Divines-- the guys who wrote the WCF-- would not agree).

In other words, we have nuances to our theological convictions. Here’s where sectarianism comes in: when my nuances are different from your nuances, I am acting in a sectarian manner if I say that your nuances are wrong by default, simply because they aren’t just like mine. I am sinning when I do this, in several ways: I am exhibiting pride in my nuances, rather than a humility that acknowledges that I could be wrong; I am failing to exercise biblical discernment in considering the position of the other; I am dividing from my brother over what is (often) an issue that should not break fellowship, rather than preserving the unity the Christ Himself emphasized ought to define us.

Yet, sadly, this happens all the time in the PCA. In fact, it happens all the time in much of the church. It has defined the manner in which several denominational debates have played out over the past decade or so. It has caused harm to the reputation of the church both within and outside of her walls.

Another illustration: a friend of mine was one of the speakers for the Conversation on Denominational Renewal a little more than a year ago. (Actually, a few of those guys are friends, and I won’t say which one I speak of now.) This same friend had presented the same ideas that he offered at the Conversation at another meeting, where 50 or 60 key leaders in the PCA were gathered. Afterwards, my friend was talking privately with one of the bigger names in the PCA-- known inside our denomination and outside of it as a man of some stature, whose name you would probably know if I offered it (but I won’t).

My friend said to this man, “Whether you aim to or not, you are one of the few people in a position to shape the future of the PCA. Here’s what I want to know: is there room in your PCA for a guy like me?”

After a moment’s pause, this leader responded, “I don’t know.”

This is sectarianism at its fullest. My friend is openly and publicly inviting others to consider with him how the PCA could be better: more biblical, more united, more loving in our presentation of truth, more faithfully living out our theology. Yet for this leader, there might not be room for such a guy-- because my friend doesn’t “look” exactly like him.

This is what causes denominations to splinter over reasons that make no sense a hundred years later. This is why there are more than 44 Reformed denominations in the United States alone. This is what keeps us from having a vital ministry of evangelizing the lost: because we’re too busy killing and eating our own people, and others look on that and wonder why they would ever want to be a part of it.

It’s not unique to the PCA, either. Mark Dever’s recent rant about things he cannot live with, including Universalism, Racism, and Infant Baptism (which he further qualified by describing what a sinful practice infant baptism is) is another example of rampant sectarianism (not to mention irony).

Sectarianism is the real sin here-- and I believe it is a sin that we ought to exercise church discipline for.

Tags: PCA, Church Universal, theology, General Assembly, presbyterians, community, love, PCA Polity

To the generation of faithful men who, as Pastors and Elders, led the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA):

Dear fathers in the faith,

Thank you for the work that you did 35 years ago, in the years leading up to then, and in the years that followed. You stood against attacks on orthodoxy and biblical truth and refused to compromise in your deep commitments to the authority of Scripture and to the faithful teaching and preaching of the Bible. At great sacrifice, personally and-- in many cases-- professionally, you remained faithful to the essential convictions that the truth of Scripture was the final authority for faith and practice.

With grief and mourning, you fought for orthodoxy in a denomination that seemed committed against it, and when you recognized that you would not win that battle, you chose to separate and form a denomination for whom the commitments to the authority of Scripture, the faithful teaching of the biblical gospel, and the brotherly association of congregations would always remain pre-eminent. What you did was difficult and costly, yet, unselfishly, you did it for the sake of the gospel and Christ’s church.

Thank you. For your convictions, commitments, sacrifices, and leadership, Thank you.

The PCA is a wonderful denomination to serve in, and I am so grateful for her. Since her foundations, she has grown substantially through the efforts of church planting. Other congregations, seeking a friendly orthodoxy, have found refuge here. The uniting of two like-minded denominations increased the PCA’s size, stature, and reach in many ways. Ministries conventional and unconventional, in all manner of contexts and to all manner of people-groups, have spread the good news of Christ’s Kingdom where it was absent before. A worldwide emphasis on missions has made the PCA one of the strongest missionary denominations in the country. All of this had its seed in your labor to form this new denomination.

I hope you hear in my words above a sincere admiration, appreciation, and gratitude for your labor and service. I have only respect and praise for you. I know that you love the PCA deeply. I have come to love the PCA too-- not in the same ways that you do, of course, but deeply nevertheless. So I hope you will therefore receive the following questions in all sincerity, not as attacks or dismissals, nor as trick questions or traps. They are asked out of love, for you and for our denomination, and most of all, for Christ and His gospel.

• Through the years, you have remained vigilant in your efforts to protect the PCA from “liberal” theology. Again, thank you for this. But are there other things that we must be vigilant against as well? In the past 35 years, our culture has largely shifted from a world that generally believes in Christianity-- or at least something close too it-- and needs the perfecting of their belief, to a world where Christianity and anything close to it falls under suspicion. Is the new fight for the PCA not merely a battle against liberalism, but also against unbelief itself? In your wisdom, how might we find a balance between these two fronts?
• Surely theology is essential; we must have sound, biblical theology taught in our churches, as you have, for so long, labored for. But is not orthopraxy as important as orthodoxy? I’m thinking of Luke 8:21 and James 1:22-25 in this question. Of what use is our sound theology if it is not merely taught, but also practiced? How deeply do we understand our commitments to the doctrines of grace, if we are not consequently gracious? How much have we understood the Father’s mercy, if we are not merciful as the Father is merciful? From your experience, how might you advise the next generations of Pastors and Elders to live out the grace of God?
• You have shown through the years a great effectiveness for building and growing the church, and we are indebted to your capability in this way. The Book of Church Order is a model of efficiency and the very embodiment of gracious church governance, and the practices of worship and other ministry that have defined the PCA for the past decades have driven many to have a deeper heart of worship and a greater understanding of the truth. Are there ways to accomplish ministry in strict accordance with the principles that undergird our denomination without following the form and practice those have taken historically? As I consider Paul’s ability to adjust his ministry style and approach to accommodate the hearer without compromising the truth (Acts 17; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23), I wonder if we have granted the freedom of our ministers to do the same. Have we constrained our people not only in principle but in practice?
• Your readiness to defend against true theological threats is so valuable, and needed. Yet we often perceive threats where there are none, particularly when we have been attacked before. Is there a way to remain vigilant against heterodoxy without operating from a default posture of suspicion? Practically, it seems that an initially defensive response becomes a hindrance to growth and ministry. Biblically, Paul challenges us to deal lovingly with each other, even when declaring-- and defending-- the truth (Ephesians 4:15), and to hope and believe out of love that our brothers are acting in earnest (1 Corinthians 13:7). Shouldn’t our attitudes toward one another at presbytery and General Assembly meetings-- toward fellow Ruling and Teaching Elders in good standing-- embody this loving, trusting spirit?
• You were right to depart from a body that had abandoned its commitment to biblical truth. Yet, could it be that a contributing factor that drove them toward liberalism was a deep association of conservative theology with unloving, ungracious practice? Christ is a model of commitment to true orthodoxy in the face of bad theology, yet his manner toward even those with whom he disagreed was vitally loving and gracious (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 13:34). Ought not our practice toward one another-- and even toward those who oppose us-- be so gracious and loving that they may not mistake false teachings and poor theology as more closely following the model of Christ?

I am among the newest to join you as a Teaching Elder, Pastor, and Presbyter-- I haven’t yet been ordained for a year, and I’ve barely been a member of my presbytery a year. I wasn’t yet one year old when you were instrumental in forming the PCA. While I have enjoyed membership in the PCA for almost 20 years, and service in (non-ordained) ministry for 12, I realize that, often, I may be too young and too inexperienced, too brash and overconfident to know very well what I speak of. Had I not been confirmed in my thoughts by many other brothers-- some of whom have many more years of experience than I-- I may be inclined to second-guess myself here, as well.

I pray that these questions might be received for what they are: a genuine hope for the ever-increasing fulfillment of our vows to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity, peace, and unity of the Church.

Your servant,
Ed Eubanks, Jr.

Tags: presbyterians, PCA, PCA Polity, Pastoral ministry

I’ve mentioned before (twice: here and here) that a significant issue facing this year’s General Assembly was the question of women and how they fit into diaconal ministry. In what my friend Steven Estock called “the year of the woman,” there were no less than five overtures before the assembly that spoke to this matter, most of them asking the assembly to erect a study committee that would apply high-level scholarship to the issue.

After some substantial discussion (and some interesting moves of parliamentary procedure), the primary overture (and the rest as well, as related overtures) was answered in the negative (in other words, we voted against it) on the grounds that:

...the presbyteries should work through the implications in their own local contexts.

Their response was centered around the basis that the overtures were intended essentially to amend the Book of Church Order, and they pointed out that there are processes to amend the BCO that don’t require the time and resources of a study committee.

Already there is quite a bit of stir about this decision. Some will continue to debate the matter in a way that suggests that the vote hasn’t yet happened. Others will continue to insist that the questions being asked are such simple matters that the motives of the questioners must be suspect. (For a glimpse of some of this, you might read some of the responses to ByFaith’s report of the decision.)

While I’m disappointed with the vote, I don’t think either of these responses is the most helpful or appropriate. Part of our presbyterianism-- a large part, actually-- is that we acknowledge that God works through His body, at least as much as (if not more than) through individual believers. So we need to trust that, if the assembly voted against this overture, God has good purposes for that.

What’s before us, then, is to receive the advice and instruction of the assembly and take up study of the issue in the lower bodies. I’m sure many are already beginning to do exactly this-- I certainly am-- and I’ll be curious to see how many overtures are presented next year with, not just questions about the issue that MIGHT lead to an amendment, but actual amendments.

Tags: PCA, PCA Polity, theology, Bible

I’m at the PCA’s General Assembly this week, which means I’m enjoying a week of visiting with old friends and new, gathering resources, ministering to friends and acquaintances, and meeting with over 1000 delegates to handle some important decisions for our denomination.

Over the week, here are a few things that I’ve noticed, heard, or been a part of that I’ve found delightfully surprising (I’ll update this list as the week goes on):

• I served on the Committee of Commissioners (which essentially serves to audit the minutes and reports of the agencies of the denomination) for Covenant Theological Seminary. Our committee invited Bryan Chapell, who is the president of the seminary, to share with us any personal and pastoral needs and concerns that he, his family, and the community of the seminary may have. Let me add, this was a sweet and touching time. Here’s the surprising thing: Dr. Chapell said that no one (which I take to mean no committee) had ever asked him about that.
• Friends old and new: I’ve seen three friends that I’ve known since high school or earlier, two of whom are pastors and one is the wife of a pastor. I’ve also seen and met with two friends who I have gotten to know over the past months and years only through my blogs and through e-mail exchanges.
• Gary Campbell, who is the director of the PCA’s Retirement and Benefits, Inc. agency, was extended a pay increase that was reported on in the assembly. Here’s the surprise: Gary actually asked the board to REDUCE the pay increase that he was offered, out of concern that the resources of that agency be best utilized. The good news also is that the board refused to reduce it, recognizing that this act was a microcosmic representation of why Gary deserves a pay increase in the first place.
• Presbyterians eat, right? And I’ve shared every meal with a friend, classmate, or new acquaintance. Here’s the fun surprise: my generous and hospitable friends have bought most of my meals, and I’ve actually only paid for one meal so far (as of Thursday morning). For that one, I took the opportunity to buy my companion’s meal, so that I could pass along the goodwill and hospitality. UPDATE: well, the trend continued. All told, I bought three meals all week. May I take this opportunity to say, THANKS! to all my friends who were so gracious.
• Dr. Kooistra (who served as moderator for this assembly) is quite witty, and was able to bring an element of fun and lightheartedness even to some of the more serious discussion. It was wonderful to see this man of such stature and accomplishment not take himself too seriously (while not belittling the tasks or discussions before him, either).

Tags: PCA, PCA Polity, General Assembly

Here are a few ideas that don't warrant a full post in themselves.

• C.S. Lewis' second Narnia book (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) has hit the theaters. Some have pointed out that there are some significant changes from the original story line (probably some spoilers in there for some of you). Some people think this is actually an improvement on the story line. Some feel the true meaning of the original has been adulterated. Others are somewhere in the middle. I haven't seen it-- what do YOU think?
• 
  
• Hilary's almost certain loss is striking some odd chords-- including the idea behind THIS piece from the New York Times, which argues that the advancement of women will be hurt from her loss. Apparently, Hilary has simultaneously positioned herself as NOT benefiting from the gender question while at the same time answering it. (Being a male, I was obviously ignorant of such high-level ideas.) Ironically, if she has marketed herself on the women's lib vote then she doesn't deserve to win. As my friend Sam Murrell suggested, to vote for Hilary Clinton ONLY because she is a woman (or Barack Obama ONLY because he is black) is to also undercut your own argument opposing others who vote AGAINST them for the same reason. Hilary can't say, "vote for me because it's time to have a woman in the White House" and then hold it against those who vote for her opposition because they don't want a woman President. Logical consistency at its simplest.
• 
  
• If you've been tracking with me on the stir and kerfuffle surrounding the General Assembly overture (#9) about Deacons, Deaconesses, and Women, you may be interested to know that Wayside Presbyterian Church in the Chattanooga area has posted a page that aggregates (or at least attempts to) all of the discussion from around the web. You don't have to look far to see the sort of hard-line, slippery-slope thinking I've mentioned. (WARNING: if you love the church and are discouraged by ungodly treatment of pastors and others, read with caution. Many of these discussions are not for the faint of heart.) I DO appreciate their work, especially, in their words, that they "are not making any effort... to sort the articles into 'pro,' 'con,' or neutral. These articles come from several different viewpoints. We are just providing information."
• 
  
• Along the lines of the previous item, my personal hope is that the 2009 General Assembly will appoint a study committee to consider what guidelines, if any, ought to be offered as measures of godly character and discussion for those who choose to use blogs, websites, discussion forums, and other Internet tools to debate theological and denominational matters.
• 
  
• Following up on my words about the Evangelical Manifesto, Ed Stetzer released the word late last week that Ergun Caner, President and Dean of the Seminary at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, asked that his name be stricken from the charter list on the basis of his claim that he never signed it. For those who don't immediately make the connection (I didn't), Liberty is the school that the late Jerry Falwell founded and led for many years; ironically, Caner's own website describes him as "a leading voice for evangelicalism on the national stage." For another take on the Evangelical Manifesto, check out this post from Scot McKnight, Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (UPDATE: see this response to McKnight from PCA Pastor Andy Jones), and this alternative version offered by Dave Burchett, ESPN producer and Christian writer.
• 
  
• If you've been following the stuggles and difficulties in the wake of the natural disaster in Myanmar (Burma), you may be interested to know that missions boards and relief organizations are now succeeding in getting funds and other aid into the area. The PCA's Mission to the World (MTW) is asking for financial assistance through its "Minutemen" program; World Vision International is also appealing for help. Both sites have ways that you can donate online.
• 
  
• Here's a video I overlooked for my media tidbits on Friday: Possessed, a documentary which gives an amazing look at the worlds of hoarders. Very well done, with no commentary other than what the hoarders themselves offer. You can watch the whole thing online.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Links, Politics, PCA

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Philadelphia Presbytery has submitted an overture to the PCA's General Assembly asking the GA to erect a study committee on Deaconesses. That overture has been echoed by the Western Canada Presbytery, and if I'm able to read this sort of thing at all, the committee will almost certainly be erected.

It may be needless to point out that this issue has caused quite a bit of stir and discussion. The PCA's own magazine, byFaith, has posted a summary of the announcement of the overture and that has generated quite a bit of discussion in the comments. Other, less "official" sources have also hosted a significant amount of discussion as well. A good bit of the discussion is quite helpful, offering finer points and perspectives that would simply be impossible to gather were it not for this Internet/Information Age that we live in.

Sadly, a lot of the discussion has also deteriorated into mostly or totally unhelpful rant, name-calling, and fear-mongering. A few of the points of discussion may be summed up as follows:

• "Scripture is clear on this matter (OR, arguing that Scripture isn't clear is a sign of our cultural liberalism and feminism)." The thought process here: because the NIV translates 1 Timothy 3:11 with reference to "their wives" instead of (the equally possible) "the women;" and because it translates "diakonos" Romans 16:1 as "servant" because it refers to a woman, then the issue is clearly settled. But who is to say that these translations are filled with cultural bias or the influence of a historical patriarchalism? Anyone who says, "Scripture is clear" has probably only been looking at English translations.
• 
  
• "The Book of Church Order (BCO) already prohibits ordaining women as Deacons." The line of thought here: The BCO is a finished, completed document that is utterly faithful to Scripture and never need be changed or amended to be brought closer to the Bible. This is difficult to reconcile with (common sense and) the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, "All syonds or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both" (WCF 31.4).
• 
  
• "The word that is translated 'Deacon' in the Bible for men is obviously translated as 'servant' for women." Thought process: meaning changes substantially, even fundamentally, based solely on gender. This is an interesting foundational principle-- and one I'd like to hear more support for by other examples before accepting, which the arguers haven't provided.
• 
  
• "The Apostles' recognition of Phoebe, and other women in the New Testament, was a function of their cultural role-- something that doesn't apply to us." The appeal here is to the historical context, which of course is a fundamental principle in Bible interpretation. The problem is that these same folks will argue that historical context trumps literary context (or the language of the text itself-- see previous bullet) when Phoebe is mentioned, but when dealing with, say, 1 Timothy 3:11, quickly jump to the next argument...
• 
  
• "The historical context doesn't apply, since Paul was writing normative principles to Timothy about the qualifications for Deacons." Line of thought: somehow historical context is disposable for any normative portion of biblical text. The problem with that is that it would rule out the context of the deliverance and redemption of Israel out of Egyptian slavery as the setting for the 10 commandments, for example-- which most would agree poses some problems about a classic Reformed understanding of the 10 commandments.
• 
  
• "Allowing women as Deacons (even if the Bible permits it) will inevitably lead to handing over all authority in the church to women." The thinking here is a classic slippery slope notion: if one thing is bad or prohibited, then we dare not go near anything close to that thing. (This was a problem that the Pharisees often had, by the way...)
• 
  
• "Allowing women as Deacons is granting them authority and leadership that is unbibilcal." The thought trajectory in this argument is that Deacons have authority of the same sort that Elders have, and the Bible forbids women to have such authority. The problems here are rooted in the (mistaken and unbiblical) idea that Deacons are some kind of "Junior Elder" and therefore share in the role of authority with the Elders. But two problems immediately arise from this line of thought: first, the BCO itself defines the office of Deacon as "one of sympathy and service" (BCO 9.1) while it defines the Elder as office of exercising "government and discipline" (BCO 8.3)-- very different roles, one with clear distinction of authority and the other with, at best, less clear distinction. Secondly, the Deacons are "under the supervision and authority of the Session" (BCO 9.2), which begs the question: what authority do they have that, for example, a Sunday School teacher or WIC (Women in the Church) leader doesn't also have?
• 
  
• "We already have the WIC; what do we need women as Deacons for?" The idea here being that the WIC serves as a functional body of "Deaconesses" and we should simply let things remain as they are. Here again, there are two problems with this: first, Scripture does not define for us something like a WIC, and if we desire to pattern our bodies of leadership after Scripture then we should be careful about casually assuming that the WIC fulfills a role that Scripture defines for women. Secondly, and more importantly: the WIC is a ministry of leadership, structured specifically to minister to the women in the church; yet, the office of Deacon is broader than just women. Frankly, I learn a lot from women and have benefited from the ministry and teaching of many women-- and I find the suggestion that women should only minister to other women (and children) short-sighted.
• 
  
• "We ought to just do like ____ [insert name of a very large PCA church in the south] with the way they handle Deacon's assistants." I was surprised to see this argument made by more than one or two people. The thinking here: So-and-so has figured it out, and they should set the pace for all PCA churches. Again, problems arise: setting aside the very big assumption that the leadership there really has figured it out and has hit upon the perfect biblical solution, what does this have to do with what the BCO says about Deacons and women? But a closer look at the proposed practices reveals the truth: said PCA church's solution is to hire out the work of "serving tables" to outsiders (many of them unbelievers, all of them African-Americans).

I'm not convinced that blogs and discussion boards (mine included) are completely helpful in matters like these. It seems to me that folks are getting so entrenched in their positions, long before GA, that the possibility of healthy, profitable discussion on a study committee-- and even a good appointment of that committee-- is diminished.

I'm not decided about the matter. I've held back from my inclination to dig into the issue and study it to the point of deciding what my mind is about it-- though I'll take the time to do that before GA. But I am struck by this: most of the arguments against the study committee (summarized above) go against my logical inclinations-- committing fallacies and demonstrating inconsistency frequently-- and these weaken the case against a committee significantly. So I'm obviously in favor of erecting a study committee, even if I'm not decided on the issue of women as Deacons/Deaconesses.

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that brothers and sisters in the PCA can't have a more constructive conversation about all of this. As much as anything, reading some of these discussions have caused me to grieve the lack of brotherly love and charitable grace within our denomination, and my heart has frequently been heavy about it over the past few weeks. Why is an overture to study ANY part of the BCO to consider if it is fully and truly based on Scripture so threatening?

One commenter (Scott Truax of Peace Presbyterian Church, Cary, NC) at the byFaith page summed it up the best: "If we follow Scripture, we have nothing to fear."

Tags: Bible, Biblical Theology, theology, PCA Polity, Systematic Theology, PCA, Pastoral ministry, Politics, community

One of the more difficult questions facing many churches (and I say "many" because some churches have answered the question for themselves, not because it isn't a question for them) is, what is the role of women in leadership in the church?

The PCA has, since its inception, proclaimed a "complementarian" position on women in leadership. The "complementarian" view stands squarely between the egalitarian (with unequivocal removal of distinction between men and women in terms of leadership and/or authority) and the patriarchal (with unequivocal denial of any sort of leadership or authority to any woman). How to implement this has frequently been in dispute: at worst, the complementarian position appears little different from the patriarchal position, with perhaps the exception of allowing women to minister to other women (and usually children); at best, applying the complementarian view is summed up in the idea that a woman may perform any act of service or leadership (apart from preaching in public worship) that a non-ordained man may also perform.

One complicating factor in applying the complementarian position has been that the PCA's Book of Church Order (BCO) does not currently allow for women to be "ordained" to any leadership office-- Elder or Deacon. An overture for the upcoming General Assembly, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, may bring some modification to this, or at least clarification for how it is to be implemented. I appreciate the spirit of this overture, and how it asks for clarification even if the "status quo" is maintained. Should the BCO be amended to allow women to serve as Deacons, it might actually make the issue more complex-- but in this case simplicity hasn't historically proven to be beneficial, when it comes to the application of seemingly simple ideas. Simplicity in this issue usually results in either denying women opportunity or ignoring biblical guidance.

Another complicating factor, ironically, is the difference between leadership and authority. Ironically, because for years (centuries? millennia?) this has been the argument that I have heard tossed back at women who argue that they are denied opportunity for service and the exercise of their gifts. Yet more recently confusion on this point has been the justification for relegating women to only teaching children or perhaps other women. Why is granting women a role of leadership a tacit breech of biblical distinctions for authority?

As a counterexample: if leadership somehow equals authority to the point where biblical boundaries are crossed, why have a two-office view (Elders and Deacons) in the first place? Isn't the granting of authority to male Deacons at least raising the possibility that the boundaries will be crossed? Of course it is-- and sometimes those boundaries ARE crossed. Yet we don't eliminate the office of Deacon to protect the authority of the Elder. We don't eliminate the organization of a presbytery to protect the authority of the local congregation, either. Thus, we shouldn't prevent women from having a role of leadership simply to limit their authority.

I'm glad for the Philadelphia Presbytery overture, and I look forward to seeing the PCA mature through this discussion. What do you think?

Tags: Faith & Life, PCA Polity, Systematic Theology, Stewardship, PCA