Category Archives: ordination standards

Amendments A – N — It Is Not Just Amendment B

2 Replies

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has posted on it’s web site a PDF of the booklet with the proposed amendments to the Book of Order sent out to the presbyteries from the 218th General Assembly.  In a very nice touch, each write-up is followed by the URL to find the item on the PC-biz site.

To be a little bit more precise about the items that will be voted on, there are actually just ten amendments to the Book of Order, items A-J.  And, you guessed it, the ordination standards amendment to G-6.0106b and elsewhere is once again Amendment B.  At least it will be easy to remember.

The other four items are Ecumenical Statements with the Roman Catholic Church (08-K), Episcopal Church (08-L), Korean Presbyterian Church in America (08-M), and the Moravian Church (08-N).  These do not enter the PC(USA) constitution, but need to be adopted by a majority of the presbyteries for them to become guidance.  I have not been following these so I will just deal with the constitutional amendments in this post and return to those at a later date.

Amendment 08-A — Vows of Membership
This is what I refer to as a “Blood on Every Page” amendment since it derives from a specific controversy in a presbytery, in this case Mission Presbytery.  For some background on this you can check out my post back in September 2006 and coverage by Toby Brown (then a member of that presbytery) in June 2006 and September 2007.  This overture was covered by Daniel Berry a bit less than a year ago.

The causative incident was admission to membership in a PC(USA) church of an individual who did not acknowledge God, to say nothing of the lordship of Jesus Christ.  To clarify membership standards the overture asked for explicit vows of membership to join a particular church, these vows to follow the standards of declaring Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, renouncing sin, and participating in the church that are presently listed in the Book of Order.  The General Assembly took the advice of the Advisory Committee of the Constitution and is sending to the presbyteries a new section that does not specify language but says that new members “shall make a public profession of their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as do confirmands (W-4.2003a, b, and c).”

It is interesting to note that the Presbyterian Church in America dealt with similar issues at their General Assembly this year as well.

Amendment 08-B — Ordained Officers
This is the amendment everyone is watching and that would replace the current G-6.0106b, “fidelity and chastity,” with a paragraph that includes that candidates for ordination will “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church.”

Enough ink (and electrons and photons) have been spilled over this already so I will leave it at that.  There are also corresponding changes to G-14.0240 and G-14.0450.

Amendment 08-C — Replacing the Word “Sympathy” With the Word “Compassion”
This would change the description of the role of the office of deacon in G-6.0202b and G-6.0401 from a ministry including “sympathy” to one including “compassion.”  The original overture requested “empathy” but the GA chose “compassion” instead.

Amendment 08-D — General Assembly Mission Council Name Change
This would change the General Assembly Council’s name to the General Assembly Mission Council in four places in Chapter G-9, six places in G-13, and five places in G-14, as well as in seven places in the Discipline section.  This is in line with the new Organization for Mission adopted for the General Assembly (Mission) Council at GA.

Amendment 08-E — Non-geographic Presbyteries
No, not new non-geographic “affinity” presbyteries, but this amendment permits churches to join an existing non-geographic “language” presbytery in another synod as long as everybody involved (two presbyteries, two synods, and the GA) agree.  But remember, non-geographic presbyteries are temporary transitional structures and should not be considered permanent parts of our governing body structure.  (You may remember that this was complicated, or at least highlighted, at GA by an overture to extend the lifetime of the Hanmi non-geographic presbytery.)

Amendment 08-F — Presbytery Membership of Certified Christian Educators
This appears to be another “Blood on Every Page” amendment and simply clarifies that Certified Christian Educators have the privilege of the floor at presbytery “during the term of service in an educational ministry under the jurisdiction of the presbytery”  Read the rational for the request for clarification.

Amendment 08-G — Synod Membership on Permanent Committees
With reorganization of General Assembly Council, a desire for flexibility, and some unintended consequences from previous changes in the Book of Order, this amendment changes designated synod representation on “permanent” GA committees to synod representation on the Committee on Representation and the Council.  Rather than explicitly saying the synods put forth their representatives, committee members are now just selected through the nominating committee process.

Amendment 08-H — Five Ordination Examinations
No, this is not directly related to the controversy that has just arisen over the Biblical Exegesis Examination, but rather word-smiths some language in G-14.0431 to clarify the taking of the exams, not the exams themselves.  In particular, the group of four exams has changed from a “may” to a “shall be taken… after two full years of theological education,” and with the addition of “or its equivalent.”  In addition, not only must the CPM approve the candidate to take the exam, they “shall first attest that the inquirer or candidate has completed adequate
academic preparation in each examination area and adequate supervised experience in the practice of pastoral ministry.”  There is another change to make the Biblical Exegesis Exam explicitly open book.  The hope is that all of these changes will improve the pass rate on the exams.  (note that Biblical Exegesis has been open book, this just clarifies that)

Amendment 08-I — Certified Christian Educators
This is a “clean up” or “fix the problems” amendment arising from the complete rewrite of Chapter 14 from the 217th General Assembly.  It simply changes “certified Christian educator” to “Certified Christian Educator” since that reference is to a specific professional certification.  That’s it.  (Isn’t it amazing what we have to go through the amendment process for?)

Amendment 08-J — Alternative Forms of Resolution
As the Rational section of this amendment indicates, this is more word-smithing to clarify certain phrases in the Discipline section, specifically D-2.0103 and D-10.0202h.  Principally, it replaces “all parties” with appropriate references to the investigating committee and the accused.

And there you have the Book of Order changes.  If I had to handicap this assortment of changes, I’d say one controversial ( B ), three or four that will have some discussion (A, C, G and maybe E), four that will be pretty much formalities, and H (the ordination exams) that somebody on the floor of presbytery is going to want to rewrite in light of the recent changes.  But these can not be rewritten, only approved or disapproved.  For changes, write an overture to the 219th GA.  If you think I’ve missed a sleeper in here, or have gotten my description wrong, please let me know.  And I’ll try to tackle the four Ecumenical Statements shortly.

Women in Ordained Ministry in the Church — Current Discussion and Some Thoughts

Leave a reply

The first item, or actually two items, of news relates to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America about the role of women in the diaconate.  You may remember that at their General Assembly back in June there was a significant discussion about establishing a study committee to look at this issue and the various aspects of ordination versus commissioning versus participation.  In the end the Assembly decided not to establish the study committee but to continue the discussion in the denomination, including through the process of records review.

As part of that continuing discussion the PCA publication byFaith has just published on-line a pair of articles that do a great job of presenting two of the aspects of this issue:

The Case for our Current Policy on Female Deacons by Ligon Duncan

The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses by Tim Keller

Each of the articles is well written for a knowledgeable but not scholarly audience.  For instance, they presuppose that you know a bit about the issue and are familiar with the concepts of complementarianism and egalitarianism.  But they do a good job of discussing relevant points in the history of the debate as well as theological and scriptural issues without your eyes glazing over when presented with the Greek vocabulary.

It is also important to point out that the articles are written by two high-profile and respected teaching elders in the PCA with somewhat different views, but who both acknowledge, if not affirm, the present constitutional standard of the PCA that only men may hold any ordained office.  They also affirm the constitutional standard that women are to be involved in the diaconate ministry.  The articles discuss two different approaches to that involvement.

For those of us not in the PCA this is not an unrelated issue.  Between the PCA, with no ordination of women, and the PC(USA), with full ordination of women, there is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church with “local option” ordination.

As the movement of churches disaffiliating from the PC(USA) began and these churches generally realigned with the EPC, there were concerns raised about the status of women’s ordinations in the realigned churches.  In particular, Presbyterians for Renewal had an article in their 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA) on “The PC(USA) Affirms and Encourages Women.”  (All of my links to that original article are now broken but there is a post at Renewing.NewCastleFPC.org that has the original list of 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA).)  There was also a series of articles by the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership titled “Has anyone asked the women?”

In thinking about this I wondered “How much of an issue is this at the present time?”

So in my morning coffee break and over lunch today I did a quick survey.  I took the EPC list of churches in the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery and did a quick, and probably unscientific, look at all listed web sites to see how many had women on staff who were ordained as ministers.  I would first note that of the 30 churches on the list, there is only one with a woman as the solo/senior/head pastor.  In total I found about six women in what appeared to be ordained pastoral positions at these 30 churches.  (I gave one or two ambiguous names the benefit of the doubt as being women and on some church web sites technical titles that a GA Junkie would want were absent, so again I had to make my best judgment if the individual was ordained.  I also included one commissioned lay pastor.  Like I said, it was quick, “back of the envelope,” and unscientific.)  My best count from the web sites is that there are at least 66 total ordained ministers at these churches.  At six out of 66 there are about 9% ordained women serving in these churches.  So in reality, while six individuals may have an issue when the transitional presbytery dissolves (depends on the status of women in the presbyteries these churches will be transferred into), 91% will have no problem.  (Interestingly, I just called up the PC(USA) 2007 statistics, and while they break out male/female elders and deacons, they don’t for ministers.  But I would bet that the percentage of ministers in the PC(USA) who are women, while less than 50% is more than 9%.  I did a count of my presbytery membership and it is 15%.  For ministers serving churches it is 22% in my presbytery.)

It is interesting to consider the reasons for this low percentage of women in ordained ministry in these churches.  I am not aware of a departure of women from the church as the church departs for the EPC.  Maybe there is already a “corporate culture” at these churches that gives them an affinity for the EPC including the lower likelyhood of women in ordained office.  Or you could play thought games with the cause and effect:  “Because they have few women in leadership they have an affinity for the EPC” or “Because they have an affinity for the EPC they have few women in leadership.”  While not losing sight of the fact that these churches are realigning with the EPC for other reasons, the issue of women in ordained leadership, or not in leadership as the case may be, appears to be an associated factor.

But at another level it is an issue.  Over the last couple of months I’ve had conversations with two women attending my church about their sense of call to ordained ministry.  For both, because of “where they are,” ordained ministry in their present situation is not an option, whether it be denominational membership or seminary attendance.  They are still talking to God about whether the call is authentic and if so should they make a change in their situation.

And given time, maybe this will not be an issue with the EPC.  I have speculated that with a continued or increased realignment of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC there can’t but help being a certain “PC(USA)-isation” of the EPC which I expect will include the spreading of women’s ordination under local option, if not the approval of the ordination of women across the denomination.  As I frequently say, time will tell.

Modern Echos of the Adopting Act of 1729

3 Replies

The past couple of weeks I have been vacationing with extended family
and doing more reading and thinking than writing here.  I finally had
time to concentrate on the book Seeking a better country:  300 years of
American Presbyterianism by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether (2007,
P&R Publishing).  As a GA Junkie, I have found it a fascinating read
that fills in a bunch of details about events that I’m generally
familiar with.  It provides an expanded version of Hart and Muether’s
great series of articles in New Horizons, a publication of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  (I was not the only one reading this on vacation this summer.)

As they trace American Presbyterian history and get closer to the
modern day their OPC perspective becomes a bit more significant in both
an obvious protagonist as well as one basic thesis of the work.  They
do a good job of developing this thesis and (spoiler alert) I’ll
mention it in my discussion below. (Don’t read on if you want it
developed their way.)

So, in tracing our history they show how we
Presbyterians are still involved in the same types of dysfunctional
behavior, if not necessarily arguing over the same issues, that have been part of our collective history for over 300 years now.  For them, the root problem can be summed up as “Presbyterian Identity” and if we have any now, and maybe whether we every really had it.

Part I of the book deals with American Presbyterian History from 1706
to 1789.  If those years don’t immediately register with you, 1706 is
the establishment of the first presbytery, and 1789 the first meeting
of the General Assembly.  But Presbyterian history in this time period
is dominated by the Adopting Act of 1729, a document which still casts
a long shadow even today.

If the Adopting Act does not ring a bell, it may surprise you that the
PC(USA)’s current controversies have a direct lineage back to the
Adopting Act.  It is the originating document for the concept of
“scrupling” which was recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity and which the PC(USA) has been trying to
figure out the last few years.

The Adopting Act of 1729 dealt with the need for doctrinal unity
through subscription to the Westminster Standards at a time when the Presbyterian church was looking for something to unite them.  Throughout the book it is Hart and Muether’s argument, at least as I read it, that the Westminster Standards are central to our “Presbyterian Identity” so that departing from them is to confuse or blur, if not abandon, our identity.  It is interesting
to note that within American Presbyterianism today I think that almost all the other
American Presbyterian branches, other than the PC(USA), still has subscription to the Standards, or one of the American revisions (that is another topic).

So where does “scrupling” fit in?  The Adopting Act says:

All the Ministers of this Synod now present, except one, [list of ministers deleted] after proposing all the scruples that
any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession
of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines
at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples,
and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession
of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third
chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare, that
they do not received those articles in any such sense as to suppose the
civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to
the exercise of their ministerial authority; or power to persecute any
for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession
to the throne of Great Britain.

The Synod observing that unanimity, peace, and unity, which appeared
in all their consultations and determinations relating to the affair of
the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn
prayer and praises.

While the Task Force report mentions this as the origin of scrupling, it does not point out that what was scrupled were not sections dealing with what we usually think of as central Christian doctrine, but were clauses dealing with the civil magistrate and church and state relationships, something that was more attuned to the state church environment the Westminster Standards were written in than colonial America.  But the book also makes clear that ever since the church has been arguing over what is “essential.”

It is important to note that the content of these passages was pointed out at the time of the release of the Task Force report by, among others, Toby Brown on Classical Presbyterian.

Another interesting note is that the very next year the Synod (at that time the highest governing body) was overtured for clarification of what could be exceptions, and their response was that they understood the clauses that were open to exception “in the same manner, and as fully as the members of Synod did, that were then present.”  In other words they pointed to their exceptions from the year before.

Now I am nowhere close to being an expert on the Adopting Act, but Hart and Muether, while acknowledging disagreements and ambiguity in strict subscription, seem to hold up these limited points of departure as what was acceptable to the original 1729 Synod and reaffirmed by the 1730 Synod.

But the outward unity of the American Presbyterian church only lasted another decade until 1741 when there was the Old Side/New Side split over “experiential” requirements for ordination in some New Side presbyteries.  These presbyteries were looking for “spiritual zeal” demonstrated in, among other things, having a conversion experience.  This was brought to a head by the arrival of George Whitefield and the “Great Awakening.”  (Note: Don’t confuse this with the much more serious and prolonged Old School/New School division of the next century.)

But one of the issues that was heavily debated was the role of Synod in ordaining candidates.  While New Side leaders passionately argued for presbytery sovereignty, Old Side members wanted some assurance of doctrinal consistency in the process.  (Sound familiar?)

Interestingly, after the division the New Side instituted creedal subscription and presbytery adherence to synod decisions.  The Old Side and New Side were really not too far apart and for much of the 17 year division were in correspondence about reunion.  While not exactly the same, there may be a modern echo here in some of the renewal groups calls for “parallel” churches, or as the PFR statement says “remaining engaged but distinct.”

One of the interesting results of reunion was that in places the two Sides did remain engaged but distinct with the perpetuation of Old Side and New Side presbyteries.  In particular there was the New Side Philadelphia Presbytery and the Old Side Second Presbytery of Philadelphia.  To anyone following the last two PC(USA) General Assemblies it is interesting to note that there is a precedent for the affinity presbyteries for which there have been overtures.  And it is also interesting to note that Second of Philadelphia continued almost right up to the Old School/New School split of 1838.

Finally, there are multiple echoes of the theological education controversy of that time period.  There was an on-going discussion and dispute over the “Log College” in Pennsylvania.  While it is an indirect predecessor of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), the Log College itself was a small theological training institution tied to the New Side and revivalism.  The discussions held then about the educational depth of ministers trained at the Log College versus the larger institutions like Harvard, Yale or European Universities sounds almost exactly like the discussions currently happening in the Church of Scotland over whether ministers can be trained at the Highland Theological College or whether they must get their education at the larger established universities like Edinburgh or Glasgow.

But the subscription question related to theological education that was present in the controversy around the Log College is also present today in the controversy related to Prof. Peter Enns departure from Westminster Theological Seminary.  In a current article on the WTS web site, Carl Trueman, Vice-president for Academic Affairs discusses the idea that academic freedom does not trump confessional standards and the need for a seminary to adhere to denominational norms.  (H/T: Heidelblog)

Now, I have been intentionally brief in summarizing these controversies because my focus here was simply to note that in my reading the book it struck me that “there is nothing new under the sun.”  In any one of these controversies there is a lot more depth and complexity that I did not touch upon.  Further investigation of those is left as an exercise for the reader.

But across different Presbyterian branches today we are sill engaged in discussions about theological, doctrinal, and polity tensions that have been with us since the founding of American Presbyterianism.  “Reformed and Always Reforming According to the Word of God”

The Continuing Saga of the Anglican Communion

Leave a reply

While the Presbyterians have been occupying my attention the past few months I have been keeping an eye on developments in the Anglican Communion worldwide.  Part of this is the mirroring of the discussions and disagreements different Presbyterian branches are having.  Another point of contact is that there is significant overlap and cooperation, on both sides of the issue, in the property litigation.  (The test cases in the California Supreme Court which multiple Presbyterian governing bodies and groups have filed amicus briefs on, is dealing with Episcopal churches.)  But maybe at the heart of it the goings on in the Anglican Communion right now make a great soap opera or high global drama.  While physical conflict is not involved, there is still the air of a great global battle with leaders on one continent allying themselves with groups on another continent.  Like in chess, Risk, or Diplomacy there are strategic positions, blocking moves, and alliances.

Well at the moment the Anglican Communion is in the middle of their major decennial meeting to which all (or almost all) the bishops world wide are invited, the Lambeth Conference.  (FYI: It is named for Lambeth Palace, the official residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, although the conference is being held at the University of Kent.) While not a legislative meeting with such a great attendance from across the Communion is a major “Instrument of Communion” and carries some consensus and institutional weight.

For a brief review of where the Anglican Communion is at the moment, and a not very optimistic view of where it is headed, Christianity Today just posted a good summary on their web site.

To briefly review:  In the United States, Episcopal churches, and even dioceses, that are not happy with The Episcopal Church’s permissive stand on ordaining and elevating to bishop practicing homosexuals, exemplified in New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, are looking elsewhere in the world for church oversight.  These groups came together with similarly oriented representatives worldwide before the Lambeth conference as the Global Anglican Future Conference, being referred to as GAFCON.  This meeting itself was a mini-soap opera because it was supposed to start in Jordan at a Dead Sea conference center, but there were permitting and visa issues and the meeting was prematurely moved to Jerusalem.  Any way, the Jerusalem conference issued a final statement,  the Archbishop of Canterbury responded, and an additional GAFCON statement followed that.

Now, as if that were not enough, on July 7 the General Synod of the Church of England voted to permit the elevation of women to bishops without safeguards, or ways to opt out, for those opposed to the women bishops.  This was greeted by an expression of concern from the Vatican about breaking with apostolic tradition and a caution to Anglican clergy that although they may be dissatisfied with their current church’s positions, they would not be roundly welcomed into the Roman Catholic Church.  The Russian Orthodox Church also criticized the action, but left open the avenue for Anglican priests to switch to that church. (Note that The Episcopal Church has permitted women to serve as bishops for a while now and the Presiding Bishop is female.)  Further votes, including one requiring a 2/3 majority, are needed and it will be a couple of years at the earliest that this could happen.

So, where does this leave the Lambeth Conference?  We will have to see.  It is interesting to note who was not invited to this event that is supposed to include all the bishops:  Prominent on the not-invited list was Gene Robinson.  In addition, a bishop with close ties to the ruling regime in Zimbabwe as well as U.S. bishops who had been elevated by overseas archbishops over the objections of The Episcopal Church.  Who did not come?  Many of the no-shows are bishops who would have liked to have seen the supporters of Bishop Robinson on the not-invited list.  In addition to these divisions over doctrine, there are reports that the conference is heavily in debt and does not have the funds to pay the final bill.

While it is tempting to draw one-to-one comparisons of the Anglican situation with the PC(USA) situation, such as GAFCON = New Wineskins, I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.  However, I will leave you with one other item about Lambeth, and that is the presence of religious cartoonist Dave Walker, invited as the “cartoonist in residence” for the event.  I would point you to this contribution in particular.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Monday Committee Meetings and Some Polity Musings

Leave a reply

I can’t remember if I said that I’ll resume live blogging when the plenary reconvenes on Wednesday afternoon.  Today, and probably tomorrow, I spent moving between committee meetings.  I did not see very much through from start to finish but did spend larger chunks of time in Committee 8 – Mission Coordination and Budget and Committee 5 – Church Orders.  I’ll talk about Committee 8, and a couple of others, in briefer detail in a following post, but let me make some comments on Church Orders here.

First, Church Orders is our polity wonk name that is mainly ordination standards so they are dealing with, among other things, PUP report issues and G-6.0106b “fidelity and chastity” issues.

I came in during the overture advocates presentations on 05-03 and 05-18 which were linked together.  Both of these deal with examinations under PUP, commending presbyteries for working on their examination procedures and asking the stated clerk to compile best practices.  And both overtures cite that acknowledgment of sexual orientation must be self acknowledged and the examining body must be consistent in questioning.  And interestingly, in the Standing Rules each overture gets three minutes to speak to the overture, but for 05-03 there were nine concurring presbyteries who also get time.  Lumped together that was eleven speakers total so they had 33 minutes.  The pooled their presentations, it was scripted, choreographed, and with a great PowerPoint presentation.  And it was loaded with scriptural and polity arguments.

Of those polity arguments, two struck me as “interesting.”

The first was their take on the GAPJC “Bush v. Pittsburgh Presbytery” decision last February.  Their claim was that in the Bush decision the GAPJC lifted “fidelity and chastity” to a higher standard since an exception could not be declared for it.

Specifically the Bush decision says:

The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers.

So in a technical sense the GAPJC did set this higher, but as they say it was not really themselves that set it higher, but rather “The church has decided…”, it is the whole church by including it in the constitution.  A little later they generalize this with:

Although G-1.0301 permits broad freedom of conscience for members of the church, “in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds” (G-6.0108b). G-6.0108a defines the limits of this freedom of conscience for ordained church officers.

One of the interesting arguments made by the overture advocates was that we don’t need to over legislate this but to trust the presbyteries and correct this in the review process inherent in our connectional system.  This is almost exactly the same argument made, and exhibited, at the Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly just concluded when they decided that they did not need a study committee to consider the ordination of women to the diaconate since changes to polity should come from the presbyteries and then later the same day in the review of presbytery records considered an “unsatisfactory exception” when a presbytery’s examination of a teaching elder for membership did not fully examine and classify his views in favor of women elders.  For more on this check out the comment by Scott to my discussion of the debate at the PCA GA.

The other polity item that struck me was the reference to the previous GAPJC decisions and the commissioners’ comments about not being able to ask but that the sexual orientation must be self-acknowledged.  For the most part that is correct, but I would like to clarify from the headnotes of Weir v. Second Presbyterian Church, case 214-5:

Self-acknowledgment: The plain language of the Constitution clearly states that disqualified persons must have self-acknowledged the proscribed sin. Self-acknowledgment may come in many forms. In whatever form it may take, self-acknowledgment must be plain, palpable, and obvious and details of this must be alleged in the complaint.

Examination of Candidates for Ordination and/or Installation: The ordaining and installing governing body is in the best position to determine whether self-acknowledgment is plain, palpable, and obvious, based on its knowledge of the life and character of the candidate. If the governing body has reasonable cause for inquiry based on its knowledge of the life and character of the candidate, it has the positive obligation to make due inquiry and uphold all the standards for ordination and installation.

While the self-acknowledgment need not be verbal, reasonable cause is necessary to investigate further.

As I noted, the overture advocates for these overtures received a significant amount of time due to the number of concurring presbyteries.  After a question from a commissioner, a short conversation with the Stated Clerk, and then praying about it over dinner, the chair of the committee agreed that in fairness the overture advocates for overtures recinding the PUP report should have additional time.

The nature of all these presentations up to this point, filled with scriptural and polity arguments, differed markedly from the presentations that followed regarding the removal or modification of G-6.0106b, the fidelity and chastity section.  These appealed to love, justice, fairness, gifts, call, and pain with very little discussion of scripture or polity.  Needless to say, the theme passage for the General Assembly, Micah 6:8, was regularly cited.

Well, that was the most polity intensive and nuanced discussion I heard today.  Not even the Revised form of Government comments were that good.  So that wraps up Church Orders.  Next I’ll prepare some discussion of the other committees I checked in on.

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — Debate and decision on Deaconesses

3 Replies

The PCA GA has begun debate on the issue of deaconesses and women in the diaconal ministry.  There is a commissioner committee report that basically says “the Book of Church Order is clear, a study committee is not needed.”  There is a minority report to create the study committee.

The presentation began with a motion to rule the minority report out of order since the BCO is clear on the subject.  The Moderator ruled that the minority report was in order, he was challenged on the ruling, and in a counted vote his ruling was sustained by the Assembly 518 to 369.

The committee majority argument is 1) that the BCO is clear about only men serving as officers of the church and 2) creation of a study committee would produce “two strong reports” and would polarize the church.  “Now is not the time to raise to a higher pitch another controversy in the PCA.”  There has been enough controversy over the last several years.  The minority argument is that there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue who want clarity on the subject.  Also, the minority report is restrictive that the study committee would be specific to the question of women serving in diaconal ministry and would be pastoral in its recommendations leaving changes to the BCO to presbytery overture.

The presenter of the minority report also complimented the chairman for his leadership of the committee, and commented on how after heated debate there were apologies made by commissioners to one another for conduct during debate.

It is interesting that the first speaker in the debate on the minority report invoked the blogosphere.  His point is that this is not about the issue, but how the issue is dealt with — not in e-mail or blogs going back and forth, but gathered together face-to-face.  (Strike against the Church Virtual.)  Other comments included the idea that just because women can not hold offices they should not be treated as second-class citizens (my phrase).  Also that division is sometimes necessary and that all they do is create study committees.  At the first extension of debate the Moderator polled those waiting to speak and found many more wanting to speak for the minority report than speaking against it. One of the irony’s of the second vote to extend debate is that it took about as long to count the votes as the time that would have been added to the debate.  The moderator did get a laugh when he was informed that he had made a parliamentary blunder and to try to get it correct he said “We’ll have to study that.”  Debate was closed by a vote of 420 to 467 and the Moderator acknowledged the time irony. 

The minority report failed — it was close enough that a division of the house was necessary, but a counted vote was not.  In the debate on the main motion there were a few comments about the future, including the statement that this issue will come back to GA in the future.  It was noted that some elders are not against the ordination of women as deacons, but do not practice it due to the prohibitions of the BCO.

The debate on the main motion was not extended and the main motion was quickly passed on a vote using the cards.

I’ll post this now, but there are three more overtures on this topic that will presumably be answered by this action.

Update:  Overture 19, to decline to erect a study committee, was answered with comment that BCO changes were not in order in this matter.

Synod PJC Lets Restoration To Ordained Ministry Stand

2 Replies

A few days ago the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies dismissed the remedial complaint filed against the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area regarding their restoration of the Rev. Paul Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry.  The Rev. Capetz is on the faculty of United Theological Seminary, an independent theological institution with a UCC heritage.  He had asked to be released in 2000 because he could not agree with Book of Order section G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” standard.  With the passage of the PUP Report he asked to be restored while declaring a scruple.  The Presbytery agreed in January and restored Mr. Capetz.  The complaint was then filed with the Synod PJC.  I’ve held off a couple of days hoping to get official language, but I have not found it yet so I’ll discuss this decision based on what was first reported by the Witherspoon Society.

According to the Witherspoon Society piece, the Synod PJC ruled that the Book of Order and interpretations by previous General Assembly PJC decisions all deal with the ordination process and since Mr. Capetz was previously ordained there was no basis for complaint.  I would also note that the Authoritative Interpretation resulting from the PUP report also deals principally with the ordination process, and that another GAPJC decision deals only with a call to employment in a PC(USA) entity.  In light of this precedent and case law this is a reasonable decision by the SPJC, even if it seems counter-intuitive based on all these previous decisions.  To determine a new interpretation on this particular circumstance will require appeal to the GAPJC or action by the General Assembly.

If you are interested there are a whole series of GAPJC decisions on this which have carved the lines fairly precisely.  As I list these I will usually rely on the very brief description found in the Annotated Book of Order.   One series of decisions has dealt with the ordination process.  The decision in 205-4: Gary J. LeTourneau et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in 1993 made clear that a “self-affirmed practicing homosexual” (SAPH) may not be certified ready for ordination.  The prohibition on ordination was reaffirmed in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and in 218-04: George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery in 2008.  However, the GAPJC also made clear that if you are celibate you may be ordained based on 212-12: John S. Sheldon, et al., v. the Presbytery of West Jersey. And then in a couple of decisions that bridge between the two extremes, 214-5: Ronald L. Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and 215-8: Presbytery of San Joaquin v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods and Edgar T. Hart, Steve Nesheim, Larry Ballenger, Bill McDonald, Merle Wood, Rebecca Jordan-Irwin, and Kent A. Webber v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods, the GAPJC basically reaffirmed that orientation alone is not an impediment to ordination, but if there are reasonable grounds (not rumor) to believe the individual is a SAPH than the ordaining body is obligated to investigate this.

As far as ordination is concerned, these have all been related to the ordination process and the GAPJC has made it clear in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and reaffirmed in 211-2: Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Fort Lauderdale, Florida that an ordination may not be annulled under these circumstances.  And the GAPJC did caution in 215-5: Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church of Albany, New York not to rush the ordination or installation process to reach this end.

There is one other thread in the GAPJC decisions which is applicable here.  While an ordination may not be annulled in these cases, the GAPJC did say in 205-5: Ronald P. Sallade et al v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley in 1993, and reaffirmed in several of these other cases, that a SAPH, if ordained, may not be called to employment in a PC(USA) position that “presumes ordination.”  In the case of Mr. Capetz, he is employed by an independent theological institution and the presbytery validated that ministry.

As I skim through these previous decisions, it strikes me that there is no set precedent for restoration to ordained ministry.  (I’m sure you will let me know if I missed a paragraph somewhere.)  And while it does seem to go against the intent of many of these decisions, and of the recent 218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh, I see no reason under current decisions that the SPJC should not have dismissed it.  As I said before, the real test will be the GAPJC if it is appealed.  Time will tell.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Role of Women in Ministry

A lot has happened in the last couple of days and my sincere thanks to Marshall for leaving the comments alerting us to the developments in the Presbyterian Church in America during that time.

These relate to the developing discussion over women as deacons, and more generally to the role of women in the church.  While I have mentioned this at various points in the past, I have particular posts in January and February that focus on this issue.  Up to this week, there were two overtures before the General Assembly asking for a study committee to clarify the scriptural, confessional, and polity basis of deaconesses.  The first is Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery and the second is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery.

In the last day four more overtures have been posted to the overtures page.  I will only mention that overtures 16 and 18 are matching procedural overtures from Piedmont Triad Presbytery and Western Carolina Presbytery to modify their shared presbytery boundary moving one church from Western Carolina to Piedmont Triad.  Overtures 17 and 19 deal with the question of women and ministry, the first to expand the charge of the study committee and the second asks the assembly to decline to establish the study committee.

In Overture 17, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, the text cites the fact that this issue has not been addressed in this or a similar Presbyterian branch in 20 years.  It also notes that this issue has caused churches to leave the denomination, and while not naming names, a recent example is City Presbyterian Church of Denver which recently left (or is in the final stages of the process of leaving) that Presbytery and affiliated with the Reformed Church in America.  The overture concurs with overtures 9 and 15 and goes further to ask for clarification on the broader role of women in the church including what roles they may serve in as well as leading in worship and teaching when the group contains both men and women.

At the other end is Overture 19 from Central Georgia Presbytery.  Their overture, to paraphrase and summarize, says that 1) Scripture is clear and there is no dispute, 2) that “commissioning” in this case is a way to side-step the polity restrictions on ordination, 3) that titles must be scriptural, 4) that overtures 9 and 15 are challenges to the Westminster Standards and should be defeated, 5) that in the polity the status quo is appropriate, and 6) that sessions are free to appoint Godly men and women to assist the diaconate.

Well, the first two overtures that addressed the current understanding of the ordained offices were already looking to make the Assembly interesting.  Now with two more that stretch the discussion in both directions this should make this meeting one that will be talked about for a while, not to mention the Assembly where the Study Committee reports, if such a committee is established.

But it is not just the overtures that have appeared in the last few days.  Once again the Bayly Brothers have a blog entry addressing this issue and it also argues for the status quo and better Presbytery oversight and guidance because the church should never have gotten to this point in the first place.  As Tim concludes:

We’re repeating the endless error of American Presbyterians who trust
study committees to do nasty work that would better be handled by
loving, local, personal, compassionate, discerning, biblical church
discipline.

In a “variations on a theme” sense, this entry could be written about several of the Presbyterian branches that are debating ordination standards.  You could take this entry, fill in the PC(USA) for the church and practicing homosexuals for the group under discussion, and the entry would read like one side of the argument in that debate.  And while I can’t cite an example from the other side of the PCA debate right at the moment, the same could be done for that and with some word substitution it would cover the other side.  That is one of the reasons that I write this blog:  The issues that you see around the world in the church frequently take many variations on the same basic theme.  May God Bless Us.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Mid-April Update

Leave a reply

Heads up GA Junkies, Presbyterian polity wonks, and stated clerk wanna-be’s:  First thing last Monday morning the Presbyterian Church in America filled out its Overtures Page for the upcoming 36th General Assembly and there are some items in there that only a polity wonk and parliamentarian can fully appreciate.

In my first Assembly preview I mentioned that there were three overtures that we only had the titles for, and shortly after that post three new overtures were posted, of which only one had text provided.  Well, now the full text of the five title-only overtures is posted so now there is some interesting stuff to dissect.  If your eyes glaze over easily at the pure polity business, you can jump a bit further down for church membership overtures, or all the way to the end for the latest in the discussion of deaconesses.

There are two overtures from Potomac Presbytery that address changes to the PCA Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO).  If you want the current version you can find it bundled with the Book of Church Order, starting on page 246, towards the back before the Standing Judicial Commission Manual.

Overture 13 is simply titled: Revise RAO 14-6 k.; 14-9 g.; 15-8 e.; 14-9 e.; 15-8 c.  The overture begins with the observation that the revised RAO has basically been successful, but a few “minor adjustments” are needed.  If you look at the proposed changes it involves some pretty specific and subtle changes in the rules.  The first change, adding 14-6.k, would permit commissioner committees of Assembly to adopt resolutions commending persons or agencies.  This is a power the committees traditionally have had and was omitted in the new rules as an oversight according to the rational.  The second change, adding 14-9.g, makes explicit that the Assembly answers Presbytery overtures.  The first part declares that if the Assembly fails to adopt a recommended response to an overture then “the overture shall be considered to have been answered in the negative”  The second part says that if the commissioner committee proposal is a negative answer to the overture and the full Assembly does not adopt it, then a no to a no does not make a yes so the proposal is sent back to the commissioner committee.  And the next, 15-8.e, makes the same change in another place.

OK, that was warm up.  The other two changes deal with consequences of particular parliamentary motions.  Specifically, the changes to 14-9.e and 15-8.c clarify what the full Assembly can do with a committee recommendation.  The section specifies that the subsidiary motions the full Assembly can not use are postpone indefinitely, amend, and commit, as well as some incidental motions.  It does say that the Assembly can recommit, also know as refer, back to the commissioner committee that dealt with it.  This overture would specify that “recommit with instructions” would not be permitted since this could be a undesirable exercise for the full Assembly and possibly provide an end-run on the prohibited amending.  (If you want a good write up on these subsidiary motions from a slightly different venue there is one from the U.S. House of Representatives.)  The reasons for recommitting the recommendation would be implicitly known according to the rational for the change:

A motion to recommit with instructions would open the floor to the emendation process the new rules were designed to prohibit. The overtures committee will have sufficient information to address a recommendation recommitted from the debate on the motion to recommit.

As I said, language only a polity wonk could love.  Have you ever used or heard “emendation” in a sentence?  (Essentially changing the document trying to correct the mistakes.)  The last item in the overture would make the same change in a parallel section, 15-8.c.

There is also the closely related Overture 14, also from Potomac Presbytery, which addresses the RAO, connectionalism and the constitution of the church.  The overture points out that the RAO, adopted by the Assembly, has a section, 16-3.e.5, that has instructions for Presbyteries.  (In an interesting twist, or maybe what brought this to everyone’s attention, this is the section dealing with recording in Presbytery minutes the examination of elders and their departures from the Confessional Standards that was cited in one of the indictments against Louisiana Presbytery in the recent Federal Vision Controversy trial. (If you want to follow that thread check my last post on that))  The polity issue here is why are requirements that Assembly places on the Presbyteries contained in the Rules of Assembly Operations when they should be in the Book of Church Order since the RAO is adopted by the Assembly for its own procedures.  Procedures for Presbyteries must either be adopted by the Presbytery itself or adopted by the whole church through the process of amending the Book of Church Order.  This overture asks for the appointment of an ad interim committee to review the RAO and get rid of or move to the BCO any parts that place requirements on other governing bodies.  As a GA Junkie and polity wonk I think they are absolutely right.  Just open up the overture and check out the Where As sections.  For the PC(USA) folks, heads up on this for the Form of Government revision.

Now I will jump back to Overtures 1, 2, and 3 from Southeast Alabama Presbytery.  These all deal with sections related to membership in the church.  Overture 1 proposes changes to BCO Chapter 6 to more clearly define how individuals join the church, especially by letter of transfer or reaffirmation of faith.  The overture would add, among other language, two sections that define each of those.  It is interesting to note that there is also a line added to BCO 6-2, the section that addresses “children of believers.”  The added language says “It is [the children’s] duty and privilege personally to receive and rest upon Christ, to confess Him before men, and seek admission to the Lord’s Table.”  I won’t elaborate at this time but I could read this addition as a clarification of the covenant community in a way that opposes the Federal Vision Theology.

Overture 2 would make some changes to the “membership vows” in BCO 57-5.  To the current five questions it would add three more at the beginning that have the new members affirm the three sections of the Apostles Creed, one section per question.  But it would also completely rewrite qu
estion 6 from relying in the grace of the Holy Spirit to promising to “make diligent use the means of grace” to live peacefully in the community and with the aid of the Holy Spirit to be a faithful disciple to the end of your life.  A last question is added for those who are joining by affirmation of faith and baptism for them to explicitly declare their intent.  Finally, in an interesting touch this overture would add “I do” as the required response to each question.  Note that this is the same section that overture 4 proposes to change the line about the pastor asking these questions from a “may” to a “shall.”

And overture 3 appears to play clean-up in other sections of the BCO where the changes from 1 and 2 would need to be reconciled with current language.  It makes corresponding changes to parts about letters of transfer and the membership vows in other places and moves some sections, including the membership vows in 57-5, to chapter 46.

Finally, there is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery which concurs with Overture 9 asking for study and clarification of the scriptural guidance concerning women serving as deacons, or a position very similar to a deacon.  This is the high-profile issue of the Assembly and the PCA web magazine byFaith has a note about it as well as continued low-level interest in the blogosphere, like recent posts on Post Tenebras Lux and Omnia ad Dei Gloriam.

And on a technical note, if anyone who works on the PCA web site sees this, you might want to do a check on your title meta-tags.  The overtures page says “Exhibitors” and many of the pages for this year’s GA still say 35th General Assembly.

So stay tuned.  Of the large-church GA’s this one comes before the PC(USA) but after the Church of Scotland.  We are getting closer.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly

Coming up on June 10-13, 2008, in Dallas, Texas, will be the 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  There is both an Assembly web site as well as one from the host committee.  Both web sites are basic but functional and the host committee’s site has the program for Women in the Church (WIC) and the children and youth program.  While the youth day trip to Six Flags and the Laser Tag event would get the attention of my Jr. Higher, the “mixer” with seminary students is a nice touch to acquaint them with another aspect of the wider church.

The docket is published and there are now twelve overtures posted on the overtures page.  I will tackle the latest on the “hot button” overture at the end of this post.  The rest fall into natural groupings.

From Southeast Alabama Presbytery come a set of three overtures all related to people becoming members of the church.  Now the details are incomplete since the text of the overtures is not posted yet (the site says that Clerk is still waiting on information from the Presbytery) but all are proposed changes to the Book of Church Order. Overture 1 would make modifications to the section that defines the methods by which people are received into or dismissed from the Church.  The next, overture 2, deals with “Transfers to Church Membership.” and overture 3 would “Require Affirmation of the Apostles Creed for Membership.”  More on these as the text becomes available.

Overture 4, from Presbytery of the Blue Ridge, also is related to membership, specifically what are informally known as the “membership vows.”  In the present wording the Book of Church Order, section 57-5, says that the minister may ask the five questions to those seeking membership by profession of faith.  This overture makes the simple, but significant, change of the may to a shall.  So if approved by the GA and confirmed by the Presbyteries the questions would be mandatory.  For reference the five questions deal with 1) do you acknowledge yourself as a sinner? 2) do you believe in Jesus Christ and rest upon Him alone for salvation? 3) Relying on the Holy Spirit will you live as followers of Christ? 4) will you support the Church? and 5) Do you submit yourself to the Church government and discipline?

Speaking of Church discipline, there are two overtures that deal with procedures in discipline cases, both from Missouri Presbytery.  Overture 6 addresses procedures during the investigation of a Teaching Elder (minister) who has had an accusation made against him.  Specifically, it adds a new paragraph to 31-2 that would have an investigating committee or commission formed and would permit the presbytery, by a 2/3 vote, to suspend the Teaching Elder from his responsibilities.  As the proposed amendment says:

At any time while its investigation is in process, the presbytery may suspend the teaching elder from active ministerial duties if it believes the man’s credibility, effectiveness, or fitness for office has been seriously compromised by these reports. Such a suspension shall never be done in the way of censure, since it is not tantamount to a judgment of guilt in the investigation; rather, it is a means of protecting the integrity of the gospel as well as the peace and unity of the church. Great care should be exercised not to invoke this provision too hastily or without sufficient grounds and careful deliberation.

It should be noted that the change here is to provide for suspension during investigation since section 31-10 already provides for suspension from official duties once the charges have been filed.  The second overture in this group, overture 7, clarifies the rules of discipline by explicitly stating that reports that warrant an investigation are “judicial” in nature and need to be treated as such.  These two proposed changes to the Rules of Discipline have the feel of ones that arose because of questions, confusion, or circumstances in a specific case in Missouri Presbytery.

There are three overtures related to presbytery boundaries.  Overture 12 from Evangel Presbytery asks to divide the presbytery since it now has the maximum recommended number of churches.  The southern half in the Birmingham, Alabama, area would retain the Evangel name and the northern half would become the new presbytery.  Overture 5 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery asks to have two additional counties, not currently included in a PCA presbytery, included in Northwest Georgia.  Overture 10 is effectively a concurring overture from neighboring Tennessee Valley Presbytery saying that they have no objections.  This is important because Tennessee Valley does have groups working in that area looking at planting churches.  However, overture 10 has a note from the Stated Clerk pointing out the title of the overture, “Revise Tennessee Valley Presbytery Boundary,” is actually incorrect since the two counties currently belong to no presbytery and so Tennessee Valley’s boundaries will not change.

Also, there are two overtures that have a common link to military chaplaincy.  The first and least obvious, overture 8, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, is a “Tribute to TE William B. Leonard,
Jr.” who has given many years of service to Presbyterian and Reformed churches, service extending back before the founding of the PCA.  Among this service is the founding and serving as the first Executive Director of the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains, an agency with connections to the PCA and four other Reformed denominations. 

The second is overture 11 from the Presbytery of the Ascension that is titled “Sending Reformed Military Evangelists to U.S. Oversees Military Communities.”  This is a complex overture in a number of respects but the bottom line is that it calls for better church evangelism and support in overseas military communities beyond the work of the chaplains from the Joint Commission.  For the GA to deal with it will require its consideration by four different commissioner committees and it calls for the creation of an additional national committee for the denomination which will require a Book of Church Order change.  Briefly, the four action items are: 1) encourage each presbytery to establish a committee to work on church planting among church families stationed around the world. 2) Have a coordinated PCA effort for this church planting as well. 3) Encourage commissioning evangelists for military colleges and military bases nationally and globally. and 4) establish the Reformed Military Ministries as a denominational committee parallel to the Reformed University Ministries for college chaplains.  Because of the issues involved and the complexity of this overture I can see this as a “sleeper” that could lead to extended debate and consideration of the partnership with the Joint Commission for this work.

Finally, we have the issue that several of us in the blogosphere have been tracking for a while, the question of ordination and ordination standards as it applys to the place of women in the diaconate or deaconesses.  Overture 9, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, calls for the creation of a study committee for sorting this all out.  For some of the background leading up to this you can check out my previous post on this from about a month ago.  The summary is that the Book of Church Order and the Westminster Standards state that only men may serve in ordained office, but some question the Scriptural support for this for deacons, some ask how women can be involved in service that is like that of deacons, and some are wondering what actions or procedures are, or are not, ordination.  Not much has officially changed in the last month, but plenty of people are weighing in on the topic.  As before, the strongest proponents of strictly having men serve in anything even close to an ordained office are the Bayly Brothers.  In addition to their earlier blog posting they have recently added another that is a reprint of a piece Timothy Bayly wrote for Ligonier Ministries’ publication Table Talk ten years ago.  There is also an extensive post on Green Baggins by Bob Mattes that considers the Greek text , and one of the (currently 204) comments is by Doug Wilson that defends the unique role of deaconess.  Another detailed post that directly addresses the “where ases” in the overture is on the blog “The Cellar Door.”  And in a brief post A Reforming Mom affirms and links to the Bayly Brothers earlier post, so it is not just the “male hierarchy” of the PCA that is in favor of preserving the status quo.  At this time there has been little I have seen directly related to this overture arguing for the ordination of women as deacons in the PCA posted in the blogosphere except maybe in blog comments on the BaylyBlog or Green Baggins.

It has struck me that there is currently a higher level of discussion of deacons and deaconesses in the general blogosphere right now.  It is impossible to say if it is directly linked to this overture and controversy.  One example is Thabiti Anyabwile on Pure Church who has several posts this month about deacons in general.  If you want a women serving as deacons analysis of the Greek text you can see a discussion by Baptist minister Wade Burleson on the role of women in the offices of the church.

As the PCA heads towards this General Assembly there is a new dynamic beginning to surface and that is the current prominence nationally of PCA Teaching Elder Tim Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.  In addition to Redeemer’s growth and strong ministry in New York City, Rev. Keller also has a best selling popular book out now called “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.”  The extent and emphases of Redeemer Presbyterian Church is a subject for another time, and I am not sure yet whether the church would fall into the “emergent” category, but with their programs and “popular feel” there is a rising level of concern among some in the PCA about their orthodoxy.  This includes the diaconate ministry of the church described in a carefully worded web page which mentions but does not distinguish between deacons and deaconesses and refers to both as “officers.”  Because of the intended scope of this post being the General Assembly I’ll return to TE Tim Keller and the situation at Redeemer another time, but I just wanted to point out a rising level of concern among PCA bloggers about Redeemer as exemplified by, among other, the BaylyBlog, Confessional Outhouse, and a long related discussion on the Puritan Board.  The PCA is not a “one size fits all” Presbyterian branch and has in the past addressed questions of orthodoxy head-on rather than walking around the “elephant in the room.”  We will see how this develops.

Looking back at this post I am now aware that I have read a lot on these issues from bloggers with a fairly close reading of the Westminster Standards and not a lot who identify themselves with the PCA and have a more relaxed or flexible view of the standards and Scripture.  I try hard to keep this blog balanced so if you think there is another voice out there I should be reading and quoting more feel free to let me know in the comments or send me e-mail at steve_at_gajunkie.com.

Keep watching these issues as GA approaches and we will see how they develop.