Category Archives: PCA

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.

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — But wait, there’s more

3 Replies

After the debate on the deaconesses concluded, a similar theological issue, with nuances, came up a report or two later.  This was in the review of presbytery records.

In particular, the minutes of Northern California Presbytery, in an examination of a TE, (I missed if this was for ordination or membership) the man being examined is recorded to have stated exceptions that “A woman may do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do.”  This means not only reading scripture, but teaching on it by preaching, which would be against the Westminster Standards.  Based on this, and other comments, a closely divided commissioner committee led to a minority report that proposed having these records noted with not just exception, but with an exemption that needed to be answered by the presbytery.  The rational was that this would have opened the way for dialog with the Presbytery to further investigate the subtleties and specifics of the man’s comments.

The debate was marked by a number of interesting comments.  One from a TE from that Presbytery noted the man was no longer in the Presbytery.  This was answered by the observation that this was a procedural matter now, not a specific of this examination.  There was a comment from TE Tim Keller that many members of the PCA might share this exception relative to letting women preach.

The minority report was defeated and that item was referred, that is recommitted, back to the committee since it was such a close committee vote.  The remainder of the Presbytery minutes were approved outside of that item.

Part of the comments in the minutes indicated that the TE being examined would commission men and women as deacons rather than ordain only men.  It was noted in the latter part of the debate that while the decision on the deaconess overtures was to work it out at the presbytery level, in this case there was an unsatisfactory exception because the presbytery did work it out at the presbytery level.  There was an amendment proposed that the exemption be changed from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory” in light of this but the change was defeated. 

UPDATE 6/16/08:  Thanks to those who have helped me out where I missed, by omission or comission, the details of the debate here.  However, TE Lane Keister from the blog Green Baggins delivered the minority report on this one and he has now discussed this part of the GA in a post on his blog.  Thanks Lane and now after seeing you on the webcast I can put a face with the name.

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.

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.

Decision in the PCA SJC Louisiana Presbytery Case

1 Reply

On March 6 trial was held by the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America in the case of Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of TE Steven Wilkins.  In a moment the results of that trial…

But to cover the bases I want to get caught up on the prosecutor situation since my last post on February 11.  As I mentioned at the end of that post, RE Sam Duncan had announced his intention to resign as the prosecutor in the case.  Upon his resignation TE Dewey Roberts was named as the prosecutor.  Our thanks to Rev. Lane Keister at Green Baggins for posting RE Duncan’s resignation letter.

Well, after trial on Thursday and deliberations that evening, the SJC returned their verdict on Friday morning.  In count 1, a technical count about classifying declared departures that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded “not guilty” to, the charge was dismissed.  In count 2, that the presbytery did not conduct the examination of TE Wilkins to properly find a “presumption of guilt,” to which the presbytery pleaded “guilty,” the SJC “admonished” the presbytery, the lowest form of correction.

Now, I am not going to try to reinvent the wheel here because there is a good summary post at Reformed Musings about the proceedings, and if you want the details from a ruling elder close to the situation in Louisiana Presbytery you must check out HaigLaw’s post about the decision.

Looking forward it is tempting to say that the PCA has sent a message that Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with their doctrinal standards and that remaining leaders and churches who hold to the Federal Vision will flee or quickly be chased away to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  But it is important to point out that this whole case was more about examinations regarding the theology than about the theology itself.  And there is not one unified Federal Vision Theology but several varying approaches leaving some aspects doctrinally untested.  So the controversy may continue until a clear declaration regrading doctrinal standards is made by the SJC.  Or, the PCA might take this as a good point to take a break and get distracted by its next controversy.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of “legs” this topic has because it has clearly “got the attention,” “struck a nerve,” “rattled the cages,” (fill in your favorite cliché here) of the various proponents and opponents to this theological controversy.  And, with out going into details here, note that it deals with the nature of the covenant community, a topic at the core of Reformed theology.  But one post on Green Baggins currently has 707 comments to it and there is a thread on Puritan Board that has developed quite a discussion as well (4239 posts to date). So at least at the moment the topic has momentum in the blogosphere.  We will see what happens next and what happens to the momentum.

Variations on a Theme

Leave a reply

This June’s General Assembly is shaping up to be an interesting one as ordination standards are addressed by the commissioners.  The inconsistency between churches and the variation in ordination practices are raising concerns among conservative congregations that the church’s polity and confessional standards are being stretched and an overture is being sent to GA to look at this.

Sound familiar?  Well this is the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly.  Last month I mentioned that the Presbytery of Philadelphia was wrestling with the role of women in the diaconate and had approved this overture.  Well thanks to David in an article on the BaylyBlog, we now know that the official overture is available and he has filled in a few more of the details.

As I mentioned when this first came up, the questions boils down to the role of women in the diaconate and if they have a role how that should be recognized.  In this situation the women were not “ordained” but “commissioned” by the laying on of hands.  But the PCA has no definition or service of commissioning in this sense and there is an understanding among some that anything that involves laying on of hands and prayer is an ordination.  So, if it looks like an ordination and contains all the elements of an ordination, but you call it something else, is it still an ordination?

Well, the narrative attached to the overture provides us with the details in this case that I was lacking before.  It seems that in the Presbytery of Philadelphia there is a licensee who has taken exception to the office of deacon being open only to men.  Furthermore, the records review of the Presbytery minutes identified an exception regarding the commissioning of deaconesses at this licensee’s church.  To sort this out the Presbytery created a study committee and the church involved submitted to the Presbytery a proposed overture to GA to allow both men and women to be ordained as deacons on equal footing.  (That’s pretty much the “whereas” section of the overture.)  In light of these charges the Presbytery overtured the General Assembly to form an ad interim study committee to sort out the theology and give the PCA clear guidance, and clarify the polity if necessary, about the nature of commissioning and the role of women in the diaconate.

The post on the BaylyBlog also points to the church in question, liberti Church, posting on their photo page the pictures of worship service where the church was chartered which includes three pictures ( Pict 1, Pict 2, Pict 3) of the “commissioning” with the laying on of hands.

So, the PCA has some distinctions to sort out as the PC(USA) is doing.  And while the PCA and PC(USA) may be dealing with similar questions but different issues, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland may be addressing the ordination of women at its GA but from the other side:  women can be ordained, but congregations need not recognize it.

Recent News from Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA SJC Trial

6 Replies

Over the weekend there was another meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and we are once again indebted to HaigLaw for his first hand information about the meeting.  (And as an aside, HaigLaw has a nice new look to his blog page.)

The quick rundown of the most recent events that got us here:  At a January 19 meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery they decided to plead guilt to one charge and not guilty to the second charge they faced in church court and turn the trial of Federal Vision (FV) advocate TE Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Church over to the higher church court but within days the church and the minister decided to leave the denomination for an FV friendly denomination and everyone figured that would be the end of that.  But wait, it can’t end that easily…

The February 9 special meeting was called because the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the PCA has decided to go to trial on March 6 in Atlanta on the one count that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded not guilty to.  HaigLaw gives a blow-by-blow description of the meeting but a few interesting points add to the convoluted nature of this specific proceeding.

The first is that while attendance appears small from the report of the voting (5-5, 6-5, 7-7), the numbers suggest good turnout since the Louisiana Presbytery web site lists seven churches in the presbytery.  (Yes Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been removed from the list).  Figure there should be 14, or slightly more, total votes since it would be one Teaching elder and one Ruling elder from each church.

But the second point, as you can gather from my numbers above, is that the votes show the Presbytery is split on this.  A motion to change their plea to guilty on the second charge failed on a 5-5 tie.  The written content of their defense passed by a 6-5 vote.

The next, but related, item of business dealt with the request of Rev. Duane Garner to continue as a member of Louisiana Presbytery laboring outside its bounds.  Rev. Garner is an associate pastor at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church but would prefer to stay with the PCA rather than departing to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) with his church and his senior pastor Rev. Steve Wilkins.  Permission to labor outside the bounds was denied on a 7-7 tie and a request that TE Garner show his exact adherence to the PCA constitutional standards at the next Presbytery meeting passed on a 6-5 vote.  The question arises out of the fact that Rev. Garner is second author on a Federal Vision book with his boss, TE Steve Wilkins, so there is a paper trail.

Finally, I will conclude with the fact that the prosecutor for the case, Ruling Elder Sam Duncan, was a guest at the meeting.  HaigLaw relates that Mr. Duncan recommended to the SJC that the remaining charge be dropped since with Rev. Wilkins’ departure it was moot, but the SJC voted to continue to trial.  Mr. Duncan declined to give his opinion of what the possible punishment would be if the Presbytery was found guilty.  And Mr. Duncan also said that he would be resigning as prosecutor for the case. 

There was one more comment by RE Duncan that was outside the scope of HaigLaw’s post but came out in the comments and in Jeff Meyers’ blog Corrigenda Denuo.  Jeff Meyers relays information from Mr. Garner that Mr. Duncan said that “No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC.”  This has lit up the blogosphere including the comments on both HaigLaw and Corrigenda Denuo.  Well, TE Lane Keister was a member of Sam Duncan’s prosecuting team and took the time to call him up, find out about the context, and post it on his Green Baggins blog.  The comment boils down to the fact that details in Federal Vision cases are so wide spread now that you could not find a “jury” that had not been influenced by “pre-trial publicity.”  It is not that the SJC members are inherently biased against the Presbytery.  This has unleashed a significant discussion and the comments on the Green Baggins blog post are up to sixty at the moment.  If you are interested, check it out.