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.
Again, very fair report. Those interested in more detail can refer to my running comments on Puritan Board, on minute-by-minute happenings.
The only suggestion I would have is, your p.s. on Overture 19 is misleading. It was not that BCO amendments “were not in order,” but that O19 did not ask for any action other than to vote down O9, the main one about women deacons. I.e., O19 was found superfluous, since the GA had already voted down O9.
You’ve done a good job overall summarizing what went on at our General Assembly.
The context of what happened is important to understand here. The majority report to not erect a study committee included language that the Constitution was not unclear, the offered study committee exegesis already existed, and the best way forward in terms of the peace and purity of the church was to use existing processes- these include overtures to change the Book of Church Order and “references” to determine whether specific practices are constitutional. Also, that these sorts of issues are better worked through at the Presbytery level with ultimate accountability to the General Assembly.
The Majority report said this issue was studied thoroughly at the time of our foundation as a denomination, exegesis was done and the Book of Church Order reflects that Scriptural understanding.
If one disagrees, they may propose changes by overture.
Keep in mind that in the PCA, study committees, while not absolutely binding, are to be given “due and serious consideration.” With a committee set up to be divided, it tends to diminish its authority. The Minority report suggested the names of the majority of proposed study committee. At one point, it was even proposed to produce a likely 4/3 split of opinion. Such a closely divided report, would probably not bring clarity or “resolve” this issue based on consensus, but only exaggerate the differences of opinion, make things less clear, and disturb the peace and purity of the church.
On top of this, the Majority pointed out the Scripture exegesis has already been done even by members who were being suggested for the study committee-its out there now for anyone to see right now.
So, in context, the Majority said our Constitution is not unclear, practices can be clarified by reference, dialouge best occurs at Presbytery level with GA accountability.
Incidentally, that dialouge and broad based participation occurred right after this debate when the review of Presbytery records occurred. It demonstrated exactly the kinds of mechanisms in place to deal with these kinds of issues and how a broad based discussion could be had. In the PCA, every church can send a delegate to the General Assembly.
From the web cam view, it appeared that the final report passed by a large majority- it was not at all close.
Scott,
Thank you very much for your clarifications and corrections. The errors in my original post are my own and due to a number of things, including trying to actually get work done at the office while watching the webcast and not being at full speed on some of these particulars. So thanks for setting the record straight and helping us all to better understand the PCA process.