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:
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.
It is helpful to keep in mind the overtures requesting a study committee do so to study Scripture and see if our Book of Church Order needs to be changed to conform it with Scripture.
This means a study committee could recommend removing provisions, clarifying wording, or adding new provisions, or recommending no changes are necessary. The study would provide detailed exegesis to support their reasoning.
For example, it is possible a study committee could recommend adding a provision making more explicit the responsibility and authority of the Board of Deacons in overseeing, directing and disposing of mercy ministry in the local church.
Remember that in the PCA, study committees are not absolutely binding on presbyteries but are to be given “due and serious consideration” by them. This is part of being a “connectional” church system that has chosen to vest plenary authority at the session and then presbytery level (not from the General Assembly level on down.
The Book of Church Order is part of the Constitution of the denomination (along with the Westminster Standards). It can be amended but it cannot be disregarded. That is why there are (very deliberative) processes to enforce it at higher levels if to a high degree of certainty the Constitution is being disregarded.
While this can lead to some passionate disagreements and confrontations, the system works if participants are committed to the peace and purity of the Church for God’s Honor and Glory.
Every view drawn from Scripture can be heard and peace can be had through submission to the authority of the Church ultimately speaking in resolution of controversy.
This practice (of study committees) is consistent with the Reformed principle of “Semper Reformada”- always reforming in conformance with Scripture.
That way the visible Church evaluates church doctrine and practice not against the shifting ideas of men, or culture or academic climates of their generation, but in light of the timeless standard of God’s Holy Word.
Thanks Scott-
That is a great explanation of some of the nuances of study committees that I did not include. I have been leaving out the part in all these overtures where they say “and make recommendations, if need be, to change the Book of Church Order.”
Your discussion about resolving these differences in the context of a “connectional” system is right on and how it is part of “semper reformada.” I would add that a part of all this is that any changes to the BCO a study committee would recommend would need to go through the process of GA debate and resolution, and then presbytery approvals to come back to the following GA.
Thanks again for filling in the subtleties I left out.