A lot happened this past week. First, we drove to Dallas and spent the night with our son Justin and daughter-in-law Kati, who was celebrating her birthday.
Here are Justin and me, right, cooking the hamburgers last Sunday afternoon. Most of the friends invited were from their home group from Bent Tree Bible Fellowship.
That night I flew down to Orlando for the 37th PCA General Assembly.
One of the high points of that is the outgoing moderator's
sermon, preached this year by Dr. Paul Kooistra, left, who in addition to having been moderator serves as director of the PCA's Mission to the World.
Another high point was working with Dr. Bryan Chapell, president of Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, who sat next to me on the Overtures Committee, and gave several seminars, one of which, right, was on loving Christ more than our sin - which I found very helpful in dealing with besetting sin in myself and others.
An interesting issue before this year's GA was the role of women within the PCA's existing governing constitution which several presbyteries asked us to set up a study committee to discuss. The Overtures Committee, by a vote of 40 to 34, recommended we not set one up. I was one of the 34 voting to set it up, and we had a minority report on the floor asking to set it up.
Dr. Dave Coffin, left, overseen by the acting moderator in the upper right of this picture, argued the majority report. Dr. Coffin pastors a church in the Washington, D.C., area.
The new moderator, Brad Bradley, an elder at Park Cities Presbyterian Church in Dallas, was another co-signer with the minority of 34, and so he yielded the chair during this portion of the report.
Mr. E.J. Nusbaum, below right, a ruling elder in a church in Colorado Springs, gave the minority report. E.J. is a former moderator of the PCA, and has been an elder since 1988.
The GA was held on the grounds of Disney World this year, and despite lower attendance than expected, there were at least 2 overflow hotels. Mine was the Downtown Disney Hilton, shown below left, which was 5 miles, but a 30-minute bus ride away, from the HQ hotel.
Another controversy on the floor this year had to do with gay marriage. At least one presbytery and a lot of pastors from states where gay marriage has become legal were asking for legal "protection" in the form of amendments to our Book of Church Order provisions on marriage that said the civil government has an interest in marriage, and all its laws on the subject must be obeyed.
These pastors sought amendments expressly saying that such laws would have to be subject to conscience bound by the laws of God. At first our Overtures Committee recommended not making those amendments, but there was a floor vote to recommit the issue to the Committee, because floor amendments are no longer allowed in the PCA -- since the floor is so unwieldy, with a thousand delegates or more at GA. So the Overtures Committee met over lunch the last day of GA, and voted out a proposal to approve the requested changes as amended. That proposal passed on the floor, and the moderator ruled they were effective immediately, despite a provision that says all such amendments must be approved by 2/3rds of the presbyteries. There was an appeal of the moderator's ruling, but the floor sustained the moderator. There is some question now as to whether one simple-majority vote of one GA can override the requirement for 2/3rds of the presbyteries to approve such amendments.
Comments (16)
Regarding the GA - Sounds like you guys are dealing with issues we've had for the past 15 + years. Liberal issues will never go away. It seems that these will continue to come up in future GA until the Libs chip away enough support. The funny thing with PCUSA is that with the exception of this year, every time the issue of allowing Gay clergy comes up, the "Nay" vote grows. My issue is not necessarily the "gay" issue, but the issue of living a non-repentant life; sort of like having a pastor who is not faithful to his wife, or an alcoholic, one who uses excessive profanity. Why would we want that unrepentant attitude?
Anyhow, I'm glad you got to experience it. I've been asked to go to GA, but don't have the time. Reminds me of the book, The Source, when the Jewish priests would meet to argue law, and trivial matters, but take the focus off the most important concept, a relationship with God.
C.
@bearnlbk - Those comments are insightful. If you couch the issues in terms of some conservative-liberal continuum, then you see the PCUSA as just further along the same path that the PCA is now going.
I don't necessarily see all the issues that way, and think that couching them that way prevents much meaningful dialog. It seems to me that on some issues the Bible is liberal, and some conservative. I don't like couching every theological issue in terms of current American political debate.
Otoh, it's obvious to me that a majority of the GA commissioners this year saw the women's role issue that way, because the vote on even to discuss what permissible roles there were under current church law was argued against as a slippery slide to liberalism. In my view, whether you call it liberal or not, the Bible records there were women deacons. So how do men who pride themselves on being so very Biblical justify their opposition to women deacons on Biblical grounds? Why don't they admit their so-called conservatism is not Biblical?
The gay-marriage issue wasn't even over whether to condone gay marriage. It was over whether and how to "protect" ministers against having to perform those ceremonies. The sentiment, "I'm afraid I'm gonna be sued," was one that could not rationally be answered. I see it as the culmination of 30 years of anti-tort-reform hysteria. I cannot conceive of a gay couple coming to a PCA pastor and demanding he perform a ceremony for them. Even if they did, I cannot conceive of any court in this country forcing such a pastor to perform one. But that was the sentiment we were dealing with.
And even in the unlikely event one were sued, I cannot imagine the amendments we passed offering any kind of "protection." It is the law of the land that church courts are the final authority on church law, and the civil courts of government do not intervene in those matters. But even if by some stretch, it were considered a governmental duty for a pastor to perform a gay marriage ceremony, how could church law exempt the pastor from such duty? Inconceivable. By analogy, what if our church court passed a law saying we didn't have to pay our taxes? Would a governmental court recognize such an exemption? It's ludicrous. I am having a hard time believing we're even having this discussion.
I can only imagine our church administrators being in horror that we're even discussing such "protection." They know we have no budgeting whatsoever for defending such imagined lawsuits. They are not going to volunteer to defend them. There was a recent lawsuit in California over alleged clergy malpractice, and the PCA was joined in the suit. They successfully defended the suit using the defense that they were not involved in clergy licensing, but rather that was the presbytery's job. That is, the defense that the denomination does not directly supervise clergy, and therefore cannot be legally responsible for what they do or don't do.
It seems to me that the "protection" we passed at GA this year might weaken such a defense. That is, it could be argued that the denomination has now taken action to encourage defiance of the law by pastors. I can conceive of no good whatsoever coming from having gone there.
I read The Source years ago. What I recall of the book was its detail of architecture and plumbing. I don't recall the issue of debating jots and tittles and ignoring the weightier matters of the law, but I do see that happening at our GA's. You very rarely if ever hear an argument that a proposal is fair or not fair, but you do hear the most detailed arguments over paragraphs from our governing documents.
Actually, I don't see any "couching" of the issue. Biblically conservative versus politcally concervative are 2 different issues. To be conservative on any issue, means not to stray off, and stick to the original principles. Pretty much whether to or not to follow the "law" rather than challenge every on. To the contrary, to be biblically/spiritually liberal is the New Age concept of "all roads lead to heavan" or "many paths to salvation". So on this case, I see no Bilbical evidence that the Bible says, Challange the Laws of God and find other ways of Salvation other than what Christ has given us. I learned that back in the Trinity, Lubbock days. God never changes, and I don't believe he wishes us to find ways to change him.
Try not to get the 2 confused. All is not related to politics
Oh, please don't say the PCA is on the same track as the PCUSA. We LEFT a PCUSA to start our PCA! And I guarantee you we will leave the PCA if women get the OK to be pastors or elders, and if there is any give at all on homosexuality.
At first glance I thought Coffin was John Bolton of the UN!
Also, it is not certain at all that women were deacons. The word might simply have meant wives of deacons. Anyway, as far as I am concerned, I see no reason why any woman needs a 'title' to do service in the church. I don't need to be a deaconness to organise a mercy ministry. And I know enough about women, being one from a liberal New England area, to know that women are always looking for ways to take charge over men. We have to understand that in our country at this time, liberals whether homosexual or female OR male are going to push their agendas-- and need to be cut off at the pass of any loophole they would like to exploit to get there.
@HaigLaw - Actually, David, I got to thinking about it, I will be the first here to say, that I didn't mean to offend you with the "Conservative" "Liberal" language. I do value your opions, and I believe we agree Biblically on the same premise. I should have used other terms, because I do really try to keep the stench of politics out of Spiritual matters. I really try not to press any of my political beliefs on those who have a differeing opinion, out of respect. I'll leave it at that, pat you on the shoulder, and say, well done, and I'm proud you got to go to GA.
c.
@bearnlbk - you said, "Try not to get the 2 confused. All is not related to politics."
Actually, that was my point. So try not to argue with me when I'm trying to agree with you. ;)
Politically, conservative means standing for the status quo, whereas liberal means making changes.
Religiously, or spiritually, conservative means sticking by the inerrancy of scripture, whereas liberal means going beyond scripture.
My best example of a spiritual conservative but political liberal was Wilberforce, who led the UK out of slavery. He was politically liberal because he was committed to the unchangeable truths of scripture. That is the type spiritual conservative and politial liberal that I am, and hope to be.
@craigellachie - You said, "please don't say the PCA is on the same track as the PCUSA."
I wasn't. It was my son-in-law, bear in Lubbock, who suggested parallels, and I was debating that. They are in a PCUSA church, albeit a conservative one. My in-laws are in one too, also a conservative one.
I was on the side saying this is not about ordaining women to anything, we just want some guidance on what ministry roles women can have within our existing governmental structure we have, and the men who wanted to keep the women submitted refused to even discuss the issue.
I was also on the side saying we don't need "protection" against PCA pastors getting sued for refusing to perform gay marriages, but acquiesced to giving them the "protection" they asked for, because we were able to improve on the language in chapter 59 of the Book of Church Order that deals with the liberty of conscience not to have to obey ungodly laws. Neither side favored any kind of slippery slide to gay marriage. Go back and re-read the original post again, Eleanor.
@bearnlbk - Cezar, you said, "I didn't mean to offend you with the "Conservative" "Liberal" language."
You have not offended. I've already explained what I mean about conservative-liberal in both political and faith contexts.
But if you wanna avoid offending me by leaving FOX News turned off next time we visit, I won't object to that either.
I think my first inkling that being a born-again, Bible-believing Christian does not necessarily mean you have to buy into the Republican Right Wing agenda was when we visited the UK in 1990, and met Christians over there who were as conservative as we were Biblically who had different political agendas, and those agendas did not include re-criminalizing abortion, and couldn't understand what we thought our Biblical mandate for doing that was.
@craigellachie - Eleanor, you said, "it is not certain at all that women were deacons. The word might simply have meant wives of deacons."
Yes, and white could mean black too. The hermeneutics that get around Phoebe being a deacon are all liberal hermeneutics. It always strikes me as strange that men who would fight to the death for the grammatical-historical hermeneutic in most things like women submitting to their husbands, and officers being the husband of one wife, literally, will resort to a liberal hermeneutic to get around Phoebe being a deacon. If you use a consistent, conservative hermeneutic, Phoebe was a deacon, period.
Sounds good...but since you brought it up, I don't recall leaving Foxnews on. But you see, I watch Fox, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. CBS and ABC are rather boring. I think when Becky was here, I only watched the local news. But I have to watch all networks, and balance my news. I will yield to anyone who says that Fox is hate news, because that's a generality with lack of proof and substance. Heck, I when I watch Keith Oberman and Mr. Rachel Maddow, I totally disagree with their lovemaking of certain adminstrations, their (what I consider) total blame on others, but I don't consider them hateful, even though I disagree with most of their opinions.
If you're for minority rights, then Fox is right in there, they're one out of 7 media outlinks
.
C
@HaigLaw - I'm going on a footnote in my Bible on it here, and what I know to be the special sinful proclivity of women. Here is the footnote on 3:11 from my Bible (NIV):
The Greek for this phrase simply means "the women" and therefore could refer to 1) deacon's wives, 2)deaconesses, or 3) female deacons. However, the fact that deacons were referred to again in vs12-13 seems to rule out a seperate office of deaconess, but many judge otherwise.
I merely meant to indicate that the thing is uncertain, not that it was definitely taboo. I don't think one has to be a liberal to take it as I do, nor am I trying to go beyond the meaning of what I read in the Scripture. Here is the footnote from Bible Gateway:
Qualities enumerated in verses 11-12 clarify the meaning of "blamelessness" still further. However, at verse 11 a new sentence begins, and Paul issues instructions that refer to either the wives of deacons (so NIV) or women deacons ("deaconesses"; NIV margin). It is difficult to be certain which meaning Paul intended. Those who favor the meaning wives point out that requirements concerning the women are surrounded by those related to deacons. Furthermore, "women" is too common a term to designate an office. In defense of the meaning "deaconesses" others explain that (1) the introductory phrase in the same way (NIV; one word in the original; see likewise, 3:8), which is characteristic of exhortation to distinct groups, (2) the exact replication of verse 8's sentence structure in verse 11 and (3) the dependence of each verse on the initial must verb of the passage, verse 2, make a reference to women deacons equally possible. The question remains open; but it is well to keep in mind that in the absence of a technical term ("deaconess"), a reference to "women" in a code listing requirements for the office of deacon would have sufficed to direct attention to those candidates who were in fact women (compare Rom 16:1).
The actual qualities expected of these women parallel those expected of men (vv. 8-9). They are to lead lives that command respect, no doubt because they speak prudently with control (NIV not malicious talkers), do not drink in excess and generally are trustworthy in all things (5:10). The patterns of behavior that characterize overseers and deacons are also to be obvious in the lives of these women. Furthermore, as in the case of the deacons, these women represent the antithesis of certain other women who had come under the influence of the false teachers (5:15; compare 2 Tim 3:6-7).
So, it remains an open question-- and for myself, I prefer to stay away from titles and offices as a woman, given what I know women to be like. In no way does doing so prevent me or any other woman from learning, asking questions, or serving everywhere but in any capacity that puts me above a man.
@craigellachie - Well, I promise not to nominate you for deacon then in any future PCA church we may be members of. ;)
Your comments seem limited to 1 Tim 3:8-12, though, when the thrust of my argument was over Romans 16:1-2. There, the word referring to Phoebe is diakonos, Strong's #G1249, dee-ak'-on-os, specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant. It is the same exact Gk word, even with a male ending, that is used in vv. 8 & 12 of 1 Tim 3 that speak to the qualifications for deacon. Essential to the Grammatical-Historical (conservative) hermeneutic is the principle that you consider all verses dealing with a subject or word, and interpret them all to have some meaning, and a meaning that gives honor to all the other verses on that subject-word. If deacons had to be men, then you would have expected Paul to say something like -- "although I realize we have women like Phoebe as a deacon in one of our leading churches, and that was a mistake, and we need to stop that, although she's a godly woman." He didn't, and a reasonable inference must be given to why he didn't, and that is at a minimum, that he did not intend to prohibit women deacons. To not ignore Romans 16:1-2, you must interpret 1 Tim. 3 consistent with the acceptance that there were women deacons. Thus v. 11 when it speaks of women, must be viewed as a qualifier for female deacons, not wives of male deacons, or you would be positing a contradiction between v. 11 and Romans 16:1-2. As for the following verse saying husband of one wife, the N.T. culture had a problem with men and multiple wives, but not women with multiple husbands, and so you would not expect the inspired Apostle to address a non-existent problem, just to satisfy our modern notion of sexual parity. To read "husband of one wife" to mean men only, you would have to interpret it as saying deacons must be married men, when instead the obvious point is -- monogamous, not polygamous men.
@bearnlbk - Cezarito, you said, "I will yield to anyone who says that Fox is hate news, because that's a generality with lack of proof and substance."
When I was involved in elective politics, I blogged daily on the news, and for several years kept track of the thousands of hateful lies FOX told. From what I read, Bill O'Reilly and his bosom buddy Rush Limbaugh have only gotten worse since I kept daily track of them, not better.
I have never seen or even read about any hateful lies on MSNBC. Yes, they have a partisan point of view, but last time I watched them, they were critical of the present administration, not gushingly worshipful, like Limbaugh was to Bush. You obviously discredit Ms. Maddow because of her sexual orientation. Do you likewise discredit O'Reilly & Limbaugh for being, in O'R's case a widely publicized purveyor of sexual harassment, and in L's case a regular commenter about his "mistresses"?
As for your being balanced, I don't recall any news on at your house other than FOX. Which is why I go in the other room when the news is on.
Well I'll just leave it be. Since we probably have 2 differing understandings to what "Hate", it's rather pointless to carry anymore of this discussion.
C.
@bearnlbk - The FOX version of "hate" is -- Democrats are evil, Republicans are not. E.g., (two examples) when Republicans commit immoral acts, FOX labels them as "D's."
The MSNBC version of "hate," I suppose, is -- telling the truth about Republicans, or even Democrats, for that matter.