Huh? what does this mean? Philly PCA, 3rd ord vow

[lynnie]

Philadelphia Presbytery Overtures 42nd PCA General Assembly to Study Meaning of 3rd Ordination Vow

sorry if I am a little dense here.......

Question 1: Does this mean that they want to make it OK to ordain elders, if the elders think women elders are OK, as long as the elder would still support the PCA on only male elders?

Or is this trying to actually have women elders? Step one to a certain goal?

Question 2: If somebody thinks women elders are OK, isn't that a major step along the hermeneutical path towards denying inerrancy?

Question 3: Tenth Pres is in that presbytery. Does that mean their pastor is Ok with elders who are OK with women elders? In order to submit this proposal do they just need a majority vote and maybe lots of pastors would be against this?

I've visited 10th Pres often on Sunday night. And we used to go to one of the New Life Churches (in another Presbytery, but they planted at least one of the Philly churches). Am I overreacting here, I mean, is this just a couple of fringe Presbyterian guys with no influence, or what?

Thanks for any replies.

 

[Jash Comstock]

From what I understand, they are merely asking for a clarification of terms. They are asking the GA to give a more definitive statement regarding elders and gender.

 

[Unoriginalname]

I am a member in a church in that Presbytery and sort of know about this but I am not sure if I am allowed to discuss it. I will wait for any moderators before I say anymore.

 

[Mushroom]

but I am not sure if I am allowed to discuss it.

Why wouldn't you be? This is Presbyterianism, not Rosicrucianism. If someone swore you to secrecy in a matter about to go before the GA they evidently have no concept of the open nature of Presbyterian governance.

Being a mushroom, I despise the abuse of authority that would keep laity in the dark and muzzled.

 

[Edward]

Philadelphia, and 10th in particular, has been one of the centers of the Deaconess movement.

I've been told (more than once) that the deaconess practices of the church and the presbytery aren't the first step toward women preachers in the PCA.

And then this pops up. Someone write me up for a 9th Commandment violation, because I'm not able to view this in the most charitable light. I have too much life experience to close my eyes and hold my nose.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Why wouldn't you be? This is Presbyterianism, not Rosicrucianism. If someone swore you to secrecy in a matter about to go before the GA they evidently have no concept of the open nature of Presbyterian governance.

Being a mushroom, I despise the abuse of authority that would keep laity in the dark and muzzled.

I didn't know since it was hearsay (by hearsay I mean I heard this from a few members in the Presbytery). From what I heard, there was someone who was under care who came out in support of women elders, and said he would supposedly not teach it (much like those who claim to support paedocommunion but "won't teach it"). So plenty of elders wanted this person removed from under care, which is what I believed happened. He was not up for licensure or ordination. I think this motion was an after the fact to clarify the point.

 

[Philip]

Does this mean that they want to make it OK to ordain elders, if the elders think women elders are OK, as long as the elder would still support the PCA on only male elders?

We are talking about a case where a) the candidate in question is fine with the idea of women elders b) they are willing to abide by the BCO's position on the matter (i.e. they won't divide the church on the issue).

If somebody thinks women elders are OK, isn't that a major step along the hermeneutical path towards denying inerrancy?

No. I know a number of folks who believe in inerrancy and would support women elders. One does not necessarily imply the other. Now whether a position of women as elders is in fact borne out by a sound exegesis of the text is a different matter.

Why wouldn't you be? This is Presbyterianism, not Rosicrucianism. If someone swore you to secrecy in a matter about to go before the GA they evidently have no concept of the open nature of Presbyterian governance.

That's not quite fair. One may be privy to information which one finds it unwise to say on a public forum.

I think this motion was an after the fact to clarify the point.

That would be helpful and I don't think you're out of line to say it.

 

[Jack K]

It does seem to me that it would be poor practice here to start naming churches that might be involved (just based on speculation) and then start naming disallowed practices they might be favoring (again, just based on speculation) and then start hinting that the church is not being forthright about its intentions (again, purely speculatively). We don't want to be saying such things about our brethren based solely on the fact that the presbytery they're a part of is going through proper channels and asking for clarifacation regarding a matter that come up. All sorts of matters come up in all sorts of places and all sorts of churches.

 

[Romans922]

Underlying things that happened in the Presbytery may give a context for why this overture came, but the overture is what the PCA GA will have before it not the backstory of the Presbytery (since they did not provide it). So I would focus on the overture, not the ordinand who they ordained who holds to the view that women can be elders though he is submitting to the PCA's Constitution (all of this is public knowledge since it is in the minutes of their Presbytery).

 

[Edward]

based solely on the fact that the presbytery they're a part of is going through proper channels and asking for clarifacation regarding a matter that come up.

I don't find the Constitutional standards so unclear as to demand the creation of a study committee as to what the Scriptures say about church government with regard to the ordination of Women. But then again, TItle 11 of the US Code is clear to me, as well.

 

[Jack K]

based solely on the fact that the presbytery they're a part of is going through proper channels and asking for clarifacation regarding a matter that come up.

I don't find the Constitutional standards so unclear as to demand the creation of a study committee as to what the Scriptures say about church government with regard to the ordination of Women. But then again, TItle 11 of the US Code is clear to me, as well.

Yeah, but...

First of all, I didn't see that there's a "demand," just a request. Nor did I see that the overture is asking for an examination of what the Scriptures say about women elders, but rather for guidance on what to do with those who disagree. We can't really tell from the wording whether the overture comes from those who wish the BCO would have more teeth or less—or from both or neither. All we can say for sure is that they had an issue come up and thought it good to have the GA weigh in. Maybe because someone is hoping for leeway. But also maybe because someone wants to close a loophole. Or maybe they all just thought "general principles" sounds too, well, non-specific.

Now, I understand that when a request like this gets made it might feel like someone wants to nibble away at the standards. But consider what happens when a presbytery gets scolded for asking a question, and when particular churches in the presbytery get accused of sneaky motives just because the presbytery submitted a request for clarification. Pretty soon people start to think, "S**** the denomination. I'm not making any more overtures. From now on I'll just decide for myself what the standards mean!"

Do you really want more of that?

There are going to be issues come up that you wish never arose. Speak against those when that happens. But resist using the punish-them-for-even-mentioning-it tactic, which makes others feel oppressed and leads to rebellion. One of the best ways to keep churches from attempting a denominational runaround is to have a culture where it's okay to request these sorts of rulings from the wider church—even though it may grate at you that the issue came up in the first place. It's a dangerous mistake to let that frustation lead you to lob speculative accusations at people who've have the integrity to invite you to weigh in.

 

[lynnie]

From what I heard, there was someone who was under care who came out in support of women elders, and said he would supposedly not teach it (much like those who claim to support paedocommunion but "won't teach it"). So plenty of elders wanted this person removed from under care, which is what I believed happened. He was not up for licensure or ordination. I think this motion was an after the fact to clarify the point.

I am glad you posted this. It sure makes the whole subject look much better. Thanks.