PCA 38th General Assembly (2010): Overture 14 From Westminster Presbytery

Overture 14, which has been sent up to the General Assembly this year by Westminster Presbytery, has come in response to last year's administration of the Lord's Supper at the first worship service.

OVERTURE 14 from Westminster Presbytery (to OC)
“Prohibit Use of Intincture at the General Assembly”

Whereas we are a confessional denomination;

Whereas Chapter 58 of the Book of Church Order has full constitutional authority;

Whereas the method of distributing the elements is prescribed in the Book of Church Order and the constitution specifically separates the distribution of bread and wine;

Whereas the constitution is in full submission to the inspired Word of God and the Word records that our Lord Jesus Christ distributed the elements individually, separately, and discreetly (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20);

Whereas the practice of dipping the bread in the cup and partaking the elements simultaneously is a practice that is out of accord with Scripture and our constitution;

Therefore be it resolved that Westminster Presbytery overtures the 38th General Assembly to prohibit in the future at General Assembly meetings the practice of intincture that was used at the 37th General Assembly during opening worship service.

Adopted by Westminster Presbytery at its stated meeting, April 10, 2010
Attested by /s/ TE Daniel J. Foreman, stated clerk

I have absolutely no problem with this overture.  Its simplicity is good and is a good reminder of what should have been obvious last year. 

YouTube Devotional Thursday

Are You Born Again?

YouTube Devotional Thursday

Suppose An Unholy Man Went To Hell

The PCA Is Back In Monroe, LA

My friend Rev. Brad Irick just started services at a new church plant on Monroe, LA called Providence Presbyterian Church.  A fitting name given God's providence in the former Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (tied heavily with the Federal Vision) having left the PCA for the CRE in Monroe.  Now God has, in His great providence, raised up a church to take the place those who left due to their false teachings.  Please pray for Brad and this new church as they enter a place where clearly the devil has been working.  If you know of anyone looking for a church in Monroe or its surrounding areas, point them to Providence Presbyterian Church (PCA). 

PCA 38th General Assembly (2010): Overture From Tennessee Valley Presbytery

The Tennessee Valley Presbytery has overtured the PCA General Assembly to 'affirm unordained deaconesses' (Overture 16). 

The overture states

Whereas the Scripture calls us to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3); and

Whereas the Scripture teaches us not to pass Judgment on disputable matters (Romans 14:1), and to "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14:19); and

Whereas there has been a history of disagreement within our Reformed and Presbyterian circles concerning the exegesis of Romans 16:1 In regard to the word "servant" or "Deacon" in describing a woman, namely Phoebe; and

Whereas that disagreement also extends to the exegesis of I Timothy 3:11 as to whether the translation should be woman or wife, and to the understanding of the symmetry of that passage without describing the qualifications of wives of Elders; and

Whereas there is enough Biblical evidence to support the theory, if not the idea, that widows on the roll (I Timothy 5:9710) or other godly women; and

Whereas there are Presbyters who in good and sincere conscience believe there is a Biblical basis for the role of Deaconess; and

Whereas the Scripture is to be our only rule of faith and practice; and

Whereas to disallow what the Scripture does indeed and at least "might" appear to do would put the rules of men above Scripture; and

Whereas the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) did allow congregations to appoint women as "Deaconesses" and this practice was recognized upon the Joining and Receiving (J&R) of that denomination Into the PCA; and

Whereas the practice of having women serve in the role of non-ordained Deaconess has been continued in some of our congregations for 28 years since the J&R; and

Whereas the practice is now much longer than the tradition of the PCA was before J&R (only nine years); and

Whereas In most of our congregations that have held to this practice there has been no dissension concerning the ordination of women, nor has it become a movement to in any way undermine the authority of Scripture;

Whereas this ministry has been conducted in all humbleness and love, with our congregations submitting to the brethren within the General Assembly in their concern that women not be ordained to the office of Deacon; and

Whereas this ministry has brought great comfort and blessing to the churches and to the poor.

Therefore, Tennessee Valley Presbytery requests that the 38th General Assembly adopt this statement: "The 38th General Assembly affirms that unordained deaconesses may serve the church, to the glory of God."

What does this even mean?  It means very little.  For one, it is not like the PCA General Assembly to adopt 'statements.'  The thought is, "Let's settle this dispute once and for all, and let us be rid of it pressing on for the spread of the Gospel."  I desire to settle this dispute so we can move on as well, but there are problems with this. The basic gist of the overture is: here is our practice for the past 28 years therefore this is what we have, let us continue.  It seems like those coming out of the RPCES, others who have been raised up in those churches, or those who are of the pro-deaconess camp; they have forgotten that when they entered the denomination they took on the PCA's government.  Yet, citing BCO 9-7 (at least now), they have continued a practice contrary to the PCA's government.  Now that 28 years have passed with nothing done by our courts.  Let's affirm our (RPCES) practice.  Well, first, if that is what you want to do, just have the BCO changed (it is already being tried this year).  

This overture desires to affirm that unordained deaconesses may serve the church, but no where in our BCO defines what a deaconess is.  Is she to help out the deacons like BCO 9-7 states or does she serve on the 'diaconate' or 'board of deacons'?  The practice of some PCA churches is for them to serve on the diaconate contrary to our government.  But if they are not ordained, why are they on the diaconate?  Some churches, because they do not ordain the women as deacons, do not ordain any men either.  That's the biggest problem here.  That is a lack of following a basic foundational doctrine: the laying on of hands or 'ordination' (Heb. 6:1-2).  

I just don't understand why all churches in the PCA cannot follow exactly what BCO 9-7 says, "It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need."  If the elders of a church believe a women should serve in a special way the local congregation, then make them assistants to the deacons.  Don't put them on the diaconate.  That is for ordained men only (Acts 6).  Don't have the congregation nominate/elect them (as many PCA churches do contrary to the BCO).  No, let us be rid of using our practice to justify how we ought to interpret the BCO or how we ought to support this overture.  This overture is misguided, wrong, and should be voted down.  Please pray for our denomination and our General Assembly this year. 

His Favor Is For A Lifetime (Psalm 30)

What an encouragement we can find in David's words.  Remember Christian we stand in the favor of God because of Christ's sacrifice.  So find comfort here, may the Lord be gracious to you.

¹A Psalm; a Song at the Dedication of the House. A Psalm of David.

 I will extol You, O LORD, for You have lifted me up,
         And have not let my enemies rejoice over me.
²O LORD my God,
         I cried to You for help, and You healed me.
³O LORD, You have brought up my soul from Sheol;
         You have kept me alive, that I would not go down to the pit.
⁴Sing praise to the LORD, you His godly ones,
         And give thanks to His holy name.
⁵For His anger is but for a moment,
         His favor is for a lifetime;
         Weeping may last for the night,
         But a shout of joy comes in the morning.
⁶Now as for me, I said in my prosperity,
         "I will never be moved."
⁷O LORD, by Your favor You have made my mountain to stand strong;
         You hid Your face, I was dismayed.
⁸To You, O LORD, I called,
         And to the Lord I made supplication:
⁹What profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit?
         Will the dust praise You? Will it declare Your faithfulness?
¹⁰Hear, O LORD, and be gracious to me;
         O LORD, be my helper.

¹¹You have turned for me my mourning into dancing;
         You have loosed my sackcloth and girded me with gladness,
¹²That my soul may sing praise to You and not be silent
         O LORD my God, I will give thanks to You forever.

PCA 38th General Assembly Overture From Rocky Mountain Presbytery

Rocky Mountain Presbytery voted yesterday to send the following overture to the General Assembly (Overture 12):

Whereas, believing that the Word of God requires ministers, and other church officers, to proclaim the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), and that it is a grave dereliction of duty to proclaim "Peace, peace" when there is no (actual) peace, or to refuse to confront those who "call evil good, and good evil, who substitute darkness for light, or light for darkness" (Isaiah 5:20); and...

Whereas, believing it is the duty of the civil magistrate, "as nursing fathers, to protect the church of our Common Lord... in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred function, without violence or danger...and as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in His church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof;” and...

Whereas, believing (in light of over a century of our collective military experience) that any removal, or diminishing of, the well established U.S. military policy, and high moral purpose, of excluding open homosexuals from military service will, most certainly, put all chaplains who believe the Bible to be God's Holy Word in its entirety gravely at risk of unconstitutional pressure, and eventual persecution, for upholding the Scriptural truth that homosexual thinking and behavior is sinful, should be so named, and ought to be corporately resisted; and...

Whereas, believing that any governmental decision to permit acceptance and inclusion of homosexuals serving openly in our military services, will most grievously, "interfere in matters of faith", particularly the exercise of Christian ministry on the part of our PRJCCMP endorsed chaplains; and...

Whereas, it is apparent from the action of the 2009 PCA and OPC General Assemblies that a number of teaching and ruling elders do not consider such a situation to constitute a circumstance extraordinary enough to warrant General Assembly action. (This in part may be because of the failure to appreciate the difference between a “free civilian society” and a “hierarchical military society.”) To the contrary the PRJCCMP believes that silence by the church on this issue endangers the evangelical chaplaincy in the Armed Services, particularly the continuance of a faithful gospel ministry by almost two hundred PRJCCMP endorsed pastors (chaplains).

Whereas, it is our belief that this is an extraordinary case is demonstrated by the following examples among others. We believe that these are predictable and potential results when/or if DADT is repealed by Congress, based on statements from lobbying groups supporting the removal of this ban, and similar judicial rulings and/or legislative actions already enacted or proposed within our country:

a. Unit chaplains will be expected in their preaching, teaching, and counsel to support the federal military policy of non-discrimination and may be subject to equal rights complaints and/or charges if there is any spoken disapproval of homosexual practice and relationships. By way of contrast, while fornication and adultery are both great evils, neither is a politically protected behavior.

b. Chaplains who frequently hold command sponsored marriage retreats to strengthen traditional marriages may be required to include homosexual couples to avoid equal rights complaints or charges.

c. Chaplains may be required to facilitate sensitivity training classes for military personnel to foster acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the ranks.

d. Chaplains may be asked to marry, baptize, administer communion, and provide other spiritual services to practicing homosexuals (who may profess to be Christians) which are reserved by Scripture for repentant and obedient believers. Again equal civil rights discrimination and not the free exercise of religion will be the complaint.

e. Chaplains may be expected to support excising all anti-homosexual passages from any Bibles permitted in military chapels until a “homosexual friendly bible” is printed, which may become the required version for chapel worship and for distribution to military personnel. Current gifts of Bibles for service member distribution by civilian organizations would be ended as well.

f. A serious dissonance between scriptural truth and immoral law supporting sinful behavior will be generated within the ranks jeopardizing unit cohesion so critical in combat. Again, equal rights and the elimination of alleged “hate speech” will trump the vital blessing of good order and discipline as well as religious freedom.

In summation, on the basis of already observed pressures against PRJCCMP endorsed chaplains, we believe that the proposed elimination of the DADT policy will become catastrophic in the emerging unbiblical measures which it will bring to bear against all chaplains. Chaplains may be required to refrain from any identification of any aspect of homosexuality as sinful.

Therefore, we believe, in light of the above, that it is our biblical duty to recognize the extraordinary danger descending upon the visible church from this "extraordinary case", by humbly and urgently petitioning (with biblical grounds) the involved "civil magistrates" to refrain from repealing the current DADT policy.

(Note: Quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from Chapters XXIII and XXXI of the Westminster Confession of Faith)

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Rocky Mountain Presbytery respectfully overtures the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to adopt and authorize the Moderator to have the attached letter communicated through proper means to The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs and the President of the United States in his capacity as Commander in Chief, to maintain the existing policy of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” (DADT), and faithfully to resist its removal, for the protection and meaningful continuance of the free exercise of religion within the Armed Forces of the United States.

I must admit some ambivalence about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” From a civil point of view, I do not believe that the presence of open homosexuals in the military harms readiness any more than the presence of women in the military does. From a ministerial point of view, however, I am very concerned that the winds of political correctness will continue to erode the ability of chaplains (and civilian ministers) to minister according to the dictates of their consciences.

This overture, if passed, would raise a much needed voice of concern with the government that our military chaplains must continue to be permitted to be obedient to the Scriptures. Having said that, however, I suspect it will not be adopted by the Assembly. A similar overture was defeated at last year’s GA because the opinion of the Church had not been requested by the civil magistrate. (WCF 31.5) While the new overture does obliquely appeal to the “extraordinary” clause of the very same chapter in the Confessions, I fear that the appeal is too weak and I suspect it will not even make it the floor at General Assembly.

YouTube Devotional Thursday

If You Are Not As Wicked As Others

In His Eyes (Psalm 18)

As I was reading last night for my private readings on Lord's Day evening.  I was struck at the clarity of Christ's righteousness in His people showing forth.  When the LORD looks upon us He sees Christ!  And as He looks upon us and sees the righteousness of Christ, He rewards us.  Not for what we have done, not for our strength, our righteousness, our cleanness, our love, but we are rewarded by the LORD as if we were truly perfect, holy, and righteous.  We are rewarded as God's very own begotten Son deserved to be rewarded.  Psalm 18 starting in verse 20, 

"The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me.  For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His ordinances were before me, and I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also blameless with Him, and I kept myself from my iniquity. Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes."

John Gill says of verse 24, "This phrase, 'in his eyesight', is here added, to show that the righteousness of Christ was clean, pure, and spotless in the sight of God; in the eye of divine justice: hence those that are clothed with it are holy and unblamable, and irreprovable in his sight, Col_1:22.

Colossians 1:22 says, "yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach."

Christ: Our Defender and Shield

There are many times during our lives when we fear this world, men, our situations and circumstances.  But we do not have to fear, not as God's children for we have a great promise in Psalm 18:2, "The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."  This reminds me of The Breastplate of St. Patrick, 

Christ beside me, Christ before me,

Christ behind me King of my heart;

Christ within me, Christ below me,

Christ above me never to part.

Christ on my right hand, Christ on my left hand, 

Christ all around me shield in strife;

Christ in my sleeping, Christ in my sitting,

Christ in my rising light of my life.

Christ beside me, Christ before me,

Christ behind me King of my heart;

Christ within me, Christ below me,

Christ above me never to part.

YouTube Devotional Thursday

The Prayer of the Arminian

The Muscovite Polymath and the PCA's C Student Graders

Well, Doug Wilson, the pied piper of Moscow, is at it again. In the aftermath of the letter signed by a few brave souls willing to have our names dragged through the mud by the FV attack dogs, Doug has cranked up the FV toady machine again.

But, this time the attack/defense is even more intriguing. To the normal line of, "Duh, we're just teaching what Reformed people have always thought and believed," and conversely, "We cannot be bound by our tradition. We need to transcend it. We are offering a revision of Reformed theology," he's added, "People who don't get it are just dunces."

And, I don't blame him. After all, John Piper of all people, to my bottomless disappointment, gave this view a public airing! PCA types who think Wilson is out to lunch are just stupid, that's all.

Well, that may, in fact, be true. We could be dunces, however, like Petronella Baltus, the unlettered Dutch peasant, who dared take on the towering intellect of an Abraham Kuyper and lead him to Christ. Stupid people can be right about things, after all. It's a fallacy to suggest that a person's dimwittedness means that he is wrong.

And sometimes even the C student catches the professor being less than intellectually honest. The typical FV tactic is to quote some Reformed father incompletely or out of context, and find some credence for the FV's view. Such is the case here.

Our disingenuous professor, hiding behind his Latin, would suggest to us that Turretin, the greatest of all scholastic theologians, is (gasp) teaching that a person is saved by faithful obedience --the same faithful obedience that saved Adam!!

And, what is more, Turretin denies the Law-Gospel distinction, that inconvenient Lutheran antinomian contraption.

Can it be true? Can the adversaries of the FV have misunderstood their own tradition that badly? It appears to be the case. We all ought to move to Moscow, get a really nice wine cellar, start a business, raise our own chickens, and contribute to the cathedral fund.

But, once again the Pope of the CRE is shown to have no clothes. Even the C student can see that. Why? Because Wilson completely misses Turretin's point, which is to uphold the first use of the Law, as preparatory to the gospel. To wit (from Turretin, vol. 2, p.268):

(The Law) by convincing man of his sin and weakness it forced him to seek a remedy in Christ by faith (as we have already said --duh)(I added the duh, KP). Again, these two conditions are proposed because they are necessary to the salvation of the sinner: perfect obedience in Christ to fulfill the righteousness of the law, without which the justice of God did not permit life to be given to us; faith however in us that the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ might be applied to us and become ours by imputation.

Gasp! What are you saying, Frank? Conditions on the covenant of grace? For whom?? Doug says, "Well, duh, the faithful obedient believer. He must fulfill the law-faith, or the faith-law, or the fatal flaw," or something like that.

But that is not what Turretin is saying. I continue:

That what was demanded of us in the covenant of works (what? a covenant of works???) is fulfilled by Christ in the covenant of grace. Nor is it absurd that in this way justification takes place by works and by faith by the works of Christ, and by our faith.

So you see how omitting entire central portions of a paragraph can completely twist the author's point. There are some folk who take the Mosaic Covenant, and completely abstract it out, and set it in opposition to the Covenant of Grace. I think that is a mistake. Turretin shows us why. He shows us that the same Covenant that is all grace to us, in which the only condition (his words) is faith, was, for the Lord Jesus, a covenant of works --that is, a reward for his obedience. That he might receive all the glory.

But, C students don't like to use words like nuda lex and get confused by statements like "justification by persevering obedient faithfulness" and "Christians go to Hell. " These statements tend to confuse the sheep, or maybe they just confuse the goats. Our congregants hear such things, their eyes roll back in their heads, and they gag on their tongues. At least those who have the Holy Spirit, and who know the true gospel notes when they are sounded, whether smart or dumb.

Pastor's Conference (Al Martin and Ted Donnelly: Audio)

Here is the audio from the 2010 Second Presbyterian Church (Yazoo City, MS) Pastors and Seminary Students Conference.  

 

Al Martin preached on The Call To The Gospel Ministry.

Ted Donnelly preached on the topic 'Preach the Word (Part 1) and (Part 2).

YouTube Devotional Thursday

"One Wrong Step...And Down We Go!" by Charles Spurgeon

The Mystery of Children's Church

A good post by Dr. R. Scott Clark can be found over at The Heidelblog on the subject of Children's Church.  Below is the text from that post.

 

I can understand why evangelicals and others, who do not have a covenantal theology, would exile their children during public worship but I do not understand why so many ostensibly Reformed congregations have adopted the practice of dismissing their covenant children from the service to “children’s church” (or whatever more clever name it may have). From what I see this appears to be a common practice. Sometimes the bulletin explains that the children are sent out of public worship in order to “prepare them to worship.” Really? This seems like sending one’s child from the dinner table in order to prepare them to eat.

I understand the practical problem. At least some of the same congregations that have this practice also do not set aside time outside of the worship service for Christian instruction or catechism. So, it seems, they’re holding catechism during the worship service. I guess that the reason that there’s no additional time for catechism is that the parents won’t make time and the church won’t make them make time. So, congregations are making due.

It’s hard to know where to start with this complex of problems. Obviously there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Sabbath. There’s a misunderstanding of the nature of worship. There’s a misunderstanding of the nature of baptismal vows and church membership. There’s a misunderstanding of Christian nurture and there’s a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian parenting. Other than these things, as they say, “it’s all good.”

In such a case, the act of sending children out of the the stated service for instruction sends a more powerful message than the instruction is likely to send. It sends the message to the children that they are not really members of the covenant community. It sends the message that the gathering for public worship may be marginalized if something else is deemed more important. It sends the message that it’s acceptable to arrange one’s priorities during the week so as to require this ad hoc solution, that church is something we do but not something we are.

Underneath all of this there is another series of misunderstandings: Of what we are, who Jesus is, what he did, and what the implications are for those who would follow him.

We may look like happy, upwardly mobile suburbanites but we’re not. We’re wretched, horrible people by nature. That manicured lawn covers over a multitude of hell-deserving sins. We’re gossips, murderers, adulterers, and God-haters. If the children’s church-sending parents understood that, if they really believed that about themselves and their children, they would find time during the week to see that their children are instructed. They would be catechizing their children, praying with and for them. Then it wouldn’t be a matter of squeezing a little instructional time into the Sabbath. They would be pleading with the minister to teach their children.

If we saw ourselves for what, but for the grace of God, we really are then we would understand the grace of God. If we understood the grace of God, we would more and more embrace the consequences of following Jesus. Death to self entails death to the successful suburban lifestyle where that lifestyle marginalizes Christ and his church. Jesus didn’t come to facilitate a happy, upwardly-mobile lifestyle and discipleship calls us to die to the mall and live to Christ.

Yes, having children in church means that it will be slightly less entertaining and possibly less moving emotionally. It’s a little harder to be enraptured by the latest chorus when your child is fidgeting next to you or someone else’s is wailing in your left ear. That’s okay. You might not have the same emotional “high” this week as you did when their was children’s church. That’s okay. Worship isn’t about your experience of religious ecstasy. It’s about hearing God and responding appropriately, according to his Word.

God doesn’t mind that your emotional experience is less intense. He takes the long view. Your children will grow up not segregated from public worship and the means of grace. They’ll grow up a part of the community of the redeemed and watching baptisms (so they can see what happened to them). They’ll see the supper administered and they ‘ll ask, “When can I have it?” They’ll hear the Law and the Gospel (Dv) and they’ll grow up knowing that this is their identity, that it’s really true, that God said, “I will be your God and your children’s God.”

Church leaders don’t want to challenge parents and parents don’t want to be challenged. The cycle has to end somewhere. It should start with pastors and elders. That’s why they call it leadership. A leader goes first. A leader takes the risk. Elders and pastors need to get over their desire to be popular, to be liked, to be “successful.” Perhaps the reason that parents don’t see any contradiction between their definition of “success” and the Christian life is because their pastors and elders haven’t shown it to them?

Children’s church is a problem but it’s not the problem. It’s a symptom of much larger problems. It’s not too late, because it’s never too late to repent. Grace is free for everyone, pastors and parents alike. God bless those noisy congregations with fidgeting and fussy children. Let the noise of children inhabit all our congregations.

PCA 38th General Assembly Overtures 9 and 10

On with the women deacon (deaconess) overtures.  Three more have been entered into the books.  Overture 9 comes from Eastern Carolina Presbytery and Overture 13 from Westminster Presbytery is the same as Overture 2 from Central Carolina Presbytery. No need to go further with that since we have already covered it before. 

However, Overture 10 submitted by Northern California Presbytery needs to be looked at though.  So we will consider it here.  The following is the text of the overture.

OVERTURE 10 from Northern California Presbytery (to CCB & OC) 

“Amend BCO 1-4, 4-2, 5-10, 7-2, 9-2, 9-7 & Add a BCO 9-8 to Appoint Unordained Men and Women to Carry Out Diaconal Ministry”

Whereas the scripture is the only infallible and inerrant rule of life and practice, and has, in the New Testament in particular, set forth certain principles for the government of the church which include the ministries of both elders and deacons; and

Whereas the BCO recognizes these ministries and the men who carry out their work in terms of offices and officers, we affirm these shared commitments: men only may be ordained to offices in the church (1 Timothy 3), diaconal ministry is an important part of the church's mission and work (Acts 6, 1 Timothy 3, BCO 9), teaching and ruling elders are called to uphold the Bible fully within their churches and Presbyteries (2 Peter 1, BCO Preface II), Sessions are the authoritative court of local churches (BCO 4-3); and

Whereas various interpretations of the Bible have led to a variety of practices within the PCA over the course of its entire history with respect to diaconal ministries. These differences have led to confusion and division over these various interpretations and practices, particularly in recent years; and

Whereas local Sessions have always retained the authority to create, appoint, and oversee all biblically valid ministries within their local churches which are guided by unordained members of the church (BCO 1-5); and

Whereas there is a strong desire to hold firm to the essentials of our faith and practice as outlined in scripture and our confession, and the BCO should not unduly bind the conscience of a session seeking to structure its diaconate under the authority of Scripture (Preface II.7); and

Whereas these various interpretations of the Bible clearly exist within the PCA and it is desirable that the language of the BCO be more clear as it addresses the various practices of the organization and ministry of the diaconate. These changes will enable the current practices without opening the BCO to broader interpretation;

Now therefore, be it resolved, for the good of the church and the promotion of order and peace, that the BCO be amended in the following areas: [Additions bold and underlined; strike-though for deletions]

BCO 1-4. The ordained officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.

BCO 4-2 Its ordained officers are its teaching and ruling elders and its deacons.

BCO 5-10 If deacons are elected, follow the procedures of (1) through (5) above. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders.

BCO 7-2 The ordinary and perpetual classes of ordained office in the church are elders and deacons. . . .

BCO 9-2. It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is their duty also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these gifts among the objects to which they are contributed. They shall have the care of the property of the congregation, both real and personal, and shall keep in proper repair the church edifice and other buildings belonging to the congregation. In matters of special importance affecting the property of the church, they cannot take final action without the approval of the Session and consent of the congregation. In the discharge of their duties the deacons are under the supervision and authority of the Session. In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders. In a church in which deacons are not ordained, the responsibility for the oversight of diaconal ministries shall devolve upon the Session.

BCO 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons and/or Session in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.

[ADDITION: BCO 9-8] In a local church which does not have ordained deacons, the Session may appoint an unordained body of men and women to carry out diaconal ministry. They may care for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need. However, these men and women do not carry the same constitutional rights as ordained deacons.

Adopted by Northern California Presbytery at its stated meeting, March 5, 2010

Attested by /s/ TE Samuel Wheatley, stated clerk

I will name one positive about this overture and that is the submission of the overture is not for a request of a study committee (which does nothing substantial), but for changing the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America.  That is the positive.  It is the opinion of this writer that there are numerous problems with this overture.  I will not piddle with the minor things and so we come to the last 'Whereas' statement and we find:

Whereas these various interpretations of the Bible clearly exist within the PCA and it is desirable that the language of the BCO be more clear as it addresses the various practices of the organization and ministry of the diaconate. These changes will enable the current practices without opening the BCO to broader interpretation;

This statement puts practice before theology.  A horrible error.  If what we practice is different than the Constitution then we should broaden our Constitution so that we all fit in.  Really?  Shouldn't we conform to the Constitution and then if we desire to change the Constitution because we believe differently, then we seek to change it?  Following such a change then we can practice accordingly, is that not correct?  

But now what are the actual implications of changing the language of the BCO to what is being suggested?

By changing BCO 5-2 taking out that which is struck-through, "BCO 5-10 If deacons are elected, follow the procedures of (1) through (5) above. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders."  Put that with the change you have in BCO 9-2, 

 "BCO 9-2. It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is their duty also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these gifts among the objects to which they are contributed. They shall have the care of the property of the congregation, both real and personal, and shall keep in proper repair the church edifice and other buildings belonging to the congregation. In matters of special importance affecting the property of the church, they cannot take final action without the approval of the Session and consent of the congregation. In the discharge of their duties the deacons are under the supervision and authority of the Session. In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders. In a church in which deacons are not ordained, the responsibility for the oversight of diaconal ministries shall devolve upon the Session."  

I will try to sum up what is proposed.  Basically, changing the BCO as it is proposed would give each individual church the decision whether or not it wants ordained deacons  Do you see how they took out the language of 'impossibility' of securing deacons and made it a decision?  Yet Scripture doesn't seem to show that this is a decision that is to be made.  There is need for deacons in the Church (Acts 6) so that the elders can focus on the Word and prayer.  But with the new section they desire to add, they tell you exactly their intention: "[ADDITION: BCO 9-8] In a local church which does not have ordained deacons, the Session may appoint an unordained body of men and women to carry out diaconal ministry. They may care for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need. However, these men and women do not carry the same constitutional rights as ordained deacons."  

They want the option of not ordaining men to the ordained office of deacon, and want to put men and women on the same 'level' (so to speak) and do the work that deacons usually do.  Then the question, why not ordain deacons to do that?  Exactly.  This is the practice that goes on in some churches in the PCA.  Some churches ordain men, and have women on the board of deacons (just not ordained).  Yet there are some churches who because of their belief that women should be ordained, say that they just won't ordain men either to the office, and so they don't.  They hinder men, who are rightly called, from being ordained so that men and women can serve on the board of deacons. 

So that is a short synopsis of Overture 10.  I believe this won't even make it to the floor of General Assembly.  I am tempted to say it won't even make it past the Committee of Constitutional Business to get to the Overtures Committee, but I won't.

To look at all the other posts that have been made so far on the 38th PCA General Assembly Overtures, you can find them in the following: 1; 2, 7, 9, 13 ; 3-5, 8, 10.  I have left out a post on Overture 6 for the Administration Committee to do a study on the possibility of  Bi-annual General Assembly because that just isn't going to happen.  Enjoy!