The Forming of the PCA: Part 13

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.
Read Part 7.
Read Part 8.
Read Part 9.
Read Part 10.
Read Part 11.

Read Part 12.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination. Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 13 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.  

Forward to Dr. John E. Richards' book 

"The Historical Birth of the Presbyterian Church in America"

Entitled "The PCA: Another Tapestry"

In her recent book, The Tapestry, Edith Schaeffer speaks of history as a tapestry being woven by God. The threads in the tapestry are individual people and events used by God to work out the design of history. 

Mrs. Schaeffer points out that, as our lives are interwoven with the lives of others, we affect one another's ideas, understanding and attitudes and at the same time we are affecting history.

We do matter; our decisions and choices matter in history. As Mrs. Schaeffer says, "History is different because you have lived, because I have lived." Every thread is important in the design, there is no insignificant person or event in God's plan.

In one of his sermons on providence, C. H. Spurgeon said, "God guides the speck of dust blowing in the wind just as surely as He guides the meteor through space. He is in the glimmer of a firefly just as much as He is in the flash of a falling star."

I have a friend who does beautifully detailed a petitpoint tapestries. She purchases a canvas on which the design is stamped and being an artist she selects her threads carefully, sometimes using six, eight or ten shades of the same color to get the desired effect. When she has completed a tapestry and hung it in her home, everyone who sees it marvels at her skill and artistic ability.

Keep this in mind as we think of history. Before God created time, He had a design for all of time. We read, "In the beginning God...." In the beginning of what? In the beginning of measurable time. Time, as we know it, had a beginning and it will have an end.

When time is no more, when God's tapestry is complete, we will marvel throughout all eternity at the details of light and color, of life and beauty that He has brought about in all of history. 

Now we can only see small portions of history and the details are not always clear, sometimes it looks to us as though the threads are hopelessly tangled, but in eternity we will see the perfect harmony of the whole.

In this article, I want to take a glimpse at one small portion of history. I want to focus on the beginnings of the Presbyterian Church in America. It is wonderful to see how God has interwoven many lives and events in bringing this church into being. Let's look at some of the individual threads.

In the 1940's, Dr. L. Nelson Bell and a board of strong men began to publish the Southern Presbyterian Journal (now the Presbyterian Journal). These men were deeply concerned that there was little opportunity for the conservative voice to be heard within the Presbyterian Church US. This publication faithfully and Biblically addressed issues within the church for 30 years before the PCA was born.

In 1958, the Rev. William E. Hill Jr. left his pastorate in Hopewell, Va., to become a full-time evangelist. Soon other men joined him and formed the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship for the purpose of holding evangelistic meetings in any church that requested them.

In 1964, Kenneth S. Keyes was asked to head a new organization known as Concerned Presbyterians. Through writing and speaking, this group of men encouraged laymen throughout the church to become interested and informed about issues in the denomination.

Over the years, conservative ministers grew increasingly concerned about the direction the PCUS was taking. Many of these men began to meet together to pray for revival in the denomination. These prayer groups grew into an organization called Presbyterian Churchmen United.

The Rev. John E. Richards and the Rev. Donald B. Patterson led this group to publish a Declaration of Commitment in 1969. This statement of commitment to the Word of God and to the Reformed Faith ended by saying: "That, should the basic theology or polity of the Church be altered or diluted, we shall be prepared to take actions as may be necessary to fulfill the obligations imposed by our ordination vows, to maintain our Presbyterian faith."

The Declaration, signed by more than 500 ministers, was published in over 30 major newspapers.

These four groups affected the ideas and attitudes of many people in the church and so affected the history of the church. The prayers and efforts of all four of these groups were directed at bringing revival of spiritual life and Biblical commitment to the PCUS. They worked and prayed hard for years but their efforts had little effect on the leadership or direction of the denomination, until 1971 when the General Assembly met in Massanetta Springs, Va.

At that Assembly, the conservative groups working together put in nomination the names of leading Bible-believing people for every General Assembly committee; they failed to get even one elected. Because of this and other events that took place at the Assembly, many men speak of it as the time when their thoughts began to turn to a new church.

In the summer of 1971, representatives of these four groups (The Presbyterian Journal Board, Concerned Presbyterians, Presbyterian Churchmen United, and Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship) met and formed a "Steering Committee for a Continuing Presbyterian Church." This was announced at the Journal Day meeting of 1971. At this point several men who had been active in these groups dropped out of the movement.

During the next year, Paul Settle, John Richards, Kenneth Keyes, Jack Williamson and several other men traveled and spoke in many churches where they were invited to present the issues before the church or to debate more moderate or liberal spokesmen.

At this time the PCUS and the UPC-USA had joint committees working on a plan of union. There was talk of writing into the plan an "escape clause" that would allow any church that chose not to go into the union to withdraw and keep its property. The committees had promised to bring such a plan to the General Assembly for a vote in 1973. 

Jack Williamson, a member of the PCUS committee assigned to draft the plan of union, was also a member of the Steering Committee for a Continuing Church. In February, 1973, Mr. Williamson reported to the Steering Committee that the "escape clause" had been scrapped. The Steering Committee met with the four executive committees to discuss taking immediate steps to form a new church.

Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer was another thread woven into this part of the tapestry. He was speaking to the National Presbyterian and Reformed Fellowship in Atlanta near the place where the Steering Committee was meeting at the time. Many members of the committee heard him as he urged that when disagreement is necessary it must be done in a spirit of love and meekness. Some of these men have said that Dr. Schaeffer's talk made them consider even more carefully and prayerfully the decision which soon would be made.

The vote to begin a new church was preceded by a time of prayer with many of these men on their knees and some of them weeping openly. It was not a decision they took lightly. Jack Williamson recently spoke to me of his thankfulness that he has never heard the men involved in this movement express any bitterness or resentment toward those who disagreed with them.

In February, 1973, the Steering Committee called for a Convocation of Sessions to be held in May, 1973, at the Westminster Church in Atlanta. Letters were sent to all the churches that had expressed interest in the movement, inviting them to send representatives of their sessions to the meeting.

At the Convocation, and Organizing Committee of 40 men was chosen to draft plans for the structure of the new denomination, and an Advisory Convention was called to meet in August, 1973, in Asheville, N.C.

At the Advisory Convention, held at Asheville's Grove Park Inn, the organizational plans were discussed and returned to the organizing committee for further refinement; and the first General Assembly was called to meet in December, 1973, in Birmingham, Ala., at the Briarwood Presbyterian Church. The date selected, December 4, coincided with the original date of formation of the PCUS in Augusta, Ga., in 1861.

That General Assembly in Birmingham adopted the Westminster Standards as the doctrinal statement of the church and a Book of Church Order as the standard of government. The First General Assembly also chose the name, National Presbyterian Church, and established permanent committees for Administration, Christian Education and Publications, Mission to the World and Mission to the United States.

An "Address to All Churches" of Jesus Christ through the world was adopted and signed by 338 commissioners. Mr. Jack Williamson was the very able moderator of this Assembly.

It was the Second General Assembly in Macon, Ga., that the name of the denomination changed to Presbyterian Church in America, because the National Presbyterian Church of Washington, D.C., had protested the use of that name. Dr. Francis Schaeffer spoke to this Assembly, and again he urged that there be maintained a strong testimony of love toward those from whom these church had separated.

God's tapestry of history is not woven with inanimate threads but with living, thinking individuals. There were times in the history of this movement when men went to a Steering Committee or General Assembly meeting wondering how strong-minded men who held strong convictions on different sides of an issue could come to agreement. Many times in the midst of hot debate someone would say, "Brothers, let's stop and pray about this." Prayer has kept us together.

During the past 10 years many outside have watched expectantly for this group to become hopelessly divided. Providentially, there never has been one dominant personality leading this movement, but a group of humble men who have sincerely sought to honor the Lord in their decisions. The Lord, in turn, has honored this and His Spirit has repeatedly overruled to bring unity and harmony out of disagreement. Many pray that the Presbyterian Church in America will always be led by humble men who seek to honor the Lord and are controlled by His Holy Spirit.

I recently asked Jack Williamson what he considered the greatest need of the PCA at this time. He replied: "A consciousness that God has called us into this denomination to work together in trust and confidence to fulfill His will, rather than to build isolated individual kingdoms which will certainly dissipate in their influence when the dynamic individual which leads them is called to glory. We need, in my judgment, a sense of togetherness, of unity, about what God is doing through us as a group."

Mr. Williamson explained that because many churches could not tolerate the organizational structure of the PCUS, they early began to operate to all practical purposes as independent churches. Therefore it now is difficult for them to grasp that the true concept of Presbyterianism is working together through Christ in a unified effort to make a greater witness. Mr. Williamson concluded, "It's that growing consciousness that we work together in trust and confidence that we need more than anything else."

Today the PCA is not just a group of churches separated from the PCUS. From the North, the Midwest, the West -- into Alaska and out to Hawaii -- churches have come, or have been organized, to join in a varicolored fabric that includes black, white, hispanic, Korean and Chinese churches. They are large, small, suburban, inner city, rural and collegiate.

"To whom much is given of him shall much be required." We have been given much in the PCA; much in the way of instruction, much in the way of opportunity, and much in the way of heritage. The godly men who worked to begin this denomination, did so at great cost.

Some of them were officially charged with heresy by PCUS courts and some were even stripped of their ordination. Some have had doors of ministry closed against them. Laymen, as well as ministers, gave many hours to this work, hours that had to be taken away from business or family. Many of these men were rejected by close friends or family members because of their stand.

Some congregations were turned out of sanctuaries where they had worshipped for generations.

Those who have been involved in this denomination from the beginning will never forget what it cost, but they don't want their children to forget that they were willing to pay any cost to insure that their children could worship in a church that would be "true to the Bible, to the Reformed Faith, and obedient to the Great Commission."

History is different because of the Presbyterian Church in America! Our choices do matter in the design of history. The early history of the PCA was affected not only by those who were a part of it, but also by those who chose not to be a part of it. 

It was also affected by the prayers of many people. For example, during the First General Assembly, there were people in local churches who prayed every hour the Assembly was in session. Spurgeon called prayer a very effective wheel in the machinery of Providence. He said, "It is such an essential part of the design that we find that whenever God delivers His people, His people have been praying for deliverance."

You can make a choice that will affect history. You can determine now that you will pray faithfully for the leaders of the PCA. This is another momentus year in our church. The 10th General Assembly will meet in Grand Rapids, Mich. in June. Will you pray that the Holy Spirit will rule in every debate and every decision of that meeting? Will you pray that these men will work together in trust and unity and thus bear a greater witness to Christ?

Will you pray that the Assembly will be characterized by a spirit of love as well as an unfaltering faithfulness to the Word of God?

A Letter to Elders in the PCA

Many of you know that lately, I have been posting on the History and Forming of the PCA.  Many of those posts dealt with the issue of Church Property.  The following was sent to me via email concerning the PCA today!

This is a letter to fellow presbyters from Rev. Todd Allen, an honorably retired teaching elder from Northwest Georgia Presbytery. In this letter he urges Presbyteries to vote against the BCO 14 amendments that were sent to Presbyteries by the 38th General Assembly. TE Allen was the pastor of the Eastern Heights Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga., from 1962-1974, during the time frame he refers to in his narrative when the church withdrew from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) and went through years of litigation to keep the property.

Please forward to other elders.

Dear Brothers,

Property is power! We fought long and hard through 3 1/2 years of litigation to keep church property rights for PCUS congregations. Those property rights were written into the Book of Church Order when we formed the Continuing Presbyterian Church (Now the Presbyterian Church in America in December of 1973 at the Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama.

We once believed without question that we had local church property rights in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Those rights were challenged in 1966 when two Savannah churches (Eastern Heights Presbyterian Church and Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Church) voted on April 17, 1966 to withdraw from the PCUS over departures from the PCUS constitution. The Savannah Presbytery then named an Administrative Commission to defrock the two ministers and the ruling elders of both churches and install presbytery appointed ministers and sessions.

The two churches obtained a court injunction to stop the presbytery from assuming this original jurisdiction and taking over the government and property of the two churches. The presbytery then went to the Superior Court of Chatham County and declared that they were justified in assuming original jurisdiction because there was an implied trust on church property in favor of the PCUS presbytery.

The two churches therefore had to prove to a twelve member jury that the PCUS had violated its trust by departing from its constitution.. The jury unanimously ruled in favor of the two churches and awarded them rights to their church property. The presbytery then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court and in a unanimous decision that court also awarded the property to the two local churches.

The presbytery then appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. That court took the case and in a unanimous decision remanded the case back to the Georgia Supreme Court, stating on remand that civil courts are proper forums to adjudicate church property disputes but that they cannot determine church doctrine. The Supreme Court enunciated three neutral principles for courts to use in adjudicating church property disputes. The three neutral principles are as follows: (1) who holds the deeds to church property, (2) what does state law say, (3) what does the hierarchical church law say.

Following that Supreme Court remand the Georgia Supreme Court determined that the two Savannah churches satisfied all three neutral principles that the Supreme Court had been enunciated and in a second unanimous decision awarded the church property to the two local congregations. The Georgia Supreme Court also struck down a Georgia statue known as Mack vs. Kime that had given church hierarchies an implied trust vested interest in the property of its connectional congregations.

The Savannah Presbytery then again appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In January of 1970 the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, thus ending 3 1/2 years of litigation.

Dominic Aquila has written a very important and incisive article on the inherent possibility of a civil court ruling that there is a hierarchal civil connection between PCA church courts if BCO 14 amendments are adopted. This would very likely result in a loss of local church control of its church property. He recommends that these BCO amendments be defeated. I certainly concur with him.

Please take time to read Dominic Aquila's article below before voting on the BCO 14 Amendments.

Your brother in Christ,

Todd W. Allen

PCA Honorably Retired Minister

Midway PCA Pastor Emeritus

Don't Get Caught Up In Earthly Law!

There are few places in Scripture that mention the need in law for two or three witnesses.  Deuteronomy 19:15 states, "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed."  This is part of that descriptive law for the courts required in Israel before Christ's death and resurrection.  We have a similar principle for the Church in Matthew 18:15-20.  Now I bring this up because very often we see on the news criminals who get away with things.  They go to court and the jury doesn't convict them.  They murder someone and they get 20 years in jail.  Doesn't seem like a very good punishment, does it?  In today's society, you don't even need two or three witnesses to convict a man.  But think of that need in the time of Israel.  If a man raped a woman or someone murdered someone, there had to be witnesses. Think of how many times a murderer is going to allow for witnesses to be around or in the other case, if someone is raped, there has to be a witness besides the victim.  Tell me how many times that happens.  Not very often.  It was hard in Israel to determine if someone is guilty of a crime.

I know you see people go free all the time when they shouldn't or at least when it seems like they shouldn't.  You become frustrated at our court system.  Think about Israel's.  You'd be frustrated, probably much more than that as well, if your daughter was raped and there was only one witness, your daughter.  The man would go free.  Don't get caught up  in earthly law!  Think of the second to last verse in all of Scripture, Revelation 22:20, "Come, Lord Jesus!" This is our prayer.  O that Christ would come and rescue us from this present evil age.  But think about the application of this prayer.  "Come, Lord Jesus!" is not only for our good to save us, but it also implies that judgment has come when He returns.  

Revelation 20:12, "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done."  They will be judged according to what they do.  Brethren, don't get caught up in this world and earthly law, the Lord will judge all mankind.  And those who are not in Christ will be condemned to eternal death.  Find comfort that even though our civil courts are imperfect, our church courts are imperfect, the court of the eternal God, Maker of heaven and earth, the eternal Judge is perfect.  

Come, Lord Jesus, Come!

38th PCA General Assembly (2010): Overtures 3-5, 8

Already, we have covered Overtures 1 and 2, but now we turn to some more overtures which have just made an appearance on the PCA General Assembly website. 

Overtures 3 and 4 concern the desire to expand or revise boundaries of presbyteries.  These overtures won't even go before the Overtures Committee, but sometimes it is interesting to look at.  Overture 4 comes from Central Georgia Presbytery and doesn't seem like anything out of the ordinary to receive two more countries from Savannah River Presbytery, who also overtured the General Assembly with Overture 8 to confer with  Overture 4.  Overture 3 though is of some interest to me.  The Pacific Northwest Presbytery is asking that all of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho be included in their presbytery. Sometimes I wonder why presbyteries like Pacific Northwest don't break up into two different presbyteries, especially considering the distance needed to travel and the number of churches already in the presbytery (currently given that this overture will probably be approved, there will be 29 churches, including mission works, in the presbytery).  

Now you see presbyteries this large in other parts of the country like my own, Mississippi Valley Presbytery, which has over 30.  However, my presbytery is very small in size geographically, which allows everyone to be able to drive not too far to get to each presbytery meeting.  Rocky Mountain Presbytery has 28 churches in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana.  Logically, you would think that Montana having 5 churches, Wyoming having 3 churches, and Idaho having 1 that they would want to become their own presbytery.  I wonder why that wasn't what happened.  

But that is very minor compared to Overture 5.  Let us move on...quickly!  Stepping off my soapbox onto another, we come to Covenant Presbytery's Overture that will go before the Overtures Committee.  Here is the overture:

Whereas, the 37th General Assembly amended the language of BCO 59-1 and 59-6 to read:

59-1. Marriage is a divine institution though not a sacrament, nor peculiar to the Church of Christ. It is proper that every common wealth, for the good of society, make laws to regulate marriage, which all citizens are bound to obey insofar as they do not transgress the laws of God (Acts 5:29).

59-6. Marriage is of a public nature. The welfare of society, the happiness of families, and the credit of Christianity, are deeply interested in it. Therefore, the purpose of marriage should be sufficiently published a proper time previously to the solemnization to it. It is enjoined on all ministers to be careful that, in this matter, they obey the laws of the community to the extent that those laws do not transgress the laws of God as interpreted by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America; and that they may not destroy the peace and comfort of families, ministers should be assured that, with respect to the parties applying to them, no just objections lie against their marriage;

and

 Whereas, the BCO 26-2 currently reads:

26-2. Amendments to the Book of Church Order may be made only in the following manner:

1. Approval of the proposed amendment by majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly, and its recommendation to the Presbyteries.
2. The advice and consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the Presbyteries.
3. The approval and enactment by a subsequent General Assembly by a majority of those present and voting; and

and

Whereas, the General Assembly voted to change the language of BCO 59-1 and 59-6 contrary to the specifications laid out in BCO 26-2; and

Whereas, the General Assembly made such changes on the grounds that BCO 59-1 and 59-6 were non-binding sections of the BCO; and

Whereas, our desire is for unanimity and clarity in the manner by which we amend our Book of Church Order;

Therefore be it resolved that BCO 26-2 be amended as follows (new text in bold and underlined):

26-2. Amendments to any portion of the Book of Church Order, whether constitutionally binding or not, may be made only in the following manner:

1. Approval of the proposed amendment by majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly, and its recommendation to the Presbyteries.
2. The advice and consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the Presbyteries.
3. The approval and enactment by a subsequent General Assembly by a majority of those present and voting.

Rationale:
The definition of which portions of the Book of Church Order must be amended according to the procedure outlined in 26-2 is clearly ambiguous, as demonstrated by the actions of the 37th General Assembly. Therefore, the above overture seeks to remove this ambiguity, and give clarification and re-affirmation to the manner by which any portion of the Book of Church Order may be amended.

Look now at the Rationale.  This amendment to the BCO is being called for because of actions of the 37th General Assembly.  I hope this is a good post for elders because of what happened last year.  Last year, the Moderator made a mistake.  And to clarify, I am not thinking the Moderator did it on purpose.  I personally think he didn't know what he was doing and/or had done when the overture from Central Carolina Presbytery came a second time to the floor after having been sent back to the Overtures Committee to amend BCO 56 on marriage.  The overture called for the 56th chapter to become constitutionally binding and not just 'a suggestion'.  Because of this, there were some who wanted the language fined tuned more before it became constitutionally binding.  There were others who thought the language was already fine.  And yet still others, who thought that the Assembly needed to act now because of BCO 26-2 that would at least take one more year to get this to become a reality.  

But in the midst of it all, we as an Assembly, acted contrary to BCO 26-2.  You see BCO 26-2, sections 2 and 3?  Yeah, we basically bipassed those and when the overture came back from the Overtures commitee we approved it.  If memory serves me, the vote we had somehow made the BCO change right then and not go to the presbyteries (section 2) and not come back this year at the 38th GA (section 3).  And it was because of one little mistake by the Moderator. 

And so this year, Covenant Presbytery is coming with an overture to change the BCO where the mistake was made to make it more clear.  I don't know what I think about this overture, to change BCO 26-2.   I'm not a lawyer or anything but I like what Covenant Presbytery wants out of this, to have the General Assembly do what it is supposed to when it comes to BCO amendments.  However, right now I think the BCO is already clear.  In the Rationale, it says that it is clearly ambiguous, but I will have to disagree.  I think it is very easy to understand.  That's why there were many after the decision of the Moderator last year who were in a hub-bug.  Because they knew BCO 26-2 (that is one of the main things you learn before ordination for your exams).  Everyone knew it was wrong because the BCO is clear. 

It says, "Amendments to any portion of the Book of Church Order, whether constitutionally binding or not, may be made only in the following manner:"  To add the Bold and Underlined portions, really doesn't add much of anything.  That is already clear in the fine print.  So I think at this time, I would have to vote against this Overture even though I agree with what the people of this overture want out of it.  What needs to happen is for elders to stand up and make a complaint (BCO 43) when a court makes a mistake.  We can do something when we see mistakes and yet last year no one did anything.  May this be a learning experience for us all.  Whether you are a member of your church, an elder, member of presbytery, or a delegate to General Assembly, know what is supposed to happen and what you are able to do in your Church, at Presbytery, and at General Assembly.  In other words, read and know the Book of Church Order.  In doing so, you will be faithfully maintaining the peace and purity of the Church.

PCA 38th General Assembly Overture 2

The deaconess issue will occupy a prominent place in General Assembly deliberations once more this summer thanks to a pre-emptive strike by Central Carolina Presbytery (CCP). The overture (number 2) heads off a very different overture that is expected to come before the Assembly from Metro-Atlanta Presbytery (MAP). [Editorial Note: a similarly worded yet very distinct overture was just approved by Evangel Presbytery on February 9, Overture 7. Also Overture 9 from Eastern Carolina Presbytery has been submitted and is exactly like CCP's Overture 2.]  The two could not be more diametrically opposite. The proposed MAP overture reads:

WHEREAS, the biblical office of elder was instituted by a divine commandment, “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Gather for me seventy men whom you know to be elders of the people and officers over them and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand with you. And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you so that you may not bear it yourself alone.’” (Numbers 11:16-17) See also 1Timothy 5:17 and Hebrews 13:7-17; and,

WHEREAS, this plurality of elders was continued in the development of synagogues into the Second Temple Era and into the New Testament; and,

WHEREAS, Scriptures specify that Elders are set apart and necessary for every local church and the broader Church,

1.Acts 14:23: “And when they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

2.Titus 1:5: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you…” (See also Acts 11:30; 13:1; 15:2, 4, 22; 20:17; 1Timothy 4:14; James 5:14; 1Peter 5:1-2; and Philippians 1:1); and,

WHEREAS, the Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order, in obedience to Scripture, therefore, requires a plurality of elders for the particularization of a local church (BCO 5-9) and for the ongoing functioning of a local church (BCO 12-1); and,

WHEREAS, the office of elder is that of spiritual and ecclesiastical governance, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1Timothy 5:17). (See also Acts 20:28; [BCO 12-5]); and,

WHEREAS, the New Testament office of deacon was established, not by the direct revelation of a divine command, but by apostolic prudence, and not in a governing office but as an office of service, Acts 6:2 – 4 “‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.’”; and,

WHEREAS, Scripture establishes standards for deacons, 1Timothy 3:8: “Deacons likewise, must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.”; and,

WHEREAS, Scripture reveals that only the churches of Philippi (Philippians 1:1), Ephesus (1Timothy 3:8-13) and Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6) are specified as having deacons, though Phoebe in the church at Cenchreae was called a deacon by Paul in Romans 16:1: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [Greek: diakonos] of the church at Cenchreae…”; and,

WHEREAS, the diaconal ministry is that of sympathy and service, not of spiritual and ecclesiastical governance, and any authority that may be attached to the office of deacon is a derivative authority, with plurality of elders serving as the final authority in a local church (BCO 9-1; 9-2; 9-6); and,

WHEREAS, though the office of deacon is “ordinary and perpetual,” (BCO 9-1) it is not one that is an absolute necessity for the particularization (BCO 5-10) or ongoing ministry (BCO 9-2) of a local church; and,

WHEREAS, in the PCA, individuals at all levels of the church, including missionaries, vacation Bible school workers, Sunday school teachers, Women in the Church officers, and countless other church workers (both men and women) have been commissioned throughout the entire history of the PCA and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod; and,​

WHEREAS, upon completion of Joining and Receiving (J & R), the RPCES practice of commissioning deaconesses was carried over to the PCA, (Minutes of the Ninth General Assembly, PCA, 1981, p. 305); and,

WHEREAS, the RPCES had conducted a detailed study of the issue of deaconesses during the period 1974-8 and adopted the following resolution:

“Resolved: that in light of the action of the 155th General Synod, we do not recommend allowing each particular church within the domination to determine whether its diaconate shall include men as well as women, nor that they be allowed to ordain a woman as a deacon. We also remind churches that they are free to elect Spirit filled women as deaconesses and to set them apart by prayer (156th General Synod Minutes of the RPCES, 1978, pp. 133-134). (A copy of the full study report is attached); and,

WHEREAS, in connection with J & R, the PCA acknowledged the practices of denominations so received by stating, “In receiving these denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America recognizes the history of the respective denominations as part of her total history and receives their historical documents as valuable and significant material which will be used in the perfecting of the Church (Minutes of the Ninth General Assembly, PCA, 1981, p. 305); and,

WHEREAS, the PCA Book of Church Order, (since its First Edition, published in 1975, and continuing to the present in the Sixth Edition) authorizes its church Sessions to 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.” (Emphasis added)

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Metro Atlanta Presbytery hereby overtures the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to amend Book of Church Order 9-7 to include the following sentence to be placed at the end of the section

“These assistants to the deacons, selected by means determined by each Session, may be commissioned, but not ordained.

The entire section 9-7, therefore, would read:

“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 in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need. These assistants to the deacons, selected by means determined by each Session, may be commissioned, but not ordained.”

Without all the "whereas" statements, this overture might not initially appear to be about deaconesses. It is in fact the practice of many PCA churches to have commissioning services for missionaries, teachers, etc. The problem with the overture lies not so much in what it is asking the Assembly to do (i.e. permit the commissioning of diaconal assistants), but in fact lies with the "whereas" statements, statements which are rife with poor exegesis and theology and clearly have the eventual ordination of women to the diaconate in mind. Let's look at some of the worst.

WHEREAS, the New Testament office of deacon was established, not by the direct revelation of a divine command, but by apostolic prudence, and not in a governing office but as an office of service, Acts 6:2.

This statement has a couple of problems. First it is simply a poor statement of apostolic authority. While it is true that no direct divine command was ever given regarding the establishment of the diaconate, if we reject apostolic authority in the church as part of the culmination of God's revelation in Christ, then we really have to tear all of the epistles out of our Bibles, don't we? But since the church is built on the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), then we have believe that the divinely inspired record of their first command to the church was correct and authoritative.

Second, saying that the Seven of Acts 6 only engaged in a ministry of service ignores the rest of the biblical record. Acts 6:8 tells us that Stephen was working "great wonders and signs." In Acts 8, Philip, one of the Seven, taught, preached, worked miracles, and even baptized! (C.f. Acts 21:8) One can only say that the biblical model for deacons is merely one of service if one is selective in his exegesis.

WHEREAS, Scripture establishes standards for deacons, 1Timothy 3:8: “Deacons likewise, must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.”

Again, if apostolic command is not divine command...well, we have more problems than one of polity.

Phoebe in the church at Cenchreae was called a deacon by Paul in Romans 16:1: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [Greek: diakonos] of the church at Cenchreae…”;

Ah, Phoebe, who is supposed to prove that the early Christian church had deaconesses. In reality, Phoebe does not help the position. Let's talk about her.

First she is  in fact called a diakonon, the Greek word from which we get our word "deacon." The noun is feminine, so it is lexically possible to translate the word "deaconess," but is that a valid translation? Not clearly.

First, the Greek word does not necessarily mean "deacon" in the sense that we do. It appears 28 times in the New Testament (outside of this passage). Eight times the word refers to household servants. Twice it refers to pagan government officials. Twice it refers to Christ himself. Seven times it refers to pastors. Three times it refers to false apostles. Paul uses it of himself four itmes. Only twice does it refer to an office of the Church. Think about that, Gentle Reader. Only 7% of the times that diakonos appears in the Scripture, does it actually refer to the office of deacon. Since the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is Scripture and since we interpret obscure passages by clear ones, why do egalitarians hang so much on Phoebe? Because she serves their purposes. Coveniently ignored are the usages that refer to unbelievers, apostles, pastors, and Christ himself.

Second, the fact that the feminine form is used (diaknonon) really proves nothing. English does not apply gender to words for the most part, but Greek did. Phoebe was a woman, so we can only say for certain that it was grammatically proper to refer to her in the feminine. More than that is sheer speculation.

But, it is objected, Phoebe is called a "diakonon of the church in Cenchrea." That MUST mean she served the church in an official capacity. But all the phrase proves was that she was associated with and served that church, not that she was an officer of it.

Next, consider the qualifications of the office of deacon in 1 Timothy3:8-12. While not obvious in English, the Greek employs masculine nouns/verbs nine times in these verses. (The identification of the "women" in verse 11 does not clearly point to deaconesses. Rather, since verse 12 says that deacons should be "one woman men," employing the same word for "women" as in verse 11, it seems much more likely that verse 11 refers to the wives of deacons and not deaconesses.)

Given the flexibility of the term diakonos in the Bible and the clearer statements of 1 Timothy, it seems reasonable to conclude that Phoebe was not a deacon in the sense that we use the word. In short, Phoebe provides very weak evidence, if any at all, that the early church had deaconesses.

WHEREAS, upon completion of Joining and Receiving (J & R), the RPCES practice of commissioning deaconesses was carried over to the PCA, (Minutes of the Ninth General Assembly, PCA, 1981, p. 305); and,

WHEREAS, the RPCES had conducted a detailed study of the issue of deaconesses during the period 1974-8 and adopted the following resolution:

“Resolved: that in light of the action of the 155th General Synod, we do not recommend allowing each particular church within the domination to determine whether its diaconate shall include men as well as women, nor that they be allowed to ordain a woman as a deacon. We also remind churches that they are free to elect Spirit filled women as deaconesses and to set them apart by prayer (156th General Synod Minutes of the RPCES, 1978, pp. 133-134). (A copy of the full study report is attached); and,

WHEREAS, in connection with J & R, the PCA acknowledged the practices of denominations so received by stating, “In receiving these denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America recognizes the history of the respective denominations as part of her total history and receives their historical documents as valuable and significant material which will be used in the perfecting of the Church (Minutes of the Ninth General Assembly, PCA, 1981, p. 305);

This is a pure ad populum argument that proves nothing. While the PCA did allow the RPCES to keep their deaconesses, the RPCES agreed to submit to our polity, which specifically forbids deaconesses from being ordained.

Finally,

WHEREAS, the PCA Book of Church Order, (since its First Edition, published in 1975, and continuing to the present in the Sixth Edition) authorizes its church Sessions to 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.” (Emphasis added)

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Metro Atlanta Presbytery hereby overtures the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to amend Book of Church Order 9-7 to include the following sentence to be placed at the end of the section

“These assistants to the deacons, selected by means determined by each Session, may be commissioned, but not ordained."

Now we come to the rub. By the overture's own admission, it is the practice of churches to commission people for various endeavors without ordaining them. The "whereas" statements make it clear, however, that the over-arching motivation here is to publicly set women apart as deaconesses. (One is forced to wonder what male assistants to the deacons would be called.)

And this is really the challenge. Post-moderns would have us believe that words essentially are meaningless, but that is manifestly not so. Words communicate ideas and ideas have consequences.

Take for instance an unfortunate choice of words I made in a theology class once. I referred to the Person and work of God. My theology professor jumped all over the phrase, reminding me that God is three Persons, not one. Now I am no modalist, so I hastily changed my language because words...ideas...have consequences. They really do here. To call female assistants to the diaconate "deaconesses" (leaving the poor male assistants in the cold), is to obfuscate the meaning of the word "deacon" and can only lead to further confusion, disorder, and theological decline in our denomination.

Now, consider the text of Overture 2 from Carolina Presbytery, which has at its heart, the concept that words do actually have meaning:

Whereas, the PCA is grateful to God for the outstanding and selfless work done by the women of PCA congregations and freely acknowledges that the ability of the church to minister to a lost and dying world depends in large part on the self-sacrificing volunteer spirit of our female members; and

Whereas, the PCA also believes that, the officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons (BCO 1-5) and that in accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only (BCO 7-2); and

Whereas, the PCA believes that scripture teaches that the officers of the church are to be ordained not commissioned. (BCO 17, 12-5, 8-6); and

Whereas, while some RPCES congregations had women on their diaconates, the RPCES resolved as part of the J&R agreement with the PCA to "Amend the existing doctrinal standards and Form of Government of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, by substituting for them the doctrinal standards and Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America" * ; and

Whereas, several churches in the PCA currently elect and commission women to the office of deacon and call them by the title deacon or deaconess and allow them to serve on the diaconate; and

Whereas, BCO 9-7, which states that women may be selected and appointed by the session of a church to serve as assistants to the deacons, is often cited as pretext for this practice of electing and commissioning female deacons;

Therefore, Central Carolina Presbytery hereby overtures the 38th General Assembly to amend BCO Chapter 9-7 by adding the words:

These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.

So that the revised version would read:

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 in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.  These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church. 

Central Carolina's Overture nails the issue and what is at stake here. If you want to commission the assistants to the diaconate, male and female, do so. But let's be clear in our terms, shall we?

Are Teaching Elders More Important Than Ruling Elders?

Well, Ruling Elders is that what you think?  Or Teaching Elders is that what you believe?  It is time for the Ruling Elder to take his place as a shepherd of Christ's Church not only in position/office but in reality.  Here is a great post dealing with the on-going problem of the Federal Vision in the PCA and the role of the Ruling Elder in Presbyterianism.