The RPCES heritage in the PCA: Jim Hurley, Joel Belz, Will Barker, Steve Smallman, and Dominic Aquila...

(Tim) Because Tim Keller sought to use the RPCES heritage of the PCA as a lever to move us toward woman deacons in his recent byFaith article, I've spent a good bit of time the past few weeks immersing myself in RPCES history on the issue. And in the process, I've come to see the RPCES influences still visible within the PCA today.

Note how influential former RPCES men (Will Barker, Dominic Aquila, and Joel Belz, for instance) and institutions (Covenant College and Covenant Seminary) are among us. How will RPCES history influence PCA actions in the next decade or so?

The personal history we bring to a controversy will bear on our convictions and conduct during that controversy.

For myself, this is certainly true. I'm no charter member of the PCA, nor did I spend any time in the RPCES. (I did in the OPC and the RCA.) My own trajectory, then, was through the UPCUSA and then the PC(USA). With my church, Grace Presbyterian in Pardeeville, Wisconsin, I left the PC(USA) back in 1992, transferring into the the PCA's then-Northern Illinois Presbytery.

If we can understand how this influences my own actions and commitments, the same is true of so-called "charter members" of the PCA as well as RPCES men who were received into the PCA.

To help us get our history right, here are some interesting quotes from the RPCES house publication, Mandate. I've pulled these quotes from a hard copy of the Mandate issued immediately following the 155th (1977) RPCES Synod where woman deacons/officers were definitively rejected by Synod members. At the time, Mandate was edited by our own Joel Belz.

These quotes should be helpful to us as we proceed to have this debate for the umpteenth time, now, within the PCA. It does seem as if we're simply picking up the debate where it left off when Jim Hurley and his troops lost their effort in their former denomination...

Stephen Smallman, McLean, VA: For better or for worse it has almost always been the world rubbing against us that has forced the church to discover exactly what the Scripture teaches on various subjects. But I don't see it as caving in to pressure from outside. We resisted that pressure when we voted earlier to exclude women from the office of elder. Now we have an opportunity to say that we believe the Scripture teaches that women should be deacons.

Smallman served on the Study Committee and voted with its majority in favor of woman deacons.

William S. Barker, Covenant Seminary: It appears that Warfield was obscurely favorable to the idea of women deacons.

Remembering how Phil Ryken claims Warfield in support of the change he's trying to bring to the PCA today related to woman deacons, it's interesting to see Barker's almost-opposite view of Warfield's position. "It appears Warfield was obscurely favorable" is about right and no strong endorsement.

David Alexander, Albermarle, NC: I am distressed because this committee is so much the same as the committee of last year, and they have come in with basically the same report which Synod rejected last year. There should be more diversity of opinion on the committee itself.

In his editorial on woman deacons, Mandate editor, Joel Belz, wrote: Perhaps it is true that some Reformed Presbyterians who were not at Synod in Colorado will respond to the discussion on women deacons by saying,"Just like I told you--sooner or later, even our church will go liberal.

If that "perhaps" is true, then perhaps I should also save these few inches for something more likely to succeed. Yet it is important to point out again and again that changes which come from time to time in RP position and practice are very different from some of the changes which have brought many of the larger denominations to unbelieving ruin.

The difference is exactly this: most often, the changes in the larger, liberal churches have been in direct disregard for the clear teachings of the Bible, while the suggested change on women deacons (which, of course, was not adopted) was born of the desire of some people in the church to be more (emphasis original) Biblical.

Not everyone will agree, naturally, that to start ordaining women as deacons is more Biblical. Yet, I think nearly everyone who listened carefully to the debate at Synod--even the opponents of the proposed change in the Form of Government--would agree that the suggestion for change was backed with serious exegesis of Scripture. [I've just looked closely at the Committee's report Joel here commends, and I would question his strong commendation of Hurley's Majority Report's exegesis as "serious," if by "serious" he means faithful to the text's meaning or in line with the historical exegesis of the Church through two millenia. It's telling how often Hurley's majority distances itself from what it calls the "traditional" exegesis.]

So it is borrowing trouble to assume that we are walking in the footsteps to unbelief just because one of our feet happened to fall at the same spot where an unbeliever's foot had earlier stepped. What guides those footsteps is what is most important, and every evidence at Synod was that the Scriptures continue to be that guide.

Here are a few excerpts from Hurley's Committee's Majority Report which ought to give some indication of the tendentious nature of much of the Committee's exegesis--an exegesis that frequently puts itself in opposition to what it refers to as the Church's "traditional" exegesis:

On 1Timothy 2:13,14:

Paul's appeal to the prior formation of Adam is often difficult for modern exegetes to understand. Paul does not elaborate to explain how the priority of Adam's formation relates to men's priority of authority in ecclesiastical settings. Any explanation which we offer must, therefore, be inferential. 

On 1Corinthians 11 and 1Timothy 2:

In (these passages) Paul indicates that the prior formation of Adam and the derivative formation of Eve are reasons for the subordinate roles of women in marriage and in the church.

Note that, according to Hurley, the Creation Order is strictly limited in its application to the Church and the home. This modern exegetical invention occurs repeatedly in Hurley's Majority Report.]

On the statement of 1Timothy 2 that it was not Adam, but Eve who was deceived, Hurley's Majority Report says:

Paul's words are cryptic and it is not possible from the actual language to discern his precise meaning.... It is more difficult to assess whether Paul intended to say that all women are as gullible as was Eve. Titus 2:3 offers some help, however, in that it directs the older women to teach the younger. It would appear that Paul did not consider that women were too gullible to be able to teach! ...Our discussion above has suggested that Paul's point was not that the woman was gullible, but that theological authority did not belong to her.

Hurley's Majority Report makes no positive application of the Holy Spirit's statement concerning Eve's deception, but only this denunciation of any suggestion of women being "gullible."

Summing up their conclusions concerning 1Timothy 2:

We have found nothing at all in Paul's discussion of subject matter for prayer (vv. 1,2), the manner in which men and women should pray (vv. 8-10), or the manner of women's reception of public instruction which even vaguely suggests that Paul's words are culturally limited. On the contrary, we have found that Paul's defense of his position is not in the least grounded in the then present culture, but is rather squarely based on the pre-fall situation which he felt normative. We conclude that 1Timothy 2 is indeed an appropriate place to begin a study of the NT teaching on the role of women.

The Apostle Paul "felt" the pre-fall situation was normative? Really? He "felt" that way?

Further, to write that 1Timothy is only "an appropriate place to begin a study of the New Testament's teaching on the role of women" is rather silly. This is not one place to begin, but the New Testament's locus classicus.

Then, summing up their exegesis, Hurley's majority presents this paraphrase of 1Timothy 2 as a summary of their new exegetical understanding of the text's meaning:

Although women may enter vocally into public prayer, they must not enter vocally into the teaching or other authoritative exercises in the service. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. The order of creation is not an accident; there are things to be learned from it. Adam was formed first, then Eve. His priority of creation reflects a divinely established headship in the house and in religious matters. Within those relations the theological decisions rested with the man. Thus although Adam was not deceived but deliberately chose to sin, Eve was quite deceived and became a transgressor.

Just for the record, here is what 1Timothy 2:11-14 actually says--in its entirety:

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Compare the above paraphrase of Hurley's majority with what the Holy Spirit Himself said and it will be clear that what Joel Belz commended as the "serious exegesis" of Hurley's Majority Report is serious in moving us from the historic exegesis of the Church into a new era of progressive exegesis ever so careful while it pushes to be scrupulous in holding the line at women moving onto the church's Session or getting up in the pulpit and preaching Sunday morning. Other than these two places, Hurley's majority leads us into the new day dawning.

Justifying their novel interpretation of the application of the Creation account in Genesis 2, as well as the Holy Spirit's exegesis of that account as it relates to the exercise of authority by woman over man found in 1Timothy 2, Hurley's Majority Report says this about woman teaching and exercising authority over man outside the church and home:

The scripture delineates three great societal institutions: family, church, and state. We have argued for the continuing subordination of woman to men in two of the three (family and church). Does the Scripture also teach the subordination of women in the social order? It is an impossible task to answer this question with respect to Adam and Eve. We cannot distinguish a social order between them. We can, however, examine this theme at later points in the history of redemption. We note that women were generally under paternal or marital authority in the Old Testament and that it is therefore hard to assess whether they might also have independent social status. There are, however, sufficient examples of women who were not under such authority that we can answer our question. Three great women of the Old Testament stand out as having played major social roles: Miriam, Deborah, Hulda. The case of Deborah is perhaps the clearest for our purposes. If it is immoral for a woman to rule over men in the social realm, God is surely at fault in establishing Deborah as judge over Israel. It must be noted that this role was not at all typical for Israelite women. Typically it was men who had the role of prophet or judge. The most common occurrence cannot, however, be determinative for principle. The question of principle is established by the appointment by God of a woman judge.

We conclude that women are not by creation design subordinate in the social sphere. Were there more space, it would be possible to examine the role of the wife in Proverbs 31 who clearly ruled over a fleet of servants and who was engaged in buying land (birthrights!), the rights of a widow to stand on equal footing with men, the role of women in the ministries of Paul and Jesus. We conclude that the nature of Adam and Eve's situation was such as to preclude clear differentiation of roles within the spheres of family, church, and society. Examination of further biblical information strongly indicates that in the spheres of family and church, female subordination continues to the present. In the sphere of society, there is little early information, but there is clear later example establishing that it is not a matter of divine principle that women should be excluded from equal participation with men in the sphere of society [emphasis in original]. It must, however, be further noted that certain situations might make it unwise for a given woman to take social authority over a given man (e.g.., a wife over her own husband).

At the conclusion of Hurley's Majority Report, the majority sums up their exegesis of Genesis 2, 1Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 11:8,9 and 1 Corinthians 14:35:

Paul consistently and legitimately employed the early chapters of Genesis and, on theological grounds, considered them normative in his own day. We see no reason that the present church should not continue to consider them relevant.

Paul considered the early chapters of Genesis "normative" and Hurley's majority tell us they "see no reason" we today "should not continue to consider them relevant" today? Well that's a huge relief.

* * *

Studying this Majority Report brought to the RPCES Synod, it's striking how formative its new exegetical positions and hermeneutics continue to be for many within the PCA in our own time. For instance, read this statement from the Majority Report (which was firmly rejected by Synod) and the origin of Tim Keller's statement, "A woman may do anything an unordained man may do," becomes quite clear.

With respect to authority, it must be stressed that women are under their husbands' authority in marriage and under the elders' authority in the church. Apart from these structures of family and church (i.e., in society), they are not by creational role subordinate to men. "Women-in-general" are not under the authority of "men-in-general"; neither are women somehow of lesser rank than those men within the congregation who are not elders. A central principle, therefore, regarding the role of women within the church is that with respect to ecclesiastical authority, there are but two groups within the church: elders and non-elders [emphasis in the original]. On this basis, the debate over whether or not "women" may undertake a given activity within the church is seen to be basically misguided, for it presumes that there are not only elders and non-elders, but also that male non-elders (men-in-general) are of greater authority than female non-elders (women-in-general).


Note that, according to Hurley, the Creation Order is strictly limited in its application to the Church and the home.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was neither in the home nor in the church. It was in the garden. Adam must've been one of those "strictly limited in its application to the Church and the home" guys.

Hurley's Majority Report makes no positive application of the Holy Spirit's statement concerning Eve's deception, but only this denunciation of any suggestion of women being "gullible."

When do egalitarians say anything positive [and accurate] about what the Bible says when it comes to teaching on the sexes? They are always refuting what it says.

So, a woman can't be an elder in the church, but she can be a powerful sword-bearing magistrate in society, ordained by God to reward good and punish evil. Go figure. I guess Isaiah 3:12 must just be referring to the church and home. Our God is not a God of confusion.

[re: Deborah:] The most common occurrence cannot, however, be determinative for principle.

Or: the exception nullifies the rule. This reverse thinking sounds like the reasoning of the homosexuals.

The question of principle is established by the appointment by God of a woman judge.

Okay, so make one woman a pastor, and then -poof!- that proves God is in favor of it, because he is sovereign. is not a matter of divine principle that women should be excluded from equal participation with men in the sphere of society

It is the Proverbs 31 wife's husband who is known at the city gates, not her. It is Boaz negotiating for Ruth's hand in marriage at the gate with the [male] elders of the city, not Ruth. This nonsense justifies stay-at-home house-husbands, teenage girls in mortal combat, female commanders-in-chief, woman police-persons, and so much more.

...there are but two groups within the church: elders and non-elders...

WRONG! According to Paul, there are those in the assembly with their heads covered in obedience to God [women], and those with their heads uncovered in obedience to God [men]. How convenient of them to forget this very strong sexual delineation. [misguidedly] presumes that there are not only elders and non-elders, but also that male non-elders (men-in-general) are of greater authority than female non-elders (women-in-general).

Women [in general] are told to be quiet in the churches. They make something up [there are only elders and non-elders], and then try to refute Scripture with their invention.

There is nothing more exasperating than conservatives/complementarians who talk just like liberals/egalitarians.

Thanks for digging up those historical quotes, Tim.

...certain situations might make it unwise for a given woman to take social authority over a given man (e.g.., a wife over her own husband).

Right. We don't want the wife to have secular authority over her husband, just someone else's hubby. And who is going to decide when these "certain unwise situations" arise, step in and do something about it?

This qualification supposedly protecting male headship in the home and church is still nonsense. Are husbands exempt from the authority of their wives who are magistrates? If Sarah signs a bill into Alaskan law, does Todd not have to obey it?

And so the woman mayor/police officer/judge/president can have authority over her pastor and her elders in very substantial ways. Women can lead men into battle, and that's all part of God's perfect plan for his creation. It is as plain as day God didn't make women for that.

Basically, they're saying: there are no significant differences in the way men and women are designed by God which affects their roles in society, but for some inexplicable reason, God gets picky about the home and church. [Well, about pastors and elders, at least.] That tidbit of blatant sexism is still okay, though by their own explanations it gets harder and harder to justify occupying the corner they have painted themselves into.

Our PCA church is calling for deaconesses and ordaining them. Women publicly pray, read scripture, and do everything but teach the Bible.

Is this allowed? I'm trying to be informed about what is proper and what is not proper.

Dear Mr. Schlacter,

If by "that," you mean the ordination of women as church officers; no, it's not allowed, but specifically prohibited.

If by "that," you mean women playing the man in church life and worship, it's generally true that the PCA has no will to guard the good deposit at this point. Many churches do as your church does, and the ones that don't talk privately, often with disgust, about those that do, but won't lift a finger to stop it--that is, to guard the good deposit.

Even the public debates on whether or not women should serve as church officers are, in reality, a sophisticated effort to demonstrate to the great unwashed that there's room in the tent for Tim Keller and the many who follow his church's rebellion against Scripture and our Book of Church Order.

I'd suggest you find another church that doesn't profess, but confess the Biblical faith in matters sexual.

God has placed this sex thing at the core of our being and Faith.

Warmly in Christ,

Add new comment