At her 44th General Assembly in Mobile, AL, the pastors and elders of the Presbyterian Church in America debated whether to form a study committee "made up of competent men and women representing the diversity of opinions within the PCA" whose task would be to study "the issue of women serving in the ministry of the church." The proposal did not come through the normal channel of a presbytery overture, but rather by recommendation of the Administrative Committee via their recently-formed Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC).
Here is the language of their proposal focussing their study committee's work on whether Christ's Church should have women officers:
• That the Assembly form a study committee on the issue of women serving in the ministry of the church (RAO 9-1; 9-3). The Assembly authorizes the Moderator to appoint the study committee. The study committee should be made up of competent men and women representing the diversity of opinions within the PCA (RAO 9-1; Robert’s Rules of Order [11th edition], §13, pp. 174-175, §50, pp.495- 496, §50, pp. 497-498 §56, p. 579]).
• That the committee should give particular attention to the issues of:
(1) The biblical basis, theology, history, nature, and authority of ordination;
(2) The biblical nature and function of the office of deacon;
(3) Clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses;
(4) Should the findings of the study committee warrant BCO changes, the study committee will propose such changes for the General Assembly to consider.
• The committee will have a budget of $15,000 that is funded by designated donations to the AC from churches and individuals (RAO 9-2).
• A Pastoral Letter to be proposed by the ad interim study committee and approved by the General Assembly be sent to all churches, encouraging them to
(1) promote the practice of women in ministry,
(2) appoint women to serve alongside elders and deacons in the pastoral work of the church, and
(3) hire women on church staff in appropriate ministries.
The proposal that a pastoral letter encouraging the promotion, appointment, and hiring of women in the ministries of the church be sent out to the whole denomination even before the study committee is formed or begins deliberation shows the conclusions denominational leaders expect their hand-picked study committee members to bring back to the assembly at the conclusion of their work. The results of the committee's work, whatever it may conclude about the proper subjects of ordination, must make a move toward the expansion of women's work in the church. Forged after decades of functional egalitarianism in the PCA, the Cooperative Ministries Committee's proposal was about as groundbreaking and exciting as the leaves of Autumn falling and rotting.
Note the difference between the arguments of those for and those against the formation of the committee...
For instance, note the emotional pitches of those in favor of the study committee:
We have wonderful study reports, like the one on Creation and the one on Marriage, Divorce, and Re-Marriage that the churches have used as a valuable resource to guide the pastoral care of people in the hands of their sessions. That’s all we are suggesting here…is another study committee report that will be a resource for us. It will not dictate anything to us, but it certainly will help us deal with some of the issues. (Mike Ross)
We are not, gentlemen—now I’m either lying at this point or I’m telling you the truth—we are not recommending that we ordain women. We are asking the General Assembly to appoint a very diverse and well-qualified committee of men and women to study the issue of women’s role in the church and the ministry. (Mike Ross)
When you cut to the chase all this proposal asks is for a man we trust, a man who we elected moderator by acclimation, to appoint people of varying perspectives in the PCA to carefully study the Bible, which is in fact our only rule of faith and practice. And then come back to us with recommendations, only recommendations, about how we can be most faithful to the Scriptures in the area of women in ministry. Why in the world would we not want to do that? I don’t understand. I haven’t heard a good argument against it, not in all the things that the committee of commissioners said, nor have I heard that argument yet anywhere else. (Larry Hoop)
Brothers and fathers, it’s a study committee. Seriously. Opening the door to all kinds of issues, I heard raised as an objection to this study committee. Is that a big problem? Opening the door to studying the Bible is full of issues. We should study them. The fact that it’s been brought up over and over and over again and we reject it every time. That’s an argument for rejecting it? My goodness. I pray that you don’t respond to your wives and your parishioners who keep bringing up issues to talk about. Seriously, brothers. (Kevin Twit)
About 13 years ago my wife came with me to GA. She sat with me, and we were discussing this once again. And, once again, we came to a place where we affirmed all kinds of things about women without any women being in the conversation. And my wife, who is an amazing human being, who is the daughter of a PCA pastor, turned to me and whispered, “Mike, if the women in the PCA heard how these PCA pastors and elders talked about women in the PCA, there wouldn’t be very many women in the PCA.” I think she's right. What are we afraid of, guys? Is what we believe so fragile that we are terrified of testing it against the Scriptures and arguing back and forth with one another? (Mike Khandjian)
To say that Scripture’s teaching on these and so many other related issues is already clear is to tell a whole generation of young women simply to go away…the issue is settled. So my appeal to you today is that you resist the temptation to tell any serious inquirer simply to go away. (Joel Belz)
This debate has been good. It’s been enlightening. It’s been helpful. And fathers and brothers, I encourage you to vote for this study committee because your wives are gonna love you. Women in your church are going to love you, because you have affirmed and helping to affirm their gifts and how they can minister with the love of Jesus. So, please, vote for a study committee. (Rod Mays)
By way of contrast, note the historical and Scriptural appeals of those men against the study committee:
The statement has been made that this issue has not been studied. A study committee has not been formed, but the issue of office in the church and of what the nature of ordination is and what is the authority of office in the church, has indeed been studied. Indeed, we studied these things in our seminary courses and every one of the commissioners of this assembly, I assume, have already studied this issue in preparation for their ordination vows, whether ruling elders or teaching elders…which vow included this statement: Do you approve the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America in conformity with general principles of biblical polity. And there is a chapter in our book of church order, chapter 17 which is entitled “The Doctrine of Ordination.” BCO chapter 7 is entitled “Church Officers: General Classification.” BCO chapter 8 is a chapter on the office of elder. And BCO chapter 9 is a chapter on the office of deacon. And BCO chapter 7, paragraph 2 makes this statement: “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.” And BCO 9-7 was amended in 2010 to make this statement about assistance to the deacons, men or women: “These assists to the deacons are not officers of the church and, as such, are not subjects for ordination.” That was adopted in the 2010 General Assembly and ratified by our presbyteries. The doctrine of ordination has been thoroughly studied and well-established in the life of the church, not just for centuries but perhaps for millennia. Thus, we see it as not a necessary thing for us to have a study committee that has as part of its pursuit, the study of what is ordination and what is its authority. (Roland Barnes)
Our God is an immutable God. As such, His redemptive plan is unchangeable. His truths are unchangeable. His will for us is unchangeable. His principles for us are unchangeable. His wisdom and instructions for us in the Scriptures are both unchangeable. His will how this church is to be organized, runned, administered, is unchangeable. We may change. We may change our BCO. We might even change the Standards, but God’s will remains unchangeable and His Scriptures remain unchangeable. He said through His Holy Spirit, through Christ’s Apostle, “I do not permit.” (Albert Kona)
What, then, is really the issue? Quite simply, it is whether we intend, whether we intend with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength to submit to the plain Word of God on this issue. The Bible says this, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak but they are to be submissive as the Law also says.” 1 Tim. 2:12 says this, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” It could not be any clearer. (Bill Schweitzer)
And then we’ve heard arguments with respect to the role of women. Well, I would say shame on you men if the women in your church are not being used in the full and proper, God-ordained manner for their fulfillment of office. A study committee is not going to help that. It is not going to change pastors and elders not taking advantage of the gifted women and every person in the church having gifts, plus, the list of Biblical responsibilities, for example, in Titus 2 that God gives to women in the church. (Joseph Pipa)
After the arguments ended, the study committee was approved by a lopsided margin (767-375-12). Joey Pipa protested the assembly's actions, joined by many others and myself.
The members of the study committee were appointed by Moderator George Robertson. To my knowledge, so far the committee has met once and has been sworn to secrecy about their work. The voting members are Ligon Duncan, Irwyn Ince, Mrs. Tim (Kathy) Keller, Mrs. Bill (Mary Beth) McGreevy, Bruce O'Neil, Harry Reeder, and Jeffrey Choi. Non-voting advisory members are Nikisha Alcindor, Leon Brown, Dan Doriani, Lani Jones, Roy Taylor, and William Castro. (Others were added more recently, I believe).
Moderator Robertson has this to say about Mrs. McGreevy:
Mary Beth is a gift to the Church. Her gifts in teaching God’s Word which are so abundantly bestowed by the Spirit are generously and excellently yielded to Christ for the building up of the Body of Christ.
As I have shown before, a growing majority of elders in the PCA are ashamed of God's Word in its teaching on sexuality and the creation order of the sexes. This shame at our Savior's teaching concerning manhood and womanhood has, in turn, led our church toward repudiating the shame God assigned to the homosexual "abomination" (Deut. 22:5). I say it with great sadness: we will answer for the destruction of the souls of the sheep God has placed under our watch-care (including our own sons and daughters) that will result from our officers' abandonment of 1 Tim. 2, Titus 2, 1 Cor. 6 and 11, Proverbs 31, Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3,...
For the record, here I provide a transcript of the entire debate on the floor of the assembly:
(transcript begins at 1:29:10 of "Thursday Afternoon Business" video)
Moderator George Robertson
Let me remind you of where we are. The permanent committee has recommended the formation of a study committee. The Committee of Commissioners on the Administration Committee is moving a substitute...for their suggestion, for their recommendation, which would be to vote it down. No study committee. In this case, the chairman of the permanent committee is permitted 10 minutes to speak and then the chairman of the committee of commissioners 15 minutes and then 5 minutes for a reply from you. Proceed, Mr. Schriver.
TE Jerry Schriver
Mr. Moderator, I would like to defer my time to the man who was the chairman of CMC subcommittee who are bringing forward this recommendation. Teaching Elder Mike Ross and then, following a rebuttal period by Mr. Barnes, I’m going to ask Teaching Elder Rod Mays to come to the podium.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Proceed.
TE Mike Ross
Mr. Moderator, Brothers, I am the culprit. I am the guilty party. If you take a look in your docket on page 373 and 374, you’ll find there five items of study that have been before the CMC for about four years. If I could borrow a phrase from the Apostle Paul, this thing has not been done in a corner. We are not surprising you, hopefully, or launching something new before you this morning. We had brought before you back in 2013...
TE David Coffin
Excuse me, Mr. Moderator. I’m sorry. I didn’t want to lose the moment; I’m not sure how you would rule on it. The recommendation was that there be two speakers in favor of the committee. Our rules only allow for one speaker, and I’d like to make that point of order now just in case, I don’t know whether you’d saying we’d effected that…or...
Moderator TE George Robertson
Yes, that was just pointed out to me. So, we are… Our rules show that the chairman or his representative may speak but the same representative will have the five minutes of rebuttal. So it will not be…um…you are the only one authorized to speak. Bless your heart…
TE Mike Ross
Thank you. Mr. Moderator, do you have any other good news for me today? But there are five, gentlemen, there are five areas, that if you will look at them. One was the study of diversity, increasing diversity in our church. Dealing with sexual brokenness and one of the outcomes of that study was the seminar we had yesterday morning. Increasing leadership participation and positions for the rising generation of leaders in the PCA. Making General Assembly more attractive to ruling elders and younger pastors. And then the role of women in ministry in the PCA. We, when I gave the report in, the CMC report in 2013, we verbally told you these things were coming. Bruce Terrell in 2014, in a written report, reminded you of these things. In 2015, Bryan Chapell actually laid out some outlines of what we were doing in this. And then, of course, at the beginning of this assembly, Jim Wert, our retiring moderator, laid these things out again. So, they've been in By Faith Magazine. All this to say, this is not coming in the back door; this has not been done in a corner. We are bringing these things before you because we think they are things that you have communicated to us in a different number of venues that we needed to study and bring some ideas to you.
There are three concerns, and I understand these concerns, and I would share them with you. The first one is, and I think this was even the motion that Brother Coffin brought a few moments ago: Is this a proper way to bring these things before us? As we understand it in the CMC, and we could be wrong, there are five ways to bring things before the General Assembly. Sometimes they come through personal resolutions, like the resolution from Misters Duncan and Lucas that has led to this great discussion and great overtures about racial reconciliation. A lot of times, issues come to us because of presbytery overtures. A lot of the business that we deal with, perhaps the majority, comes from the permanent committees and agencies. We also have business like we are doing today, that comes from the committee of commissioners that review the work of the boards and agencies…and permanent committees. A fifth venue was added in our interpretation in 2010…and that is, in a very limited scope, the issues that we bring before you through the CMC may be brought through a permanent committee, reviewed by the committee of commissioners, and be brought to the floor of General Assembly. All of these people have been elected by you. The complaint that this is a executive order from the CMC is an injudicious statement. We have not done anything strong-armed or sidewinder to bring this to you. We brought it through the proper channels and we kept you abreast of this thing for over a period of four years. We formed a study committee on these issues. I was graced to be the chairman of this committee. Let me tell you who was on that committee: from the CMC is was Paul Koistra, Rod Mays, Steven Estock, RE David Stewart, and myself. And then I added a number of men and women, some of our younger pastors and ladies, spanning the ages of 70 to 26, and they were: Melanie Cogdil, Ben Cunningham, Ellen Dykas, Karen Hodge, Susan Hunt, Michelle Odell, Peter Rowan, Will Spokes, Jen Stegman, Russ Whitefield, and Joel Belz…to add to this study committee. So, we had people from both genders, all different age groups, different kinds of ministry—campus ministers, church planters, pastors, people who work with our women in the church ministries at the assembly level…and we studied this for a period of almost three years. We are all under the authority of the General Assembly. We are not trying to push anything your way. We are asking you to consider something.
The second criticism that's been raised is that we have already done this. And unless I’ve missed something, I think that's incorrect. There was an overture, back at the 37th or 36th General Assembly, I think from, I believe it was overture 10 from Susquehanna, to form a study committee. That overture was voted down. So we have never had a study committee, to our knowledge, on the issue of women in ministry. So, the grounds from the committee of commissioners that this has been well studied and well understood, I beg to differ…humbly so. I happen to know, over the past three and a half years, as I’ve talked to literally hundreds of you through personal conversations, and on the telephone, and emails, and in committee meetings, that there is a great deal of confusion and a great diversity of opinion about what women can do in the different churches. We have wonderful study reports, like the one on Creation and the one on Marriage, Divorce, and Re-Marriage that the churches have used as a valuable resource to guide the pastoral care of people in the hands of their sessions. That’s all we are suggesting here…is another study committee report that will be a resource for us. It will not dictate anything to us, but it certainly will help us deal with some of the issues. It won’t surprise you for me to say that there is a rising tide of egalitarianism, not only in our culture, but in the younger generation. And I have found among our younger pastors and our younger women in the churches, a great deal of confusion about what women can and cannot do. I have the privilege of teaching the pastoral ministry class at Reformed Theological Seminary, and every year, the number one and two questions I face from the men in seminary, and the young women there, are: How do we relate to people with same-sex attraction, and What can women do in the church. And it's growing over time.
Thirdly, there is the complaint, and I know it looks like this, if you look at our actual motion, the original motion, uh, recommendation, is that we are being to specific in directing the committee to study the issue of ordination. We are not directing the committee to do anything. We are asking them to do that…and the reason we singled that out, in addition to everything else, is that in our own denomination there is a great diversity of opinion about ordination, believe it or not. We have churches that ordain men to the office of elder and deacon; we have other churches that ordain men to the office of elder and deacon and then commission women as deaconesses; we have churches that ordain men to office of the elder and then they do not ordain male or female deacons, they, I think contrary to the Book of Church Order, commission them. And we have certain churches that, if you go on their website, they show pictures of men and women and list them as their officers. So there is some question, again, among younger people about what ordination is and what we should do with it. And we're simply asking this General Assembly to approve a study committee to look at that. We are not, gentlemen—now I’m either lying at this point or I’m telling you the truth—we are not recommending that we ordain women. We are asking the General Assembly to appoint a very diverse and well-qualified committee of men and women to study the issue of women’s role in the church and the ministry. And to touch upon, with greater clarity for us, what ordination is and how it’s to be conducted. My friend Ligon Duncan—I’m quoting him not necessarily because he’s endorsing everything I say—but he told me at the beginning of this process, I said Ligon what do you think about this, he said Michael, we're either going to study this and do it well or we're going to ignore it and have a disaster. This issue, brothers, is not going to go away. And I think that we know what to do. I think our complementation position of men and women in marriage and in ministry is the way we went ahead. But I think we’ve got to come together and use our best minds and resources to give us some information to educate a younger generation, encourage our sessions, to bring us more consistently together in this and that is all we are asking for. And I hope that you will trust me that we are asking for nothing else and, ah, that you will go ahead and vote down this substitute motion and give permission for the General Assembly to form a study committee. Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you, Dr. Ross. Mr. Barnes you will have fifteen minutes. While you are coming, let me say to the assembly, if you wish your vote in favor of the point of order, that is, if you wish your…I probably put it the wrong way…I asked if you would sustain the chair or if you did not sustain the chair…the other way to put it is do you affirm the point of order, that is, the one that Mr. Coffin brought. If you wish your vote to be recorded along with Dr. Coffin's, there is a place for you here so to record your vote. Mr. Barnes, you may proceed...
TE Roland Barnes
Thank you, Mr. Moderator…
Perhaps the recommendation that comes from the permanent committee through CMC has not been well constructed. If I look at the actual recommendation itself, and if you’ll look at page 306, the instruction is given to this committee were it to be approved and formed, that the committee should give particular attention to the issues of, one, the Biblical basis, theology, history, nature, and authority of ordination; two, the Biblical nature and function of the office of deacons; three, clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses; and, four, should the findings of the study committee warrant BCO changes, the study committee will propose such changes for the General Assembly to consider. It seemed to the committee of commissioners that these scopes of study were very broad and not well-defined and thus could leave the door open for the consideration of many things, many of which we would not like to pursue. So, I’d like to offer several reasons for why, and perhaps in these categories summarize the concerns of the committee of commissioners that were expressed in our debate.
First, it appeared to us that it was unnecessary. The statement has been made that this issue has not been studied. A study committee has not been formed, but the issue of office in the church and of what the nature of ordination is and what is the authority of office in the church, has indeed been studied. Indeed, we studied these things in our seminary courses and every one of the commissioners of this assembly, I assume, have already studied this issue in preparation for their ordination vows, whether ruling elders or teaching elders…which vow included this statement: Do you approve the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America in conformity with general principles of biblical polity. And there is a chapter in our book of church order, chapter 17 which is entitled “The Doctrine of Ordination.” BCO chapter 7 is entitled “Church Officers: General Classification.” BCO chapter 8 is a chapter on the office of elder. And BCO chapter 9 is a chapter on the office of deacon. And BCO chapter 7, paragraph 2 makes this statement: “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.” And BCO 9-7 was amended in 2010 to make this statement about assistance to the deacons, men or women: “These assists to the deacons are not officers of the church and, as such, are not subjects for ordination.” That was adopted in the 2010 General Assembly and ratified by our presbyteries. The doctrine of ordination has been thoroughly studied and well-established in the life of the church, not just for centuries but perhaps for millennia. Thus, we see it as not a necessary thing for us to have a study committee that has as part of its pursuit, the study of what is ordination and what is its authority.
Secondly, not only do we think it is unnecessary, we think it is also redundant. Study committees have been requested on numerous occasions over the past several years. Yes, we have never established one (skip in video)…for us on several occasions, and has been repeatedly rejected, preferring to leave the matter to the opportunities available to women for ministry to the local church being pursued within the bounds of the restrictions and limitations of Scripture itself as set forth in our standards. In 2008, the General Assembly responded to overture 9, asking to erect a study committee on deaconesses. It answered it in the negative with the following statement: “That appropriate ways to bring these issues before the General Assembly or through presbytery overtures to amend the BCO.” In 2009, again, the General Assembly responded to overtures 5 and 10 and answered again in the negative with reference to the action taken in 2008 with respect to overture 9…"that appropriate ways to bring these issues before the General Assembly or through the presbytery overtures to amend the BCO." In 2010, response to Overture 7 from Evangel Presbytery adopted this explicit statement with respect to BCO 7-2, "to affirm that godly men and women who assist the diaconate are not to be ordained." So, it is redundant.
Besides being unnecessary, in our opinion, and redundant, it is also, in our estimation, not helpful. Study committees are questionably helpful, do not often resolve issues, but have the real potential of disturbing the peace of the church. The resulting paper that was established on...if we have the study committee, will not have constitutional status and cannot be cited as such in church courts. And that is why you may have noted that in the recommendation from the permanent committee, there is a request to consider possible BCO amendments, to put those aspects of the study committee into place. So, we consider that it is not necessary, it would be redundant, and it is not helpful.
Then, fourthly, we wonder if it is also appropriate to bring it to the floor in this manner. Mention was made of five different ways by which business could come to the floor of the General Assembly. It is our conviction that the preferred way to change our constitution is by amendments presented through the church courts and this matter is not coming to you from a session that was wrestling with these issues and overtured their presbytery and then from the presbytery to the General Assembly. Indeed, as we have already noted, when that route was taken the Assembly voted no. But rather, this is coming from the top down. It is coming from a subcommittee of a committee that reports to another committee. It doesn’t even come directly from a committee but by way of recommendation from a subcommittee of CMC and then to CMC and then from CMC to the AC and then from the AC to the General Assembly. So we wonder if this is the preferred way that we want to do business or address issues of this manner that could be disturbing to the peace of the church.
And, lastly, I might say that it could be also dangerous. Just a personal note. Many of you here today may have had a similar experience to my own when you came into the PCA. In 1977 I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL. I’d come to embrace the reformed faith and presbyterian church government, and I was trying to decide what would I do when I graduated from my seminary studies. I was seeking the Lord’s guidance as to where to affiliate. I grew up in the United Methodist Church which was decidedly liberal even then. I became saved through the high school ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. I began to look for churches that preached the Word of God and adhered to the truth of the Word of God. Mostly, I ended up in Southern Baptist Churches where a man would stand behind a pulpit and preach as though he believed what the Bible actually says. When I was in the University of Georgia, I attended a Missionary Alliance Church. I then went the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School which was the seminary of the Evangelical Free Church. While I was there I was a member of a Baptist General Conference Church. I am a walking ecumenical movement. But I was looking for a denomination that held to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture and that was resisting the effects of the culture to press it into its mold. Resisting the effects of the culture of liberalism, of evolution, of feminism. A father of our faith, a father to this denomination in particular, the late Francis Schaeffer wrote a book in 1984 entitled The Great Evangelical Disaster. He was prophetic about the dangers of accommodating to the world-spirit of this age. In light of the recent developments in our culture with respect to homosexuality and same-sex marriages and feminism, running rampant in many of the denominations, mainline denominations and even some that were not considered mainline, I think his comments are appropriate. In a section on marriage, divorce, and sexuality, Dr. Schaeffer writes, “There is one final area that I would mention where evangelicals have, with tragic results, accommodated to the world spirit of this age. This has to do with the whole area of marriage, family, sexual morality, feminism, homosexuality, and divorce. But under the guise of love, much of the evangelical world has abandoned any concept of right or wrong in divorce and any pretext of dealing with divorce according to the boundaries established in the Scriptures.” He goes on to say, “The key to understanding extreme feminism centers around the idea of total equality or more properly the idea of equality without distinction. The Bible does not teach the inequality of men and women. Each person, man or woman, stands equally before God as a person created in His image and at the same time as a sinner in need of salvation. But at the same time, this equality is not an equality of monolithic uniformity or sameness between men and women. It is an equality which preserves the fundamental differences between the sexes and which allows for the realization and fulfillment of these differences. To deny the truth of what it means to be male and female as taught in the Scriptures is to deny something essential about the nature of man and about the character of God and His relationship to man. If we accept the idea of equality without distinction, we logically must accept the ideas of abortion and homosexuality. For if there are no significant distinctions between men and women, then certainly we cannot condemn homosexual relationships.”
When I was considering coming into the PCA, I was told I needed to study the Book of Church Order, carefully, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. I studied them carefully and was thankful that the PCA was holding fast to the Word of God on the role of women in the church. I came into the PCA because of its position on the role of women in the church, particularly with regard to the offices of elder and deacon.
So, the committee of commissioners is opposed to this recommendation and urges you brothers, hold fast, do not be conformed to the image of this world. Do not recommit this. We spent three and one half hours addressing this matter. We heard every side of the equation from both the Administrative Committee as well as those who agreed with them as members of our committee of commissioners. Let our Presbyterian system of government work. Let sessions and presbyteries address the practical matters about what women (skip in video)… And let us affirm our time-honored and Biblical and well-established principles concerning church office and the teaching ministry of the church.
Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Please, no demonstration. Dr. Ross. Point of order, microphone number eight…
TE Chuck Hickey
Teaching Elder Chuck Hickey, Ohio Vally Presbytery. I’d like to draw the assembly’s attention to line six, page 320 of the AC report, the yellow sheet that was passed out.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Line…
TE Chuck Hickey
Actually, lines five and six. The statement there is the study committee should be made up of competent men and women representing the diversity of opinions within the PCA. Fathers and brothers, I have not been to every…
Moderator TE George Robertson
Ah, sir…your…it’s a point of order…it’s directed to me.
TE Chuck Hickey
Mr. Moderator, I believe this is requesting or would require the court to appoint members that are not of this court to a study committee to make a recommendation to this court. I believe that’s out of order. I don’t know that we've ever done that. So, I would ask you to rule this out of order.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Your point of order is that it’s inappropriate to appoint non-teaching elders or non-ruling elders to a committee. Would you please elaborate on what the point is?
TE Chuck Hickey
My…it’s my memory…at times faulty…that in the past this court has only appointed members of the court to study committees. And this would be a deviation from that practice.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Ah…we will…I think we’re going memory (skip in video)...for appointing non-members of the court, non-ruling elders or teaching elders…we do have the precedent so I will…
TE Chuck Hickey
Do we have precedent appointing women to study committees?
Moderator TE George Robertson
Again, memory…and, I can appeal to someone else, but I think, I recall appointing in the marriage and divorce study committee we had a least one woman. Am I…is there a historian here? Is there precedent? Um…it is believed but not…it has not been…this question has been taken up by the CMC, hasn’t been proven. Mr. Neikirk at number 3, are you rising as a historian?
RE Jay Neikirk
No sir, I am rising to ask a question regarding the point of order.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Yes.
RE Jay Neikirk
Would I be correct that a point of order has to cite something in the constitution or our rules as the basis for the point?
Moderator TE George Robertson
You are correct and that’s, I was trying to ask if, just exactly what he was taking issue with. So, if you have a place in our constitution where it makes it inappropriate to appoint non-members of the court or women, as you’ve just elaborated, then you'll need to bring forth to have a successful contention.
TE Chuck Hickey
I withdraw my point of order.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you. Mr. Ross, Dr. Ross, you are granted five minutes.
TE Mike Ross
Thank you, sir. Gentlemen, just in conclusion. I…um…it is unfortunate that when we discuss the role of women in the church, we always slip down the slippery slope emotionally. No one on this committee…um...is endorsing egalitarianism or homosexuality or same-sex marriage and these other things. I’d like you to look again at page 320, and, brothers, I beg you to react to what is written on the page not what you're reading into it. The definitive line is the first one. The assembly form a study committee on the issue of women serving in the ministry of the church period. The issue of ordination will come up because we have inconsistent practices about ordaining or installing male and female deacons or deaconesses. That’s why we are raising that. We are not, listen to me gentlemen, we are not asking that the constitution be changed. You’re assuming, many of you, that this study committee will loosen things up. What if it does the reverse? What if it questions about some of the practices we have now about what women do in ministry, about women laying hands on men to ordain them to the office of ruling elder, teaching elder, which happens in our churches, (skip in video), participating in baptism, leading in worship and doing priestly functions. What if it says no, we are going to tighten these things up? Why do we always assume that when we open up discussion it will go from bad to worse? We are not asking that. We are asking for resources. We understand the Book of Church Order. We understand the Rules of Assembly Operation but our people don’t. And a study paper can do nothing more than give us good resources. I’d like you to turn to page 510 in your docket. Would you do that, please, for just a moment? Page 510. Something that you acted on this morning, that you, I think, unanimously approved, or close to it. That was the committee of commissioners report on the committee of discipleship ministries. If you look at recommendation number 11, that recommendation for the certification of women and non-ordained people in ministry came from the CMC to the permanent committee of CDM through the committee of commissioners to the floor and was approved. And it’s hardly dangerous. There’s nothing dangerous about this. We did this and everybody thought it was fine. Now we are simply doing it with a study committee, and we are asking you not to read into it but to give it a chance and to see what they come back with. Remember once they come back with a study committee report, we vote it up, we vote it down, we amend it, we throw it away, we do whatever we want to…so nothing is being taken out of your hands, we are just asking you to give this issue a formal vetting and a more thorough study than we have had in the past. And I thank you for your attention. Ah, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your graciousness and your time allotted us.
(2:02:43)
Moderator TE George Robertson
Is that a point of order at number 7? Number 7?
RE Wes Reynolds
Yes, yes, point of order. In reference to lines five and six, on (skip in video) …point of order referred to earlier. By the way, Wes Reynolds, ruling elder, Great Lakes Presbytery. BCO 14-1.9 states that the assembly’s committees are to include proportionate representation of all presbyteries wherever possible. I’m asking the Moderator to rule the committee’s original motion out of order, not properly before the assembly, because if we allow non-presbyters on that committee it violates 14-1.9…and 10.
TE Richwine
Point of order, Mr. Moderator, on the point of order.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Let me catch up with the first one first. 14-1.9 and 10. Is that correct? Ah, alright, second point of order.
TE Richwine
Mr. Moderator, my memory seems to say to me…TE Richwine, Warrior Presbytery…I believe that once debate has begun on a motion, that you cannot then raise a point of order and ask the chair to…
Moderator TE George Robertson
We haven't been debating.
TE Richwine
What have we been doing? We’ve had…we’ve had both men presenting their arguments.
Moderator TE George Robertson
They are presenting on a substitute.
TE Richwine
My understanding was that comes after the debate, according to our Rules of Assembly Operation.
Moderator TE George Robertson
No, we are not debating yet.
TE Richwine
I would disagree with the moderator.
TE David Coffin
Mr. Moderator.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Yes, Mr. Coffin. Number 2, please.
TE David Coffin
Mr. Moderator, David Coffin, Potomac Presbytery. Mr. Moderator, I believe that it’s possible for you to be willing to hear from those who might have some understanding of the point of order being raised, and I would be happy to address it if it would be of interest to you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
That would be most welcome. What took you so long!
TE David Coffin
Mr. Moderator, according to Robert’s Rules it is possible to have non-members of a body appointed to a committee. In this case, the rules cited from our own, which would take precedence if it were relevant, has only to do with permanent committees and agencies. And so I would think that Robert’s Rules would prevail in this case.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Exactly! That’s right. No, please, don’t do that. Don’t do that… It will go to my head. Don’t do that. I am going to rule that it is still properly before us. And, did someone appeal the ruling of the chair? No. OK. So, we are to debate, and I have done the best I can in keeping up with these sixteen, seventeen people at the mics. So, I am going to do my best. If, yes…point of order. Number 4…
TE Ewan Kennedy
Ewan Kennedy, Metro Atlanta Presbytery, just to assure all those in doubt. Diane Langberg did serve on the study committee for divorce and remarriage. That’s according to our historical documents…
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you very much. Was there another point of order at 4? … Then we are going to go with microphone number 3. Mr. Hoop would you turn that sign back there, that you…been fiddlin’ with. Thank you. I can see it. Microphone 3, I think you are first…
TE Steve Tiptin
Teaching Elder Steve Tiptin, Presbytery of the Ascension, I don’t want to reiterate everything the chairman from the committee of commissioners said but I would like to raise two add… (skip in video)…happen, like me, to have the minutes on your iPad, turn to page 318…that the issue was, they were asked, the committee, or the Cooperative Ministries Committee…
Moderator TE George Robertson
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, for or against?
TE Steve Tiptin
I apologize. I am in favor of the substitute motion.
Moderator TE George Robertson
And that’s what we are debating. So, the substitute. Let me just...bring us up to…make sure we are all clear. The substitute is to vote down the formation of a subcommittee…ah…an ad interim committee. Now, please proceed. You are speaking in favor of the substitute.
TE Steve Tiptin
Yes
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you.
TE Steve Tiptin
The subcommittee of the Cooperative Ministries Committee was asked to study the role of women in the church, but they were also instructed to bring back a report to us along with recommendations. At the 43rd General Assembly they said, we need more time to present a white paper that we could have a chance to look at. That information has never been given to the assembly. Instead, we have a recommendation for a study committee where the Cooperative Ministries Committee subcommittee has already studied this. And the only grounds we have been given is that the Cooperative Ministries Committee cannot make recommendations directly to the General Assembly. In other words, we have not been given adequate grounds for why we should pass this study committee in the first place. There has been an article in ByFaith, there’s been other speeches, but those are things that we could only really address today as opposed to providing that grounds with the commissioner’s handbook, several weeks ago to give us all an opportunity to think about those things. So in addition to everything else that has already been said, the problem is is that we have not had an opportunity to adequately consider why we as an assembly should in fact form this study committee except for anecdotal remarks that have been made today as well as Monday in the committee of commissioner’s meeting. That is why I would recommend, in addition, again to everything that the chairman of the committee of commissioners stated, that we vote in favor of the substitute to answer this in the negative. Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you. Microphone number 2, in the blue shirt, you were first. For or against?
TE Albert Kona
For.
Moderator TE George Robertson
For the substitute?
TE Albert Kona
For the substitute motion.
Moderator TE George Robertson
For the substitute?
TE Albert Kona
Yes, sir.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Microphone number 7. For or against?
Unknown
For.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Next in line at 7, for or against? Ah, yes…
Unknown
For the substitute.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Number 3, for or against?
TE Larry Hoop
I am against the substitute, Mr. Moderator.
Moderator TE George Robertson
OK. Please proceed.
TE Larry Hoop
Mr, Moderator, fathers and brother, I’m teaching elder Larry Hoop, Ohio Valley Presbytery. I am speaking against the substitute. Specifically, I want to begin with one particular argument that I’ve seen used in support of it and heard used. I’ve heard it suggested and seen suggested in print that this proposal represents, and I’m quoting from the print article, a power grab or top down legislation. The article alleges that an emboldened, and this is quoting, CMC has rapidly started to resemble the old PCUSA General Assembly Council, unquote. It accuses the CMC of making this proposal to gerrymander the process to achieve women’s ordination and compares the proposal to, as Dr. Ross has mentioned, the President’s executive orders. Anyone, Mr. Moderator, with even a passing acquaintance with the RAO should realize that comparing the power of the CMC to the executive order of the President is like comparing a rowboat to a destroyer. Reading again from RAO 7-3-C, that we have referred to several times, "any matters requiring the General Assembly action by the committee shall be referred to the appropriate committee or agency for its consideration and recommendation." There is the CMC’s fearsome power, brothers…the power to refer. And when the CMC refers an idea, they have to convince the committee or agency, and then the committee or agency itself can only recommend it. We of the General Assembly must approve it before any action is taken. Mr. Moderator, I want to say that when I heard this power grab article and read about it, I was first angered and then I was grieved. I was angered and grieved because the men on the CMC have been characterized in that print article as willful, arrogant, conceited, guilty of bureaucratic hubris, and more. And who are these supposed villains? Let me read you the names of those who attended the last meeting. Roy Taylor, Jerry Schriver, Derek Halverson, Richard Bowser, Stephen Estock, David Stewart, Mark Dalbey, Walter Turner, Jim Bland, Doug Domet, Randy Stair, Gary Campbell, Jonathan Medlock, Ed Dunnington, Wallace Anderson, Dan Neilson, Jim Wert, Bryan Chapell, Bruce Terrell, Mike Ross, Dan Carrol, and Harry Reeder. You probably, brothers, know some of these men personally. Some of them I have known for over a decade. I know them as men of the highest order of integrity, men who have given their lives to serve the Lord and His church. Yes, it angers and grieves me to hear men like these subjected to scurrilous charges, not only verbally but also in a blog post written by a PCA teaching elder posted on a blog that bears the name of another PCA teaching elder. Mr. Moderator, arguments like the one I’m speaking against have a technical name: they are ad hominem, against the man. It is an argument directed against a person or persons rather than against the position he (skip in video)…his substantive arguments against the proposal aren’t strong enough to carry the day so that he resorts to attacking the character of the one making the proposal. And I believe that is the case here. When you cut to the chase all this proposal asks is for a man we trust, a man who we elected moderator by acclimation, to appoint people of varying perspectives in the PCA to carefully study the Bible, which is in fact our only rule of faith and practice. And then come back to us with recommendations, only recommendations, about how we can be most faithful to the Scriptures in the area of women in ministry. Why in the world would we not want to do that? I don’t understand. I haven’t heard a good argument against it, not in all the things that the committee of commissioners said, nor have I heard that argument yet anywhere else. But one thing is for certain, Mr. Moderator, in this debate let us dispense with any ad hominem arguments. We have heard them used all too recently in the political life of our nation. We should never tolerate them in the deliberations of the church.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Please, no demonstration. Microphone number 2, you are for the substitute? Microphone number 2.
TE Albert Kona
Dear brothers and fathers, Albert Kona, Calvary Presbytery. Excuse me for my accent; I’m a foreigner still in this country. The way I see it, what Pastor Barnes listed before us is the full account and explanation that this issue has been for two thousand years studied and deliberated. And for two thousand years, the church has always answered in the same way: women in the church but not women in the office. We, as people of God, we find ourselves constantly having to choose between Christ and culture, between God’s unchangeable will and values and our culture’s ever-changing values and definitions. Our God is an immutable God. As such, His redemptive plan is unchangeable. His truths are unchangeable. His will for us is unchangeable. His principles for us are unchangeable. His wisdom and instructions for us in the Scriptures are both unchangeable. His will how this church is to be organized, runned, administered, is unchangeable. We may change. We may change our BCO. We might even change the Standards, but God’s will remains unchangeable and His Scriptures remain unchangeable. He said through His Holy Spirit, through Christ’s Apostle, “I do not permit.”
Some speak of the culture pressuring the PCA on this issue, demanding an egalitarian view of ministry. Our society denounces our theology. Imagine that. God denounces our culture and society. Whom are we going to choose? The unchanging will of God or the ever-changing demands of our fallen culture? Are we going to submit to God or to our culture? They say the new generation of the PCA has different views. I say to them, let them change their views. Let them reform. Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda. Somebody has to change. This is unavoidable. Either God has to change His holy divine will in accordance to our fallen ever-changing cultural will or we will change our will in accordance to His unchangeable Scriptures and truths. Last time I checked in the Bible, God wasn’t willing to change and there is only one option for us. Both sides, God and culture, call us to ultimate faithfulness to His unchangeable will. Are we going to submit to God, to remain true to the Scriptures and to the Reformed faith? Or are we going to submit to our fallen, sinful, ever-changing culture? Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you. Please no demonstrations. The two speakers at 7. Ah…for the substitute? Number 8. For or against?
TE Kevin Twit
Against the substitute.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Please proceed.
TE Kevin Twit
Rule…or teaching elder, Kevin Twit, Nashville Presbytery. Wow. As I’ve been listening to these speeches, at several points I’ve wanted to interrupt with a point of order that these are just not germane to the issue. We’re not debating whether we are ordaining women and yet I hear people making speeches like the very church itself is at stake with this vote. Brothers and fathers, it’s a study committee. Seriously. Opening the door to all kinds of issues, I heard raised as an objection to this study committee. Is that a big problem? Opening the door to studying the Bible is full of issues. We should study them. The fact that it’s been brought up over and over and over again and we reject it every time. That’s an argument for rejecting it? My goodness. I pray that you don’t respond to your wives and your parishioners who keep bringing up issues to talk about. Seriously, brothers. Which study committee has ever disturbed the peace of the church? I’ve been in the PCA 20 years. I’ve been on a credentials committee for 19 years. I can’t remember a study committee that disturbed the peace of the church. I can remember bringing up the idea of a study committee disturbing the church. But every one that I can remember helped us. And if you don’t think that we have issues surrounding women’s roles in the church, you are not listening or you are only talking to yourself. Because I talk to your daughters, and they’ve got all kinds of questions. And while we’ve said some clear things about what they can’t do, there are myriad questions about what they can do. And with the lack of specific, clear instruction, they are shrinking back rather than serving in places that God would have them serve. And I, for one, think that’s a travesty. And all we are asking for is to talk about it, to study the issue.
I think this is a great year. We have a moderator who was elected by acclimation without a single...a single vote against him. If not now, when? How many more times will this have to come and be rejected before we listen? You know, I wanted to actually make a motion that we'd open the floor to the wives of teaching elders and ruling elders to speak to this issue. In case you didn’t notice, they’re here, they’re listening. I thought they could've given us some wisdom, but I think that would probably be too inflammatory. So then I decided, maybe I would ask a few leaders, um, who work for our denomination and every one of them was afraid to come to the mic and talk about this. That’s a culture we should be concerned about.
(2:21:46)
Moderator TE George Robertson
No, please, no demonstration. Ah, Number 7. Please.
TE Bill Schweitzer
Fathers and brethren, Teaching Elder Bill Schweitzer, Low Country Presbytery. I rise in favor, in support of the substitute motion. Let me say what this issue is not about. It is not about giving women an opportunity to serve in accordance with the gifting and the roles that God has given them. That door is open, has been open, and it shall remain open.
Neither is the issue some new and unprecedented crisis in our culture that we have not seen before. This year, another General Assembly is celebrating a dubious anniversary, the PCUSA is celebrating the 60th anniversary of ordination of women. Appropriately, by appointing not just one but two women to be joint-moderators at their assembly.
Nor is the issue a lack of information. Few issues have been studied so thoroughly in the Christian church over the last six decades than this particular issue.
What, then, is really the issue? Quite simply, it is whether we intend, whether we intend with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength to submit to the plain Word of God on this issue. The Bible says this, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak but they are to be submissive as the Law also says.” 1 Tim. 2:12 says this, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” It could not be any clearer.If it involves teaching, or having authority over a man in the church, it’s wrong. Now the world says this is outmoded and abhorrent. Again, the question is whose word are we going to honor? As Christ’s Church, whose word are we going to obey? God’s or the world’s? Now precisely because this issue is so clear in Scripture, it’s a bellwether. It’s a litmus test. That’s the way it’s served on this. Where a church stands on this issue manifests your attitude toward Scripture and indicates your future direction. Many brothers, many denominations have gone down the road of appointing study committees to find out what the Bible says on this issue. And as a pure point of historical fact, few have come back. For most, for most, it proves to be the point of no return. And one thing, what the brother said notwithstanding, one thing that we can be absolutely certain of that pursuing this issue is in fact divisive. It is. Make no mistake. Pursuing this issue is a provocative move. And if you are for peace, and I’ve heard many strong and sincere desires expressed for peace and unity…if you are for peace, fathers and brothers, I urge you, please, do not approve this study committee. Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you. Microphone number 6. For or against?
TE Mike Khandjian
I am against the sss…
Moderator TE George Robertson
The substitute…
TE Mike Khandjian
I’m for what Mike Ross said. I can’t remember which one that is.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Proceed.
TE Mike Khandjian
OK. Mike Khandjian, Chesapeake Presbytery. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Point of Order? Yes, number 4.
Unknown
Withdrawn.
Moderator TE George Robertson
OK. Back to you, Mr. Khandjian. No, no… Go ahead.
TE Mike Khandjian
Mr. Moderator, Mike Khandjian, Chesapeake Presbytery. I’ve been in the PCA for 33 years. I didn’t join the PCA because of its view on women. I joined it because of its view on Jesus and its commitment to the Scriptures. I never once thought that it was settled into anything that would leave it unwilling to revisit the Scriptures, to study, to wrestle with the Scriptures, to be changed by the Scriptures, to be shaped by the Scriptures, to be challenged by the Scriptures, to be convicted by the Scriptures, and I believe that anything that we would teach our people about how the Scriptures can sometimes stop us in our tracks and change how we view life and ourselves and the world and Jesus that we would have to do as a denomination. If we are not willing to do that, that scares me a little bit.
Um…a group of brothers for three years has met, has met, has wrestled, has struggled, has studied, and has come up with a recommendation. That’s pretty amazing. They, ah…nobody came up to the floor two years ago and said that they shouldn’t be doing this. No one came up to it last year and said they shouldn’t be doing it. But now when they have a recommendation, we are fighting that. It’s made up of younger and older brothers. I think maybe a couple sisters. I can’t remember. I hope so. All who share in a common love for Jesus; all who are committed to the PCA; all, who like the rest of us, have views all over the place. When it comes to some of this, some of us have harder views. Some of of have softer views, when it comes to things like deaconesses. But all of us have taken the same vows. All of us agree that we are to be submitted to this denomination’s wishes as the Spirit of God leads us corporately. How beautiful can that be? I mean we don’t have to all agree separately, but when we come together and we vote, we agree. And that means that sometimes we will be asked to consider what we have settled on even if we don’t agree that there was 2000 years ago a woman deacon.
The chairman of this committee served as a lieutenant colonel in the armed forces. And as with Larry Hoop, I am grieved that he has been painted by a label. I'm grieved that an unofficial publication of the denomination that it chose to not go to him but it instead decided to label him in a certain way…and that makes me sad.
I think it is sad that we would be fearful. And I think that is what this is. I think we’re afraid of the dreaded slippery slope. I think we’re afraid that this will lead us to controversy. I want you to know that I’m not afraid of what will happen if the committee studies this. I’m not afraid even if we fight over this and, in God’s providence, He chooses to forge us into two denominations. I don’t think that’s going to happen but I’m not afraid that He’ll do that…because I want to be able to be shaped by the Word of God. (skip in video)…five times or five thousand times. But I think that it is valid that we would be willing to consider studying what makes up half of our denomination.
About 13 years ago my wife came with me to GA. She sat with me, and we were discussing this once again. And, once again, we came to a place where we affirmed all kinds of things about women without any women being in the conversation. And my wife, who is an amazing human being, who is the daughter of a PCA pastor, turned to me and whispered, “Mike, if the women in the PCA heard how these PCA pastors and elders talked about women in the PCA, there wouldn’t be very many women in the PCA.” I think she's right. What are we afraid of, guys? Is what we believe so fragile that we are terrified of testing it against the Scriptures and arguing back and forth with one another? Are we afraid that maybe we’ll find that we may have been wrong or that in nuanced ways we may have been misguided? Or that even we would have been correct? Why do we have to enter into something like this having forged conclusions already? It was suggested that this represents an assertion to a race…
Moderator TE George Robertson
Mr. Khandjian, your time has elapsed.
TE Mike Khandjian
Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Let me give a… I’m going to go to microphone number 7. Before I do, a friendly exhortation. This is not reflective on the previous speech, but just, we have, thirty-six or so speakers at the microphone and about thirty-five minutes left in the debate. Consider making your arguments…consider what new you are contributing in your arguments. And then, several there have been references to outside publications, either negatively or positively. Restrict your arguments to matters that are before us in our court. Ah…microphone number 7. For or against?
Unknown
Point of order.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Yes, number 4.
Unknown
Mr. Moderator, I believe you called on 7. Microphone 4 has not been recognized once during this debate. Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
I appreciate that but we take it in the order that people have appeared at the microphone and number 7 is, has been there, and this is a speech that has been waiting there for this amendment for some time. He was there before microphone number 4. Please proceed.
RE Wes Reynolds
Ruling elder Wes Reynolds from Great Lakes Presbytery. We’ve heard about wanting to be shaped by the Word of God. I guess my question is at what point will we be shaped by the Word of God? Will that be when we’ve heard it a third time? Or the fifth time? Or the tenth time? What we are saying from the committee of commissioners is that the Word of God is clear on this matter. We are not saying we have had study committees. We are saying that the Scriptures are clear. We are saying that the assembly has been clear, as well, and have quoted the minutes from more than one assembly. The assembly has been clear repeatedly: No, we are not going to erect a study committee on the issue because the Scriptures are clear. No.
We’ve heard about ad hominem arguments as well. I have known Bryan Chapell for more than forty years. I have seen his sterling character under extremely adverse circumstances. This is not about an ad hominem argument. The discussion is about imprecise language, to put it charitably. The reason that people keep mentioning the ordination of women is because the ordination of women is in the original recommendation: “Clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses.” How can we imagine that there would not be alarm?
Lastly, maybe we are going at this from the wrong perspective, because why aren’t we teaching our wives. Why are we teaching our daughters? That they only have value when they are on a board of directors. Or that they have more value, somehow, when their doing what the guys do. Please vote against the original recommendation. Vote in support of the substitute. Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Microphone number 8 are you for or against the substitute?
TE Daniel Robbins
I’m against the substitute.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Please proceed.
TE Daniel Robbins
Thank you. I’ll try not to be redundant but I might lose track of what I’m trying to say if I don’t stick to my notes here. If I understand the recommendation of the committee of commissioners correctly there are two stated concerns. Oh, I’m sorry. Daniel Robbins, Pacific Northwest Presbytery, teaching elder.
Ah, first, that the issue has already been studied and to appoint a committee would not bring new light, and secondly, the issue with the committee of commissioners which I won’t deal with, I’m too new of a commissioner. Ah, I think in reviewing the minutes of the 37th GA on this matter and this year’s committee of commissioners recommendation of the negative, it’s to me that much of the parliamentary complaints made are protective distractions from the real issue. The reality is is that if an overture were brought, recommending a change to the BCO to address some role or order of women serving the church, it would be very unlikely to pass precisely because the format of overtures...unless all of us would like to read close to six hundred whereas sections. I just don’t think we are up for that.
Of course, the other complaint is that a study committee would only be reporting their non-binding pastoral advice on an issue on which this body, in fact, may be divided. This surprises me since it's this kind of careful advice we have sought on precisely these kind of hot-button, divisive issues from study committees in the past. Such as, creation, insider movements, to name two. I suspect that for many of us, it has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure or loathing study committees but, as has been mentioned, the fear we are crossing the threshold and slipping into feminism. And I don’t mean to impugn any of our committees or the brothers here, but I do mean to say that we are in great danger of rejecting every initiative to deal with this issue and in so doing continue to limp along and ask our women to limp along. Brothers, we need to stop coddling our fears and bite the bullet so we can be a blessing to our women, protect the offices of the holy ministry, and equip our churches to use their godly women for vital, gospel ministry. To say the issue has been studied is true in the sense that much dust, tension, and confusion has been raised but as the minutes of the 37th GA state, there is a fair amount of tension and disagreement on the question. In fact, the still inconclusive, informal study of various PCA ministers and the resulting confusion are the very motivation for a duly authorized representative body to give us guidance.
I too am very afraid of making decisions for the sake of appeasing cultural trends of a crass, third-wave feminism. Especially if compromising a plain reading of numerous texts, such as 1 Tim. 2 or 1 Cor. 11, not to mention the overwhelming normative example of the Old Testament and Acts in only ordaining male elders. I am afraid of feeling so guilty about our own neglect to invest in women in our own churches that we end up trying to make repairs by becoming progressive, whatever that even means. But I’m also not sure what to do with the normative example of the male diaconate in Acts 6, Paul’s insertion of a clause regarding some female group in speaking of deacons in 1 Tim. 3, not to mention the order of widows in chapter 5. As well as what I’m told of is the historic office of deaconesses in the ancient church who were quite distinct from deacons in authority and function. What I am trying to say is that these things are not as clear as they could be. And none of this has to do with appeasing the unnuanced feminism of our day, nor slipping towards a compromise of our Biblical stance on male ordination. In fact, this study committee would be a way to keep our communion from casually drifting from our Biblical and historic commitments. I’m trying to figure out what to make of the history of BCO 9-7 and its historic ancestor the 1867 PCUS draft, which reads, the New Testament authorizes the employment of godly women in the diaconal function; wherefore, it is proper where it shall appear needful that the church session select and appoint deaconesses for the care of the sick, prisoners, and so on. So, yes, I and the women in my church would greatly benefit from the godly, wise counsel of older brothers to preserve the peaceful unity of our denomination.
Finally, I’ll just say, we have to simply acknowledge our ability to even have this discussion and to be so leisurely about it has to do with the great privilege of being ministers, having chapters and verses addressing our calling, shaping our job description, and giving us a protected place. What I mean is that if the issue is not a burden to us, it is likely because we don’t have to worry about it for our own job description. It’s safer just to squash it…but if we would grapple for one moment with the tremendous pressure and expectations put on pastors’ wives alone, along with the lack of clarity regarding where, how, and when they should serve…well, I think we would have engaged this a long time ago. Not only is there a cloudiness about what a woman should and shouldn’t do—and I’m not talking about offices, friends—but there is also a hyper-sensitivity to anything in her that looks like…
Moderator TE George Robertson
You time, Mr. Speaker, has elapsed. Ah…paragraph…microphone number 6. For or against?
Unknown
I’d like to call the question.
Moderator TE George Robertson
We’ll do this by voice vote. All in favor of calling the question, say aye. Opposed, nay. We will proceed to a vote. We are voting on the substitute. Should the substitute from the committee of commissioners, which is that recommendation #3 be answered in the negative. Microphone number 1…
Unknown
I believe that all recommendations come from the committee of commissioners and that's not a substitute. The substitute is made by the original committee if they so desire to do so.
I am wrong.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you very much. Yes… Microphone number 2.
RE Bob Mattes
Bob Mattes, Potomac Presbytery, ruling elder. Can we have a counted vote for the call? Because it is supposed to be 2/3rds and I’m not sure.
Moderator TE George Robertson
I’d be glad to do that.
RE Bob Mattes
Thank you, sir.
Moderator TE George Robertson
All in favor of calling the question, press 1. Opposed, press 2. Or Abstain. Polling is closed. The question has been called.
So, we are proceeding to the vote on the substitute, which is indeed a substitute. Yes. No, the last… No, we gave the last word of the debate to Mr. Ross. That was assigned to Mr. Ross. In the last five minutes. But on the whole of the matter… no… Mr. Schriver, please come. No, it has to be you. We have to dance with the one who brung us. Full of good news today…
TE Jerry Schriver
Father and brothers, I come before you as the chairman of the Administrative Committee, telling you that we faithfully studied this issue for two years. We did our very best to be able to bring a document before you but we feel that to properly do this it takes much more concentration, deeper skills, and more time to do that. That’s why this is before us today. We know that in the church there is a desperate call in this area. How shall we serve…
Moderator TE George Robertson
Excuse me. Point of order. Microphone number 4.
TE Art Vandeveter
Mr. Moderator, Art Vandeveter, Chesapeake Presbytery. Point of order. I appreciate what you are trying to do, sir, but I believe the person that would speak last in this instance is the chairman of the committee of commissioners. The reason being that the five-minute, or the ten-minute closure of debate over the substitute motion guaranteed that the primary committee speak but now the person that actually brought the motion was the chairman of the committee of commissioners. It is his right to speak, not the opponent.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Do you have the citation for that? It would be helpful to us. I’m serious. We think it may be custom but not a rule. I’m going to split the baby, and I’m going to let you speak and them I’m gonna let Mr. Barnes speak. …Go ahead Mr. Schriver.
TE Jerry Schriver
This is a topic that must be studied. There is a cry from the church, “Give us guidance.” And that is part of the role of the PCA as a denomination, to give faithful, Biblical, guided by the Holy Spirit counsel to those who of us who are members of this denomination. This is one area that we can do that. The other thing is, I…it speaks to my heart…is I have followed in the PCA in the last 25 years many of the studies that have been done. Whether they’ve been creation or other items that have come before this General Assembly, and they have been so helpful. They have been in-depth. They have been crystal clear. They have been accurate. And this is what we are believing we are proposing for you that this would be another one of those studies that would do the job that we need for clarity. So, I would urge you, brothers and fathers, that you would support the subcommittee and approve it.
TE Roland Barnes
Mr. Moderator, I’ll be very brief. Certainly there are many unanswered questions in our churches about the latitude of ministry opportunities that should be available to our wives and our daughters, our sisters in Christ. But this request for a study committee asked us to study the doctrine of ordination, as well as the office of deacon in the context of ordination. Were the study committee asking us to study the former and not the latter, it might be a whole different matter. But since it includes the latter, the doctrine of ordination and related issues, the committee of commissioners is opposed to the erection of this study committee and we ask you to support the substitute motion from the committee of commissioners. Thank you.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you. We are ready to vote. Remember we are voting on the substitute which is that recommendation 3 be answered in the negative, that is, that the request for a study committee be answered in the negative. All in favor of that substitute… yes, sir… microphone number 2.
RE Bob Mattes
Just for the sake of clarity, we are actually voting for it to become the main motion. Is that correct? …
Moderator TE George Robertson
Yes. Should this recommendation become the main motion? Thank you for that clarification. All in favor of this becoming the main motion, vote with number 1. All opposed, vote number 2. Abstain, 3. For this to become the main motion, number 1. If you are against that becoming the main motion, press number 2. Polling is closed. Results…
This has been defeated. We are now to…this has been defeated… Microphone number 4…
TE Joseph Pipa
The question was only put on the previous debate, not on the matter as a whole. Is that correct?
Moderator TE George Robertson
That is correct.
TE Joseph Pipa
Then I would like to…whenever you are ready to debate, I’d like to…
Moderator TE George Robertson
Proceed. So now, the…main motion is that a study committee be appointed. Point of order… Microphone number 1. Mr. Wert…
RE Jim Wert
Jim Wert, Metro Atlanta Presbytery, Intown Community Church, ruling elder. Seems like there were a lot of men up here at microphones ready to debate and if we are going to continue it, it seems like we should start in the same order that we left off.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Yes, this is a different motion, so you are free to return to the microphones but we are not going to go with…we are going to start a new order. And I have recognized microphone number 4…and ask… Microphone number 4…and, um, Mr. Speaker, are you…are you speaking for or against…which is now are you for the formation of a study committee or against the formation of the study committee.
TE Joseph Pipa
Against.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Please proceed.
TE Joseh Pipa
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Joseph Pipa, Calvary Presbytery. I would draw the court’s attention to the document that is before us in the motion that is now before us for this study committee. I believe, in the first place, that the study committee, in the motion, does violate Scripture. If you consider lines 5 and 6, "the study committee should be made up of competent men and women representing the diversity of opinions within the PCA." Scripture speaks to this, Mr. Moderator. The passage has been quoted, that women are not to exercise authority in the church. They are not to be teaching men. To take part on a study committee, I believe violates the Scriptures.
The second problem with that is, "representing a diversity of opinions within the PCA." We’ve heard, in debate, that in our denomination we have people that favor all kinds of things with respect to ordination, women laying hands on…when I heard that list, given as a speech in favor of this motion, I was appalled. I was wondering why presbyteries were not exercising a proper discipline over congregations. This is not…the way this is framed, as much as we have heard from…the chairman, that this could come with even a more conservative conclusion than some would fear…after having told us what the diversity of opinion was in the denomination, I think the court needs to be aware that this is an open-ended authorization to study the ordination of women, not just for the office of deacon but for the office of elder as well. We’ve heard somewhat…people saying it doesn’t matter what the church has said for 2,000 years…but it was brought to my attention, the writer of Hebrews says is that the laying on of hands is a very elementary principle that does not need to be revisited.
And then we’ve heard arguments with respect to the role of women. Well, I would say shame on you men if the women in your church are not being used in the full and proper, God-ordained manner for their fulfillment of office. A study committee is not going to help that. It is not going to change pastors and elders not taking advantage of the gifted women and every person in the church having gifts, plus, the list of Biblical responsibilities, for example, in Titus 2 that God gives to women in the church.
And then, I would draw your attention that although we are being told that this is merely a study committee, notice that part of the recommendation is a pastoral letter to be proposed by the ad interim study committee. Yes, approved by the General Assembly but that’s taking this study group beyond what the chairman told us it was going to do. I agree with the chairman of the committee of commissioners. If we were simply talking about let’s qualify how we can use properly women as deaconesses, serving under deacons, how we can qualify what women do, but…you know, to say that, yes, we have women serving the sacraments, that’s wrong. That is Scripturally wrong. The Scriptures are clear. We don’t need to restudy this. And so I really believe that this is so flawed that it would be a great error at this point to authorize such a committee. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you. Microphone number 1. For or against?
RE Joel Belz
I am against the substitute, sir.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Ah, we are…now the substitute is the main… Are you for or against the study committee?
RE Joel Belz
I am for the study committee.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Please proceed.
RE Joel Belz
Thank you. I want to speak for the study committee because of the fact that I believe otherwise, otherwise we drop a heavy blanket of silence over the whole discussion that is unhealthy for the church. We dare not respond to the church with silence.
For me, the issue started some 47 years ago when the Lord providentially blessed our family with the birth of the first of five daughters. Now Carol and I also have eight grandsons and eight granddaughters. So, you can believe that conversations at family reunions, especially conversations about the church, are very lively indeed. It was natural then, I suppose, that when our girls headed off for Covenant College they and their fellow students rarely missed an opportunity to ask me the pointed question. So, dad, if every serious question in life is to find its answer in Scripture, not tradition, not the culture, but in Scripture, where does the Bible say women should not serve on the board of a denominational college. As a member of the Covenant College board for the last 38 years, I’ve wrestled with that challenge dozens and dozens of times. Frankly, I’m tired of making the Bible say something it never suggests. So over the last three years, the Covenant College board, at my request, took unanimous action to ask the PCA General Assembly, in proper order, to take some tentative steps to remove what we consider to be an inappropriately extra-Biblical restriction. And we invited the boards of other agencies and committees to join us. In fact, I wrote personal notes to the heads of all the other committees and agencies and the chairmen of their committees or boards to tell them what we had done at the college board level and ask them for their responses. There was great unanimity in their response backing what I proposed.
Our main question has occasionally been this: If the Bible is our guide, let’s…I should say our main question has consistently been this…If the Bible is our guide, let’s root our answers in the Bible. Otherwise, we’ll be thought of as hypocrites who shape their behavior more by tradition than by the precepts of the Scripture. My brothers have boldly claimed in their email blogs that the PCA’s constitution is already clear. They say those words were there…that…the documents of the church are already clear on what the PCA believes is the Scripture’s teaching on these issues. Sadly, brothers, that is simply not the case. Literally dozens of practical issues beg to be Biblically resolved. Should women read Scripture? Or lead music in public worship? Should women teach men through articles published in the PCA’s denominational magazine? Should women missionaries teach men in foreign countries? Should Rosaria Butterfield use books to teach our whole denomination about how to evangelize the homosexual community? What about books from Diane Langberg? From Kathleen Nielson? From Nancy Guthrie? These are instructional books. To say that Scripture’s teaching on these and so many other related issues is already clear is to tell a whole generation of young women simply to go away…the issue is settled. So my appeal to you today is that you resist the temptation to tell any serious inquirer simply to go away. If the idea of a study committee is too broad, trim down… (skip in video) …the loyal voices of thousands who are asking for that which the PCA has always strived to answer: a straightforward Biblical warrant and not tradition for everything we claim is important in our word and practice. Ruling Elder Joel Belz from Western Carolina Presbytery. I apologize for my Parkinson’s shakiness.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you, Mr. Belz. Microphone number 2, for or against?
RE Bob Mattes
I am against.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Please proceed.
RE Bob Mattes
Bob Mattes, Potomac Presbytery, ruling elder. Fathers and brothers, this is deja-vu all over again for me, and I knew if I kept coming to GA, sooner or later, I would be able to say this…I was there when we debated this in Overtures Committee and created what is now at the end of 9-7, BCO 9-7. That was hours and hours of debate that seemed stalemated. Everybody came to that meeting, all the big names—I won’t name any because I don’t want to be a name dropper—but there were lots of names there on both sides…going at it. It was studied thoroughly before they got there. Everybody was thoroughly prepared. And what we have in 9-7 was the compromise position at that time. That’s the farthest we could go in either direction in that assembly. And, of course, there were several ones after that that tried to go further…which went nowhere. So, I was actually there. I’m telling you, it was a well-studied issue at the time and we came to the compromise that we could come to at the time. This strikes me a little bit as you don’t like what mom tells you go ask dad.
So, we’ve not been silent on this. I think the chairman of the committee of commissioners went through the whole litany of times this has been considered. So we’ve not been silent on this over the years. Far from it. We’ve been extremely vocal about it over the years.
I want to make… The other thing that I guess I have to say is when we talk about the Scriptures, we are not Biblicists, it’s not just the Scripture—the Scripture and good and necessary consequences that arise therefrom. And I think that is where we get the board positions from as well. The second point that I want to make, and I’ll make it brief, because Dr. Coffin made the argument very eloquently. But I think this is mission-creep for the CMC. I think the CMC was designed to coordinate between the committees. If you read through 7, the whole thing, it's all it was supposed to do. And now we are saying that…looking at…(skip in video)…study committees. We’re saying that's part of strategic planning? Really? I don’t think that fits that definition very well…at least, not in my experience in dealing with strategic plans for 40 years. So, I think we need to vote this down. And, we’ve been there, done that…we’re going to plunk another 15 grand down to do the same thing we’ve done over and over again and gotten the same result. And if anybody remembers Einstein…he’s famously quoted, probably incorrectly, but it’s famous anyway…that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So I’d recommend that we vote this down.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Microphone number 3. For or against?
TE David Richter
Mr. Moderator, Teaching Elder David Richter, Southern New England Presbytery. I rise to call the question.
Moderator TE George Robertson
The question has been called. We will vote with our devices. Stay at your places in the microphones. If you wish to call the question, that’s number 1. If you are opposed to calling the question, number 2. Polls are open… Polls are closed… Results…
The question has been called. I will proceed to the vote. Yes, sir… Ah, Mr. Schriver, please…and you can appoint. Dr. Mays is recognized.
TE Rod Mays
Well, God created male and female. And our church has an amazing opportunity to clarify what this subcommittee—and I had the privilege of being on the subcommittee on this issue—we have a great opportunity to clarify for women in our church and for ourselves what women can do, how they can help care for the souls of other women. The ladies that served on our subcommittee were humble. There was never a hint about ordination. They want to know… (skip in video)…the Great Commission. They were helpful, because they told us what they were thinking, what they were feeling, and what they were hearing. And they were hearing from us a lot of fear, which we’ve heard this afternoon. Isolation. And you know that women—whose thinking is sometimes much more abstract than our thinking—can sit on a couch with another woman and cry with her, and encourage her. Women have this unique ability. And what are we saying to them in the church? I’ve watched women in our church up close. I watched, for a number of years, RUF interns, women interns, and I’ve watched them care for our addicted daughters, our depressed daughters, our wayward covenant children. I’ve watched them have those great gospel-conversations and have led our children back on the right path. Because they’ve experienced that kind of care, they’ve often thought, "How can I do this more?" Not ordination. Not serving as an elder or a deacon…but how can I minister to women in the church? What am I going to do with my seminary degree? Will the church be open? Am I going to overstep my bounds? Those are the fears. What is our place? These women on our committee were very humble, very helpful.
And let me say this, they were hopeful because they trust the church. And they believe that we would be able to form a committee that would bring a lot of clarification as other study committees have done. They were hopeful because they believe the Bible and they believed that a study committee in a denomination that is so committed to the Scripture would continue to bring clarification. Some of these matters have just been cloudy and questionable. And why are we afraid? This is a church that is so committed to the Scripture. We love the Bible. And we want to study the Bible, and there is no slippery slope because there are toeholds in our church. You have the toehold of Scripture. You have the toehold of our confession. You have the toehold of our presbyteries, our sessions…and this General Assembly.
This debate has been good. It’s been enlightening. It’s been helpful. And fathers and brothers, I encourage you to vote for this study committee because your wives are gonna love you. Women in your church are going to love you, because you have affirmed and helping to affirm their gifts and how they can minister with the love of Jesus. So, please, vote for a study committee. Is it somewhat ironic, we are saying, let’s vote to study the Bible. Let’s vote to clarify. Let’s vote to help and encourage our wives, our daughters, our sisters. And together we join to fulfill the great commission. Thanks.
Moderator TE George Robertson
We are ready to vote on the… Microphone number 6.
TE Dennis Hermerding
Mr. Moderator, I think in light of having a lot of very fruitful but I think a lot of…excuse me, TE Dennis Hermerding, Houston Metro Presbytery…a lot of different opinions, I thought it might be good for us to pray before we vote, if that would be in order.
Moderator TE George Robertson
I’m hearing a lot of reverb. Are you asking us to pray?
TE Dennis Hermerding
I am.
Moderator TE George Robertson
That’s a good idea. Why don’t you pray for us right now.
TE Dennis Hermerding
Gracious Heavenly Father, we thank You that You love us. That You have given us Your Word. That You have given us Your Son Jesus, Who is the Living Word. And You have cared for us, You have carried this denomination along…and You have given us the privilege, Lord, to be here and to gather in this place that we might seek Your face, that we might grow together in our understanding of You, that You might be glorified, that Your name might be furthered in our denomination and around the world. Lord, we ask that You would give us wisdom as we vote on this and many other matters before us through the rest of this evening and into tomorrow. We ask, Lord, that You would allow Your Spirit to permeate this place, that unity and peace would prevail even in the midst of our discussions and deliberations. We pray this in Christ’s Name. Amen.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Thank you very much, brother. We will now vote. A vote... A yes vote is for the formation of the study committee. A no vote is against that. Press 1 if you are in favor. 2 for no. And 3 for abstain. Polls are closed. Results…
It passes. Mr. Chairman…please, no demonstration…Mr. Chairman, would you, does this conclude your report?
TE Roland Barnes
Yes, sir, Mr. Moderator. On Tuesday, you encouraged us to think of each other as a deposit of dung in which there was buried a nugget of gold. I was the first deposit delivered on Tuesday, but there have been many more to follow. And I heard it said on one occasion that ministers were like dung that if you pile them all up and leave them alone they begin to stink but if you spread them out they do a lot of good. Mr. Moderator, could I close our…
Moderator TE George Robertson
You need to pray, Mr. Chairman.
TE Roland Barnes
Fathers and brothers, let us pray. Heavenly Father we thank You for Your goodness to us. You gave us Your only begotten Son that we might believe on Him for eternal life, that we would not perish. We thank You that You created us male and female. We thank You, Father, for our wives, our daughters, our sisters in Christ in our churches. And as this motion has now passed, Heavenly Father, for a study committee to be established, we pray for our moderator as he appoints those who will serve this assembly. We pray, O God, grant them great wisdom and clarity of thought as they search Your Word. Help them, Father, that they might be truly a help to Your church. We thank You for the presence and power of Your Holy Spirit in this place as we called upon You. We thank You and ask You, Father, continue to direct us by Your Word and Spirit. We ask it in Jesus’s Name. Amen.
Moderator TE George Robertson
Amen. Thank you.
Andrew Dionne is the pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Spartanburg, SC. He and his wife Sarah have six children. Read more from Andrew here.
