Update on Discussion of Women's Deacons at the PCA GA

The vote has been taken on the matter discussed in the last post - the GA approved the recommendation of the Bills and Overture Committee that we not form a study committee on the issue of women serving in diaconal ministry.

In the prior post I was asked for my take on it.  First of all, I'll say that I voted against the recommendation of the B&O committee, I did want to see a study committee.  But I have to say that I think the debate itself was handled well on both sides and that this was one of the most refreshing floor debates I have ever seen at the General Assembly, especially in regards to one of these highly charged issues. 

I think the committee set the tone very well.  Fred Greco was the chairman who moved the majority report and he stated the majority opinion very well, and without rancor or intemperance.  When the minority report was moved, Joseph Pipa sought to prevent this with a point of order.  His point of order was denied by the moderator, Paul Kooistra, and this was then challenged by Pipa.  The whole exchange was done very cordially and with good humor by Pipa and Kooistra.  Kooistra even thanked Pipa for challenging his ruling.  Kooistra's ruling was upheld by the assembly and so the minority report was presented by Brian Chappell who offered thanks and many words of commendation to the chairman and members of the majority.

In the floor debate there were a couple of comments I could have done without, but for the most part debate was substantive and cordial.  Dave Coffin gave a speech against the minority report and for the majority, but was falling all over himself to speak well of the minority report and those on that side.

To understand my appreciation for this debate you need to know that this kind of tone has not prevailed in past debates. I remember one incident during a particularly heated debate a few years ago - a ruling elder from another church in the town I was then serving in, came out of the assembly hall and his face was noticeably red.  Having listened to the lengthy rancor he said to me "You teaching elders keep telling us ruling elders to come to general assembly, and we have to sit through this!" 

So, I think the spirit of the debate actually shows progress in our ability to love one another.

Having said that, all the lovey-doveyness doesn't change the fact that there are substantive issues afoot that won't be addressed by holding hands and singing kumbaya.  I have generally taken the more conservative position on the matter, but seeing someone like Andreas Kostenberger, whose complementarian bona fides are not in question, show support for women deacons, gives me pause to reconsider.  John Frame's Doctrine of the Christian Life has now been published, and though he writes from complementarian point of view takes a strong stand in favor of women deacons.  Given Frame's influence in the PCA and particularly amongst the younger crowd, you can bet this position will continue to gain adherents.   

And of course let's not forget that churches like Tenth Presbyterian in Philly, the church of Donald Grey Barnhouse, James Boice and Phil Ryken, has women deacons as does Redeemer in New York City. 

So I do think we will have to address these issues.  Given that some of our best biblical scholars and theologians take differing positions and that good churches have differing practices on these matters, you can't write this with some of the stereotypes we often engage in.  You can't just say that those who are in favor of women deacons are capitulating to the culture in general or feminism in particular.  Nor can you accuse those who are against women deacons of being mindless traditionalists, chauvinists, and authoritarians. 

In any case, I do hope we can follow the example of our leaders and debaters today and proceed with respect and with measured rhetoric.  I have heard and read a few comments that had apocalyptic overtones - i.e. this is the issue that is going to blow the PCA up.  From today's debate I don't think that has to be the case.  If we engage the debate as a debate among men of good will and integrity, then this will all work to the good.  We may come to some kind of unified agreement, or we may find a way to live with some level of disagreement, similar to the way we live with some level of disagreement on eschatology. 

So that's a bit of a rambling, knee jerk reaction to the events of the day - like I said, though I didn't get what I wanted in the vote I was happy with how it all went down and my hope is that we will keep the conversation going and not all hunker down here.

I'd covet feedback and opinions from anyone who was there or who watched the debate on the webcast.