Christian Feminism? (XIV)

The Place and Roles of Women in the PCA

We’re continuing in our evaluation of Rev. Sam Downing’s paper entitled “The PCA and Gospel Ministry in an Urban, Egalitarian Environment: Toward a Theologically Accurate, Culturally Appropriate Apologetic.” In this particular installment I’m also going to include more comments from Dominic Aquila, who is a member of Rocky Mountain Presbytery where this discussion recently took place.

For those just picking up the discussion with this issue I should point out that RMP met on April 27, 2007 to assess the use of the term “minister” that Rev. Downing’s church (City Presbyterian) applied to Sara Bartley, whom City hired on in 2004, giving her the title “Minister of Church Life.”

Rev. Downing’s explanation of why City made this decision is filled, to my way of thinking, with “loaded” language. I’ll give a few examples of what I mean. In his opening sentence under the heading, “Female Staff at City Presbyterian,” Rev. Downing informs us that City made a “strategic” decision to hire female staff. Such a decision is distinguished, one would suppose, from a non-strategic decision. This is a kind of buzz word lingo. We no longer plan to plant churches in the PCA we have “strategic” planning meetings. In actuality they are no different from the older formats of the meetings we used to hold, but it just sounds a lot better; more cutting edge. In my own Presbytery we have had endless strategic planning meetings with little results.

I want you to understand that previously Rev. Downing has used the loaded language of giving women “meaningful opportunities,” which, once again, must be contrasted with the garden variety un-meaningful opportunities the rest of the PCA offers their women. Now juxtapose “meaningful opportunities” and “strategic decisions” to the more mundane “traditional assignments given to female staff within the PCA (such as administration, women’s & children’s ministry, etc.)” (Downing, 3). It sounds like most PCA churches just have their women sitting around parsing Latin verbs or something boring like that when they don’t have them mopping floors while they’re barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

A defense is given for hiring Sara Bartley is based partly on the fact that she was one of the first women to graduate from Covenant Theological Seminary, which is the official seminary of the PCA—as if that really matters—with a Master of Divinity (M.Div.). (Ibid.) Her duties as Minister of Church Life involve a number of tasks including mercy ministry and teaching. Let me pause there for a moment and make a couple of comments. Mercy ministry is a broad category. The Deacons in my home church function in accordance with BCO 9 and much of what they do is “mercy ministry,” while it is unquestionably biblical that every Christian should exercise mercy ministry. My problem here is the vague manner in which Rev. Downing’s description is left hanging in the air. For example, there are times when our Deacons visit members who are in financial need and agree to give them diaconal assistance. As often as not, these same Deacons will inquire about the family’s or person’s tithing and if they operate from a budget. We have had instances where the Deacons discovered erratic, compulsive spending habits and have had to speak with authority to those receiving help. Rev. Downing is unclear whether Sara Bartley engages in this type of mercy ministry. He does, however, include teaching in her list of duties, but qualifies it by saying that all the while she teaches she is not “directing.” (Ibid.) Huh? Is what she does non-directive teaching—whatever that is?

In his “observations” Dominic Aquila suggests that in RMP and other quarters in the PCA that “There is an ecclesiastical egalitarian spirit prevalent (as opposed to a gender egalitarianism, referring to the equality between men and women). This spirit is the notion that every believer must be on an equal footing. There is a certain emotional appeal, as opposed to a rational one, that no one in the church should be over anyone else, or appear more important than anyone else. This is an anti-clerical spirit, a word that was even used a number of times in the course of the debate (at the RMP meeting—RG).” (Aquila, 1.) Accordingly, Aquila is convinced that such an approach to the title of “minister” results in “confusion of roles and functions.” (Ibid.) That is to say, “There is a lack of recognizing the distinctions between the special office gifts and the general office of believers.” (Ibid.)

This appears to be a truth that Rev. Downing and the other leaders at City Presbyterian are either unable or unwilling to explain to the congregation, which would be tantamount to teaching that congregation biblically rather than allowing the tail to wag the dog. Throughout Rev. Downing’s paper I was more than struck by his attempt to allow the cultural setting in liberal Denver to dictate what City did and did not do. He often speaks of doing what is “culturally appropriate in our context.” (Cf. pp. 3-4.) City occupies the position of being culturally relevant and aware and “not a narrow-minded, fundamentalist church.” To borrow from Tim Challies, City is putting the “fun” back in fundamentalist. He is even willing to go so far as to assert that “Sara’s position and role eliminated a significant barrier for her to the gospel.” (Ibid., 3.) This statement was made by citing a woman who was recently converted at City. One has to wonder what will happen to this woman if she ever learns the truth. She was good with everything in the gospel—definitive atonement, unconditional election, etc., but just couldn’t get her head around the “women’s issue.” Right. In Rev. Downing’s opinion, however, City has “effectively disarmed the women’s issue in our church.” (Ibid. Italics his.)

Really? That’s a strong statement especially at this stage of the game. It might be just a tad early to determine whether the “women’s issue” has been effectively disarmed at City or in the PCA in general. City’s actions might have delayed or postponed the evitable rather than disarmed it. In addition, the actions might have merely clouded the issue or, worse, exacerbated it. Within the realm of possible scenarios, City might have created a controversy that will rage within the PCA in the coming years. I’m not a prophet so I don’t know for certain. What I do know is that PCA churches are increasingly believing that it is their calling to use women more and more in the worship services and to bring them on board as “deaconesses,” albeit it unordained Deacons.

This is being pushed in two ways. First, some voices are clamoring today that the PCA is elevating the creeds to the same level as Scripture. Right. We have no clue what a rich heritage the Reformation gave us so we are blindly returning to a Roman Catholic view of Scripture and tradition. Aquila is spot on when he writes, “Pitting Scripture against the Standards may sound clever, but this line of thinking misunderstands the relationship of Scripture and Standards.” (Aquila, 3.) Both in his paper and in his sermon to the 35^th General Assembly Aquila made the valid point that “The PCA is a confessional church, and as such its officers have agreed together that the Westminster Standards are a faithful or standard exposition of the Scriptures. A confession by definition includes and excludes by the system it has chosen to understand and interpret Scripture.” (Ibid.)

More and more we’re hearing voices of the need to re-write our confessional standards. It is argued that what was valid in the 17^th century is outmoded, outdated. What we need is something fresh; something more culturally relevant. Aquila rejoinder—and I join him 100% in this—is the following: “If one believes that the Standards have not interpreted Scripture correctly, then he has the right to propose amendments and let the church through deliberative assembly determine the matter.” (Ibid.) That is the Presbyterian, church orderly way to do it, not to carp and to whine because you no longer like the contents of the Westminster Standards that you vowed to uphold.

Something similar is happening with the BCO as well. In my own Presbytery (South Coast) we recently dealt with a transfer that informed us that he had no intention of ordaining men Deacons and that he would be having women Deacons as well; both would possess an unordained status. His belief that the BCO 24 was incorrect in applying authority to both Elder and Deacon. It is by no means a stretch to conclude that the authority of the two offices is different, but to assert that the Deacon is completely void of any ecclesiastical authority seems to miss the point badly. If you don’t like the BCO then follow the procedure outlined by Aquila and make use of the Presbyterian process. I fear that a spirit of pragmatism is growing in the PCA where local congregations just “do their own thing” irrespective of what the Westminster Standards or BCO say.

Aquila hits on a key point in these discussions when he says, “There is a lack of trust of historical precedence or theological precision. While there is a general appreciation and commitment to Reformed theology, its language and concepts are perceived as being too narrow and restrictive” (Ibid.) Who hasn’t heard or been involved in such a discussion at the Presbytery level? Aquila continues—and this is a crucial point—, “It is interesting to observe, however, that those concerned about restrictive language have their own precision for issues that they believe are important to them.”(Ibid. Italics mine.) In essence, “That which is called old is dismissed as ‘tradition,’ which allows for this tradition to be set aside for supposedly more modern language and constructs.” (Ibid.) Aquila has just hit the nail on the head with this observation; it goes to the heart of the issue. This accounts, at least in part, why two members of Mission to North America (MNA) in Atlanta refuse to call illegal aliens illegal aliens, but opt for the trendier “undocumented workers.”

Next week, Lord willing, we’ll finish this part of our discussion surrounding Christian Feminism off before moving on to other aspects of the problem.

Christian Feminism? (XIII)

A Rose by Any Other Name

In our last issue I promised that I would spend some time in this installment unpacking and discussing some of the statements by Rev. Sam Downing, a PCA pastor in Denver, CO. We have been discussing his paper, “The PCA and Gospel Ministry in an Urban, Egalitarian Environment: Toward a Theologically Accurate, Culturally Appropriate Apologetic.” In addition, last time I brought in some statements—used by permission—from last year’s Moderator of the PCA General Assembly, Dominic Aquila, who is in Rev. Downing’s Presbytery.

There are a couple of statements that I want to examine in light of what Rev. Downing has asserted to ascertain if they can be verified and can stand the test of scrutiny. In the last issue I quoted from Rev. Downing’s paper and want to come back to his—to my mind unguarded—statement. Regarding the women at City Presbyterian Church in Denver Rev. Downing informs us that they “are allowed to use their gifts in a number of ways, all of which are both biblical and permissible according to the PCA BCO, such as: reading scripture, offering prayers, assisting with ushering during worship service, helping teach adult Sunday School, leading Community Groups (small groups that meet during the week), serving on the Finance Team (which oversees the church budget), and assisting the pastoral staff in ministering to women in the congregation. In other words, unless a woman were to feel strongly called by God to be ordained as an elder (and the vast majority do not) she will not be denied a meaningful opportunity to use her gifts in the life of our church.” (Ibid., 2-3. Emphases mine.)

In a footnote (number 4 to be precise), Rev. Downing asserts the following: “Allowing women to assist in public worship is a commonly accepted practice throughout the PCA.” (Emphasis mine.)

What Does the PCA Allow and Disallow?

It’s one thing to describe what occurs in a local church and it’s quite another thing to submit that what transpires in say, City Presbyterian in Denver, is normative for the entire PCA. So when Rev. Downing gives us the litany of what is commonplace in the PCA I’m hoping that he does not expect us merely to take him at his word. For example, in the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO), 50-1 we read the following: “The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is performed by the minister as God’s servant.” Those looking for loopholes will cite 50-2, which appears to be contradictory: “The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is part of the public worship of God and should be done by the minister or some other person.” A woman seeking a “meaningful opportunity” thus qualifies as “some other person” it is suggested.

Those interested in comparisons can turn to Q/A 156 of the Westminster Larger Catechism where we read, Is the Word of God to be read by all? A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the Holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into common languages.” It would be a tough sell and a groin-pulling stretch to submit that the Westminster divines would have concluded that it was just fine for a woman to read Scripture in the worship service as takes place in some PCA churches and church plants today.

Some Illustrations

When we turn to Scripture, we do not find a single incidence of a woman reading Scripture during worship. In fact, we find just the opposite. This needs to be explained to the egalitarian cultured despisers and PCA pastors and church planters need to have the fortitude and wisdom to explain this effectively and resolutely. Allow me to explain what I mean through a few illustrations. Aesop has a fable about the Lion and the Woodsman. I want to use this because I believe it is pertinent to the PCA not merely in the case of the unbiblical use of women in our worship services and other places, but also as it applies to allowing something like the Federal Vision to go unchecked. Here’s the fable:

A lion was very much in love with a woodsman’s daughter (remember folks: it’s a fable!). The fair maid referred him to her father and the lion applied for the girl. The father replied: “Your teeth are too long.” So the lion went to a dentist and had them extracted (clearly he was in the country illegally because all the other lions couldn’t have afforded such a procedure!). Returning, he asked for his bride. “No,” said the woodsman, “your claws are too long.” Going back to a doctor he had his claws removed. Then he returned to claim his bride, and the woodsman, seeing that the lion had neither teeth nor claws, beat out his brains.

The moral of the story: remove enough of the things that protect you and you are easy prey for anything and everything. Another illustration closely related to this “moral” is taken from military history. There was a Roman general whose name was Fabius Cunctator—Fabius the Delayer. When a Carthaginian army under Hannibal invaded Italy in the third century B.C., Fabius worried that Rome’s entire army might be decimated in a frontal attack against a formidable foe like Hannibal. So Fabius began to wage a kind of guerilla warfare, picking away at the fringes of Hannibal’s army, wearing him out with small attacks and raids and avoiding direct confrontation. Fabius’ strategy saved Rome—for the time being. The “Fabian Society” that was founded in England in 1884 defeated capitalism in that country by introducing socialist “reforms” that, taken by themselves, seemed insignificant and inconsequential, but in the long haul proved to be the undoing of capitalism in Britain. The efforts of the “Fabians” led to the Labour Party in England

My final example is multifaceted. It is an appeal to both the younger and older men in the PCA to “man up” and to stop acting according to the tenets of the “chickification” of our modern culture whereby men are pleased to be wussified metro-sexuals. The Boston Globe carried an article on June 6^th entitled “Graying duo keep passenger in check.” On a Northwest Airlines flight (# 720) from Minneapolis to Boston an unruly passenger frightened most of the 150 other passengers aboard—most. Bob Hayden, a 65-year-old former police commander was unimpressed with the antics and intimidation tactics of the unruly passenger and his cohort. He arranged a signal with a flight attendant to wave the plastic handcuffs the airliner carried for emergencies when she had them. Sitting next to Hayden was another gray-haired gentleman. Hayden told the AP, “I had looked around the plane for help, and all the younger guys had averted their eyes. When I asked the guy next to me if he was up to it, all he said was, “Retired captain. USMC.’ I said, “You’ll do.” The two grandfathers subdued both rowdy passengers and stood guard over them until the plane safely landed at Logan Airport and the two unruly passengers were arrested and taken off the plane.

An interesting twist to the story is that Hayden’s wife of 42 years sat calmly reading a book throughout the entire episode. When asked why she continued quietly to read during the episode, she said that she knew what her husband was like and that he knew how to handle this type of situation. She commented, “I figured he would go up there and step on somebody’s neck, and that would be the end of it. I knew how the situation would end. I didn’t know how the book would end.” Classic! Two guys getting the job done while the rest sat timidly by watching.

Finally this: I’m not a big movie buff, but do you remember Jurassic Park? There’s a scene where the survivors are barricaded in a building while the dinosaurs rape, pillage, and plunder outside. In the course of the scene it becomes evident that somebody has to go out to another building to throw the circuit-breaker in order to restore electricity. The Laura Dern character volunteers. The old dude—the billionaire, whose name escapes me—offers to go instead. Here’s the way the scene plays out: the Laura Dern character asks, “Why?” He replies, “Well, I’m a…and you’re a…” He’s so much of an egalitarian that he cannot bring himself to utter the words man and woman. Thank you, Mr. Spielberg. Xena rushes out into the danger after she rolls her eyes and says, “Look, we can discuss the sexism in survival situations when I get back.” Richard Poe comments, “With that, she shoulders a rifle and troops out of the door to face what seems certain death. And the man lets her go.”^[1]

Rather than giving women—any woman—what she or I might perceive to be a “meaningful opportunity”—I mean, really, what in the world is that phrase other than some saccharine, quasi-effeminate, quasi-caring, and quasi-intellectual bunch of gobbledygook? That phrase can be twisted, spun, and skewed to mean almost anything anyone wants it to mean. Why not give the women—any woman—the unvarnished truth of what the Word of God says?

You see, folks, where Rev. Downing is headed with all this is the hiring by City Presbyterian of Sara Bartley in November of 2004 as Minister of Church Life. Rev. Downing attempts to bolster his argument by pointing out that Sara is one of the first women to graduate from Covenant Theological Seminary (the official seminar of the PCA, Downing adds) with a Master of Divinity degree. What precisely are her duties? “Her areas of responsibility include not only women’s & children’s ministry but also assimilation, discipleship, outreach/mercy ministry and teaching. Sara’s arrival greatly assured many of the women (and men) in our congregation who were egalitarian and seeking evidence that women’s gifts and calling were indeed going to be taken seriously within our church.” Really? Is City Presbyterian really that shallow and prejudiced? It would seem reasonable that if the existing church leadership sat down with the congregation and conveyed to them that even without a female Minister of Church Life that women would be honored and respected in a biblical fashion that that would suffice, but that’s probably just me.

In our earlier quotation, Rev. Downing has taken absolutely no time to elucidate where he finds biblical warrant for a woman to read Scripture in the worship service or for her to pray. Where are the church leaders? Why aren’t they doing it? When Rev. Downing speaks of “helping teach adult Sunday School” does this entail giving authoritative instruction to men? The same applies to “leading Community Groups.” Moreover, when Rev. Downing declares that allowing women to assist in public worship is a common practice, I, for one, would like very much to see some hard facts. I do believe that certain churches and church plants do according to a particular “model” would accept that type of thing, but then to extrapolate that into a common practice seems to beg for some statistics.

I will return to this, Lord willing, after our General Assembly in Memphis, TN. For the time being I’ll simply say that the whole discussion is tedious and so 1970s. I’ve been through this drill before; I’ve heard the arguments and the proposed nuances. My mind wasn’t changed in the 1970s and it remains unchanged to this day. Having said that, let me hasten to add that I have been married to an awesome, highly gifted woman for almost forty years, am privileged to know quite a few wonderful women, and have been given a congregation that contains some of the most gifted and intelligent women I’ve ever met in my life—except for the blondes, of course. What strikes me about my wife and these gifted women is that they are godly women. That is their goal in life. From Scripture they are more than aware that they are equally created in the image of God and they also know that there are role differences and distinctions that are God-ordained; God-given. As godly women they accept this as given to them from the hands of their sovereign, loving covenant God. It really is that simple.

---

^[1] Richard Poe, “The End of Manhood, in The Seven Myths of Gun Control, (Roseville, CA: Forum, 2001), p. 206.

Christian Feminism? (XII)

Scripture and Confession

I have had the privilege to serve God’s people in three different countries: Holland, Canada, and my native United States. Everyone of those churches have subscribed to confessional statements. In Holland and Canada we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort); here in the States (and Canada as well) the Presbyterian Church in America holds to the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Larger Catechism, and Westminster Shorter Catechism).

In neither the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, nor the Canadian Reformed Church, nor the PCA have I ever witnessed the elevation of one of these confessional statements to the status of being on a par with Scripture. But I have heard people in the Christian Reformed Church, the UPUSA, and even some PCA members talk about the need to revise the Reformed confessions. As often as not, this type of thing occurs when there is a new theological wind blowing. For example, in 1967 a Neo-Orthodox, Barthian wind blew in the PCUSA (old name UPUSA) so a new confessional statement was formulated. Judging by the current condition of the PCUSA, it did not have a positive effect on living a godly life.

The Christian Reformed Church began seriously to question its spiritual heritage and the need to evangelize and to break out of the “Dutch ghetto.” The upshot was that there were rumblings about either getting a new confession that was “up to date”[1] where women were able to take their rightful place in the congregation or jettisoning their traditional Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort). The “rightful” place of women ended up being that women became Elders and Deacons, while men were able to abdicate their God-given roles of being the spiritual leaders in their homes and in the church. During the 1980s the CRC witnessed a number of congregations breaking off from the mainline denomination and forming “Orthodox” or “Independent” Christian Reformed Churches. The United Reformed Church is the outgrowth of the very untenable and unbiblical positions that arose—unchecked—in the CRC. The PCA has broken off all fraternal relations with the CRC as have other truly Presbyterian and Reformed churches.

Last year at the PCA General Assembly I spoke with a PCA minister who was “manning”[2] a booth. It took next to no time before he suggested to me that the PCA very much needed either to revise/ revamp its Standards or to cobble together a new, different, and better set of Standards that more reflected contemporary scholarship and our contemporary situation and also some correctives that dispensed with offensive language. When I pressed my colleague on precisely what we needed to revise I got the standard reply that it was offensive to call the Pope the antichrist.

Another part of the usual fare in these types of conversations is that those who are Truly Reformed[3] seem to elevate—in the case of the PCA—the confessions to the level of Scripture itself. While this is patently absurd, this type of accusation gets a hearing and has its proponents. In a recent email to me, last year’s Moderator of the PCA General Assembly, Dominic Aquila, made the following astute observations:[4] First, he cites the PCA Book of Church Order 29-1, which clearly states, “The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”[5] Aquila’s clear and reasonable point here is that “As a confessional church its members have agreed together to interpret Scripture within a certain framework.”[6]

Second, Aquila draws our attention the equally clear teachings of the Westminster Standards as well as the BCO that Scripture is supreme.[7] This means that Scripture is the absolute authority for the church.[8] The result of “signing on the dotted line” for pastors is that “A confession by definition includes and excludes by the system it has chosen to understand and interpret Scripture.”[9] For those who have changed their minds since taking their ordination vows, there is a way open, which is to make those changes known to their respective Presbyteries. Until such time, their colleagues should be able to operate on the premise that their fellow-pastors are holding to what they promised and vowed to uphold. Clearly, this has numerous implications and applications for those in the so-called Federal Vision who disdain and deny the Covenant of Works taught in the Westminster Standards.

Third, Aquila is spot on when he observes that in the PCA “While there is a general appreciation and commitment to Reformed theology, its language and concepts are perceived as being too narrow and restrictive.”[10] Insightfully he adds, “It is interesting to observe, however, that those concerned about restrictive language have heir own precision for issues that they believe are important to them. That which is called old is dismissed as ‘tradition,’ which allows for this tradition to be set aside for supposedly more modern language and constructs.”[11]

I have prefaced my comments with these words from Aquila precisely because he was part of a discussion in Rocky Mountain Presbytery in April of this year that discussed the contents of Rev. Sam Downing’s (PCA, Denver, CO) paper entitled “The PCA and Gospel Ministry in an Urban, Egalitarian Environment: Toward a Theologically Accurate, Culturally Appropriate Apologetic,” which we began to examine in our last issue. In this installment I want to delve more deeply into Rev. Downing’s section called “City Presbyterian Church: A Case Study.”

The Challenge Before Us

Rev. Downing informs us that the Denver PCA church plant, like Johnson & Johnson started from “scratch.” The intention was to reach the socially and politically liberal culture of downtown Denver without compromising Reformed theology and Presbyterian (PCA) polity (p. 2). An additional difficulty facing the plant was that Denver is hostile to “conservative” religion since it is close to Colorado Spring that is the stomping grounds for “Religious Right” organizations and ministries such as Focus on the Family. In a parenthetical remark Rev. Downing points out the following: “A bumper sticker once popular around Denver read “Focus on your own damn family!” (Ibid.)

In addition to being politically and socially liberal, apparently the good folks in Denver can’t think very well either. The organization of Dr. Dobson focuses on the family and not anyone person’s in particular. It seems that like most liberals, the people in Denver are very thin-skinned and their disdain for the “Religious Right—whatever and wherever that is. I still haven’t been able to locate the headquarters—blurs their vision so that they can’t read well either. But in short, the main problem was that Denver was a polarized environment and generated an extraordinary amount of skepticism and cynicism toward any church that would adhere to orthodox, theologically conservative Christianity. (Ibid.)

As I read Rev. Downing’s paper I began to see his dilemma. Where I live in Southern California is nothing like Denver. Why, SoCal is known for its conservative politics, which is why Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are our Senators. We are also in possession of such political stalwarts are Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, and a host of other Hollywood elitists not to mention our theologically conservative Robert Schuler and Rick Warren.

What more than disturbs me from Rev. Downing, however, is the following: “In other words, the demographic of downtown Denver is not at all conducive to planting a typical PCA church.” (Ibid. Italics mine). What’s that supposed to mean? What constitutes a “typical” PCA church or church plant? As I read that I felt as if I were being set up for an apologetic for why Denver has a woman on staff with the title “minister.” I believe I was correct. According to Rev. Downing, the challenge that faced City Presbyterian “was how to reach out to a culture that would be inherently hostile toward its policy of not ordaining women as church officers.” (Ibid.)

It would be easy to head down at rabbit trail with the preceding quotation. The discussions in the PCA about the place of women are important, but I’m coming to believe more and more that they are limited to certain age groups, certain seminaries, certain church plant “models,” and sometimes are limited to a small percentage of PCA congregations. Again, if I am off base, I would very much like for someone to write to me and let me know. I have asked at least twice for some concrete examples of what all the kerfuffle vis-à-vis the place of women in PCA churches is all about and I have yet to receive one reply. The rabbit trail here is twofold: the so-called “women’s” issue and the “engaging the culture” issue.

My response to Rev. Downing’s perceived challenge was: That’s it? Your challenge was how to reach out to a culture that’s inherently hostile to the non-ordination of women? You’re kidding, right? How about the challenge of reaching out to a culture in the United States that is inherently and explicitly hostile to God and the resurrection? Stated as it is, Rev. Downing gives the impression that if he could just get this Religious Right view of women off the table the gospel might be more palatable to the raw, pagan, cultured despisers of Christianity in Denver. With the women’s issue out of the way, they could experience their Rocky Mountain high.

Like the (perceived) misuse and abuse of women issue in the PCA, the “engaging” the culture motif seems more like talk than anything else. In the times I’ve spoken with colleagues who were hot to trot about engaging the culture the matters tended to resolve themselves around pretty simple, “been done before” solutions. For seminary students, I would say that until you’ve tried it for ten years, don’t come around advising me how it should be done.

The impasse for Rev. Downing was reached, however, when a proper distinction was made between the PCA’s theology and our church culture. (Ibid.) Again, if you read carefully, there is a shift in Rev. Downing’s meaning from PCA to the local situation in Denver. When he writes about “our theology” he is referring to the PCA; when he mentions “our church culture” he’s talking about Denver. In principle, that’s not a problem because each local congregation somewhat bears the stamp of the local culture, but that is not always the case and it is not always desirable. If the surrounding culture is loopy and goofy, it would not be prudent for a PCA church to emulate the culture since there are already enough liberal churches prepared to do that very thing and that are in fact accommodating our (immoral) culture.

At any rate, the upshot of Rev. Downing’s challenge has been the founding of a congregation that is very atypical of the PCA. What is that exactly? In City Presbyterian Church’s case study it means this: “roughly evenly split between political liberals and conservatives with a significant number of conversions, particularly among those who come from either a ‘liberal’ church background or no church background at all.” (Ibid.) In one sense, this is to be applauded. Real conversions in any church are welcomed. I am a little concerned about the content of the phrase “political liberals” however. Does Rev. Downing mean that there are a number of members in his church who are pro-choice? Pro-homosexual? Modern political liberals are all over the map, but a number of the planks in their political platform are in glaring contradiction to biblical truth.

Rev. Downing throws us a curve ball when he says that “a majority of your members would likely consider themselves egalitarian in their views of women in church leadership!” (Ibid. Italics mine.) Of course, in terms of males and females being equal in terms of their creation in the image of God and of their participation in salvation, we’re all egalitarians. I am not aware of males in the PCA treating females as inferior beings. They are simply making a distinction between ontological equality and economical and/or functional ones. Given the recent discussion in Rocky Mountain Presbytery, Aquila makes the following observation: “There is an ecclesiastical egalitarian spirit prevalent (as opposed to a gender egalitarianism, referring to the equality between men and women). This spirit is the notion that every believer must be on an equal footing. There is a certain emotional appeal, as opposed to a rational one, that no one in the church should be over anyone else, or appear more important than anyone else. This is an anti-clerical spirit, a word that was even used a number of times in the course of the debate.” (Aquila, p. 1.)

Rev. Downing contends that every member joining City must attend a six hour introduction at which time the PCA’s polity and stance on women’s ordination is explained. (Downing, 2.) Clearly, not all of the six hours is spent on this topic—at least I hope not—since if people are coming out of non-Christian or liberal Christian backgrounds time could be much better spent on more fundamental issues and doctrines in the church. Downing is adamant that there is no “bait and switch” in the process and that everyone who joins City knows where the church stands on the issue. (Ibid.) That being the case, one can only wonder why it is that Rocky Mountain Presbytery had this debate.

Rev. Downing offers some explanation. City has been careful to structure its church life in a particular fashion. What might that be? “First, we are careful to treat women as equals within the church, rather than merely assent to their equality.” (Ibid.) Well, that’s a relief! This truly is an atypical PCA congregation! It sounds as if most of us must be doing a pretty reprehensible job with the women in our congregation. Fortunately, for those of us who are still Neo-Neanderthals there is hope on the horizon if we will only pay close attention. In reality, I take both offense and exception to such an ill-advised suggestion. I happen to know quite a few PCA pastors and congregations and I have yet to encounter one that failed to treat women as equals within the church. They might not have worked that treatment out precisely in the manner that City has, but that hardly disqualifies them. Moreover, Rev. Downing has yet to demonstrate in a biblical fashion that City’s cultural treatment of women is in keeping with Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and the BCO. In that sense, Rev. Downing would have been wiser to have withheld his premature judgment of his colleagues and their congregations.

Since he emphasized the word “treat” there must be more to this. My assumption is that many PCA churches in Rev. Downing’s opinion only give lip service to treating women as equals whereas City really does. His further explanation is that women at City “are allowed to use their gifts in a number of ways, all of which are both biblical and permissible according to the PCA BCO, such as: reading scripture, offering prayers, assisting with ushering during worship service, helping teach adult Sunday School, leading Community Groups (small groups that meet during the week), serving on the Finance Team (which oversees the church budget), and assisting the pastoral staff in ministering to women in the congregation. In other words, unless a woman were to feel strongly called by God to be ordained as an elder (and the vast majority do not) she will not be denied a meaningful opportunity to use her gifts in the life of our church.” (Ibid., 2-3. Emphases mine.)

In a footnote (no. 4), Rev. Downing contends that “Allowing women to assist in public worship is a commonly accepted practice throughout the PCA.” Really? No, I’m asking that seriously. Is this a commonly accepted practice or is Rev. Downing pulling his statistics out of the proverbial place? This is a serious matter if he is correct. For this is certainly not the way that the PCA came into existence. When did the transition take place? Who was responsible for it? Which GA approved it? Why isn’t this common knowledge in the PCA? From my contacts and experience I realize that more and more PCA churches are allowing it, but I was unaware that it is a commonly accepted practice. If this is the case, I’m quite possibly in the wrong denomination.

Lord willing, I intend to come back to this statement in the next installment and ask whether Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and the BCO do, in fact, allow all that Rev. Downing has described. For my part, I’m convinced that they do not, but that must be substantiated. But for the time being I do want to make some quick, general comments on Rev. Downing’s closing remark: “As a result of this we have seen a number of men and women with strong egalitarian convictions join our church, some of whom were also converted to Christ within City Presbyterian. Though they strongly disagree (Emphasis mine) with the PCA’s stance on women’s ordination they have chosen to make City Presbyterian their church home because the culture of our church affirms their God-given spiritual gifts.” Ibid., 3.)

My initial response is: of course they strongly disagree because they have either come from a liberal church that has taught them little or nothing from Scripture or they were recently converted, which means that they knew nothing of substance about Christianity and their views on egalitarianism were taken from culture. I would hope that part of City’s goal would be to take these untaught liberals and biblically ignorant recent converts and equip them scripturally along the line of Ephesians 4:11ff. It would seem prudent and the pastoral thing to do to bring them to understand why the PCA has the stance that it does on women’s ordination. The pastor and Elders could spend time instructing both the old as well as the new members on the history of the struggle with the PCUSA and PCUS on this issue. They could show the members how many—if not all—of those battles about women’s ordination at the inception of the PCA are identical to our perceived “new information” now.

Next time we’ll focus on City’s ostensible explanation of the proper care and treatment of women in the PCA and Rev. Downing’s section entitled “Female Staff at City Presbyterian.”

---

[1] Some believed that the language in Q/A 80 about the papal mass being nothing more than an accursed idolatry was far too harsh and needed to be softened and brought in line with a more tolerant spirit.

[2] I suppose if I were to be politically correct I would say that he was “peopling” or “personing” the booth rather than manning it.

[3] What else would you want to be in a Presbyterian or Reformed Church?

[4] I have received permission from Dominic to cite his assessments and observations of the Rocky Mountain Presbytery decision on the use of the title “minister” applied to a woman, debated on April 27, 2007.

[5] P. 2. Emphasis his.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid. Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith 1:10 that declares that “the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined.” Clear. In addition, the Preface to the BCO informs us that the Constitution of the PCA is “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” while, in accordance w the Westminster Confession of Faith (31:3), believes that the Constitution of the PCA itself is fallible.

[8] Ibid., 3.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.