PCA Conversations

Comment from Bobby Griffith
Time June 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm

I was at GA and voted against the minority report, which was difficult because a lot of men I respect greatly helped craft it. The biggest reason for this is simpy this: with whatever “guidlines,” whether expressed or implied comes de facto “rules” for presbyteries and churches. In our Presbytery (Pittsburgh)there are a couple of churches which came from the RCES in the joining and receiving, which have commissioned deaconesses. If a pastoral letter suggested that practice not to be in good order, though it does not explicitely violate the BCO, there is a chance for real, practical problem.
That said, I had a lot of great conversations with guys who thought the opposite of me and we totally enjoyed explaining our positions as fellow laborers of the church who have a committment to see our kids love the PCA as much as we do (borrowing from Rev. Ban’s sermon).
I am sure we’ll see another overture next year and I will be eager to see how it plays out and to have a part in great discussion with hope that we can have differing opinions on how to procede with this issue while maintaining charity.

Comment from Paul Bankson
Time June 20, 2009 at 9:44 am

I was not able to attend GA this year but was encouraged by the seminar by Ligon Duncan and Tim Keller that I downloaded as an mp3. Both men demonstrate a genuine charitable spirit and mutual respect with a commitment to the Scriptures. I highly recommend it to all. I am one who had no problem with a study committee but can see the positives coming from its defeat that Bobby Griffith mentions- i.e, the “de facto” law that may ensue. I had fears that this issue had real potential for division in the PCA but as Joel Belz put it in his summary, Duncan and Keller may have helped set the tone for the debate with their own discussion. I have more hope in the aftermath of this year’s GA than I expected.

Comment from Luke Smith
Time June 22, 2009 at 4:09 pm

I attended GA this year wearing a cynic’s hat. In the Duncan/Keller debate, I thought I knew what I was going to get, but was gladly mistaken. I never heard debate, but rather a gracious conversation between colleagues. It almost seemed by the end of the conversation that Ligon was agreeing with Keller and almost backing off his own position to some degree. Likewise, Keller did not refute most of what Ligon said. The two men stood mostly in agreement about Scripture and mostly in agreement about the role of women in servant ministries–a lot of head nodding. Thus, this cynic was greatly encouraged. Now the overture was defeated on the floor something like 52-48 (approximately) as opposed to last year by a greater margin. Some have said this is an indication that the PCA is becoming more divided. I actually am uplifted by the seemingly 50/50 “division” we have on this and other issues as well. Yes, this sentiment may seem a little strange, but the reason is that out of such “division” comes (and has come) more open, honest, and noble discussions about real issues in the church. And honestly, this kind of openness tends to clarify what the “real” issues are in the first place. This capped off by the other discussions I was hearing during the week and the worship service to kick everything off gave me some energy. Kudos to the PCA.

Comment from Sam DeSocio
Time June 23, 2009 at 11:01 am

I voted for the minority report, and one of our elders was one of the signers of the minority report. I’d like to hope that the PCA has enough grace that we can talk and say what are we doing? Is it acceptable? and if we need to change because we disagree with the Bible what needs to be done? Im friends with @Bobby so I understand line of thinking. I heard some men who were very worried and others who were very encouraged by the GA as a whole.

Comment from Jedidiah Slaboda
Time July 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm

I voted for the minority report because I didn’t see how it could do any harm. Why not study a question? Listening to the discussion on the floor was interesting. No one argued against a study committee on the Federal Vision because it might be thought of as binding by Presbyteries and sessions. In fact, some of the people who rejoiced over that committee’s report most have tried to argue that is somehow binding. If the original line in the overture from had been retained that asked for recommendations on revising our BCO Coffin’s argument couldn’t have been made.

All that said, I wasn’t discouraged that the minority report failed. I was trying to avoid entering into a mentality of embattlement. If I’m going to get upset or angry, hopefully it will be over something more significant than the erection of a study committee.