(Tim) Under the post titled, "Woman deacons in the PCA's Metro NY Presbytery: liberal deform is predictable," several questions were asked that seemed worth answering in a main post. Here then are the questions, followed by responses:
* * *
Question: What is the typical composition of a PCA presbytery?
Answer: Since I'm not the Stated Clerk of the denomination (who has all the stats in his office), I can't answer your question, other than by personal impressions gathered from conversations as well as attendance at both my own and other presbyteries' meetings. It would be my sense that the more southern and rural the presbyteries are, the greater the participation of ruling elders proportional to teaching elders (pastors). In the past week I've heard from one man down south that some of the southern presbyteries have nearly 50/50 teaching/ruling representation. But across the denomination, this is a constant integrity issue given our community's deep commitment to the parity of ruling and teaching elders. We work at it, trying various schedules and enticements to get more ruling elders to serve as commissioners, but little changes long-term. Why?
It would be impolitic to have a public discussion of this, I think, so I'll leave it for now.
Back to the larger issue...
Back to Metro NY Presbytery, though: their stats are exceptionally dismal. And, as I see it, what those stats reveal is part and parcel of Metro NY Presbytery's susceptibility to the sort of Biblical, theological, and polity error they as a presbytery have now adopted at their most recent March 13, 2009 Stated Meeting.
An explanation: in the past few weeks, the same twenty-one page document titled A Proposal to the ____ Presbytery Regarding Women in Diaconal Ministry was presented for adoption by Northern California, Metro New York, and Philadelphia Presbyteries. Adoption carried in Northern California and Metro New York Presbyteries, while Philadelphia took a...
slightly different tack, giving over to Phil Ryken and Steve Smallman the task of returning to Philadelphia Presbytery's next stated meeting with a perfected proposal on how they as a presbytery will handle woman deacons. This is the broader context that piqued my interest in the roll of Metro NY Presbytery, out of which came this post.
Back to the smaller issue...
We must note carefully that Metro NY Presbytery has, at the last two meetings whose rolls are available, had forty-two pastors and only five elders present and voting. These are their numbers at two consecutive meetings and a teaching elder of that presbytery tells me such stats are not out of the ordinary for them.
As I said in the post, allowances for special challenges in special areas need to be made. There are certain challenges for rural presbyteries getting elders to attend during planting or harvesting seasons. Wise presbyteries know the farm year and plan accordingly. Similarly, urban presbyteries have special challenges they face and plan accordingly. If they have ethnic churches, they can be careful to have translators, to meet in their ethnic churches or those churches' neighborhoods (no better way to assure ethnic participation than showing up on their doorstep), they can request that those churches bring the musicians and plan and lead presbytery worship, etc. It's not rocket science. But these stats of Metro NY Presbytery show things aren't working and I'm sure members of presbytery are embarrassed to have them put up, publicly, and will be doing something to remedy the situation. That's as it should be.
But beyond ruling/teaching elder proportions, there are other things in these stats that ought to make PCA elders and pastors raise their eyebrows. For instance, do not pass over the significance of the Asst./Assoc. Pastor ratios. There's a world of meaning there for those who have eyes to see.
The post calls attention to other abnormal aspects of the presbytery's stats, but I'll leave it to others to tease out the meanings and implications for themselves. To some degree, this is an in-house post in the sense that only Presbyterians and pastors and elders (and to some degree PCA Presbyterian pastors and elders) will get its full significance. And even among us, there will still be many who doubt that anything means anything ever and for any reason nohow and thusforth.
Question: Can you provide the roll of your presbytery's latest meeting or another typical southern or midwestern presbytery to see the difference?
Answer: No, sorry; when our stated clerk sends out the approved minutes, we don't get sent any of the attachments, one of which is the roll. I looked and don't have one. But although we have our troubles getting elders to attend, our stats are far different from the above.
I think every presbytery should have their minutes, bylaws, and other public documents posted online. Such information would be invaluable, but it's my perception that many church officers look at information as power and understand that greater accountability would follow public availability of these documents, so I understand presbyteries' stated clerks have been directed (or maybe just advised) not to give fellow presbyters of the PCA public access to their public documents.
Simply put, though, when provisions are in place for going into executive session and presbyteries do it all the time, the necessary conclusion is that the rest of the meeting is open. Therefore, minutes are officially open and public records. The argument is unanswerable, polity-wise. But we also have Acts 15 telling us what went on in the Jerusalem Council, including the actual wording of the publicly distributed document they adopted at the conclusion of that council. Try getting presbyteries and their stated clerks to follow Scripture's example, though, and readers will quickly learn a lesson.
Back to the larger issue...
For instance, back on March 27th I called, and then wrote, the stated clerk of Northern California Presbytery, asking for a copy of the above proposal concerning woman deacons their presbytery just adopted at their last stated meeting. Explaining to him that I was a fellow PCA presbyter--specifically a teaching elder--and that I would like to study their action and the twenty-one pages supporting it so I would know their arguments and be better able to oppose their position as it was brought to other presbyteries. Suggesting that, given their convictions and the strength with which they hold them, their presbytery ought to want those convictions, now enacted as binding in their presbytery, to have the broadest possible dissemination, the better to convince others of the rightness of their position according to Scripture and our PCA Book of Church Order. I pointed out that they had nothing to hide, and that secrecy among fellow presbyters in the same denomination would not assist the deliberative process in a matter under debate across our fellowship, etc.
After speaking to Pastor Lee on the phone on March 27 and following up with this e-mail sent the same day, I've received no response:
This is to make the request, formally and in writing, that I just made to you on the phone: namely, that you provide me official information concerning your action there in Northern California Presbytery adopting the declaration concerning woman deacons that, as I understand it, was also just adopted by Metro New York Presbytery.
As I said to you on the phone, I'm working with fellow presbyters of the PCA to oppose the normalization of woman deacons within the PCA, and I believe public distribution of your presbytery's action and rationale should not have to await the next stated meeting of your presbytery six months from now. Your convictions and actions in this matter are nothing to keep secret or hide, but to disseminate as widely as possible the better to encourage a healthy and open debate....
Thank you, good sir.
In Christ,
Please let us all in on your good views, Northern California Presbytery...
The matter is exceedingly simple and straightforward. Northern California Presbytery has now adopted policies concerning woman deacons that, incontrovertibly, the best interests of the PCA would be served by the broadest possible dissemination.
What's the holdup?
These are their deeply held convictions based on the Book of Church Order, the Westminster Standards, and the Word of God. They adopted them at a public meeting. They have nothing to be ashamed of.
Would they please commend them to their fellow presbyters for our study and evaluation?
More on this later...
