An odor. Is it perfume?

(David) Reading this summary of this week's Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly by my friend, Joel Belz I thought rather sadly to myself, "He's whistling in the dark."

The news of closely divided votes on issues where there should be no division, of "prominent PCA churchmen" playing nice with each other while pretending to debate important ecclesial and theological issues, of 1100 PCA elders sashaying the streets of Disney World to the 2.4.2.4 meter of "The Spirituality of the Church" as American courts legalize sodomite marriage is (what should I say? disturbing? mesmerizing? droll?) at the very least, typically southern presbyterian.

I fear the PCA began with one foot half-in-the-grave arising, as it did, from southern, tall-steeple conservativism. And now that the buddy network has allied itself to Kuyperian cool, both feet are dangling.

There's increasingly little question where the PCA is headed: to the Land of Nice. To the place where oily Askers of Questions are debated with gentlemanly decorum by backslapping good old boys and the only fly in the ointment is the occasional barking, probably rabid, dog on the outskirts of town.

Read the comments on this PCA news item to see where the PCA is really headed....

Comments

[David Gray]

That's pretty much the reaction I had when I had read it following my By Faith email notification. With the additional very tiny sense of relief that I'm not in the PCA anymore...

[LT]

Among all the comments in the above two links, there were at least a couple that showed a degree of wisdom, particularly this one from the first article:

"Our peace and unity is based on obeying our constitution or following the process to change it by amendment- not 'study' committees with pre-determined results by men whose views are already known and published, then sending out divided “pastoral letters.” "

I was much disturbed to read in the second article the quote from the overtures that
"many PCA churches are uncertain about how to use appropriately God’s gifts among the many capable women within the membership of those churches” and that “in many PCA churches those gifts are under-utilized.”

The first verse that came to mind was 1Ti 5:14-15 "So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan."

If you are raising children and managing your household well, how on God's good earth are you doing it without taxing every last gift God's given you?

How can you possibly feel under-utilized when you are teaching little people about God's infinite glory, how to get along in a family, how to fight laziness and strive for a work ethic?

You are preparing healthy meals, you are decorating and cleaning, you are organizing, planning for the future, possibly home schooling or helping with your children's education to some degree, you are hopefully supporting your husband and have energy to listen to him at the end of the day, you are showing hospitality, you are bringing younger women under your wing, you may be gardening or in other ways building your home rather than tearing it down with your own hands.

But boohoo, your gifts are so under-utilized. Most of the comments in the second article were insufferable, especially the women in tears about the church doesn't "recognize" their amazing gifts.

I see the core of this issue is that the PCA has been failing to teach its women how glorious and uplifting and beautiful and fulfilling and recognition-worthy the work of women is, in all stages of life. Whether a woman is single, a young mother, or an empty nester, keeping a well-run home and inviting in the lonely, the unchurched, children in your neighborhood whose parents are divorced, adopting orphans, helping mothers with newborns (you're a big girl, you think of something), voluntering at any number of mercy missions, will so tax your gifts, you might just start to get wind of the fact that you're actually kind of ordinary. Maybe even lose that attitude of I'm so exceptionally gifted but unrecognized by my ungrateful male-dominated church.

Comments such as the following demonstate the menacing void of scripture knowledge endemic of our churches today (from 2nd article):

"Serving cookies, teaching children, and running women's meetings under-utilizes their gifts. I'm not suggesting they be the pastors or elders necessarily (I could make a case for that), but we need to move from the 1950's into the 21st Century."

SERVING COOKIES!! (That makes me livid!) The glorious role of all women are called to do is now being summarized in our churches as serving cookies. The biblical illiteracy in America is so staggering I can scarcely imagine how one remains optimistic.

[Kamilla]

LT,

I make incomparable florentines. Perhaps I should serve them more often? (grins)

Your post beautifully illustrates just who it is that fails to recognize women's gifts and contributions. If I may badly paraphrase Chesterton:

Why would you want to be one thing to someone who doesn't even love you when you could be everything to those who do love you?

Kamilla

[Ross]

From an outsider, putting up a view for which criticism would be welcome:

My take on things is that there is probably *more* support for women in the PCA to be allowed to be deacons, and even elders, than the size of these votes (General Assembly, Overtures Ccmmittee) indicates.

What I suspect is happening is that some of the "no" vote (ie. no to changing the current polity) is coming from people who in their heart of hearts do actually want to see change. However, they also don't have the heart to see the PCA split - and certainly don't want to be blamed for the split which would almost certainly result if the rules were changed. So they play safe, until it would be safe to change.

Joel Belz is right that the PCA is deeply divided, but this division really does come with the risk that the PCA could see a large number of churches, even whole presbyteries, leave. What's more, this risk is actually well-understood. So, beware a 'dirty fix' on this issue that will (a) satisfy no-one and (b) be the stalking-horse for more change in future.

[Fr. Bill]

My wife had a conversation with the wife of a new couple in our fellowship. For what it's worth (probably not much) they had been worshiping for some years in OPC and similar Presbyterian bodies. This new woman works in an antique store, she paints, and she organizes semi-recreational weekend retreats for women who are interested in developing artistic skills (not only stuff like painting, but home decor). She has also maintained a comfortable, pleasing to occupy home, and generally gave life to her husband, while serving her elderly parents.

Now, this woman expressed some anxiety to my wife about her Christian service -- in both her previous ecclesiastical climes, and prospects for such in our parish (which is comically tiny; North Texas isn't a hotbed of the English Reformation).

My wife pointed out to her that the most fundamental agendas for women are life-giving (Genesis 3), which includes not only having babies, but generally lifting bare existence into something worthy of the name life. Another fundamental agenda is to promote and advance civilization (see Lady Wisdom in Prov. 1-9), beginning in her own domestic sphere: maintaining family identity and customs and traditions and history; passing this on to children and extended family. After that, she can train her sights on her community for the same purposes.

In other words, this woman has been pursuing fundamental feminine work for years, but no one had ever explained to her how basically Biblical her life has been, even without children.

I know another wife who is barren. But, she and her husband have developed a ministry to their neighborhood, not just in conducting Bible studies, but in a myriad of ministries of mercy -- to the sick and dying in their neighborhood, in a couple of cases to counsel troubled marriages, to welcome and assist newcomers to the neighborhood. One of these, upon meeting Priscilla for the first time, said "Oh, you're the woman who helps everyone." Priscilla's works had praised her in the gates.

Yet another mother I know, when her children were at home, had her home flooded with all the kids in the neighborhood most of the time. Her home and the parents' relationship to their own kids were magnets for kids whose homes were (in comparison) far more lifeless. Barbara (not my wife; another Barbara) organized activities that taught them -- sometimes Bible, sometimes living skills. She gave life, she wisdom and skill, she emulated Lady Wisdom in her mission to launch fools onto the path that leads eventually to their becoming sages.

James tells us it is good that not many of us are teachers; yet, so many women in evangelical churches are clamoring to be teachers of the church. It's ironic that they are by nature and design teachers (see Titus 2, and Proverbs 1-9), but their proper students are fools (i.e. kids) and younger women. And, their curriculum, while it might include Bible and theology, includes a wealth of skills, wisdom, manners and customs, the basics (sometimes the finer points) of relationships between people, even aesthetics relating to a huge expanse of human achievements.

I'm convinced that if women in our churches were deployed in these ways our congregations would become magnets for those dessicated modern souls, who live without moral or spiritual compasses, whose life is tackily festooned with fleeting pop culture, whose future move inexorably to decay and death.

It's a disaster for all of us that this vision of women's work is mostly unknown among ostensibly Bible-believing Christians.

Women and the fruits of women's work --done with gusto and fruitfulness--is the best foreshadowing we have of our Mother Jerusalem above, the home we inhabit for eternity.

If men, in their masculinity, show us what God is like (cf. 1 Cor. 11:7), women, in their femininity and its fruits, show us what heaven is like (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22ff)

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

Amen to FR. Bill, LT, and Kamilla.

Thank you!!!

Somewhat sadly ironic the two Reformed denominations that have deaconesses are moving in the opposite direction.

[Anne Borgeling]

I grew up in the CRC. At the time they went through all their arguments about women and their role in the church, I was still in school and not thinking very deeply about these issues. The CRC moved from allowing women to be deacons to women being elders to women being allowed to be ministers. Even with my lack of thinking about the issues at the time if was very clear to me that the many study groups set up on this issue would continue to reign until they came up with the "right" answer - the offices of deacon, elder, and minister were open to women. How often do you need to study this issue of women in the church to know what the Bible says?!!! Having lived through that I would see this desire to have a study group as being a move for the same thing. This is not a true desire to study God's word for truth. Rather it's an if we can get them to study it long enough than we can wear enough of them down so they will allow women to be deacons and then elders and then ministers.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Fr. Bill is Anglican. He knows all about the "Listening Process", about study committees, and about slowly-but-surely ecclesiastical death engendered by interminable dialogue.

[John Ohlmann]

As I read through some of the comments at the By Faith site I was struck by two things:

1. Many of these people seem to be cought up in the American religion of self-esteem. "If it doesn't make me feel good about myself, then it must not be very worthwhile."

2. Many years ago I was in a Bible study at a non-denominational church where we were studying spiritual gifts. One thing that struck me as we studied the relevant passages was that while the gifts are manifest through individuals, they are given to the church, not the individual. It is up to the church, not the individual to determine how the gifts are used.

[Anna]

There is a basic hatred of children underlying all of this. If children were understood from Christ's perspective, women would cherish their God give roles. But the serpent hates children and will always seek to destroy the seed of the woman in any way possible. Modern women willingly jump into the same deception as Eve. Instead they should refuse to get in between their husbands (or the men of the church) and the Lord. Remember that Eve was teaching Adam what the serpent had taught her, and Adam willingly listened because he would not be true to God the Father. The only way to fight the serpent is to do what the Lord has commanded us to do.

[David A Booth]

David,

I'm an outsider to the PCA. Would you be willing take a stab at a more positive possibility regarding the vote on this issue? Is it possible that some (many) of those who voted in favor of the study commission are hoping that it would deal with the current lawlessness within the PCA regarding women deacons (such as replacing Deacons with diaconal ministry teams made up of both men and women)? That is, could it be that some (many) of those voting in favor of the study commission don't favor female Deacons at all - but they don't want the current situation of simply ignoring the issue to continue? Is this just wishful thinking on my part?

Thanks!

David

[David Bayly]

Dear David Booth,

My experience of deliberative bodies is that votes usually line up on the basis of undercurrents rather than objective positions. You won't necessarily understand why a vote goes the way it does simply on the basis of the motion because the motion is often a stalking horse for deeper issues.

Rarely does a vote involving major issues and major debate get clouded because opposing positions vote the same way for procedural reasons. Yes, individuals may occasionally do this, but in the end, I have no doubt, this was a vote on women deacons by proxy.

Now, I know full well that I might be wrong. I wasn't there. But experience leads me to believe this was, in effect, as close to a straight up vote on permitting churches to ordain women deacons as we'll get until that vote actually occurs.

In Christ,

David

[Marshall St. John]

Yes, it is obvious now that the PCA church is deeply divided; and that division is nothing to be happy about, in any sense at all.

The thin blade of the world's culture has pierced into the PCA. It is just a matter of time now before the wedge pierces further, and the PCA will be literally divided. One section will continue as the PCA. The other will probably align with some existing denomination (OPC, EPC, whatever).

The process may take a few more years, but it seems inevitable. Where then is the dream of the leaders of the PCA to have a million member denomination? See where it takes us, when numbers and "church growth" become so tied to our identity? (Interestingly, new statistics show the PCA had negative growth last year - of course statistics may be flawed.)

[Tim Bayly]

>until that vote actually occurs...

And mark David's words, with Lig and Tim playing kissy-pooh over the matter two years running, that vote will certainly occur.

[David Gray]

>with Lig and Tim playing kissy-pooh

Perhaps somebody should tell Pastor Duncan that Keller is FV and then he'll work up to a frothing rage...

[Kevin]

David, I was more than a bit disappointed (offended even) by the tone of your post. I can assure you that a substantial number of commissioners (myself included) saw this for what it was: an attempted end run around the BCO on the issue of the ordination of women. We opposed it on biblical grounds and will continue to do so.

Just because people can debate civilly, it does not mean that the denomination has been swallowed up by Southern good-ole-boyism. Please don't be soo disdainful of Southern Presbyterianism. Were it not for that, the PCA wouldn't even exist.

[David A Booth]

David,

Thank you. Regretfully, you are almost certainly correct that this vote represents a divide over whether or not the PCA should ordain women as Deacons.

Part of my concern (again, as an outsider) is that large chunks of the PCA seem to be treating the pervasive Scriptural teaching on male leadership as a technicality that we can try to get around. How else do you describe, for example, the practice of installing women Deacons without ordaining them?

Keep up the good fight.

David

[PCA Friend]

In fairness, and charity, as required.

Many of the people who voted for the 'study' with its wrongness on both procedure and substance did not do so supporting disobeying scripture, constitution and vows (though that is what it promoted).

They are genuinely confused about our polity, how to involve people

or

Thought this is a mechanism to "settle" this

It does neither, but that is a matter for education, and prayer...

not abandoning or disparaging.

We need to pray the fog will lift, the denial will break, charity will follow, and clarity will break forth...
for His Honor and His Glory!

[David Bayly]

Kevin,

We differ on this, and probably radically...

You view this as an end run around the BCO and a matter for debate, although you say you oppose it on biblical grounds. I view it as an end run around the Word of God, simpliciter, and that's never a matter for genteel debate--especially among those who call themselves brothers.

I'm more concerned that those who oppose the camel's nose of women deacons are so concerned to be civil, nice, than I am by the closeness of the deciding vote. It's this desire to be nice that suggests next time around the vote will go the other way.

In Christ,

David Bayly

[Fred Greco]

David,

I agree with you that civility is not the measure of godliness in the Church. I wish that more men said what they meant.

But I cannot help but harken back to the incessant whining and moaning (none of it by you and Tim) of those who pleaded "But can't we but oh so much more nice in dealing with the Federal Vision? Do we have to be so mean and uncaring?" Ugh.

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

I feel sorry for those women who truly feel as if pursuing unbiblical roles is "using their gifts." I used to think the same thing. I had a knack for coming up with insightful thoughts during Bible studies, ergo I must have the gift of teaching, so why not in the context where I was already being insightful -- co-ed adult Sunday school classes and small groups?

I've learned (and am still engaged in the hard task of learning on many fronts) that the gifts of the Spirit can never be properly exercised without the presence of the fruits of the Spirit. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love, I am nothing. If I teach the Scriptures with eloquence and am not myself submitted to them, I am nothing.

If I insist on using someone else's gifts, I'm like a child in the nursery who is convinced that the only toy worth playing with is the one that other child is enjoying, and who will throw tantrums or fight to get the coveted thing. We miss out on some really cool toys when we assume the neglected ones aren't worthy of us. And we slander our loving heavenly Father when we refuse to open and enjoy the gifts He gives us, instead insisting on stealing the neighbor kid's toys and calling them "my gifts."

[David Gray]

>But I cannot help but harken back to the incessant whining and moaning (none of it by you and Tim) of those who pleaded "But can't we but oh so much more nice in dealing with the Federal Vision? Do we have to be so mean and uncaring?" Ugh.

I don't remember so much of that. I remember more of a call for men to conduct themselves honourably, not to play "nice."

[David Bayly]

Dear Fred,

In the conflict that led to the formation of Christ the Word I came to understand that decorum and love are often mutually exclusive in Christian conflict. Love for the flock demands that we speak and act strongly. Love also requires us to accept everything our foes send our way.

So many run crying "foul" at the first ad hominem response.... I've come to view ad hominem reactions as a sign that we're no longer having a failure to communicate.

Back at Springfield I wanted to preach against the gossip, open theism and inclusivism so strongly that it would produce a reaction. But then I had to brace myself to weather that reaction in love. People don't get this. They think love lies in never getting our foes upset. Not at all. Love lies in caring enough to get them upset--and then forgiving the wiretaps, the physical threats, the namecalling that come back in response.

Paradoxically, I suspect very few of those who were angriest at me when we closed Springfield have any doubt that I loved them then--or still care for them today, nearly a decade later.

I see them at softball games and hug them. I tell them I love them. And they make sure that I hear via the grapevine when one of the old stalwarts dies--and they want me at the funeral, even if they won't admit it.

We're too genteel to really love in the PCA. You're not. There are others like you. But by-and-large, the PCA has begun to read and believe its own press clippings. Would that God would remove Covenant Seminary, that bastion of gentility, from its place of influence in our denomination.

Love in Christ,

David

[David A Booth]

David,

I had an experience a couple of years ago that confirms your comments about gentility (at least in one local PCA congregation).

I was in the process of candidating for a pastoral vacancy at a PCA congregation when I discovered that they had a "diaconal ministry team" made up of both men and women. In fact, the chair of the diaconal ministry team was a woman who was also on the pastoral search committee. When I told the committee that I wasn't willing to be considered further to be their pastor, on account of this practice, I received a very interesting reaction: The two women on the search committee were totally open to further teaching on the subject and were willing to change the congregation's practice to conform with Scripture. The response of the men was: "Don't rock the boat".

David

[Mason]

Pastor Bayly said:

>We're too genteel to really love in the PCA. You're not. There are others like you. But by-and-large, the PCA has begun to read and believe its own press clippings. Would that God would remove Covenant Seminary, that bastion of gentility, from its place of influence in our denomination.<

I just can't find a way to square this with Scripture. From II Timothy 2:24 on how pastors should deal with wrong teaching:

"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome, but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth..."

Calvin says this about this passage in his commentary:

"He will not be able to teach without some moderation and some equability of temper. For what limit will a teacher observe if he is warmed for the fight? The more qualified a man is for teaching, the more he shuns disputes and controversies.
"The hastiness of some men often produces either irritation or weariness, and so he adds forbearance, explaining at the same time why it is necessary - because a godly teacher ought to try to bring back the obstinate and rebellious to the right path, and that can be done only by restrained gentleness."

This passage clearly teaches gentleness and restraint are in fact marks of a true pastor. Furthermore, I can find no endorsement of ad hominem attacks by a pastor anywhere in the NT. Would you mind pointing them out to me?

Just perusing the pastoral letters of I&II Timothy and Titus reveals a similar theme of gentleness, kindness, moderation, and forbearance. Nowhere is "upsetting" the flock endorsed, either implicitly or explicitly. In I Timothy 3 qualified elders are described as "gentle" and "not quarrelsome." And in II Timothy 4:2 instructs pastors to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."

I believe in speaking directly and truthfully and correcting error, but I can't find any basis for upsetting the flock intentionally or exhibiting pastoral care with anything but gentleness and civility.

Respectfully,

[David A Booth]

Mason,

Perhaps two things are being understood differently: (1) What is meant by "genteel"; and (2) How important the error of feminism is.

Both these points can be addressed with a question: Would it be Biblical for a pastor to call those who are willing to embrace feminism in the church "foolish" or "stupid"? We can then compare our response to Galatians 3:1 where Paul writes: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?"

This demonstrates that there are SOME issues where such a response is appropriate. The only other question is whether feminism in the church is one of them.

David

[Mark Chambers]

Ah yes, pictures of gentility; men taking great care not to offend the delicate egos of those with whom they believe to be in error.

1Ki 18:27 At noon Elijah started making fun of them: "Pray louder! He is a god! Maybe he is day-dreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone off on a trip! Or maybe he's sleeping, and you've got to wake him up!"

Mat 23:27-33 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.' "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? "And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.' "You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? "Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. "And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. "And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Gal 3:1-3 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Gal 5:11-12 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

Calvin (Mr Nice Guy himself) on the Anabaptists
Certain Anabaptists of our day conjure up some sort of frenzied excess instead of spiritual regeneration. The children of God, they assert, restored to the state of innocence, now need not take care to bridle the lust of the flesh, but should rather follow the Spirit as their guide, under whose impulsion they can never go astray. It would be incredible that a man’s mind should fall into such madness, if they did not openly and haughtily blab this dogma of theirs. The thing is indeed monstrous! But it is fitting that those who have persuaded their minds to turn God’s truth into falsehood should suffer such punishments for their sacrilegious boldness. Shall all choice between dishonest and honest, righteous and unrighteous, good and evil, virtue and vice, be thus taken away? “Such difference arises,” they say, “from the curse of old Adam, from which we have been freed through Christ.” Therefore, there will now be no difference between fornication and chastity, integrity and cunning, truth and falsehood, fair dealing and extortion. “Take away,” say the Anabaptists, “vain fear — the Spirit will command no evil of you if you but yield yourself, confidently and boldly, to his prompting.” Who would not be astonished at these monstrosities? Yet it is a popular philosophy among those who are blinded by the madness of lusts and have put off common sense.

[Mason]

Mark Chambers and David Booth,

I was waiting for someone to quote Galatians 3:1 and Matthew. The problem is those things were said by the Apostle Paul and Christ Himself. They spoke with the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit - no one today can make that claim. They had the authority to make such statements - pastors today do not. Even so, all of those passages quote by Mark Chambers (except for Galatians) were directed at unbelievers - NOT members of the Body of Christ: Elijah spoke to the prophets of Baal, Jesus spoke to the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees. Again, I can't find anywhere that indicates modern pastors - not a Prophet, Apostle, or God Himself - should use ad hominem attacks and intentionally upset their flock. The preponderance of evidence is to the contrary.

[David A Booth]

Mason,

While I do share your reluctance to treat Jesus as a model for our behavior; I don't think that your objection has the same force when dealing with Paul's pastoral letter to the Galatians. In fact, it is a good thing that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, otherwise you could say that Scripture was simply recording what an uninspired person was doing in error. Please keep in mind that Paul is also the one who says that one of the purposes for Scripture is reproof (2 Timothy 3:16).

David

[David Bayly]

Mason,

Please read with greater care. You're accusing me of saying I employ ad hominem attacks in shepherding my flock. You're misreading me. My point was that faithful opposition to sin by pastors WILL lead to ad hominem reactions, that ad hominem reactions are to be expected by servants of God.

Mason, it's unkind, lacking gentleness even, to read so carelessly and then judge so quickly, don't you think? Moreover, your understanding of which Scriptural examples we should follow reveals a weak understanding of Scripture's authority and usefulness. You simply can't parse and divide the way you do without calling everything a pastor might do into question. Your grid for obedience is human sentiment rather than the full counsel of the Word.

Finally, thanks to David Booth for pointing out that there's a major difference between genteel (the word I used) and gentle (the word you used, Mason). Again, Mason, please deal with what I've written rather than reading your presumptions about my character into my comments and then taking off from there.

Sincerely,

David Bayly

P.S. Mason, I've noticed that you prefer to use a first name or pseudonym here in contrast with those whom you criticize. From now on, I'd like you to post only under your full real name or not at all. Thanks for respecting my wishes in this.

[Mason Mandy]

Pastor Bayly,

>Please read with greater care. You're accusing me of saying I employ ad hominem attacks in shepherding my flock. You're misreading me. My point was that faithful opposition to sin by pastors WILL lead to ad hominem reactions, that ad hominem reactions are to be expected by servants of God.Mason, it's unkind, lacking gentleness even, to read so carelessly and then judge so quickly, don't you think?Moreover, your understanding of which Scriptural examples we should follow reveals a weak understanding of Scripture's authority and usefulness. You simply can't parse and divide the way you do without calling everything a pastor might do into question. Your grid for obedience is human sentiment rather than the full counsel of the Word.Finally, thanks to David Booth for pointing out that there's a major difference between genteel (the word I used) and gentle (the word you used, Mason). Again, Mason, please deal with what I've written rather than reading your presumptions about my character into my comments and then taking off from there.<

Gentle and genteel have the same etymology (French gentil) and are considered synonyms. To parse these as separate meanings is to split the finest of hairs.

Thank you for your interaction on this, Pastor Bayly, and again I apologize for misunderstanding your ad hominem remark. I'm still waiting for your biblical support for intentionally upsetting your flock (and opponents within the Body, for that matter), and for using a lack of gentleness (or gentility - we can use either) in dealing with controversial issues in the church. I for one am glad the PCA leadership is headed to the "Land of Nice" - do you see biblical mandate to head to the land of cruel?

[Craig French]

While I do share your reluctance to treat Jesus as a model for our behavior...

1 John 2:5b-6 should alleviate some people's fears:
This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Jesus knows when to be "nice" and when not to be...so should we.

[David Bayly]

Dear Mason,

Look them up, brother. They're entirely different.

No thesaurus gives one as a synonym for the other. Why? Because genteel means, according to Merriam-Webster:

1 a: having an aristocratic quality or flavor : stylish b: of or relating to the gentry or upper class c: elegant or graceful in manner, appearance, or shape d: free from vulgarity or rudeness : polite

2 a: maintaining or striving to maintain the appearance of superior or middle-class social status or respectability b (1): marked by false delicacy, prudery, or affectation (2): conventionally or insipidly pretty

I'm sorry you won't simply admit what is obvious here: you read into my language what you wanted to read into my character and you lack the grace to retract.

Sincerely,

David Bayly

[Mark Chambers]

>They had the authority to make such statements - pastors today do not.<

1Co 2:15-16 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

[Mandy Mason]

The formatting of my previous post was jumbled, so a big chunk of it is missing. I don't have time to repost it now, other than to say I apologized for misunderstanding Pastor Bayly's point about ad hominem discussion, and pointed out that my point was drawn directly from Scripture and the prevailing pastoral instruction of Paul to Timothy regarding the necessity of kind, humble, gentle exhortation and rebuke by pastors. I don't think that's parsing anything, and certainly not judging anyone.

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Mr. Mason,

Ad hominem can be an excellent tool in the hand of a shepherd, mother or father, elder, etc., and this tool is frequently used by the shepherds of the New Testament. Your comments demonstrate you don't know this, so you condemn others possessing biblical wisdom you lack.

To see your error, you might start many different places, but Galatians is as good a place as any (reticent as you are to model certain aspects of your life on the example of our Lord).

Thus I won't complain about your ad hominem attack on my brother, calling him "cruel" because he called other men "nice."

It's been funny, really, to see your failure to live by your own arbitrary standards, both here and elsewhere. Just a suggestion: in the future, focus on the substance of what we say, rather than whining about tone. Whining about tone is not manly. It tells our readers much more about your postmodern effeminate sensibilities than your commitment to the unity, purity, and peace of the Church.

With love,

[Mason Mandy]

>Ad hominem can be an excellent tool in the hand of a shepherd, mother or father, elder, etc., and this tool is frequently used by the shepherds of the New Testament. Your comments demonstrate you don't know this, so you condemn others possessing biblical wisdom you lack.

Pastor (Tim) Bayly,

Your brother refuted the idea that he ever used ad hominem in the shepherding of his flock, and even accused me of "judging" him and a lack of "gentleness" by saying such - yet here you say it can be used. So which is it? Do you disagree with your brother or do you disagree with me?

>Thus I won't complain about your ad hominem attack on my brother, calling him "cruel" because he called other men "nice."

I never called your brother cruel. He objected to the idea of the PCA heading toward the "Land of the Nice." The only alternative is the land of the "not nice," or "cruel." I'm sorry you won't simply admit what is obvious here: you read into my language what you wanted to read into my character.

>Just a suggestion: in the future, focus on the substance of what we say, rather than whining about tone. Whining about tone is not manly. It tells our readers much more about your postmodern effeminate sensibilities than your commitment to the unity, purity, and peace of the Church.

I wasn't saying anything about tone - not sure where that is coming from. I was objecting to the content of the original post and subsequent comments. My standard is the Word of God, which I have used to make my case - you and your brother have not. Do you consider the Word of God to be "arbitrary?" That is my standard. Since you possess "biblical wisdom I lack," why don't you show me where I'm wrong based on Scripture?

Pastor (David Bayly),

If not direct synonyms, "gentle" and "genteel" share common sub-definitions (affable, amiable, genial, etc). Their meanings, if not synonyms, are very close. Thus there is no reason for this statement:

>I'm sorry you won't simply admit what is obvious here: you read into my language what you wanted to read into my character and you lack the grace to retract.

[David Gray]

>Their meanings, if not synonyms, are very close.

That's twice you've tried to make that dog hunt. That dog won't hunt.

[Eric Rasmusen]

I attended a PCA church in Florida yesterday, a good church with friendlier people than at my home church, if much grayer, and with lively music. The pastor talked about the GA, and what he said was sound and good-- but it was about safe things like chaplains performing homosexual marriage ceremonies, and tone in reaching out to the unchurched, not the role of women. And he preached on how Christians should expect criticism and persecution. But as my wife said to me, he was excusing his position, calling himself an old fuddy-duddy, rather than proclaiming it proudly and pitying or condemning the deluded world outside. It's too bad there wasn't a resolution at the PCA asking for a study of whether unordained female deacons should be banned, or on whether women should be worship leaders, or on alternative titles and duties of women in the church. No one can score who plays defense the entire game, and it leads, as logically it should, to a loss of hope.

[Josh Congrove]

Dear Mr. Mandy,

Understanding someone through the medium of blogs can be difficult at times. But even given this caveat, having read many of your comments on this post, I fail to see how anyone can miss the point so much and so often. Really, your persistent lack of grace here is becoming quite intolerable.

>If not direct synonyms, "gentle" and "genteel" share common sub-definitions (affable, amiable, genial, etc). Their meanings, if not synonyms, are very close.

Pastor Bayly already quoted you the definition straight from an authority, and still you refuse to withdraw the smallest of your points (or is it rather the largest?). Are we honesty to think that the meanings of 'genteel' and 'gentle' are "very close" because they share common "sub-definitions"? You know, the words 'gentle' and 'promiscuous' also have overlap in their "sub-definitions"; are they therefore "close in meaning"? For that matter, 'profound' and 'pungent' have overlap too, and they even share a first letter—two reasons to conclude their meanings are "very close"!

But in case you need another source, here's an explanation of 'genteel':

"The word does not derive so much from the popular sense of 'gentle', meaning 'soft', 'kindly', as the basic 'aristocratic' sense still present in such words as 'gentleman' and 'gentry'. The alteration in spelling is due to the word's origin in Middle French gentil."

---A Dictionary of True Etymologies, Adrian Room

Now obviously, the two words come from the same French root, and in fact there did used to be considerable overlap between them—500 years ago especially. But to obstinately keep claiming that a common origin implies synonymity today is disingenuous of you, and makes about as much sense as saying that Gentiles are inherently gentle because both words come from the same Latin root.

Then again, maybe this is the best way to put it: the apostles were not Gentile; the apostles were often gentle; the apostles were never genteel.

Is that enough now?

> The only alternative is the land of the "not nice," or "cruel."

Really, Mr. Mandy, this is about as logically illegitimate a statement as you could make. Is there really nothing between 'nice' and 'cruel'? Have we ripped out the other pages of our dictionary to be left with only your polar opposition of those two words? So, we must now assume that things not nice are cruel. Let's see...cockroaches are not nice, and now they're cruel; work is not always nice; now it's also cruel. Personally, I consider temperatures above 75 to be 'not nice'; but now they're also cruel.

Obviously I'm being obtuse here, but only to illustrate the obstinacy you keep displaying here. Pastor Bayly has not even denounced here all instances of 'being nice'; what he has criticized is a prevailing tendency he sees in the PCA to make 'being nice' the measure of love, and to make 'civility' the measure of faithfulness. Your lack of understanding this points either to a propensity to misread language, or to an inclination towards obstinacy.

To be honest, I have difficulty not being nice, and so I want to think it's the former. Please don't convince us anymore it's the latter.

Sincerely,

Josh

[PCA Friend]

Mr. Rasmussen said,
" It's too bad there wasn't a resolution at the PCA asking for a study of whether unordained female deacons should be banned, or on whether women should be worship leaders, or on alternative titles and duties of women in the church. No one can score who plays defense the entire game,..."

Actually there were.

Overture 15 asked for enforcement of our confessed, vowed polity at the presbytery level

Overture 13 spoke to all the issues you mention

[Joel H. Linton]

Paul: "What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me -- practice these things..." Philippians 4:9

If on certain things Paul sharply disputed with others, we should sharply dispute with others on certain core Biblical issues.

Paul: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1

If Christ sharply disputed and rebuked the Pharisees and Paul sharply rebuked the Circumcision group, and also publicly rebuked Peter, then we should follow example for important core issues.

If we are told in the Scriptures not even eat with certain men or welcome them into our homes, then we must realize how to apply "preach the word with gentleness and great patience." I can gently with love in my eyes and voice say to someone, I am sorry, but we cannot welcome you into our home because of this area you teach that will bring people away from the truth and lead towards hell. I can also strongly, with authority rebuke a teacher publicly saying, 'you must stop teaching these things; they are leading people towards the dangers of hell. '

There are churches in the PCA whose practices should have been sharply rebuked at GA -- precisely because they were undermining both their oaths they took, the very concept of truth and giving one's word, and the Bible on which the polity of the PCA was founded.

The problem with those who are pushing the "resourcing half your congregation" and "they feel so hurt and useless and left out" attitudes is that they are turning people away from the Word of God into holding up sentiment and self-fulfillment as a higher authority. They are turning to the spirit of this age. And the very authority of the Word of God is at stake.

The majority of the major arguments I am reading from these pro-deaconess and pro-women-in-leadership positions are not exegetical. There are specious points, appeals to emotion, twisting of the texts showing that hey, it is an intriguing notion that Paul might have meant that, or that he was being deliberately vague about this word here. (The fact that a word has a larger semantic range in usage does not at all mean that we cannot narrow down by immediate and broader context exactly what the word meant in that specific location.) And these folks do not even try to do so, because it would obviously undermine their arguments, so they just throw out these "intriguing notion" ideas.

This is the age where people write best-selling Christian works where they pick and choose which translation or version they use not based on whether it was the best and most accurate translation from the original language, but only rather if it helped advanced the cool innovative catching concept of their book. They seem to act as if as long as they can find some translation that uses wording which tends towards their proclaimed idea that they are absolved of teaching error.

We are in an ends-justify-means and a no-possible-definite-definition world. And those coming into the church are not having their way of thinking and rationalizing challenged by the Bible. Rather they challenge the teachings of the church on what the Bible means by their little clever human-wisdom arguments.

Like with the homosexual promoters in society, it is not enough for most of the women's equivalent roles men and women to practice things themselves -- they want to cause everyone else to approve of their practice. (This they do because they really are blinded into thinking they are the ones who are being Biblically sensitive and egalitarian.)

With this current evolution of the women's roles issue, I do not think that we are in a Philippians 4:15-16 situation but rather we are in a stand-in-the-gap of the wall situation.

If the examples in the Bible are any guide for us, the Church can only deal effectively with the current situation through strong and public refutation and rebuke.

[Mark Chambers]

>Your brother refuted the idea that he ever used ad hominem in the shepherding of his flock, and even accused me of "judging" him and a lack of "gentleness" by saying such - yet here you say it can be used. So which is it?http://www.swierenga.com/Africa_pap.html

[Mark Chambers]

Well that was odd. Let's see if everything gets included this time

>Your brother refuted the idea that he ever used ad hominem in the shepherding of his flock, and even accused me of "judging" him and a lack of "gentleness" by saying such - yet here you say it can be used. So which is it?http://www.swierenga.com/Africa_pap.html

[Mark Chambers]

One more try and then I'll quit

>Your brother refuted the idea that he ever used ad hominem in the shepherding of his flock, and even accused me of "judging" him and a lack of "gentleness" by saying such - yet here you say it can be used. So which is it?<

Both Mason and there is no contradiction. I own a gun. Can I use it to shoot someone? Yes indeed. Have I used to shoot someone? No I haven’t. Potential and realization are distinct categories Mason, the understanding of which is fundamental to anyone presuming to enter into critical debate. At least twice now you’ve shown yourself lacking the basic comprehensive and logical skills required to intelligently address your opponent. Added to that is the fact that your presuppositions prevent any semblance of objectivity. You are, quite frankly, (at least on this subject and at this time) incapable of rational debate.

Then there is the matter of your use of Scripture. I posted a series of passages which you imagine irrelevant since they addressed (in your opinion) the unbeliever. Well perhaps, but you’re not thinking covenantally (particularly concerning Christ’s rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees) and missing the point of coincedence between that situation and the one presently under discussion. The Scribes and Pharisees, like the egalitarians that David is addressing, were leaders of God’s covenant people. Blind guides of the blind Jesus called them Mason, and the similarity is chilling…at least to anyone who understands the seriousness of this issue. While there are matters that precede the introduction of egalitarianism into a denomination, it is often the first visible sign of what usually leads to apostasy. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

Concerning that I recommend a reading of the following linked article. It is a little history lesson provided for us by the CRC.

Burn the Wooden Shoes by Robert Swierenga. See the link above

[Michael McMillan]

> "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?"

> This demonstrates that there are SOME issues
> where such a response is appropriate. The only
> other question is whether feminism in the
> church is one of them.

Yes, because they are also bewitched -- and active bewitchers.

--Michael

[Mason Mandy]

Mark Chambers,

Your gun/ad hominem analogy and Pharisee/egalitarian analogy are both misplaced. As for ad hominem, Tim Bayly said it is "an excellent tool" and "frequently used" by New Testament shepherds. So he was advocating its use, not its mere possession as you imply. So the gun analogy doesn't work on that most basic level. It wouldn't work anyway, since possessing a God-given tool pre-supposes its inherent goodness, unlike a piece of machinery which isn't good or bad until it's actually used. The point is David Bayly seems opposed to ad hominem while Tim Bayly endorses it - I agree with David.

The Pharisees and Scribes were not part of the kingdom of heaven that belongs to Christ (thus not a part of the Body of Christ) the way the so-called "egalitarians" in the PCA are part of the body of Christ. The only possible analogy from your references would be equating the Judaizers with the egalitarians, both of which are a part of the church. But again, Paul was speaking with the authority of a Spirit-inspired Apostle, not a pastor. I believe a pastor should not use such ad hominem when rebuking his flock, and that's why it's never endorsed or even hinted at in Paul's pastoral letters.

But again, and touching on Josh Congrove's comments, I cannot find a Scriptural basis for denouncing the PCA for being too nice, which is the point of the original post. Perhaps some of you more biblically wise than I am would point me to a passage denouncing niceness between brothers in Christ? And if there is a place between "cruel" and "nice," where is that favored over niceness? I'll even concede the point on the genteel/gentle debate, but still wonder when "politeness" and "free from vulgarity" are ever negatives?

The Bible clearly says pastors are to be gentle with their flock. Accepting that notion, then how to we criticize the PCA for being just that at the GA? Shouldn't they be commended instead?

[Josh Congrove]

Mr. Mandy,

> Perhaps some of you more biblically wise than I am would point me to a passage denouncing niceness between brothers in Christ?

It's unnecessary to find a passage "denouncing niceness," and sufficient to say that Scripture never commends it. We live by what Scripture tells us to do, not by our own conceptions of conduct which—surprise, surprise!—just happens to follow what our culture believes. On the other hand, we condemn ourselves if often we're relieved to find no explicit command of Scripture condemning what our hearts long to do.

>And if there is a place between "cruel" and "nice," where is that favored over niceness?

Honesty, faithfulness, love, boldness, courage, strength, manliness, etc.—take your pick. Any of these is automatically "favored over niceness," because 'niceness' is never favored at all.

>...when "politeness" and "free from vulgarity" are ever negatives?

Politeness can be a "negative," as you say, if it's a cover for hostility towards God's truth, as is the case with feminism; or, if it's merely a way of conniving at heresy, and absolving ourselves for not loving God's truth enough to risk conflict, as I believe is the case in much of the PCA.

If 'vulgar' means 'common', "free from vulgarity" is a blameworthy attribute because its practitioners then have little in common with Jesus, who associated with the vulgar. If 'vulgar' means 'crude', you then have to reckon with the fact that Scripture itself is not "free from vulgarity." Either way, the phrase is a "negative" in this context.

Per your question, however, I did try to find a usage of 'nice' in Scripture. Having checked the six most reliable translations, I found absolutely none, save this one, from the NASB:

"If you have run with footmen and they have tired you out,
Then how can you compete with horses?
If you fall down in a land of peace,
How will you do in the thicket of the Jordan?

For even your brothers and the household of your father,
Even they have dealt treacherously with you,
Even they have cried aloud after you
Do not believe them, although they may say nice things to you."

(Jeremiah 12:5, 6)

Not a positive attribute is it? Yet oh how appropriate it is to this discussion...

But seriously, sir, when it's this necessary to point out that 'niceness' is not the command of Scripture, I begin to throw up my hands.

Josh

[Mark Chambers]

"Your gun/ad hominem analogy and Pharisee/egalitarian analogy are both misplaced"

You need to think covenantally Mason. Are you Reformed?

"As for ad hominem, Tim Bayly said it is "an excellent tool" and "frequently used" by New Testament shepherds"

Which is true but has nothing at all to do with your original misunderstanding Mason. You accused David (by implication) of advocating the use of abusive ad hominem (an attack against character) when in fact his comments were about those attacks being directed at him subsequent to a pastoral rebuke. Having been corrected you followed up with this:

"Thank you for your interaction on this, Pastor Bayly, and again I apologize for misunderstanding your ad hominem remark. I'm still waiting for your biblical support for intentionally upsetting your flock"

A shameful excuse for an apology, used as it was as a front for an accusation borne of another confused deduction. No such intent was suggested Mason. It was merely to note that speaking the truth about sin often touches a reactive nerve.

Not all ad hominem is of the abusive type (ad hominem simply means “to the man”) and can be a legitimate form of address. I suggest you take a class in logic Mason.

"possessing a God-given tool pre-supposes its inherent goodness, unlike a piece of machinery which isn't good or bad until it's actually used"

That is wrong. What do you have that you have not been given? There is nothing you have Mason that is not given by God and there is nothing that is not subject to misuse by sinful men.

"The point is David Bayly seems opposed to ad hominem while Tim Bayly endorses it - I agree with David"

Heh. David was speaking of attacks directed at ones character and Tim the legitimate form of an argument directed “to the man.” Your statement suggests that you don’t know the various ad hom forms or their uses. Mason your ignorance is apparent and you once again prove yourself lacking the tools required for rational debate.

Now look here Mason, who do you think you are attacking pastors from a position of abject ignorance? Are you aware of how utterly foolish that is? I leave you to yourself as I think these exchanges only compound your sin.

[David A Booth]

Mason,

It is a sign of the David and Tim's gentleness that they have continued to allow you to post comments on THEIR blog after you:

1. Misrepresented David; and
2. Persist in treating "gentle" and "genteel" as synonyms (or very close synonyms) even after you have been repeatedly corrected.

If you really want to promote Biblical gentleness (also called meekness); I want to encourage you to practice this virtue yourself. A significant part of Biblical gentleness is the willingness to be corrected (which is something that we all need to work on).

David