What Happened in CRPR

June 16, 2008 at 9:07 am (Discipline)

CRPR stands for “Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records.” Some people have been asking what exactly happened with the Northern California Presbytery. I gave a minority report on the floor of General Assembly on this particular Presbytery. The situation is this: a certain teaching elder was transferring from another Presbytery into the Northern California Presbytery. In his stated exceptions he took exception to the WLC 156, which states that not all are to be permitted to read the Scriptures in worship. In his exception he stated that women are permitted to do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do. Now, there are quite a few PCA pastors who hold to this position, although it is not clear to me how thoroughly they have researched their views, nor is it clear to me that they have thought through the implications of their views. The Presbytery ruled that this was an exception, but that it was an exception that did not strike at the vitals of religion. The first and second readers of the minutes of this Presbytery listed this ruling as an exception of substance to the BCO (this kind of exception is not the same thing as the exception that the Teaching Elder took: an exception to the BCO may be an error of form in the minutes, or an error of substance, whereas the kind of exception the TE took was a doctrinal difference with the Standards). The majority of the CRPR committee voted to strike this exception (in other words, they agreed with the ruling of the Presbytery). A minority (the vote was about 18-15) decided to write a minority report dissenting from the decision of the majority, and desiring to list this as an exception of substance in CRPR’s reply to the minutes of the Northern California Presbytery. Now, I was the one who wrote the report. It was my first time doing so, and therefore the arguments were not crisp and clear enough to present the case adequately. Furthermore, the actual motion was not clear (and the minority report was not handed out to everyone, by some fluke of the floor clerks). The motion would have failed, had not TE David Coffin saved it by moving to refer this matter to next year’s CRPR. So, the issue is not over. The minority report did not fail or succeed. It was deferred. That is where matters now stand. What this has impressed upon me is the extreme importance of the CRPR. In fact, I will venture to state that the CRPR and the Standing Judicial Commission are the only two places left in the PCA where church discipline happens on the national level. Most of CRPR’s work is blessedly boring. However, there are matters such as this which can have enormous repercussions.

33 Comments

  1. phil said,

    June 16, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Thanks for this primer–it is very helpful. I do wonder if you could speak to the notion raised in the discussion that the elder in question is no longer in the PCA. If, as you say, 1) the matter is ongoing and 2) the CRPR is one of “the only two places in the PCA where church discipline happens on the national level, but the elder in question is no longer in the PCA, what are the ends towards which your action intends? Or, more basically, do you intend to somehow exercise discipline on this pastor who has left the PCA?

    I wonder if you could also address the point raised by Tim Keller. As I understood him, he seemed to be suggesting that the minority report you drafted was too narrow–that is, if you go down this road you are going to be looking into a lot of “dossiers.” Is his assesment fair?
    If it is, it seems to lend obvious credibility to the form of action advocated by Bryan Chappel in favor of a denomination wide study committee, something I presume (maybe inaccurately) you were not in favor of.

    Many thanks for your help.

  2. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 10:24 am

    Good questions, Phil. The matter concerns the Presbytery’s standard of judgment regarding a TE, not the TE’s views per se. As such, the matter concerns the actual record of the minutes as given to us by the Presbytery. The fact that the TE is no longer in the Presbytery does not relieve the Presbytery of the duty of handling exceptions such as this in a proper manner. I should have noted here that recording such a thing as an exception of substance does not “condemn” the Presbytery, but rather starts a dialogue that hopefully will clarify the matter and the Northern California Presbytery’s reasoning in this instance.

    As to Tim Keller’s remark, it is a classic example of the ad populum argument: “this number of people say the same thing, therefore the view is okay.” The problem with the view in question is that it allows for women to become licensed to preach, in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2. I am making no judgment whatsoever on whether such pastors actually believe that. That is precisely why we wanted Presbytery to respond, to see if further clarification can be forthcoming. At any rate, what we are trying to say is that such a “bumper-sticker” theology will not cut it: it is way too vague, and certainly runs into trouble with the BCO.

  3. David Gilleran said,

    June 16, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Lane, this is no new thing. When I served on the CRPR we had a case from South Florida Presbytery where they had a woman read the Scripture at an ordination service. The GA agreed that it was an exception of substance and I do not know if GA ever received a satisfactory answer from SFP. The first answer was you are wrong. We disagree about how you read LC 156. GA found the answer unsatisfactory and sent it back again.

  4. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Thanks, David. It is nice to know that we are not exactly doing something unprecedented by seeking to uphold the BCO, the WLC, and most importantly, Scripture itself!

  5. phil said,

    June 16, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Thanks for responding to my questions. I believe I only have one more:

    That is, if, as you say, what is needed is clarity (and not more vague assertions) as to what sorts of exceptions are going to be acceptable and those that are not, why was there not more energy for the Minority report and the original overture from Philly? It seems to me (and again, I was not there, only saw the tape, and don’t really have a dog in this fight) that the hope of a study committee was to come to some sort of consensus concerning this very issue–that is, which sorts of exceptions are acceptable and which ones are not?

    Your point, concerning the logical end of “whatever a non-ordained person can do is open to women” being the possibility of a female preaching could, it seems to me, be all the evidence needed to endorse a study committee. Women don’t preach at Redeemer, but they do serve on the diaconate. So, the question is, how would one parse the arguments for one particular office and not another? It seems to me that answering that question would be a good idea, though, of course, it did not carry the day.

    I may be misinterpreting your efforts, and, if so, please advise.

  6. RBerman said,

    June 16, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Doctrinal issues aside, this episode shows how inadequate is our procedure for handling this sort of concern when it arises. The CRPR meets once a year, and its composition changes every year, perhaps by 100%. That means any back-and-forth with Presbyteries will procede at a glacial rate. There’s got to be a better way to handle communications between the GA and presbyteries who may or may not be doing something wrong.

  7. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

    I am certainly open to suggestions for an overture on how to deal with this. :-)

  8. Scott said,

    June 16, 2008 at 11:42 am

    Thanks much for this explanation of process.

    Can you help me understand what is the significance of the CRPR finding an “exception of substance.”

    Do I understand correctly that it means an officer candidate’s difference with the Westminster Standards or Constitution (Book of Church Order) that are granted as “exceptions” by his Presbytery, reported in the minutes of Presbytery, then reviewed by CPPR?

    When an “exception of substance” is found, via Presbytery minutes, does that mean there appears to possibly be an “exception” granted that is out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine or

    Does it mean the “exception” was not properly documented (explained) in the Presbytery records?

  9. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 11:48 am

    An exception of substance does not refer to the views of a candidate or a TE. An exception of substance refers *only* to the Presbytery minutes. An exception of substance means that the Presbytery has done something out of accord with the BCO. An exception of form means that the Presbytery did the action correctly, but did not record it correctly. This is quite distinct from exceptions that a minister may have to the Westminster standards. When the CRPR records an exception of substance, that means that the Presbytery must respond to it (the usual response is something like “Yep, we made a mistake, and we will fix it”).

  10. Fred Greco said,

    June 16, 2008 at 11:53 am

    Lane correctly pointed out the implications of the bumper sticker theology “a woman may do anything in worship an unordained man may do.” I pointed him to BCO 19, which specifically allows the licensing of unordained men (such as candidates in seminary, as Presbyteries do all the time) to preach. Not exhort. Not share. Preach.

    I was amused that Tim Keller found that argument “preposterous” because “he did not believe women should preach.” The problem is not that Keller thinks women should preach – I take him at his word, and frankly, never thought that was his view – but the problem is that such sloppy expression allows all kinds of abuse. (As an aside, we see such abuse in situations like in City Presbyterian Church in Colorado) I find it especially amusing since REv. Keller is such a clear and forceful advocate of good apologetic argumentation.

    Until the PCA makes men do the hard exegesis and argumentation on this matter, bumper stickers will continue to harm the church.

  11. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Yes, Fred was instrumental in any cogency that my arguments had at all. Thanks, Fred. :-)

  12. Scott said,

    June 16, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Thanks very much.

    I want to clearly understand… if the CRPR cites an “exception of substance” does it mean that the Presbytery in this case did something that appears possibly to be unconstitutional- granting an officer’s exception that would be out of accord with our system of doctrine (i.e. the Presbytery violated the constitution by granting an exception about something that should not have been granted, because it appears to be out of accord with our system of doctrine.”)

  13. RBerman said,

    June 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Lane, thinking out loud:

    1) One solution would involve individual CRPR members going back to their presbyteries to bring resolutions to the following year’s GA asking the SJC to investigate some particular exception of substance. This seems like a pretty aggressive judicial solution to a concern which ought to start as a conversation, though. But a conversation between whom? Obviously the “accused” presbytery is one half of the conversation, but who is the other half, if not SJC? SJC’s workload appears oppressive already, and asking them to play “doctrine police” on exceptions taken by candidates in every presbytery seems even more onerous. Below are some possible alternatives.

    2) The annual CRPR could select members from among itself to serve as an ad-hoc committee to meet with the presbytery whose records were questioned. The ad-hoc committee would meet with that specific presbytery (probably with representatives of that presbytery) so that the conversation could be had in real-time, rather than waiting a year between salvos.

    If the two sides agreed that there was no exception of substance to the presbytery’s actions after all, problem solved. If they agreed that there was an exception of substance, and the presbytery pledged to redress the problem, there would probably still need to be followup to ensure that the promised redress actually occurred, so the ad-hoc committee would expect to function for a couple of years, reporting back to CRPR each year until its work was done.

    3) A similar solution would involce the CRPR bringing a recommendation to the GA for an ad-hoc committee to be appointed by the moderator of GA to do the things described in (2) above, and report back to GA every year until its work was done.

    4) Another solution would involve a standing committee along the lines of SJC. But if a separate standing committee was set up distinct from SJC, I wonder whether the PCA can field enough candidates for it who are both qualified and available for what would likely be a time-consuming and travel-intensive responsibility.

    What do you think?

  14. phil said,

    June 16, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    RBerman,
    If you are interested in pushing any church that believes in any form of female deaconate ministry, I suggest you go with #1 and just get this thing over with.

    If I understood Mr. Greco’s aversion to the originial minority report, he seems to think that more federal oversight is less than fully desirable. His contention, if I remember correctly, was that these sorts of issues are best dealt with at the presbytery level. If that is the case, I wonder if he would be so kind as to answer the question as to how the denial of study committee could further divide the church, either geographically or generationally.

    As I understood it, the goal of a study committee was some sort of (maybe brokered) consensus. A goal, I confess, I share.

  15. Scott said,

    June 16, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Phil,

    I was originally for a study committee as well.

    My reasoning was I thought it would provide good Scripture exegesis which would be helpful to us and maybe even to other Presbyterian and Reformed groups. I really thought the exegesis would confirm that our Book of Church Order had much right, maybe even clarity or strengthen the authority, responsibility and role of the Board of Deacons a bit. It would, I thought, both show the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon as well as the importance of women (and men) to be involved in “diaconal” (servant) (mercy) ministry.

    It is very important to have women involved in mercy (diaconal) ministry, and also men in a “non office of Deacon” way. It is important we not have barriers to women and men, who are not in office, being involved in a mercy ministry. In my understanding, their involvement needs to be a high priority in each local church. I would even like to elevate that priority a bit (of mercy ministry) in our church structure. However, this is not the same thing as the office of Deacon, operating as a Board, overseeing women and men in mercy ministry.

    I came to change my mind when it seemed we were in fact predeteriming a sharply divided result. The positions and exegesis of the suggested committee members are already known (without a study committee). They are available right now. Also, our denomination did thorough research and exegesis on this when we were founded and that is available as well.

    At one point it was suggested the committee could be set up to yield a probable 4/3 split. Biblically, the peace and purity of the church is an important thing. It seemed to me a close divide would not contribute to the peace and purity of our church. It might only harden opinions, exaggerate the differences that do exist and actually make things less clear.

    I can’t speak for Mr Greco, but I think the totality of the rationale for not having a study committee to bring clarity and best promote the peace and purity of the church was:

    various mechanisms (Overtures, References, and even Presbytery review with some accountability to the General Assembly) all existed to “work through” these issues more peaceably. I understand we in the PCA are different than many even in the Reformed churches in that every church can send a delegate to the General Assembly to vote on things like reviews of presbytery records- another way toward a more “grass roots” resolution of this.

  16. RBerman said,

    June 16, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Phil,

    If the FV situation is any indicator, the SJC is not going to rule on a doctrinal issue before the denomination has approves a study committee report on the matter. I’ve looked over the “Number of Offices” and “Deaconal Ministry” and “Women in the Church” study committee reports from thirty years ago, and I suspect the SJC would not consider the content of those reports adequate for the current situation. I was in favor of a study committee, and I’m surprised the GA felt otherwise. Philadelphia Presbytery asked for help in sorting through this issue, and the GA basically told them to figure it out for themselves.

  17. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Let’s make sure that we are not confusing our minority reports here. The minority report I brought is not the same minority report that Bryan Chapell brought. Bryan’s was on the study committee. Mine was on the report regarding Northern California Presbytery’s ruling on a TE’s views.

    RBerman, interesting ideas. I shall cogitate on them, and maybe talk with some savvy people about it.

  18. Scott said,

    June 16, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    It sure can be confusing understanding the procedure that happened at the time of the CRPR report.

    The Aquila report has now reported on this and seems to have a different take on what was voted on. Please clarify.

    http://theaquilareport.com/

    Thank you.

    .

  19. greenbaggins said,

    June 16, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Well, I can certainly understand how you might be confused! :-) What the Aquila report is talking about is actually a seperate part of Northern California’s minutes than what I am talking about above. Don’t know if that helps at all. It was a separate part of the review. You can see the whole CRPR here.

    http://www.pcaga.com/schedule.asp

  20. Scott said,

    June 16, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Thanks very much, Reverend Keister for that information.

    It looks like the webcast archives are being updated to make them more user-friendly as well.

    This will be as fun as a movie to watch- trying to figure out the plot, the subtle message, different interpretation of the nuances, developed personalities, and the historical (as well as procedural) context.

    All I can say is, Soli Deo Gloria!

  21. Scott said,

    June 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    The Aquila Report has now posted news coverage of this item titled:

    PCA GA: ‘Deaconesses’ Cannot Serve on Diaconates

    (not to be confused with articles about other related CRPR actions)

    It appears to say the General Assembly found the Northern California presbytery’s response (regarding licensing a Teaching Elder exception with exceptions to our constitution) unsatisfactory. It says there was a vote between “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory” and the General Assembly voted (apparently by a very large majority it looked like by web cam) that it was an “unsatisfactory” response by the Presbytery.

    Was the “unsatisfactory” the minority report?

    If so, how was this vote as you describe, almost lost?

    How was this deferred, as you describe the action- is not the “unsatisfactory” a decision on the merits?

    Many thanks.

  22. Dave Sarafolean said,

    June 17, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    Lane,

    I appreciated your efforts in putting forth the minority report on Northern California. I was on the other side of the CRPR 18-15 vote on the grounds that in my estimation Northern California classified this man’s exception accordingly per RAO 16-3.e.5 (more than semantic but not striking at the fundamentals). In my estimation the man’s comment was not thought through very carefully (bumper sticker theology per Fred Greco) and wasn’t worth pursuing given that our committee was going to hammer Northern California on the other matters.

    This whole episode has opened my eyes about the importance of reviewing presbytery minutes. I was one of the first readers on Philadelphia last year and my eyes nearly popped out of my head when I read what went on at xxx PCA. I would hope that we could maintain continuity on the committee from year to year so that experienced readers (and their memories) will be there to serve our church and train new readers. Thanks again for your labors.

    Dave Sarafolean
    Christ Covenant Church
    Midland, Michigan
    Great Lakes Presbytery

  23. its.reed said,

    June 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

    Ref. 22:

    Dave, while I’m confident you meant no offense, offering a church name here is just so much throwing temptation in the way of minds eager to swim in gossip (mine not excluded). I’ve removed the name of the church in your prior comment. I thought about doing the same with the presbytery, but that seems far enough removed from the circumstances.

    Reed DePace
    moderator

  24. phil said,

    June 18, 2008 at 9:10 am

    RE 22,
    With all due respect, this is exactly the tone of voice/sort of action that the study committee was intended to prevent. Are we, as a denomination, going to now start combing through presbytery records and begin to flag all those exceptions that seem the least bit off? If so, Foucault would be proud as we are now residing in the panopticon.

    The whole point of the study committee (as I understand it) was to come to consensus and then provide freedom for ministers to go about their work.

  25. Jeff Hutchinson said,

    June 18, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Re #24,

    No, it wasn’t. The initiative for a Study Committee was NOT intended to “prevent” the General Assembly, through its Committee on Review of Presbytery Records, from exercising its proper review and control of the lower courts. The initiative for a Study Committee had other goals in mind, but gutting our presbyterian form of accountability was not one of them. That was never voiced in any form whatsoever, either by the original Overture from the Philadelphia Presbytery, in the Overtures Committee (I was the Secretary and was there the whole time), or on the floor of the Assembly, even by the most passionate advocates of a Study Committee.

    Not only are we, as a denomination going to continue to “comb through” presbytery records and flag exceptions (on three levels: typos; exceptions of form; and exeptions of substance), we HAVE BEEN ever since our inception. Of course we are, by God’s grace, going to continue to do so. That is what BCO 40–which we in the PCA have all agreed is wise and helpful–mandates before the Lord.

  26. greenbaggins said,

    June 18, 2008 at 9:31 am

    Dave S. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the importance of the CRPR. Now, the exception with regard to NCP (at least, in my mind) did not have to do with whether they categorized the exception according to the RAO. Formally, it was correct. There was an exception, and the Presbytery ruled on it. The issue is whether they ruled on it correctly. Take another example, much more extreme. If a pastor had taken exception to chapter 3 of the WCF, saying that he did not believe that God decreed whatsoever comes to pass, but that God is open to the future, and the Presbytery classified it as an exception that did not strike at the vitals of religion, what should the CRPR do? Should they not at the very least ask for clarification? The only real way to do that is to record that as an exception of substance. As I have said, I do not really know what this man’s views are with regard to preaching. All I know is that, with the BCO set up as it is, such a position allows for the possibility that women may be licensed to preach. Such an exception should not be left unchallenged, but should be clarified. Therefore, we should have voted to record that as an exception of substance.

  27. phil said,

    June 18, 2008 at 9:36 am

    Jeff,
    I understand that the PCA has always combed through records for the three points of interest you suggest. I know that has been, and will be, the practice of the PCA.

    The issue, as I see it, is the tone with which #22 was written. When you say stuff like the committee was going to “hammer” the NoCal presbytery and then talk about your eyes popping out of your head when you read the minutes from _______ PCA, the point concerning division is already being made. One benefit, as I understand it, of a study committee would have been to provide some sort of guidance on this very type of claim.

    I am glad no one is advocating a “gutting” of the Presbyterian form of government. I’m not either.

    What I am advocating is some sort of institutional comment/conviction that will minimize sniping and allow for folks of good will and strong conviction to amiably disagree. Instead, let the “hammering” continue.

  28. greenbaggins said,

    June 18, 2008 at 10:21 am

    Phil, you are definitely over-reading Dave’s tone.

  29. RBerman said,

    June 18, 2008 at 10:27 am

    David, (#22) I think you’re right that continuity becomes important in matters like this. I’m sure the Presbyteries would appreciate having a consistent group with which it is conversing, rather than a new group of people who have to get brought up to speed every year. This gets back to the issue of a standing RPR committee. To give a crude analogy, it’s sort of like the Internal Affairs Bureau of a police department, which can evaluate situations without automatically becoming a matter of criminal prosecution comparable to an SJC trial in the PCA. It’s a little tricky to figure out exactly how to apply Matthew 18 to this matter, but the principle of escalation is the right way to go.

  30. phil said,

    June 18, 2008 at 10:46 am

    maybe I am, but that’s the point: unless there is some sort of consensus on an institutional level as to what sorts of exceptions are acceptable and those that are not, our Wednesday mornings will be filled with this sort of discourse.

    That would have been the great beauty of a study committee and report: it would have provided guidance concerning acceptable positions on women and the diaconate rather than leaving us all aghast at what they do, either in Philly, PA or Midland Michigan.

  31. RBerman said,

    June 18, 2008 at 10:57 am

    A study committee would be one way to build a consensus if it doesn’t already exist. If this is really more of a situation where the consensus exists, but a small number of churches are operating outside of the consensus, any GA could simply pass a resolution that says, “(1) When BCO talks about ordaining deacons, it means that it’s wrong to install deacons without ordaining them. You may not ‘install’ or ‘commission’ women deacons, because women may not be ordained, and deacons by definition are ordained. (2) ‘Deaconess’ is the feminine of ‘Deacon.’ If you feel the need for a title for women who serve under the deacons in mercy ministry, make it something else besides ‘deaconess.’”

  32. Dave Sarafolean said,

    June 18, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Reed,

    Not a problem — thanks for the edit.

    I do regret using the word “hammer” as it is too strong. I should’ve used something like ‘challenge.’

    Lane,

    You make a good point but I think that the floor debate proves mine — the assembly didn’t know what to do with the minority report. It could’ve been defeated as easily as it was re-committed to the committee. I felt like we were over-reaching by challenging that man’s exception (”A woman can do whatever an unordained man can do”). That phrase is not very defensible and I would prefer to see it challenged at the presbytery level. Tim Keller’s comment about going through (ministerial) dossiers on this point was quite telling.

    I was quite surprised that a TE from NCP made a motion to find satisfactory his presbytery’s response to the 35th GA. IMHO that took a lot of nerve. The vote against his motion was a wonderful vindication of our work.

    I expect that the process to sort all of this out will last 3-5 years.

    Phil,

    We really don’t comb through presbytery minutes looking for minute infractions. Who has the time or the interest? We are trying to focus on the major issues and when churches and presbyteries are inventing ceremonies and offices that’s pretty hard to ignore.

    We do use a standardized list of exceptions supplied to us by the Stated Clerks’ Office (I can send you a copy if you’d like to see it). No one gets to select the minutes they review (on the first reading) and no one is allowed to review their own presbytery’s minutes. All findings must be verified by other readers and by the committee as a whole. There’s a lot of checks and balances to prevent folks from going overboard on anything. We actually choose to overlook a lot of stuff.

    In some respects the I think the process of reviewing presbytery minutes and compling a final report is a lot like making sausage…

    Dave Sarafolean
    Christ Covenant Church
    Midland, Michigan
    Great Lakes Presbytery

  33. K. Hugh Acton said,

    June 23, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Lane,
    Don’t know if you should post this, but this is the only way I knew to get a hold of you. I, too, appreciate the work you did on the minority report & considering the time frame you had to construct it I think it was good work. On the way home from GA I thought about the objection I heard most to it: How does the statement, “a woman can do anything an unordained man can do,” strike at the vitals of religion. And, following a lead in (y)our report, I came to the conclusion that it simply changes the locus of authority from the Word itself to the ordained ministry as such. Ordination is not conferring authority by an authoritative church but a recognition of God’s call to handle his authority. Scripture is clear that, regardless of ordination status, women (for whatever reason) are restricted from that exercise. That is the focus of the problem with this particular piece of bumper-sticker theology.
    K. H. Acton
    Heidelberg, Mississippi


Post a Comment