Tonight marks the official start of the Presbyterian Church in America's 37th General Assembly, although some committee work has been going on already. With yesterday's negative ruling on Overtures 5 and 10 to appoint study committees to examine the role of women in the ministry of the church, the internet has been buzzing with all kinds of discussion on the matter. The Twitterverse in particular has come alive with people on both sides of the issues carrying on short discussions on the matter.

One the related issues I've seen discussed is whether a body of male elders is sufficient to address the topic. Some have said that to honestly sit down and deliberate on the matter, women should be present. Others argue that the structure of the PCA as determined in the Book of Church Order does not permit that, and that insofar as the dictates of the BCO are biblical in regards to church government and that the denomination is faithfully enacting the biblical mandates, we should trust that God will bless the discussions and wisdom of the body of elders dealing with the matter at the level of the General Assembly.

Here again, as I am wont to do in the midst of such discussions, I want to find the middle ground between these two positions. There are a few things that need to be taken into consideration here, so let me see if I can flesh this out a bit.

1. As far as the procedure of the General Assembly goes, I side with those who maintain that we should follow the instructions of the BCO. The churches of the denomination have willingly bound themselves to operate according to the document, and should carry out any matter of business according to the rules prescribed. For the present issue, if a church or presbytery feels that there should be a procedural change in how the matter is dealt with, the BCO should not be cast aside because it is seen as an inhibition or obstacle. Instead, the issue of amending the BCO (should it be found to be unbiblical in its current state) must be dealt with first.
2. I fully agree that to have a fruitful discussion on the role of women's ministry in the church, women should be present. However, this discussion does not necessarily need to take place at the level of the General Assembly. In fact, it would probably be most beneficial for a local church to have the discussion with its own members, for in that way all the women of each church can be involved in determining how they can serve Christ's church most effectively. Additionally, to work out these things together as a local body would serve to strengthen the unity and bonds of that church.
3. Although no one has accused anyone directly of doing this, there is an underlying concern in regard to how much authority we give the BCO. While we must certainly respect the governing documents of the denomination, we must nonetheless continue to recognize that they are man-made documents and subject to error (and thus revision). And the PCA has not hesitated to do this, as many amendments have been made to it over the years. My concern here is similar to that of my first point—that we respect the document we have willingly submitted ourselves to by not tossing it aside when it appears to be an obstacle, yet holding in tension our acknowledgement that it is not infallible, and in some cases may not be biblical. It must then always be open to revision, should that be found to be the case.
4. Watching this discussion unfold, it has become apparent that this goes deeper than just the subject of women in ministry. Another topic I've seen emerging is regarding elders and their ability to faithfully deal with this matter. As I mentioned above, some feel that an honest and fruitful discussion of the role of women in ministry can only take place with women present. On the other side are those who assert that when elders are fulfilling their roles in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates for eldership, God will grant them clarity and wisdom to come to biblical conclusions on the matter. Here I find myself in agreement with the latter. But the reply of the former side is worth considering as well—what happens if the elders who are discussing the matter are not elders in a way consistent with the biblical model (on both personal and ecclesiastical levels)? Maybe that is something to chew on.
5. Related to this is the question of how much authority we vest in the eldership of the church. In regard to the last point, there is a limit to how much we can say, and we must concede that oft-quoted dictum that only God truly knows a man's (and a denomination's) heart. With that, we must recognize that God has ordained leadership for His church to which He has given authority to rule the body. While we, as heirs to the Reformed tradition, do not grant our leaders unrestrained authority, we do nonetheless submit ourselves to the authority of the men ordained to lead the church. In the end, there are two extremes we want to avoid: first, the antagonism toward authority that is so characteristic of our culture; and second, allowing the leadership of our churches to rule with unchecked authority. I do believe that when our elders exercise authority within the bounds of legitimacy, we ought to submit to that.

I trust that this is sufficiently unclear and scattered. As with my post yesterday, I'm only attempting to think through some of the issues as they come up. In that regard, I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts you would have on the matter.