I read Dr. Bryan Chapell’s piece on the 2009 Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) General Assembly in ByFaith Online with great interest. Dr. Chapell has been very helpful to me since I first attended the General Assembly some years ago, encouraging my involvement and speaking on the floor on a variety of issues. I have the greatest respect for his work. So imagine my surprise when I read this in relation to the debate of the role of women in the PCA at the last General Assembly:

The only change that I observed was a changing of the guard. Beneath the notice of most was the clear evidence of a generational shift in those pastors and ruling elders who were serving on the Overtures Committee and many of the Committees of Commissioners. This can only spell good things for our church’s future as those who have often felt left out of denominational efforts clearly made an effort to make a difference with active participation, persuasive words, and significant numbers. Such efforts will guide where we ultimately go.

I respectfully offer a different view in at least three areas.

First, I have not observed a uniform generational difference in ruling and teaching elders in the PCA. For instance, I find elders of all ages on all sides of the debate on the propriety of appointing or commissioning deaconesses in the PCA. The only differentiation that I believe might hold statistical water is that between urban and non-urban locations, and even that would be a weak correlation.

Further, I find the bulk categorization of people unhelpful. This includes the popular TR, BR, etc., labels that have become so popular on blogs and in debates in the PCA. I find these characterizations demeaning, attributing single dimensionality to complex, multi-dimensional human beings for whom our Savior died and rose again. While it’s tempting to catalog people into neat bins, taxonomies of convenience rarely to justice to the nuances of any situation. Worse, it facilitates the mental processes necessary to disregarding opponents, their positions, and their concerns as dispensable.

Second, who has been left out of denominational efforts? The PCA prescribes no age or generational filter for elders speaking up in its courts. All teaching and ruling elders are continually encouraged to attend to their governing responsibilities in the courts of the church. I certainly feel that I have been clearly heard at all levels whether or not the position that I advocated passed the votes of my brothers. If someone feels that they haven’t been heard, I can only imagine that they haven’t taken the plethora of opportunities to join the discussion in the church courts.

But please consider carefully that being heard doesn’t necessarily mean carrying the day. As always happens when brothers vote, only one side of the debate carries the day. We must be careful not to equate being heard with convincing a court or winning votes. Yet, I fear that’s exactly the case in the deaconess discussion as well as the denominational renewal advocacy. People who claim to not having been heard in fact were heard, but the majority simply disagreed with their position. That’s the nature of our Presbyterian system of church government. Rather than forming limited-issue constituencies, the brothers on the short side of the vote would do well to humbly submit to their brothers’ decisions as they vowed to do. I fear that the unbending pride of personal opinions that has so poisoned the politics in our nation has creeped into the Church. I fervently pray that I’m wrong.

Third, where should we ultimately go? Dr. Chapell clearly implies that the generational changes in the PCA may take us somewhere different. Where should that be? Some proponents of change in last year’s discussion on denominational renewal spoke of feeling “oppressed” in the PCA and used the socialist tenet of “economic justice.” As I pointed out in that discussion, this is the language of Marxism and its nephew liberation theology. The PCA split from the liberal church over similar issues so that we could proclaim the pure gospel of Jesus Christ – eternal salvation from the wrath of God due our sins, not freedom from any number of perceived or real earthly oppressions. Our fathers who set the course for the PCA fought hard to keep the Reformed faith alive and remain true to our Confession. Should we do less?

On the deaconess issue, Dr. Ligon Duncan rightly observes that we’re fooling ourselves if we think that the radical feminists and egalitarians will accept the church if we just bend a little. The world demands total conformity with egalitarianism. Jesus warned us that we would be hated for His sake. Should we allow the feminist culture to override our Scripture-based polity? Is that a generational issue?

Change in the PCA should be based on sound, Reformed, Scriptural bases, not cultural norms or generational trends. If the PCA changes its polity or theology as a result of generational changes of the guard, we start down a path from which our denominational fathers fled just a few decades ago. In the end, we must decide if we want the PCA to be what makes us comfortable in our broader societal settings or what Christ requires of His bride. I close by observing that the latter stands through the eons as generationally-independent.

Bob Mattes recently retired as a Colonel and command pilot after 30 years in the United States Air Force with multiple command experiences. He serves as a ruling elder at Christ Church of Arlington in Northern Virginia, and occasionally writes a blog at http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com.