Totally unrelated–saw your note on “one baptism for the remission of sins” back in january.

I saw it b/c I was pondering today (I’m a bit of a reformed reformed [sic] Christian) about the one baptism for the remission of sins vis-a-vis modern presbyterian doctrine.

So…I agree that baptism certainly doesn’t save..<– and that truth certainly doesn’t hurt the doctrine of infant baptism. I only see, however, two ways in which the modern Pres. church could justify using that line of the Nicene:
1) when we say it, we of course don’t believe baptism itself is salvific
And
2) that we’re not stretching the (read as non-salvific) meaning of the nicene phrase when our “one baptism” takes place between 4 and 80 years before actual conversion.

I’ve had arguments about infant baptism before, and that’s NOT what I’m looking for now. I have my own opinions about that. What I’m wondering is, can the Presbyterian church really justify using the phrase “one baptism for the remission of sins” when it views the symbol as being so VERY distinct from the act–more of a christening, a preparation, a dedication, and a time for the congregation to pledge their support of the child?

Again, not trying to hash out pedobaptism per se, but only how the practice relates to the Nicean phrase.

Anyway, would LOVE a reply! I’m michael, reachable at wmsmcfadden@gmail.edu

Thanks PastorDC!

And hey, just read a bit of your post here too. Such reasoned analysis…makes me want to start studying theology again!

Should deacons have a special role in worship? If so, What?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Tony

At http://www.biblicalhorizons.com, Rite Reasons 41, 86, and 87 give some of my thoughts, particularly the first of these.

I completely agree with you on having ‘proper orders for women’; the question then would be what constitutes ‘proper’.

That should be a part three article. :-)

As for *starting* with how we relate to the culture, my caution is a lex orandi – lex credendi issue. The role of women in worship is also part of the discussion, and if we begin with the notion of confomity for the sake of acceptance (as opposed to mere communication) then our worship will be re-shaped by the current culture (just as has happened in American evangelicalism with stunning effects, the tide for this beginning with the second great awakening and accelerating since then into our present, contemptable ‘performance’ worship band culture). In other words, we don’t begin with what the world demands in order to hear us or attend with us to worship. Being incarnational does not in my opinion mean surrendering the worship culture to the demands of the day.

A man walking down the street in a cassock or a collar can touch the world and relate to and in the world just as much (if not more) that the man who is a minister but wears no indication of his office.

I beieve we need a new theology of women in ministry that is around Eve-Jael-Mary so that the Protestant scene is less bedeviled with ecclesiastical girly men on the one hand, and political correctness on the other.

There is a unitarian/Islamic streak in historic Calvinism that talks about God all the time and not very often about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is Sovran and Suzerein far more than He is Father and Teacher. Biblical Horizons is not very sympathetic with that, and stands with the approach of the Athanasian Creed. I submit that the overly hierarchical view of men and women in Calvinism is a manifestation of that outlook.

If this be so, then the fault lines in the PCA are going once again to fall between those who think they are being true to Westminster (but who are better described as American Arminian individualists who believe in predestination), and “social trinity” Federal Vision types who do theology much more societally and far less ordo-hierarchically.

I think you/we should ask, though, what is wrong with seeking to be relevant and user-friendly (in some ways) to our culture? I have not followed this closely, but from remarks others have made, it does seem that a rather unisexual view of humanity lies behind some moves for lady deacons in some urban PCA churches. But any view that distinguishes deaconnesses from deacons is moving against such a gnostic view.

And as I said at AAPC this year, when we don’t have deaconnesses and women-elders functioning fully in our churches, then the pastor and elders tend to become overly feminine and take up that role, that the whole warfare aspect of liturgy disappears. American Presbyterian worship is feminine (in a bad way) to the core.

Rather than reacting against a feminist agenda by refusing to have women’s orders, it would be better to have proper orders of women (elder-women, deaconnesses, etc.) and show how to do it right.

A different, but related question: What is the meaning of ordination in the PCA? I never delved into this question when I was a member in the PCA, but my impression is that ordination is basically a “stamp of approval” by the elders or presbytery that in effect says “yes, this man has been educated in reformed doctrine, is faithful to our creeds, and we give him authority to teach and rule over our congregation”. Is there also any concept of a metaphysical/spiritual reality that is conferred upon the ordinand from the elders to the ordinand at the moment of ordination? Or any concept of of something metaphysical occuring during ordination?

I may be off base, but my suspicion is that the different plates in the PCA would have different answers to this question, and how one answers the question would be very telling of one’s position of women’s leadership roles. My impression also is that there is a paucity of teachings on the significance of ordination itself in the PCA, but I may just be ignorant.

Women are not allowed to speak about this or anything else important in the PCA.

Just kidding of course.

But then, I haven’t heard from any women on this.

As for Mary, you must have picked that up off my blog rather than over here on the BH site. But yes, I think a discussion about the role of women in the Church begins with a discussion about women in redemptive history, most specifically the role of Mary as one by whom the Lord fulfills his promise to bring forth a seed to crush the head of the serpent. I don’t believe she would be pressing to be an elder or deacon, and I also beleive the apostles and elders would not have been reluctant to recognize in her one with something to say (to put it mildly). I wonder aloud on my blog if the typical invisibility of Mary in Protestant circles (in a never-ending struggle to make sure no one confuses us with Roman Catholics) hasn’t led to an improper and undue silencing of women as well (though this would be more of a subconscious thing rather than an intentional outcome, her invisibility so great that the very thought of negating her in some way hardly shows up on the radar screen).

Let us start with Eve, go to Jael and her nail, and make sure we hear Gabriel say ‘Eve’ in reverse (in Latin anyway) when he visits Mary – ‘Ave’. In Mary’s womb the reversal of the fall begins in earnest, the war against the serpent moves to a new and more aggressive era, and thus her last words in the NT (“Do whatever he says to you”) should allow us to be pointed to Christ through that woman’s voice. Just a thought, not a dogma.

All the best.

The Philadelphia Presbytery has rightly asked the GA to take up this issue, sending up an Overture (considered first by the Overtures Committee which will determine whether and how it comes to the floor) that asks for the formation of a study committee made up of men who hold to all sides of the issue that will take a year to research the matter and offer a report at the next GA. However, while the overture arises from Philly, the undercurrents that led to that action are across the PCA. In the past few years the denomination has bid farewell to some substantial churches and leaders over the status of women in the ministry in these churches, and how that official status affects their ability (as they see it) to be a ‘missional church’ in their communities. Within the categories I have defined it would be the (very broad) group of EPMs that are most urgently concerned with this matter, and who have already started using terms like ‘deaconess’ and ‘minister’ to refer to women’s ministry and staff members in their churches. That language makes others less than comfortable. Yet it also has to be said that many more traditionalist churches and pastors in the PCA believe that Scripture and history show a deaconess ministry in the Church, and these wish the PCA to allow for this language and new openness to the role of women. They too would like to see change, though they are less likely to press for change on the basis of how the church is perceived in the world.