Archives and Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church

Manuscript Collections :
Synthetic Collections :

Studies & Reports of the PCA General Assembly


"Recommendations for the Wise Counsel of the Church"

[Minutes of 29th General Assembly, 29-57, pp. 308-320.]

Index of all relevant texts in the 2001 and 2002 PCA Minutes
Women in the Military (WIM) Committee Final Report ---------------------- M30GA, 30-54, p. 282 and 30-57, p. 283
Communications 1, 2 and 6--------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-57, pp. 287 - 289
Consensus Report 2001------------------------------------------------------------- M29GA, 29-57, p. 259 - 278
Final Recommendations 2002------------------------------------------------------ M30GA, 30-57, p. 285
Final Recommendations, 2001------------------------------------------------------ M29GA, 29-57, XI, p. 277 & M30GA, p. 286

"Man's Duty to Protect Woman" [Majority Report, 2001] --------------------

M29GA, 29-57, pp. 278 - 308
Minority Report 2002---------------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-57, p. 287
Minority Report 2001---------------------------------------------------------------- M29GA, 29-57, p. 308 - 320
Overtures 2, 21 and 26--------------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-53, III, 7, p. 245; 30-57, 5, p. 287
Supplemental Report 2002----------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-57, p. 287
"Recommendations for the Wise Counsel of the Church" ------------------- M29GA, 29-57, p. 308 - 320
Motion to Send Report to the President [motion failed] M30GA, 30-60, p. 290


The following Report is offered by those members of the Committee who believe that the Recommendations [180] put before the Assembly should retain their character as recommendations, and not be raised to the level of binding command or Biblical duty. We are of the opinion that neither the matter itself, nor the Biblical texts brought to bear upon the subject, would allow our church to bind the consciences of our members in this way.

Areas of Agreement

We do believe that the consensus portion of this Report has set the issue of women in combat before us in an appropriate context and a balanced perspective. It properly incorporates a high Biblical and constitutional standard for addressing the subject and for giving "wise counsel" to the members of our church.

First, the Report has heeded the instruction of our Standards and has avoided the temptation of entangling the Assembly in civil affairs. It has properly sought to preserve the spirituality of the church and the essentially ecclesiastical nature of our deliberations. By offering advice to the members of our church it has therefore remained faithful to the purpose of the Church in the world.

Second, the consensus Report rightly indicates that any pronouncement of the church must either be explicitly biblical, or if it is to, be imposed as duty must be taught in the Holy Scriptures at least by "necessary implication." The Report quotes Charles Hodge, asserting that "nothing is sin but what they (the Scriptures) condemn, and nothing morally obligatory but what they enjoin." And again following Hodge it insists "that nothing can be rightly imposed on the consciences of men as truth or duty which is not taught directly or by necessary implication in the Holy Scriptures." Moreover, it acknowledges the teaching of our Confession that "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship."[181]

Areas of Disagreement

We are not persuaded that those who would raise the Recommendations to the level of moral duty have been able to establish the high standard set by the Report itself for establishing a Biblical mandate. Unless that can be done, the call to receive our Recommendations as a "duty" will promote neither the peace nor the purity of the church. Instead it will bind the conscience and cause those who do not agree with the Recommendations to be regarded as being in disobedience and sin, subject to the discipline of the church.

Furthermore, the consensus section of this Report frankly acknowledges that:

The teaching of the New Testament itself specifically applies the above creation doctrine of manhood and womanhood to the home and church, and the PCA has systematically conformed her faith and practice to these principles.

Yet this Committee has been formed and given its charge largely because of the absence in the New Testament of parallel specificity with regard to the civil realm.[182]

We are tempted to rest our case right there because the Reformed tradition insists that Scripture must interpret Scripture. To raise the Recommendations of the consensus Report to the level of "duty" is already to build on sand because it lacks an infallible rule of interpretation from which to proceed. Our Standards indicate that,

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[183]

The burden of incontrovertible Scriptural proof therefore lies squarely on the shoulders of those who would insist upon raising the Recommendations to the level of "duty" or "command." We would therefore simply make the following observations in regard to Scriptural exegesis that needs to be brought to bear upon the following areas.

Creation and Fall

A. Man and Woman in the Image of God

Scripture teaches that both man and woman are created in the image of God.

So God created man in his own image,
In the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number;
fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over....
" [184]

The use of "them" clearly indicates that both the man and the woman are expected to have dominion in creation and to rule over it. Calvin for example states that, "The use of the plural number intimates that this authority was given not to Adam only, but to all his posterity as well as to him. [185]

With our church we affirm that Scripture also teaches that the husband is the head of his wife and that the order of creation has implications for both the family and the Church as the family of God.[186] We also recognize that the woman was created as "a suitable helper" for her husband.[187] But we do not argue from this that women because they are women are therefore necessarily excluded from sharing in certain aspects of having dominion in public society and "secular" culture. To do so would be to make a mockery of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 and the military circumstances of Deborah, Jael, and Abigail. It would also negate the example of Joanna and Susanna who helped to support Jesus and the disciples "out of their own means", as well as Lydia and Priscilla.[188] We also note that even as Scripture teaches the headship of the man in the family and the church it also takes care to remind us that a mutual interdependence remains between the man and the woman.[189]

According to the New Testament, the purpose of Genesis 1-3 in regard to the man and the woman in the order of creation, is to teach its implications for the relationship between husband and wife in the family and in the church.[190] Similarly, the understanding of the woman as existing for "the glory of man"[191] does not exclude the woman from sharing in the image of God. The statement is to be understood in its Biblical context of church and marriage. The question before the Apostle is the proper demeanor of the wife, praying and prophesying in worship. The role of a Christian woman in secular society is simply not in view here.

In understanding Biblical duty and moral command, the Report before us has already reminded us that we are not allowed to go beyond Scripture.[192] To do so, is to incur the express disapproval of the Lord.[193] And when we do so, we are soon caught in the folly of our own actions. In moving beyond the Biblical context of family and church, we would, for example, have to say that all women are subject to any man in every circumstance, or that women should not be allowed any place of supervision in public society. Once we remove the Biblical boundaries that authoritatively apply Genesis 1-3 to the relationship between the husband and the wife, we will be in danger of being left with an Islamic hermeneutic of the role of women in society.

We affirm that the Scriptures teach us, "God created man in his own image, ... male and female he created them." We understand that "God blessed them and said to them, (emphasis added), `Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over. ... "' And we recognize that the Lord also said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."[194] In assigning roles within a family, or in respect to physical capacity, it should be judged wise to take into consideration a fitting division of labor. We therefore remain convinced that it is not wise for women to be involved in combat, but it is simply not clear to us that these verses raise this counsel to the level of command and duty.

B. The Cultural Mandate

God's command to "keep" (shmr) the garden [195] is a rich concept that is rarely done justice by those in search of texts relevant to our subject. Usually the word is forced into its possible meaning of "to protect", and it is said that the command is given to Adam alone. Clearly shmr can be used to bear the meaning of "to protect",[196] but given the context of the garden Calvin uses the more natural translation of "to cultivate".[197] Similarly, the New International Version's translates it "to care of."

Furthermore, it is not responsible exegesis to press a command given before the Fall to establish that shmr is to be understood as to "protect." As Leupold suggests:

For according to the nature of the whole account, which gives the record of creation, every part of which was "very good, " there can be no thought of an evil power abroad in the world and trying to penetrate into the garden, ... For in that case, we have the preposterous notion besides of man pacing along the borderlines of the garden at regular intervals during the day and at night doing sentinel duty - a very uneasy and disturbed existence. The more general sense of "have charge of' is otherwise substantiated in the Scriptures. For even though the garden was in every sense good, yet care was necessary to keep it from growing in exuberant disorder.[198]

Nor do we believe that God's command to "keep" the garden was given to Adam alone. At the very least, Eve was immediately supplied to be a "suitable helper" for Adam in this task.[199] That fact is further exemplified in the creation of the man and woman together on the Sixth Day, and by the use of "them" in the creation account.[200]

We do better to understand that the man and the woman were involved in a cultural mandate in which shmr carries the rich meaning of "to serve" God.[201] This fits in well with the Biblical understanding that all of life is to be lived to the glory of God. Clearly then, the Biblical use and application of shmr is not to be understood as malespecific. Any insight applied from these texts to the question of women in combat should be carefully used to give wise counsel and not definitive command.

The History of Israel

A. The Civil Code of Israel

We would counsel great care in the use of the Old Testament civil law of Israel as a means of extracting a specific command that would be required of the Christian woman in a modern secular state. We would remind our church that our Standards make provision only for a general equity. The Westminster Confession of Faith approaches the civil law of Israel with the clear understanding that:

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[202]

In other words our Standards approach the theocratic statuary law of Israel with the assumption that they have expired. We must therefore be very careful not to turn the Confession on its head so that it would be made to say: "To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws which have not expired with the State of that people since they oblige us now under a principle of specific parity that can still be discerned with careful investigation."

General equity is to be understood as the broad moral principle that lies behind specific regulations that are either no longer applicable, or which if applied in a different context would lead to that which is neither fair, right or sensible.[203] It is not to be confused with what might be called a "regulative principle of specific parity" in which the judicial laws of Israel are taken as a vast code of laws to be deciphered typologically or otherwise for the church in the world. Such an enterprise will be limited only by the imagination of the exegete, and will necessarily fall into the trap of "eisegesis" where the conclusion is read into the premise.

The Old Testament theocratic civil law that has been most pressed into service as requiring the Christian woman not to be engaged in the modern secular military is Deuteronomy 22:5. "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."

Commentators of all persuasions usually suggest that the text is addressing some form of transvestite or unchaste behavior.[204] Most of these commentators argue that the use of "detest" or the more familiar "abomination to the Lord," is a reference to some form of behavior imported from the surrounding pagan cultus.[205] Suggestions range from the interchange of clothes as a magical cure for infertility,[206] to outright transvestitism or emasculation as practiced in the cult of the goddess Ishtar from the time of the old Akkadian period.[207]

The Hebrew word kli, usually translated "anything that pertains to," is generally said to be applicable to anything that can be used or worn.[208] For example it is used of utensils in Deut. 23:24 and weapons in Deut. 1:41. But equally it may be used of a "shepherd's bag" as in 1 Samuel 17:40. Carmichael stands virtually alone in suggesting that: "The background is that of going forth to war ...."[209] But even he does not suggest that this text is a command for women not to be in the army. Following the lead of the vast majority of commentators he subsumes the section under the title, "Transvestite Practices." He is careful to define "the topic, the prohibiting of women from entering the army by dressing as men and the possibility of men from dressing as women in the army for homosexual purposes."[210]

It is possible therefore that the passage could have some military context either related to transvestitism or to cross-dressing as a means of entrance into the army to practice prostitution. But we must not distort the purpose for which this text was written. As Calvin indicates, this passage refers to some form of unchaste behavior that was derived from the blurring of the distinction between men and women.[211]

We need to hear the text again. "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this." Although the text is not without possibility for "wise counsel", it can hardly be raised to the level of a binding command to do with honorable women in the modern military.

B. The Example of Israel's Army

It is clear that from Numbers 1:3 that only men served in the theocratic army of Israel. But resorting to the example of Israel's army is of dubious worth in addressing our subject. We simply cannot insert The United States of America in the place of theocratic Israel and produce a binding application for godly women in the modern secular state.

The theocratic army of Israel was charged with killing civilian men, women, children, cattle, sheep and donkeys.[212] This was not a normative army acting under the provisions of common grace. It was an army called by Yahweh to be involved in cherem warfare as an act of his judgement upon a particular people and for a specific purpose.

In the redemptive historical interpretation of Scripture these passages do have significance for teaching on God's eschatological judgement, and for the spiritual life of the church.[213] But if we simply insert the modern secular state in the place of Israel we will create serious exegetical problems. This will be clearly seen by looking at I Chronicles 25-27 where God commanded not only the army to be made up solely of men, but also the singers, the musicians, the gatekeepers, and the treasurers in the temple. In fact David's entire civil service was to be comprised only of men.

The gender-specific restrictions of the old covenant administration within a theocratic commonwealth do not carry over directly to life in the new covenant. In the progress of redemption we now see women having a vital place in the life of the church [214] and in society as a whole, a place they did not previously occupy. The New Testament does not restrict women from serving as singers, musicians, toll operators, treasurers, and civil service employees, as they glorify Christ in the world.

We believe that it is the biblical duty of fathers and husbands to protect their wives and daughters, but the fact is that these passages do not address the issue of women in the modern military. We would do better simply to note that all the armies of the Ancient Near East were normally comprised only of men. This might be said to reflect a common sense understanding of the physiological nature of women as it applies to the heavy weight of ancient arms and warfare. More particularly it should speak to the fact that even the ancient pagans understood the need to protect their women and children for the sake of the family and the propagation of the nation.

But such arguments from tradition are unsuitable for Biblical command and duty, and speak instead to the wisdom shown even by unregenerate peoples. They are more properly the prerogative of the State as indicated by the wise counsel of our BCO.

The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the Sate must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events.[215]

C. Deborah and Jael (Judges 4-5)

It should first be noted that the purpose of these passages is not related to our subject at all. They are intended to show that God is accomplishing his redemptive purposes of judgement and salvation even as he patiently reveals himself to be the only Savior of his still faltering people. In so doing we find throughout the book of The Judges that the Lord uses the most unusual of people and circumstances to accomplish his purposes so that none might doubt his sovereignty or take his glory for themselves.

The fact that the Lord used women in unusual circumstances of military conflict to help carry out his purposes says little about the normative behavior of godly men and women as they live to his glory in the midst of the modern military. If we insist upon applying these passages to the question before us, we would have to conclude "that in the course of providential events" God used women in military conflict.

D. Women and the Armies of God's Enemies

In a total of three Old Testament passages,[216] the Lord makes reference to the armies of his enemies becoming "like women" in the light of his uplifted hand. His description of their becoming "like sissies" is a common human analogy and is used as a literary instrument to mock the effectiveness of his enemies in the face of the power of his hand. The analogy is taken from the observations of nature and of Ancient Near Eastern culture. The smaller frame of women could hardly be viewed as suitable for the rigors of ancient combat and heavy armor. The accustomed social vulnerability and dependency of women especially in the cultures of the Ancient Near East made the weakness of their position, and the fear attendant to their position, a ready reference for the prophets. But a critique of the effectiveness of women in ancient warfare used for literary purposes of satire, hardly rises to the level of Biblical duty in regard to modern warfare.

It is unacceptable exegesis to press these texts into service as somehow forming a command applicable to godly women living in the context of a secular state and the modern military. Isaiah having said, "In that day the Egyptians will be like women," goes on to say, "In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria."[217] We could hardly use that text to give a command to members of our church serving in our nation's State Department.

What is more, to marry the satire of the prophetic texts to Peter's critique of wives as the "weaker vessel,"[218] hardly does the argument any good. If 1 Peter 3:7 is to be taken as dealing with brute strength, then what if a particular woman is found to be stronger than some men? And what will we do if the modern military finds women equally effective in the use of modern weaponry or even more effective in the use of certain forms of warfare?

It would be a shame to reduce the purpose of Peter's text to one more example of men excluding women from certain forms of employment based on attitudes to do with the woman's supposed physical or psychological inferiority. 1 Peter 3:7 does not teach that "men are strong, and women are weak" and therefore cannot do certain things. While physical strength should be taken into consideration as an appropriate application of the text in a given situation, we must remember that women in the Bible worked manually in the fields and carried heavy water jars on their heads. This is still the case in all but the western world. Biblical women joined in military conflict by driving a tent peg through a General's head with a hammer, and by using a millstone to crush the skull of an avenging "king."[219] To argue that "biology is destiny" is to build on shaky ground, not least of all because women have excelled in certain forms of modern combat.

We do better to realize that the purpose of 1 Peter 3:7 is not related to the modern military, but once again to the relationship between husbands and wives. It teaches men that their wives are different. Indeed it may be applied to circumstances related to physical strength, but it is more often applicable to the vulnerable place that a woman has in the chauvinistic society that comes from the Fall.[220] It may also have primary reference to the fact that since God has ordained the man to be the head of his house and the wife to be submissive, the husband should take special care not to violate the attending implications of that relationship. In any event, the wife is described as "weak-er", leaving the husband to ponder his own frailty and the suitability of his own behavior.

We must be careful not to use Scripture as a set of proof texts pressed into service to prop up supposed commands which have little or nothing to do with their original context or purpose. We do far better to look at the larger picture, and to view the whole scope of redemption in regard to men and women in Christ and their place in the world.

For example, Genesis 3:17-19 teaches us that as a result of the Fall a battle ensues between the sexes in which men will try to dominate and use women for selfish purposes. But the Fall is not the last word, and in the history of redemption and the progress of revelation, the relationship between the sexes is not left frozen by the Curse. In contradiction to all forms of legalistic religion, Jesus creates a scandal by meeting the fallen woman at the well.[221] He shows that temptation is to be dealt with not by the exclusion of the opposite sex, but by a regenerate heart that roots out lust in the mind.[222] Women therefore come into vital participation in the life of the New Testament church, and the relationship of the husband and wife is transformed by the eschatological realization of being heirs together of the grace of life.[223]

The Nature of God and the Victory of Christ

We gladly affirm the gracious fatherhood of God and joyfully celebrate the glorious victory of Christ on behalf of his bride, the Church. But his comfort is also described as being like a mother.[224]

The "good and necessary consequence" of this is shown to us in the Scriptures where parents are called upon to love, nurture, discipline, instruct, train, and provide for their children. Fathers are especially reminded not to exasperate their children, and husbands are called to lay down their lives in love for their wives even as Christ gave his life for the church. Women are encouraged among a list of other virtues, to value marriage and childbearing, and to love their husbands and children.[225] But the celebration in Scripture of the unique calling and blessing of being a wife and mother does not necessarily constitute limitations on the role of women outside of the family and the church.[226]

Similarly, unless specifically stated by Scripture, Biblical analogies are not intended or expected to have either gender-excluding or gender-specific implications. Following references to husbands, wives, children, fathers, slaves, and masters, the Apostle Paul reminds us without distinction that we are all involved in spiritual warfare.[227] But we do not argue from that image that women should be involved in modern military conflict! Elsewhere the Apostle Paul describes our status as "sons of God," but immediately draws the implication that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ."[228] The Scripture in places too numerous to recount, also describes the Lord as an advocate, judge, and physician. But we do not argue from these images and analogies that women should not be lawyers, judges, or physicians.

Positive examples of the role of men and women in the Bible do help to formulate our thinking, and the use of Biblical analogies can indeed inform our understanding of appropriate behavior. Explicit Biblical instruction is of course absolutely binding. But neither the fatherhood of God, the victory of Christ on behalf of his bride, nor the blessings of being fathers and mothers, gets us to a Biblical command that is binding upon the question before us. These are images, metaphors, and analogies related to the redemptive purpose of Scripture, and to teaching on the family and the church. They do not address the question of women in the modern military. Again, these passages are not without resources for wise counsel and sensible decision-making. But they simply do not have a binding force upon the conscience when applied to the questions related to the role of women in the modern military.

Perhaps the more relevant and insightful questions that should be before us would go to the matter of motive. We may indeed be assured that if our desire is to glorify God and be a witness to Christ, he will lead us to discern the appropriate method in the face of every applicable opportunity.


We maintain that Scripture neither forbids nor permits women in modern military conflict. Nor is there Biblical instruction that by way of "good and necessary consequence" would come to us with the thrust of a Scriptural command, "Thus says the Lord." In this matter we must insist that there is therefore freedom of conscience.

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[229]

However, we are careful to repeat that because we believe the Scriptures do not address the question before us, does not mean that we impugn its sufficiency. As the Report earlier indicates,[230] where the Bible does not speak to the question addressed, it must be understood to lie outside of the purpose of Scripture. The Reformed tradition insists that the sufficiency of Scripture "relates only to things necessary to salvation - whether they belong to faith or to practice,"[231] and suggests that, "There needs no other argument ... to prove any truth not to be indispensable necessary unto our faith or obedience than that it is not clearly revealed in the Scripture.[232]

Our forefathers understood that there are often troubling social questions which face us as Christian citizens, but they suggest a different approach.

The problems, which the anomalies of our fallen state are continually forcing on philanthropy, the Church has no right directly to solve. She must leave them to the Providence of God, and to human wisdom sanctified and guided by the spiritual influences which it is her glory to foster and cherish.[233]

What, then, is the Church? It is not, as we fear too many are disposed to regard it, a moral institute of universal good, whose business it is to wage war upon every form of human ill, whether social, civil, political or moral ... We freely grant, and sincerely rejoice in the truth, that the healthful operations of the Church, in its own appropriate sphere, react upon all the interests of man, and contribute to the progress and prosperity of society; but we are far from admitting either that it is the purpose of God ... or, that the proper end of the Church is the direct promotion of universal good. It has no commission to construct society afresh, to adjust its elements in different proportions, to rearrange the distribution of its classes, or to change the forms of its political constitutions.[234]

Yet at the same time godly persons who desire counsel on this matter should not be discouraged. It is true that Scripture is not to be considered a database that has been programmed to give every answer to any question, and always in the form of law, duty or command. But clearly there are Biblical principles that speak to the relationship of men and women in the family and church that can inform our thinking and counsel on the subject.

The Scriptures exhort us, "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."[235] We may be absolutely assured that Christian men and women seeking counsel for their consciences on this matter will find ample help from the Word and the Spirit, and especially so in the company of those who have been called to be the pastors and teachers of God's people.[236]

But we also exhort our members to remember that the fear that the worldly kingdom is collapsing is not one and the same as a high zeal for the kingdom of God. Similarly, asking the Church to address our latest social, political or moral fears is not to be confused with the relevancy of the gospel.

In closing, we wish to affirm the earlier statement and emphasis of this Report, and to make it the final counsel to be offered to the members of our church. As we do so, we wish it to be joined with the great insight of one of the giants of our Faith who was used by God to "turn the world upside down," to the glory of God, the good of the church, and the edification of the world.

Our Lord has given to the courts of the Church the protection and propagation of the Gospel, and the discipline and care of his people. Those who faithfully proclaim the gospel in the power of the Spirit may, in the purposes of God, turn everything upside down. The Gospel proclaimed brings the Kingdom of God to bear upon the world. When our true desire is the glory of God, invariably it is discovered that the Gospel's benefits are of immeasurable worth to human culture and society. The greatest gift the Church can give the world is to be the Church.[237]


For the Word created heaven and earth and all things (Ps.33:6); the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.... I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept (cf. Mark 4:26-29), or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany, indeed, I could have started such a game that even the emperor would not be safe. But what would it have been? Mere fool's play. I did nothing; I let the Word do its work. What do you suppose is Satan's thought when one tries to do the thing by kicking up a row? He sits back in hell and thinks: Oh, what a fine game the poor fools are up to now! But when we spread the Word alone and let it alone do the work, that distresses him. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and when the hearts are captured the work will fall by itself.[238]



/s/ TE Stephen Clark
/s/ TE Charles Morrison
/s/ TE Beryl Hubbard
/s/ TE Ronald Swafford

180 - See Section Xl, 2320.
181 - See Section VIII, 2314-2316.
182 - Section IX, 2318.
183 - WCF 1-9.
184 - Genesis 1:27-28.
185 - John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1998, reprint), 96.
186 - Ephesians 5:23, I Corinthians 11:2-9.
187 - Genesis 2:20.
188 - Judges 4-5, 1 Samuel 25, Luke 8:3, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:2-3.
189 - 1 Corinthians 11:11, Ephesians 5:21.
190 - 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
191 - 1 Corinthians 11:7.
192 - Section VIII, 2314-2316.
193 - Proverbs 30:5-6, Jeremiah 23:31, Revelation 22:18.
194 - Genesis 1:26-27, 2:15, 18.
195 - Genesis 2:15.
196 - Cf. Genesis 4:9, 30:31.
197 - Calvin. Genesis, 125. Cf. Also Genesis 2:5, 3:23, 4:2, 12, etc.
198 - H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1942), 1:126-127.
199 - Genesis 2:18.
200 - Genesis 1:27-28.
201 - Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 67. See also Numbers 3:7-8, 4:23-24, 26, Deuteronomy 4:19 etc.
202 - WCF, 19-4.
203 - See for example, J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner, "Equity" in The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., vol. V, "dvandafollis," (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 358. Milton R. Konvitz, "Equity in Law and Ethics," in Philip P. Wiener, ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Volume II, "Despotism to Law, Common," (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), 148. Dan B. Dobbs, Handbook of the Law of Remedies: Damages, Equity, Restitution (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1973), 24. To which compare, Charles Hodges, The Confession of Faith (Edinburgh; Banner of Truth Trust, 1983, reprint, 1869), 254-256, Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. II (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1994), 167.
204 - For example, Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 194-195. Calvin M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 287-288. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1976), 387-188. Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), 213-214. A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1991), 307. Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, (Broadman and Holman Publishing), 297-298. Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing, 1996), 240-241.
205 - See S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 250. David F. Payne, Deuteronomy, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), 125. Anthony Phillips, Deuteronomy, (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1973), 145. J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1974), 234. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 141.
206 - Thompson, Deuteronomy, 234.
207 - Romer, cited by Mayes, Deuteronomy, 307.
208 - Driver, Deuteronomy, 250-251.
209 - Carmichael, Laws, 147.
210 - Ibid.
211 - Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, (Carlisle, PA.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987, facsimile of 1583 edition), 773.
212 - Joshua 6:20
213 - Cf. Joshua 6:19-26 and Acts 5:1-11.
214 - For example, Romans 16:1-16.
215 - BCO 3-4.

216 - Isaiah 19:16, Jeremiah 50:37, 51:30.
217 - Isaiah 19:16, 23.
218 - 1 Peter 3:7.
219 - Ruth 2:17, John 4:7, Judges 4:21, Joshua 9:53 for example.
220 - See for example, Genesis 3:16, 4:19-24.
221 - John 4:4-30.
222 - Matthew 12:33-34, 15:16-20.
223 - 1 Peter 3:7.
224 - Isaiah 66:13.
225 - For example, Ephesians 6:4, 5:25, 1 Timothy 9:5-14, Titus 2:4-8
226 - For example, Proverbs 31:16, Judges 4-5, Luke 8:3, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:2-3.
227 - Ephesians 5:22-6:17.
228 - Galatians 3:26-29.
229 - WCF 20:2
230 - Section VIII, 16
231 - Turretin, Institutes, 1: 135. Cf. WCF 1-7.
232 - Owen, Works, 4:192-193.
233 - Thornwell, 4:383.
234 - Thornwell, Works, 4:382-383.
235 - James 1:5.
236 - Ephesians 4:11-12.
237 - Section VII, 231. For an excellent treatment of this subject see John Lloyd Vance, "The Cure Of Souls In The 1990s: A Strategy for the Care of Souls through the Ministry of the Church." Presbuterion 20/2 1994, 72-90.
238 - Luther, Works, 51:77-78.

Index of all relevant texts in the 2001 and 2002 PCA Minutes
Women in the Military (WIM) Committee Final Report ---------------------- M30GA, 30-54, p. 282 and 30-57, p. 283
Communications 1, 2 and 6--------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-57, pp. 287 - 289
Consensus Report 2001------------------------------------------------------------- M29GA, 29-57, p. 259 - 278
Final Recommendations 2002------------------------------------------------------ M30GA, 30-57, p. 285
Final Recommendations, 2001------------------------------------------------------ M29GA, 29-57, XI, p. 277 & M30GA, p. 286

"Man's Duty to Protect Woman" [Majority Report, 2001] --------------------

M29GA, 29-57, pp. 278 - 308
Minority Report 2002---------------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-57, p. 287
Minority Report 2001---------------------------------------------------------------- M29GA, 29-57, p. 308 - 320
Overtures 2, 21 and 26--------------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-53, III, 7, p. 245; 30-57, 5, p. 287
Supplemental Report 2002----------------------------------------------------------- M30GA, 30-57, p. 287
"Recommendations for the Wise Counsel of the Church" ------------------- M29GA, 29-57, p. 308 - 320
Motion to Send Report to the President [motion failed] M30GA, 30-60, p. 290


┬ęPCA Historical Center, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO, 2018. All Rights Reserved.