Reformed Presbyterian Minutes of Synod 1993

64 1993 MINUTES OF THE SYNOD OF THEindividual studies included in the Compendium as though that quote werepart and parcel of the committee's opinion.SYNOD HAS APPROVED THE REPORTAccording to the speaker's opening remarks, she has been under theimpression that Synod only "received" the Report and submitted it to thechurch for study. The tacit implication, therefore, suggests that Synod didnot really take official action on the questions involved, but only heard thecommittee's opinion and left them open for study. ActuaUy, according tothe Minutes of Synod, "The report as a whole was approved and is asfollow..." (Minutes of Synod, page 123.) So it should be understood thatwhile the "Compendium of Study Materials" was received and recommendedfor study, the Report itself was approved. In short, Synod agreedwith the Report and made it its own. The Synod, therefore, as a court hasrendered its judgment. The Synod is not undecided. It should not besuggested the question is moot as far as the church is concerned thatbecause "there are many opinions out there" the Synod therefore has nocorporate opinion. Let that misconception be cleared up. Synod hasapproved the committee's Report.SYNOD HAS GIVEN ITS JUDGMENTNow, in essence, what was Synod's judgment? According to the Reportapproved by the Synod, "The committee has found no Scriptural wanantfor recommending a change in the church's cunent standards, but doesnote some ambiguities at places in the present Directory's wording." So,the church's standards are the firmopinion of the Synod, albeit at times itmight require a church court to render a judgment on some questionregarding ambiguity. (Only a church court may ultimately clarify anambiguity within the church's standards, not an open fomm.)The Report again says, "This committee is convinced that the leadershipof the husband in the home must be exercised in utter submission tothe will of Christ. . . ," which makes clear the matter of the husband'sresponsibiUty as "leader in the home" cannot be, in the committee'sopinion, one of those ambiguities. The distinction in roles betweenhusband and wife expresses itself again when the committee said, "Althoughthe committee has found Scriptural basis for role distinctionsbetween men and women in family and church, we have found no clearexegetical grounds for extending these to society in general." Consequently,it is difficult to understand how the tme meaning of "headship"in the church standards could be unsure. During the discussion followingthe speaker's presentation, Faith Martin stated that the term "headship" isundefined, implying that the church's understanding of this term is