# Excellent Thoughts on the Deaconess Issue...



## Sven

By Rev. Brian Carpenter. Here: The Happy T.R.: Contumacy


----------



## toddpedlar

Sven said:


> By Rev. Brian Carpenter. Here: The Happy T.R.: Contumacy



Thanks for pointing this out! Fantastic analysis of the situation.


----------



## Sven

toddpedlar said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> By Rev. Brian Carpenter. Here: The Happy T.R.: Contumacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out! Fantastic analysis of the situation.
Click to expand...


Yes, in my opinion, Brian nails it right on the head.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

He does raise some third, ninth and fifth commandment issues.


toddpedlar said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> By Rev. Brian Carpenter. Here: The Happy T.R.: Contumacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out! Fantastic analysis of the situation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sven

NaphtaliPress said:


> He does raise some third, ninth and fifth commandment issues.
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> By Rev. Brian Carpenter. Here: The Happy T.R.: Contumacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out! Fantastic analysis of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That he does, but is it surprising that these commandment issues are raised here? I'm not at all surprised. Anytime there is dissent from the rulings of the GA, these same commandment issues often follow suit.


----------



## sastark

It's like I'm reading _Crossed Fingers_ again.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Thanks! That was a good read!


----------



## DonP

Why can't we just have Deaconal Assistants. 

Let this be a position that is not ordained, not an office and they get to be known, exercise gifts, etc. 

Why seek to go against scripture and history?

Acts 6:3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven *men*... NKJV
Did God make a mistake here and forget women? We are more charitable and wiser than God that we correct His oversight of this poor treatment of women?

This is what happens when you start saying parts of the clear NT teachings are cultural and do not apply to us like, women are to be silent in the churches, and women are to have long hair and a covering in church. 

We keep the teachings on how to live in the church prior to these verses and after them but we somehow have concluded these were only for that culture and this scripture has no application to us today. 

Now that my friend is a slippery slope. 
This is not sound hermeneutics it is cultural submission. It is worldly accommodation. It is a departure from hermeneutic. 

God lifestyle for the Jews was out of step with the world and culture too. God made them do archaic and strange things. And they wanted to be like the world too. 


Until we return to total obedience to the scriptures God will allow us to continue to slide further and further. 

Has no one read history or at least the OT???

Make yourselves clean!! Sanctify, put out all of the idols and whatever is false and of the world. 

And if we err lets err on the side of clear scripture. Not liberal worldly and cultural excuses for our interpretations.


----------



## Curt

PeaceMaker said:


> Why can't we just have Deaconal Assistants.
> 
> Let this be a position that is not ordained, not an office and they get to be known, exercise gifts, etc.


Aren't these called "members?"


----------



## Scott1

Curt said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we just have Deaconal Assistants.
> 
> Let this be a position that is not ordained, not an office and they get to be known, exercise gifts, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't these called "members?"
Click to expand...


Actually, unordained members, men and women serve every day without title. Comfort and Care ministry, stephens ministry, new baby welcome committee, meals committee, single moms ministry, refugee ministry, communications ministry, choir, orchestra, music ministry... all these are being used wonderfully without ordination or pretense of church office, every day.


----------



## Edward

Disciplinary actions seem to be the only real option for addressing the problem.


----------



## BJClark

So Gentlemen...when is he going to be called to task and be held to account?

Or is there going to be a committee formed to study the issue further?


----------



## Mushroom

BJClark said:


> So Gentlemen...when is he going to be called to task and be held to account?
> 
> Or is there going to be a committee formed to study the issue further?


----------



## jwithnell

> Originally Posted by PeaceMaker View Post
> Why can't we just have Deaconal Assistants.
> 
> Let this be a position that is not ordained, not an office and they get to be known, exercise gifts, etc.
> Aren't these called "members



My thoughts exactly! I was sitting with a couple of other families talking about this recently when I realized that every single on of us women present were pretty much maxed out on what we could be doing within the congregation. We sure don't need a title to make it official. (I mean maxed out by what we can do time-wise; we certainly aren't limited by what we can do without a title).


----------



## Caroline

I'm not sure if I should raise this question here, or whether it should be in a new thread (still getting used to this forum stuff, so please feel free to correct me if I err).

Although I can see the biblical basis for this position and I am not arguing it, it does seem to me that it raises a problem that I rarely see addressed ... that although women's gifts are utilized in the church, there is not the level of Christian education for women in the church that there is for men.

Generally speaking, the Bible studies are divided up in churches as mens and womens. Well, the men get the pastor, the elders, the deacons ... basically everybody who has any formal theological title or training. The men study Calvin's Institutes, the women study 'How to be a Happy Housewife' or some other nonsense in a lovely pink-covered book with flowers on it.

If you are a woman trying to learn any serious theology, it's maddening.

So, without necessarily disagreeing with the Reformed views on ordaining women (and so also training women for ordination) ... doesn't it raise the secondary problem of essentially preventing women from learning anything?


----------



## TimV

> So, without necessarily disagreeing with the Reformed views on ordaining women ... doesn't it raise the secondary problem of essentially preventing women from learning anything?



Hi Caroline. No, that's not a problem with the OPC, it's a problem with your individual church. I'm OPC as well, and the Bible study is Co-ed, with the Pastor teaching it. It was the same in the last PCA church I attended as well, although in both churches there were groups of men who met together as well as women.

PS I agree with you on the silly pink type books.


----------



## BJClark

Caroline;



> Although I can see the biblical basis for this position and I am not arguing it, it does seem to me that it raises a problem that I rarely see addressed ... that although women's gifts are utilized in the church, there is not the level of Christian education for women in the church that there is for men.
> 
> Generally speaking, the Bible studies are divided up in churches as mens and womens. Well, the men get the pastor, the elders, the deacons ... basically everybody who has any formal theological title or training. The men study Calvin's Institutes, the women study 'How to be a Happy Housewife' or some other nonsense in a lovely pink-covered book with flowers on it.



Can women not go to the other Bible Studies at your church??

We don't have our classes broken down by 'gender' we have them by subject, and we can go to any of them..we are not limited as to which classes we can go to merely because we are women.

Now, we do have women's bible studies that we can go to, but many of them are offered during the week, as an additional study for women to attend..


----------



## Brian Withnell

Sven said:


> By Rev. Brian Carpenter. Here: The Happy T.R.: Contumacy



Having someone so at odds with the ordination vows and so out of step with the confession and staying in a church that orders them not to do so is so at odds with the love of Christ. A person is not acting in love with they design to subvert the conscience of others. These people need to leave the PCA and join the EPC if that is what they read the scriptures as saying. These men are poison in the life of the church. They are violating the vows they have taken, and are destroying the peace and unity of the church.

Just a couple of weeks ago, our pastor offered to help a person that has been attending our church for over a year find a reformed baptist congregation because they are out of accord with our beliefs. The person is not interested in hearing instruction on the issue, and thinks the only possible reason for coming to a different conclusion must be because we have "tradition" in the form of the confession informing our view of the scripture. Because this person is not even willing to accept that we differ based on how we read the scripture, not based on a blind adherence to a confession, it does not make a lot of sense for them to stay at our church given they view us as being stiff necked in this area that we consider not only accurate Biblically, but important scripturally.

Those that are TEs and REs in the church ought to know these things better than I. Yet they insist on their position within a body that has a stated belief and refuse to either submit to it, or if they cannot, leave that body and join another that more closely aligns with their supposed view of the scripture.

I have great respect for my Baptist brothers. I sincerely believe they are wrong in their view of baptism, and if I had no choice in the kind of church to attend, I would attend a LBCF church in a heartbeat rather than a church that has no confession. And if I did, I would make my views known to the session of that church and not bring up my views in the church for the peace of the church. I would also expect that I would never be ordained within that church because I would be out of accord with the stated confession of that church. I would not attempt _*anything *_to subvert that confessional stand. And if an opportunity presented itself to join with a WCF Presbyterian. church, I would graciously leave. (I would actually hope that if the session of that church became aware of a WCF church opening, that they would inform me, and commend me to it).

The hubris of a TE standing in the midst of presbytery and saying that not only would he not do what he knows the church has stated is to be done, and would not submit to gentle discipline would be enough to suspend from office, if not depose. That there were presbyters standing there and not one of them immediately charged the man would be enough in my view for GA to admonish them all.

This is so sad. Was there no elder present that cared for the purity of the church? An entire presbytery full of men too timid to stand up for Christ?


----------



## BJClark

Brian Withnell;




> This is so sad. Was there no elder present that cared for the purity of the church? An entire presbytery full of men too timid to stand up for Christ?



 

I wonder the same thing..


----------



## TimV

I think that most just don't know. In the Northern California Presbytery of the PCA you got ordained just by being enthusiastic. I tried to tell two officers of my old church there just this week that the BCO wasn't being followed on an issue that is humiliating the only qualified Elder at their church, and they just put up their hands and said it was too confusing for them, but there was some sort of commission (consisting of at least one women from outside the church) that would let them know what they decide to do. True, they feel sorry for the guy, but they are totally lost at sea when it comes to even a basic understanding of Presbyterianism.

Many people here assume that since they have the ambition to seek out boards like this and friends like those who post here that everyone else does as well, and it's just not the case.

So, I think that disciplining some of those who DO know what they are doing will get the less intelligent/less concerned types to start getting their acts in gear. After all, most people will follow a strong leader, whether liberal or conservative.


----------



## Caroline

> Can women not go to the other Bible Studies at your church??
> 
> We don't have our classes broken down by 'gender' we have them by subject, and we can go to any of them..we are not limited as to which classes we can go to merely because we are women.
> 
> Now, we do have women's bible studies that we can go to, but many of them are offered during the week, as an additional study for women to attend..



Well, I should probably qualify what I said and say that it is not as though there are NO opportunities for women to learn, but more that there is a severe imbalance. Yes, women can attend the usual church services, of course. But in a church service, you can't raise your hand and say, "Excuse me, but I didn't understand that part about predestination ... Can you explain?"

To some extent there are other opportunities as well ... a brief devotional time before the Wednesday prayer meeting, for example, and also one can always email the pastor to ask questions. 

But when you say there are 'additional Bible studies' for men and women ... consider what those are. In almost every church I have ever attended, it usually goes like this: The men study the book of Romans, the women study 'finding joy in housework', the men study the Shorter Catechism, the women study 'how to deal with anxiety' (doubtless brought on by their inability to find joy in their housework).

Sorry ... it's just very frustrating for me because I have spent the past few years green with envy over the men's Bible study that is going through Calvin's Institutes. It seems to me that if Reformed churches aren't going to ordain women (and so aren't going to give any of them formal theological training), then they need to stop splitting up the Bible studies.

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 11:03:15 EST-----



> Just a couple of weeks ago, our pastor offered to help a person that has been attending our church for over a year find a reformed baptist congregation because they are out of accord with our beliefs. The person is not interested in hearing instruction on the issue, and thinks the only possible reason for coming to a different conclusion must be because we have "tradition" in the form of the confession informing our view of the scripture. Because this person is not even willing to accept that we differ based on how we read the scripture, not based on a blind adherence to a confession, it does not make a lot of sense for them to stay at our church given they view us as being stiff necked in this area that we consider not only accurate Biblically, but important scripturally.



I'm curious ... is this just a regular member? I can understand this being a concern with an elder or something, but to my knowledge, the Book of Church Order does not require members to be in full agreement with the Confession, but merely to have a 'credible profession of faith'.

A year is actually not a very long time. People rarely change their views quickly. If one tosses out all the impurities in the church, how is one supposed to instruct the ignorant and sinful and help them to come to a better understanding?

Or am I not understanding the point? (It wouldn't be the first time). Or perhaps the person in question was causing trouble?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Caroline said:


> I'm not sure if I should raise this question here, or whether it should be in a new thread (still getting used to this forum stuff, so please feel free to correct me if I err).
> 
> Although I can see the biblical basis for this position and I am not arguing it, it does seem to me that it raises a problem that I rarely see addressed ... that although women's gifts are utilized in the church, there is not the level of Christian education for women in the church that there is for men.
> 
> Generally speaking, the Bible studies are divided up in churches as mens and womens. Well, the men get the pastor, the elders, the deacons ... basically everybody who has any formal theological title or training. The men study Calvin's Institutes, the women study 'How to be a Happy Housewife' or some other nonsense in a lovely pink-covered book with flowers on it.
> 
> If you are a woman trying to learn any serious theology, it's maddening.
> 
> So, without necessarily disagreeing with the Reformed views on ordaining women (and so also training women for ordination) ... doesn't it raise the secondary problem of essentially preventing women from learning anything?



There are so many things I appreciate in this post. First, you appear to be very humbly asking ("correct me if I err" is not the statement of a brash person.) I wish I always displayed such humility. Praise God for working in your life so well.

Bible studies are not so divided in my church ... there is a women's study (during the day in the middle of the week) and a men's study (Saturday morning), but these are the exception rather than the rule. Sunday school is not so divided. Small group studies are also not so divided. I'm surprised that a church would divide all their Bible studies in such a manner, though I understand your viewpoint, and my wife used to share that same point of view ... until the women started doing more meaty studies on the weekday morning study. Getting the pastor's wife to lead it, and having my own highly intelligent wife involved has raised the level of study (at least that is what she has told me).

There are a couple of suggestions you might try. You could ask one of the elders for a greater opportunity for in-depth study of the scriptures ... express your desire to them. You could express your desire to the leaders of the womens' studies that you attend (suggest the next book be more in line with what you would want rather than "pink cover with flowers"). It might also be that you are the one that ought to lead a study for women. (If you know the difference, it is probable that you study more rigorously on your own, and that might be a way for you to understand even more ... and bring with you the other women in the church.)

Those are practical considerations though. The real issue is much more salient to the topic. Even if ordaining only men meant that women would have inferior training, if God commanded that only men be ordained, then it does not matter what the consequences ... only men should be ordained. While I do not believe that women do face lesser instruction, I would not be concerned if they did. If God commands something for his children, he does it for their good. When he commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was not because he wanted to be stingy or mean. Whatever God commands he does so out of love for his children. When he commands different things to men and to women, he does so knowing what is best for both men and women. We get into trouble when we start trying to out-reason the creator/king.


----------



## DonP

Caroline said:


> Although I can see the biblical basis for this position and I am not arguing it, it does seem to me that it raises a problem that I rarely see addressed ... that although women's gifts are utilized in the church, there is not the level of Christian education for women in the church that there is for men.
> 
> Generally speaking, the Bible studies are divided up in churches as mens and womens. Well, the men get the pastor, the elders, the deacons ... basically everybody who has any formal theological title or training. The men study Calvin's Institutes, the women study 'How to be a Happy Housewife' or some other nonsense in a lovely pink-covered book with flowers on it.
> 
> If you are a woman trying to learn any serious theology, it's maddening.
> 
> So, without necessarily disagreeing with the Reformed views on ordaining women (and so also training women for ordination) ... doesn't it raise the secondary problem of essentially preventing women from learning anything?



What am I missing here? Here is some sound Doctrine 

Titus 2:5 But as for you, speak the things which are *proper for sound doctrine:* 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the *older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things — 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands,* that the word of God may not be blasphemed. NKJV

So I would not think it becoming a women desiring holiness and theological growth to call these subjects non-sense. 

Wow wouldn't it be great if we actually had this happening more effectively in more churches, rather than assuming it is too beneath us for women to teach younger women to love their husbands and children, assuming they must already know how. 
Apparently they don't, and God says they need this wisdom from from experience passed on.

Having said this, I do think there is no reason a woman can't study other subjects if they have an interest and time after fulfilling their primary duties including, esp. single women, helping other mothers to manage their homes. 
They can certainly read the same books men do, Reformed doctrine of Predestination, or Systematic Theologies, or Calvin's Institutes etc. 

And as mentioned above if there is no co-ed class on subjects you are interested in I would ask and elder to provide one or have a woman who is educated in those areas disciple you, or the elder disciple your husband so he can help you learn those subjects. 

So for women desiring more theological study here is some heavy theological teaching that most never get and if women heeded and taught one another this it would solve most of these problems: 

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And* if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home*; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. NKJV

Note is doesn't offer the opportunity for the women to usurp her husbands headship and ask those with " formal theological title or training" questions anyway.
If the woman is unmarried it should be her father or relative if possible. If not then the elders or pastor in private after the public meetings. 
If the elders don't feel the need is significant to provide for her, she is free to read books, search the internet and learn all the same places serious studious men do. 

If one chooses to throw this out as cultural and too archaic for the modern wiser woman, along with long hair and headcoverings, then there is no reason not to throw out men only in office as equally out of date with culture. 

As for a woman serving as a deacon:

Deaconal work is basically serving anyway. We misuse our Deacons today in my opinion. Acts 6:1there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Acts 6:2 It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables . KJV
They were specified to make sure the widows for sure and maybe other needy in the church were cared for; not to be slaves to the elders to mop floors, care for the grounds, move chairs and be at the ministers beckon call for any tedious task.
This demeans the office. These other duties all of us should be pitching in to do. 

And the Deacon is to oversee that the poor and needy are cared for not necessarily to do it all themselves. It is an overseer position and they can appoint a woman to go do the task as well as other men. 

We all are to be serving others. 

So why do these women feel the need to press to hold an office of Deacon? 

And why would the elders feel the need to allow it? 
As I stated in a previous post if this lay service is inadequate for some reason, to me the only one that comes to mind is ego, but if there is a good reason, then as I mentioned the title Deaconal Assistant can be provided to satisfy this pride issue or some other benefit like having a list of these Assistant so other who might be hesitant to call just any member would have more freedom to contact the Assistants on the list. 

And you can still lay hands on them, our oil on them and pray for them to carry out this work in the power of the Spirit. 

I also think it is wise for the elders or deacons to have a woman with them when they do visits to women alone. 

So though I agree it should be taught that this title is not needed, it certainly would be preferable to ordaining women Deacons. 

Would this Deaconal Assistant not be adequate to satisfy their egos or are they such strong feminists and poor in their theology and study of the Bible they will not be satisfied with out ordination? 

I also agree that a major breakdown we have is the weakness of elders. If there is a desire to start a new work, as soon as they can find two men not living in known public sin they will often ordain them elders just so they can have a church, even if these men are not qualified. 

Then we wonder why we don't have adequate teaching in the churches, ruling or shepherding, counseling etc. And why most are too busy to serve others and meet the needs of the church and its ministries. 

It is still a mission work really and God has not given it elders yet, but in our eagerness and zeal to put a notch on our presbytery belt we rush it. 
then These weak men end up voting in GA for things like, yes lets ordain women deacons so we can shirk our responsibility and have less work to do and lets get these women in authority and out of the home as much as possible. 
Clearly this kind of work would be best suited for older women whose children are raised or for widows who devote their time and work to the church esp when the church is supporting them. 

1 Tim 5:9 Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers,* if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work*. 
11 But refuse the younger widows; NKJV

1 Tim 5:14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, NKJV

This is not a lesser duty, or demeaning duty. It is her primary calling from God and if she does well in this she shall be saved. 

This again is the ministers fault for not teaching it and the elders for disciplining and maintaining this in the true churches of God.


----------



## brianeschen

BJClark said:


> Brian Withnell;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so sad. Was there no elder present that cared for the purity of the church? An entire presbytery full of men too timid to stand up for Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder the same thing..
Click to expand...

Not everyone there remained silent.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Caroline said:


> I'm curious ... is this just a regular member? I can understand this being a concern with an elder or something, but to my knowledge, the Book of Church Order does not require members to be in full agreement with the Confession, but merely to have a 'credible profession of faith'.
> 
> A year is actually not a very long time. People rarely change their views quickly. If one tosses out all the impurities in the church, how is one supposed to instruct the ignorant and sinful and help them to come to a better understanding?
> 
> Or am I not understanding the point? (It wouldn't be the first time). Or perhaps the person in question was causing trouble?



The real issue is that they aren't a member, they aren't interested in membership, and instead of coming with the attitude of "teach me" they come with the attitude of "y'all must not get this from scripture, but just from tradition and the confession". The first and primary issue is that they are without spiritual accountability. They are holding to a position of being without membership (and so unaccountable) for a long period of time. Secondly, they are becoming more and more belligerent in their position. The questions during Sunday School have gone from genuine interest to what I would characterize as looking for "loop holes" in how to ignore what we state.

Confessional churches (at least those that are not overboard on the confession) do not state that the confession prescribes what the Bible says, but rather describes what a particular body believes the scripture states. The officers of that body must vow that they hold to that system of doctrine. The members vow to support the church, and to submit to the authority of the church. It is one thing to take exception to things, it is another to actively promote dissension within the body.


----------



## Scott1

Caroline said:


> I'm not sure if I should raise this question here, or whether it should be in a new thread (still getting used to this forum stuff, so please feel free to correct me if I err).
> 
> Although I can see the biblical basis for this position and I am not arguing it, it does seem to me that it raises a problem that I rarely see addressed ... that although women's gifts are utilized in the church, there is not the level of Christian education for women in the church that there is for men.
> 
> Generally speaking, the Bible studies are divided up in churches as mens and womens. Well, the men get the pastor, the elders, the deacons ... basically everybody who has any formal theological title or training. The men study Calvin's Institutes, the women study 'How to be a Happy Housewife' or some other nonsense in a lovely pink-covered book with flowers on it.
> 
> If you are a woman trying to learn any serious theology, it's maddening.
> 
> So, without necessarily disagreeing with the Reformed views on ordaining women (and so also training women for ordination) ... doesn't it raise the secondary problem of essentially preventing women from learning anything?



It is helpful to separate the discussion of polity (church government, including the office of deacon), and the confessional nature of the church (vows taken) from the broad question you ask, and the specific circumstance you describe.

In other words, adopting an unbiblical polity and going against the confession in church polity would not be a way to bring about your desire for deeper theological teaching. Contrary, it would harm the peace and purity needed for that.

And I'm not sure the context of your experience right now in your church.

Most classes I have seen are open to both men and women, including classes on Mr. Calvin's Institutes, catechism classes, etc. I led a Sunday School DVD series, "What is Reformed Theology?" by Dr Sproul and it was about 50/50 men and women. Good questions and participation by all.

There is often at least one women's class and my wife has from time-to-time struggled with the content and maturity level. Usually, she solves that by either attending with an eye toward active participation (to challenge the maturity level) or going to another class. In her estimation, some of the classes have been good, others have lost focus and been petty or shallow.

She would tell you she has grown a lot theologically by our conversations and study at home. This is very biblical (e.g. we read and study together, challenge each other, etc.). 


> 1 Corinthians 14:35
> 
> 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.



(please understand I'm citing this as an example of the principle that it is possible and wise to learn at home also, encourage that... there is more to this verse context but that is not the topic here)

Also, from apologetics forums like this.

So you have several challenges, biblically- and none of them allow you to be passive, not for any reason:

1) challenge the maturity level of the 'womens' only class
2) involve yourself in deeper study at home, including ask your husband
3) encourage your husband to lead family worship
4) seek out tools for growth on-line, church library, self study
5) if you are speaking about a lack of good teaching generally amongst your Sunday school offerings, talk with your husband and speak up to your education committee or elders as the case may be


----------



## BJClark

Caroline;



> But when you say there are 'additional Bible studies' for men and women ... consider what those are. In almost every church I have ever attended, it usually goes like this: The men study the book of Romans, the women study 'finding joy in housework', the men study the Shorter Catechism, the women study 'how to deal with anxiety' (doubtless brought on by their inability to find joy in their housework).



Our Sunday school classes which both men and women can attend include things like "Testing of Your Faith", "Prayer Life", "The Contemporary Prophets: Isaiah, Obed, and Micah, "Peacemaker for Families", "Epistles of John", and "Ecclesiastes"; 

The only one that even sounds remotely like your talking about is "Having a Mary Heart in a Martha World" which is 'women only' but all the rest of them are open to both men and women.

Have you asked about going to one of the other classes that are offered?




> Sorry ... it's just very frustrating for me because I have spent the past few years green with envy over the men's Bible study that is going through Calvin's Institutes. It seems to me that if Reformed churches aren't going to ordain women (and so aren't going to give any of them formal theological training), then they need to stop splitting up the Bible studies.



I'm sorry your going through this, but I honestly don't think it's about not ordaining women, but probably more, women haven't spoken up and said "hey we would like to study those things too." 

Might I suggest you e-mail your pastor and ask him if women can attend that study as well, or if it is ONLY open to men, and if he says it is only for men, then ask "WHY" and let him know you would like to study those things too..
but I think you'd be surprised that some women..really aren't all that interested in reading Calvin's Institutes, but mostly because they have never been exposed to them.

Or ask if the other class is only for men, then could you teach it as a Woman's Bible Study and see what he says..


----------



## Caroline

Thanks! I appreciate the responses. I think I should be clear that my concern about the level of women's Bible studies was just a general observation/frustration. I wasn't looking to trash my church, which has gone to some lengths to attempt to assist with my desire to learn (providing cassette tapes of Bible teaching, etc), although it is rather cumbersome because of the whole Women's Bible Study thing. 

Some suggestions made here were good in regard to my particular situation, but, as always, of course, things are more complex than they first appear. There are issues with my husband and I both being quite new to the Reformed faith (husbands can only teach as much as they know), and my husband just generally is not as interested. He began by going to church just because I wanted him to go, but now he is attending more on his own, which is good. But you can't force these things, y'know. In time, perhaps.

The downside is that time is something I may be short on. I am quite ill. I'm sure that studies on housework and so on may be good in their own way, but I guess knowing something about God is very important to me at the moment. Calvin talks about God in a way that I almost think I understand, and He sounds wonderful. But I hope I'm not getting it wrong again, because I used to be United Pentecostal, y'know, so I don't have a lot of confidence in myself to understand things on my own about God, because I can be really, REALLY wrong.

A few weeks ago, my pastor did give me some tapes that explain about Calvin's Institutes, and that has helped a lot. 

In regard to the other topic:



> It is one thing to take exception to things, it is another to actively promote dissension within the body.



This I wholeheartedly agree on. I guess I always hope for patience, because I'm glad that people were patient with me. I'm not a fast learner, and if, after a year, my church leaders had said, "Sorry, Caroline, but out you go, because you haven't come to a place of agreeing with us on everything", I would have been destroyed. I would not have gone to another church. I would have just figured God didn't want me and stopped going at all.

But every situation is different. If someone is just stirring up trouble all the time and starting things ... well, maybe they really ARE in the wrong place.


----------



## Brian Withnell

brianeschen said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so sad. Was there no elder present that cared for the purity of the church? An entire presbytery full of men too timid to stand up for Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder the same thing..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone there remained silent.
Click to expand...


It is good that not everyone remained silent, but that would be almost worse. If someone pointed out this as the sin it was, and the presbytery took no action, then it speaks volumes to the sense of the presbytery that they either have no stomach for discipline, and thus lack the marks of the true church, or they were in agreement with the TE that was so in error. I don't know what is worse. May God help us in getting the leaders of those that are so out of step with the Word back to what Jesus commanded.

I have been praying that God would call his church to repentance ... that those that are called by his name would humble themselves before him. I hope for our posterity's sake that we are not so far gone that the ax is already at the root. This also drives me to my knees. It is a matter for prayer.


----------



## DonP

Caroline said:


> Thanks!
> Some suggestions made here were good in regard to my particular situation, but, as always, of course, things are more complex than they first appear. There are issues with my husband and I both being quite new to the Reformed faith (husbands can only teach as much as they know), and my husband just generally is not as interested. He began by going to church just because I wanted him to go, but now he is attending more on his own, which is good. But you can't force these things, y'know. In time, perhaps.
> 
> The downside is that time is something I may be short on. I am quite ill. I'm sure that studies on housework and so on may be good in their own way, but I guess knowing something about God is very important to me at the moment. Calvin talks about God in a way that I almost think I understand, and He sounds wonderful. But I hope I'm not getting it wrong again, because I used to be United Pentecostal, y'know, so I don't have a lot of confidence in myself to understand things on my own about God, because I can be really, REALLY wrong.
> 
> A few weeks ago, my pastor did give me some tapes that explain about Calvin's Institutes, and that has helped a lot.
> 
> I guess I always hope for patience, because I'm glad that people were patient with me. I'm not a fast learner, and if, after a year, my church leaders had said, "Sorry, Caroline, but out you go, because you haven't come to a place of agreeing with us on everything", I would have been destroyed. I would not have gone to another church. I would have just figured God didn't want me and stopped going at all.



Wow, how cool. That is great to hear your story. Praise God. 

I would agree that you do listen to tapes, and read books or listen to audio books, you can get some online at sermonaudio.com as well as good sermons there to listen to. 

I would suggest Joel Beeke. Look through his titles and I think you would find some valuable messages right to what you would most benefit from practical experiential applicatory teaching that is theologically sound. 
I also think you would benefit from Archie Alison, and L Bilkes and there are many other good men. And search for the old dead guys and you will find audio books of J Edwards, Ryle, and so many others. 

This would be the fastest way to get more education that even a good weekly study at church.


----------



## tgoerz

To get this thread back on point....although the women's education aspect is excellant.

What this deaconess issue has become is an issue of willful and blatant resistance to authority....authority of the BCO as a constitution and the authority of scripture.

For churches to willfully refuse to ordain deacons and to instead "commission" is tantamount to idolatry. It is flat out compromising. 

As Carpenter has succinctly put it, this is all about Feminism and the Egalitarian movement. This is about dumbing down to secularism. As he points out, it's not by accident that this movement is taking place in the cultural and political hotbeds of this nation. 

Feminism is all about equality and removing the "glass ceiling" for the ultimate advancement of women. That is why they have "obliterated" the distinction between male and female deacons. This is not about under-utilizing gifts of women it is about usurpation of authority and willful disobedience. It is bowing before the alter of secular humanism.

This is undermining a key "philosophical underpinning" of the Reformed faith. This is the start of incrementalism to liberalism.

As Carpenter so correctly states, "THE PCA WILL GO THE WAY OF LIBERAL MAINLINE. It will take awhile. The presenting issues will be different, but the dynamics will be the same. We are already well on the way when a minister stands up and says he is not going to obey the constitution, AND NOBODY DOES ANYTHING."

If we don't draw the line here, PCA will go the way of PCUSA.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Those are practical considerations though. The real issue is much more salient to the topic. Even if ordaining only men meant that women would have inferior training, if God commanded that only men be ordained, then it does not matter what the consequences ... only men should be ordained. *While I do not believe that women do face lesser instruction, I would not be concerned if they did.* If God commands something for his children, he does it for their good. When he commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was not because he wanted to be stingy or mean. Whatever God commands he does so out of love for his children. When he commands different things to men and to women, he does so knowing what is best for both men and women. We get into trouble when we start trying to out-reason the creator/king



Am I to understand you correctly in saying that it wouldn't bother you if women received less instruction than the men? If that is the case, this bothers me deeply. While women should not be ordained (that to me is not even up for discussion), they should be as well-versed in the Scriptures as the men. I know many women who know as much Scripture as their scholarly husbands, and what I see is men who are challenged to dig into the Scriptures more deeply because of the influence of their wives.


----------



## PresbyDane

Thanks for posting this


----------



## tgoerz

This thread is totally confusing per the hijacking from the original topic.

Can someone take the womens education to its own thread?


----------



## Sven

tgoerz said:


> This thread is totally confusing per the hijacking from the original topic.
> 
> Can someone take the womens education to its own thread?



There are several threads that do discuss the deaconess topic, however, I think mainly the discussion is somewhat hovering around the article I posted to.


----------



## tgoerz

Steven...and an outstanding article it is.

That's why I'd like a moderator to sort out the other topic from yours, so as to cut down on the confusion.


----------

