# Redeemer NYC: Officer Nominations --> Deaconesses!!!



## Romans922

The following is a public email sent to every Redeemer NYC member from Tim Keller (I will comment on said email):




> From: Tim Keller [mailto: [email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 ____ PM
> To: (Redeemer's members)
> Subject: November is Officer Nomination Month
> 
> November 2, 2009
> 
> Dear Redeemer Member:
> As you probably know, November is Redeemer’s officer nomination month. Once a year members have the privilege and opportunity to recommend other members for the offices of elder, deacon and deaconess.



So what is being said here is that Redeemer believes that there is an OFFICE of deaconess. Note please that all offices in the Confession and BCO and Scripturally are *ordained *'positions'.




> As we enter an exciting chapter in our ministry in NYC through the RENEW Campaign, there are more opportunities to serve than ever before. Identifying new leaders within our congregation has always been a priority at Redeemer, and we need your help to find members who have the right gifts and experience to serve on the Session and the Diaconate.



So not only are deaconesses described as leaders in the church in this paragraph, but also that deaconesses are on the Diaconate. 





> There are 49 men and women currently serving on the Diaconate and 20 men serving on the Session as ruling elders. These men and women have been elected by the congregation and have gone through theological and practical training to master the skills and the information necessary for these positions.



Again, women being described as being part of the Diaconate. Interesting that the Diaconate is placed prior to the Session...? 





> Elders are men who serve on the Session and provide spiritual and administrative leadership to the congregation through oversight of Redeemer ministries, leaders, and members. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.
> 
> 
> 
> The primary work of the Diaconate is practical deeds of mercy. Deacons and deaconesses (deeks) [_sic_] minister to those in our church family who find themselves in distress, crisis or emergency situations caused by illness, job loss, long-term unemployment, or other immediate physical, material, spiritual or emotional needs. Deeks also assist elders with membership interviews, and deaconesses provide input and support to elders working on complicated shepherding situations. Acts 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13.



So women who are on the diaconate as deaconesses have to fulfill these Scriptural commands that are set for deacons? Interesting...




> Your faithful giving to the Mercy Fund over the years enables the Diaconate to care for our congregants during this economic recession. In addition to nominating deek candidates, you can help this ministry by encouraging congregants facing hardship to call the Diaconate Helpline – 212-726-1334.
> 
> 
> Accepted nominees will begin training in January of 2010. We are looking for men and women who are members of Redeemer and willing to co-labor with us in these ministries. Please read the description and qualifications of the offices of elder, deacon and deaconess on this pdf or online.
> 
> 
> Please prayerfully consider your elder, deacon and deaconess nominations and place a nomination form, with your signature, in the offering basket at any service during the month of November or mail/fax to:
> Redeemer Presbyterian Church
> Jenny Chang, Diaconate Director
> 1359 Broadway, 4th floor
> New York, NY 10018
> Fax 646-572-0020
> You may also submit a nomination online.
> May God give you discernment as you consider those who may be qualified to serve in these vital roles.
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Dr. Timothy J. Keller
> Senior Pastor



This is again very interesting, a woman as the head of the Diaconate (Deacons and Deaconesses).


----------



## jason d

Yes, Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan gave their cases for this in August of 2008 (regarding the PCA policy).

Tim Keller was on the side arguing FOR deaconesses. You can read his case for it and Ligon Duncan's case for keeping it as is in the "By Faith Magazine" (a PCA Magazine) links below:




The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons by Ligon Duncan




The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses by Tim Keller

After those articles were written they debated it at the 2009 PCA General Assembly in June:

Keller vs. Duncan Debate: Women Diaconate MP3

It is a good debate and both Keller & Duncan were very gracious and firm on their stance.


----------



## Scott1

Jason,

You may find helpful one of the recent threads on this topic.

There is a lot of background that may be helpful in understanding this.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/office-deacon-time-reformation-49835/

It's not a mere case of some people being "for" and some "against" 'deaconess'.

The issue for us in the PCA is that our doctrine, our polity, our vows and our Book of Church Order do not have the system the esteemed Pastor from New York is advocating and practicing at his church.

It has become clear that there is a willful violation of our constitution (PCA), vows and polity going on while there is this "debate."

It has come to the point that complaints have been filed and process is underway as we speak.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/complaint-filed-against-pca-metro-ny-presbytery-deaconesses-47488/

(The complaints detail practices that violate our constitution and the vows officers take before God that they receive and will uphold)

It might be helpful to understand it this way. If someone is arrested for going 100mph in a 65mph speed zone, the one charged with speeding would not call for a study committee on the nature of and compliance with speed limits. The issue would be only whether he was, in fact speeding, and then the sentence.

Here, we have a local church practice (in a confessional church) that:
1) has created an office that does not exist in our polity (this is a usurpation of power), 
2) refused to lay hands in ordination on deacons (men) duly called by God to serve, 
3) represented in the recent past that the office of deacon is only a synonym for "servant" (but is now switching on that),
4) changing the wording of vows in the Book of Church Order to accommodate their invention

and many other violations.

In effect, they have eliminated the I Timothy 3 authoritative office of deacon (men only) and substituted "commissioning" a group of mostly women to do the same or a similar function while denying, apparently up until the email posted in this thread, that 'deaconess' was an office.

This is denying men their right to ordination, as reflection of their call, and the congregation of their governance. It is a violation of the vows of elders who receive the polity of their denomination, which reflects its confessed understanding of Scripture.

PCA derives from scripture its understanding of the governance of the particular church:

Governance by I Timothy 3 and Titus I elders and deacons, with unordained men and women assisting them, and under their oversight.

Specifically, the men who are called, examined, and confirmed by each congregation as deacon:

1) oversee property stewardship
2) oversee mercy ministry
3) develop a "spirit of liberality" in the congregation

Unordained men and women assist them, without usurping title or oversight, and without the high process of qualification required for the men whom God appoints to govern in this way through His office of Deacon.

That's why this is so serious. We need to pray, in fear and trembling, for repentance, for the peace and purity of Christ's church, and fidelity to holy vows made before a holy God.


----------



## Montanablue

This email just seems like a reflection of Redeemer's diaconate policy - which we're all familiar with having talked about it...often. It doesn't seem like there's been any change.


----------



## toddpedlar

Andrew, you really shouldn't be at all surprised by this (if you are, even a bit). Nothing in this letter indicates that anything has changed about the way Redeemer deals with deaconnesses. They are fully equivalent to the male deacons, and Keller is simply doing what he has been doing. They believe that they are in line with the BCO because of they technicalities of how they "commission" their "deeks" (interesting that ultimately they must give the same name to each because of the tiresome nature of saying 'deacons and deaconnesses' - he seems not to want to just call the women 'deacons' even thought that is exactly what they are at Redeemer). Those who can see it see that the emporer has no clothing... however, I'm sure nothing will come of this or any other church who puts women into the role that is reserved for men according to Scripture.


----------



## Zenas

It appears Keller is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, i.e. it's an office, for which there is no other process but ordination for, but they don't ordain them.


----------



## re4med

This is very disturbing, but as I am hearing, it has been a long-time problem. I really do not get it and I really do not get how a man (Keller) can actually live with himself. That session ought to be ashamed of their behavior.


----------



## TimV

The joke is as much the PCA as Keller. Specifically the PCA is a joke for ignoring being publically mocked from within.


----------



## Romans922

I am not surprised by any of this. The whole thing just seems to be contradictory to Scripture and the Standards. As well as their term 'deeks', shows a lack of reverence for the office that the Lord Himself created, as well as the Word of God.


----------



## Scott1

The significant point of the post here is that now, they are calling 'deaconess' an office, officially, after having denied that it was, that they were treating it as such.

Before, the public argumentation was either:

1) deacon is not an office (because it is merely a "servant" or "helper")
or
2) deacon is an office but
deaconess is not

Now, they are saying, officially, deaconess is an office.


----------



## Scott1

jason d said:


> Yes, Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan gave their cases for this in August of 2008 (regarding the PCA policy).
> 
> Tim Keller was on the side arguing FOR deaconesses. You can read his case for it and Ligon Duncan's case for keeping it as is in the "By Faith Magazine" (a PCA Magazine) links below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons by Ligon Duncan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses by Tim Keller
> 
> After those articles were written they debated it at the 2009 PCA General Assembly in June:
> 
> Keller vs. Duncan Debate: Women Diaconate MP3
> 
> It is a good debate and both Keller & Duncan were very gracious and firm on their stance.



Think about the way this is presented here for a moment.

If the current "policy" (setting aside the fact the constitution is more than policy) is not commissioning 'deaconess' as the titling here assumes,

how is it the church is justified in violating the "policy"?

In the debate, it's set up almost as if we are both following this policy, but we are asking you to consider a change in our policy.

Rather, it is we are violating the "policy" right now, and although we claimed in the debate deaconess is not an office, in our emails to church members we ARE claiming it is an office.

The issues here go beyond what is being presented publically and involve the particular behavior... and the vows.

We know God does not take vows lightly. My prayer is that will be realized by all involved- for the peace and purity of His church.


----------



## TimV

But look at the mentality he's creating! Good, educated people who say "It's true that our church constitution says deacons have to be ordained, but it also says if it's impossible to ordain deacons, the elders have to do the job of deacons. The word "impossible" was inserted for the benefit of people like us. It would be impossible for us to follow the constitution since it would make some people feel bad, therefore we don't have to follow the constitution".

You see that argument in the same form elsewhere from people Keller's influenced. "The divines didn't say one day out of seven in a normal week has 24 hours. And they COULD have. Therefore it is perfectly confessional to say a day in Genesis doesn't mean a day".

No one cares if the ARP allows deaconesses. Not really. It's the trickiness; the sly, cynical twisting of the constitution that bothers people. One thing about the OPC. They would have sorted this out long ago. 

There's no reason to re-hash all the old arguments we've been through here on this subject. I would like though, one more time, to point out to those who HAVEN'T been on the receiving end of a Session that's hiding behind Keller's rebellion that you have no idea how far this attitude has taken churches WAY further than female deacons.


----------



## jwithnell

What's really sad is what's _behind_ the issue of "deaconess." It's the question, "Did God really say _________?" Are we really not suppose to eat from that tree? Are deacons really suppose to be the husband of one wife?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.


----------



## he beholds

Montanablue said:


> This email just seems like a reflection of Redeemer's diaconate policy - which we're all familiar with having talked about it...often. It doesn't seem like there's been any change.



But I expected there to be a change, after the GA. I don't know why I expected this. I just assumed that since it was determined that it was against the BCO, that Redeemer would change its position or leave the PCA. 



jwithnell said:


> What's really sad is what's _behind_ the issue of "deaconess." It's the question, "Did God really say _________?" Are we really not suppose to eat from that tree? Are deacons really suppose to be the husband of one wife?



I disagree. I think there is a case to be made for women deaconesses. I personally am not buying it, but we can't deny that it can be made. For example, the RPCNA is a very conservative, Reformed, godly denomination, and they have ORDAINED women deaconesses. I don't see their position as being "Did God really say _________?" Though I am sure that they could indeed be wrong about things. (I think they are wrong about hymns being false worship, for instance.)

What I think is wrong about Redeemer is their "Did the BCO really say _________?"


----------



## N. Eshelman

he beholds said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> This email just seems like a reflection of Redeemer's diaconate policy - which we're all familiar with having talked about it...often. It doesn't seem like there's been any change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I expected there to be a change, after the GA. I don't know why I expected this. I just assumed that since it was determined that it was against the BCO, that Redeemer would change its position or leave the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's really sad is what's _behind_ the issue of "deaconess." It's the question, "Did God really say _________?" Are we really not suppose to eat from that tree? Are deacons really suppose to be the husband of one wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think there is a case to be made for women deaconesses. I personally am not buying it, but we can't deny that it can be made. For example, the RPCNA is a very conservative, Reformed, godly denomination, and they have ORDAINED women deaconesses. I don't see their position as being "Did God really say _________?" Though I am sure that they could indeed be wrong about things. (I think they are wrong about hymns being false worship, for instance.)
> 
> What I think is wrong about Redeemer is their "Did the BCO really say _________?"
Click to expand...


Both the ARP and the RPCNA have had women deacons for well over 100 years. 

I also disagree with the practice, but I have had to study the issue before being ordained in the RP Church- and although I disagree- the case for women deacons is an exegetical one- not a 'did God say' one. Those who uphold the position do so because they believe THAT IT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Just as a historical note the ARP has only had deaconesses since 1968.


----------



## TimV

> Those who uphold the position do so because they believe THAT IT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.



Which is totally irrelevant to the point. One purpose of any constitution is to protect people from having to re-invent the wheel every time something comes up. The traffic cop isn't given discretion to ignore posted speed limits, whether or not those speed limits are proper. The speed limit has to be changed by duly constituted authority before he can write a speeding ticket for someone going 25 in a 30 MPH stretch of road.


----------



## N. Eshelman

TimV said:


> Those who uphold the position do so because they believe THAT IT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is totally irrelevant to the point. One purpose of any constitution is to protect people from having to re-invent the wheel every time something comes up. The traffic cop isn't given discretion to ignore posted speed limits, whether or not those speed limits are proper. The speed limit has to be changed by duly constituted authority before he can write a speeding ticket for someone going 25 in a 30 MPH stretch of road.
Click to expand...


Tim, I mean in the RPCNA- the people who uphold the denomination's position do so because they believe that this what the Bible teaches. 

Ben, right. I forgot that. The RPCNA is 1888.


----------



## Nathan Riese

Okay, so many PCA people keep saying "why won't the PCA order discipline!?"

Is there something ordinary PCA people can do to let the PCA authorities know that discipline is necessary?

Or, as I can only imagine, that's already taken place and nothing happened then either?


----------



## LeeJUk

Don't understand why so many people are throwing stones at this man over the last few days and especially on such a secondary and non-essential issue.

People need to keep in mind that our interpretations of scripture are fallible, instead of defending them as if it's the doctrine of the trinity. 

Theres more interpretations than just ours you know, and credible evidence for both from the scriptures.


----------



## Grillsy

I'll echo the question asked before. How can someone who so blatantly and publicly goes against the PCA's standards not have been disciplined by now?

I have a feeling the OPC would have sorted this out long ago if confronted with the same issue.


----------



## LeeJUk

Grillsy said:


> I'll echo the question asked before. How can someone who so blatantly and publicly goes against the PCA's standards not have been disciplined by now?
> 
> I have a feeling the OPC would have sorted this out long ago if confronted with the same issue.




1) the scriptures teach we are to have unity over secondary issues
2) No one side has monopoly on biblical interpreation.
3) So you want to get this man or his church disciplined over a secondary issue, even when such a great work has been done and is continuing to be done in the gospel and building up of saints in that church? 

It's at this point I get really angry, because you take one small bit of doctrine YOU don't agree with and you completely disregard all the great points about this man's ministry and doctrine and alll the fruit and you instead exalt this one thing, as if he's now a damnable heretic or someone to be kept at arms length.

I say with all reverence, God help us all, if we put as much effort into sharing the gospel or battling real heretics as we do our brothers in Christ over small points like this, then the church of Jesus Christ would be in a lot better shape.


----------



## Grillsy

LeeJUk said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll echo the question asked before. How can someone who so blatantly and publicly goes against the PCA's standards not have been disciplined by now?
> 
> I have a feeling the OPC would have sorted this out long ago if confronted with the same issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) the scriptures teach we are to have unity over secondary issues
> 2) No one side has monopoly on biblical interpreation.
> 3) So you want to get this man or his church disciplined over a secondary issue, even when such a great work has been done and is continuing to be done in the gospel and building up of saints in that church?
> 
> It's at this point I get really angry, because you take one small bit of doctrine YOU don't agree with and you completely disregard all the great points about this man's ministry and doctrine and alll the fruit and you instead exalt this one thing, as if he's now a damnable heretic or someone to be kept at arms length.
> 
> I say with all reverence, God help us all, if we put as much effort into sharing the gospel or battling real heretics as we do our brothers in Christ over small points like this, then the church of Jesus Christ would be in a lot better shape.
Click to expand...


This is man is openly disobeying the position (i.e. confession and BCO) of his denomination. Ministers are not permitted to teach contrary to what they have sworn to teach. This is more than an issue about deaconesses it is also an issue of rebellion.


----------



## LeeJUk

So What if he's disobeying the official position of a denomination, your right its an issue of rebellion, Tim Keller doesnt want to rebel against God's word and so that means he must rebel against the denomination because obviously for him, he believes God says that it's OK. Sure I value the westminster confession of faith, but if my interpretation of scripture differs from it on a point, then I've got 2 options either 

1) Please the denomination
2) Go with what I think God says in his word

So if we claim to be going on scripture alone, should the man say...well I dont care what I think God's word teaches, I'll just be comfortable and conform to the "official" position.

Are we Roman Catholics now?


----------



## Prufrock

Lee, I think we all certainly appreciate your concern for charitable dealings concerning the non-fundamentals of the faith. It should be noted, however, that this deaconesses issue is not one of "disagreeing over doctrine." It's a matter of public practice and honesty in following the practices of the PCA's BCO. In accordance with the Book of Order, there is (unless it is *impossible* to do so) to be an ordained diaconate in the church, which naturally consists only of men: Redeemer has gone around this, and does not have an ordained diaconate, but an "unordained diaconate" so that it can include both men and women; all the while, saying that they are in accord with the BCO. This has caused strife and contention, and the proper thing would be to submit and bring practice into accord with the church.

So, this is not a matter of what people believe; it is a matter of public order. No one is saying Mr. Keller must *believe* anything about women deacons one way or the other; but ecclesiastically, the church needs to be walk in accordance with the BCO for the sake of peace and unity and honesty.


----------



## Zenas

Lee has a point in that people take their case too far: I don't think anyone can call Keller a damned heretic.

However, you can't dismiss the blatant fact he is disobeying the position of the denomination he is ordained in. That's an actionable offense, so far as my intuition tells me without a knowledge of the PCA BCO. He is in open defiance and he seems to be using backdoor methods and ad hoc definitions to effectuate his purposes and subvert the positions of the PCA. He should either amend his stance and teachings, or avail himself of another denomination that is amenable to that teaching.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water though, he is a useful teacher in other areas.


----------



## Prufrock

LeeJUk said:


> So if we claim to be going on scripture alone, should the man say...well I dont care what I think God's word teaches, I'll just be comfortable and conform to the "official" position.
> 
> Are we Roman Catholics now?



Again, no. That's not the issue here. No one is saying what Mr. Keller or the other elders of the church must believe; nor would (or even *could*) ordaining deacons (and not deaconesses) go against conscience or force him to do something he thinks is unBiblical.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

LeeJUk said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll echo the question asked before. How can someone who so blatantly and publicly goes against the PCA's standards not have been disciplined by now?
> 
> I have a feeling the OPC would have sorted this out long ago if confronted with the same issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) the scriptures teach we are to have unity over secondary issues
> 2) No one side has monopoly on biblical interpreation.
> 3) So you want to get this man or his church disciplined over a secondary issue, even when such a great work has been done and is continuing to be done in the gospel and building up of saints in that church?
> 
> It's at this point I get really angry, because you take one small bit of doctrine YOU don't agree with and you completely disregard all the great points about this man's ministry and doctrine and alll the fruit and you instead exalt this one thing, as if he's now a damnable heretic or someone to be kept at arms length.
> 
> I say with all reverence, God help us all, if we put as much effort into sharing the gospel or battling real heretics as we do our brothers in Christ over small points like this, then the church of Jesus Christ would be in a lot better shape.
Click to expand...


Lee,

Some consider ordination to be a primary matter and not a secondary issue. This man is trying to turn his congregation against the said standards of belief in this denomination concerning ordination. That is not necessarily a secondary issue. In doing this his congregation is acting outside of the set boundaries of order and policies of ordination in this denomination. Some fear that this might be a small stepping stone to get to where other confessional churches have ended up. For example look at the PCUSA. They ordained Senior Women Pastors now. 

If Pastor Keller has issues with the denominations BCO then maybe he ought to consider moving his ordination to one that ordains women deacons. That would be best for unity sake in my opinion. He is not promoting unity in my opinion which is something I do believe he took a vow to perform.


----------



## Grillsy

Prufrock said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we claim to be going on scripture alone, should the man say...well I dont care what I think God's word teaches, I'll just be comfortable and conform to the "official" position.
> 
> Are we Roman Catholics now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no. That's not the issue here. No one is saying what Mr. Keller or the other elders of the church must believe; nor would (or even *could*) ordaining deacons (and not deaconesses) go against conscience or force him to do something he thinks is unBiblical.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the backup Paul and Martin. You've said it better than I attempted to before.

I resent LeeJUk's accusations that I have somewhere called Keller a heretic (which I have not) and yet I am now pseudo-labled a Roman Catholic. Not very consistent.


----------



## LeeJUk

Sorry Grillsy for the way that read,

I was not accusing you of calling him a heretic and I said Are we Roman Catholics, not YOU because it seems that a lot of people here are saying he must conform to the Denomination or the BCO.

Well thats fine seems that everyone wants the denomination to be happy and everyone to be nice and uniform. In my opinion whats happening here is that tradition has become more important than scripture and I'm not gonna win any hearts and minds of the PCA so I'll leave it, pointless to go on.


----------



## carlgobelman

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with the PCA BCO), but this seems like a false dilemma to me:



> 1) Please the denomination
> 2) Go with what I think God says in his word



Aren't there procedures to amend the BCO through the GA or committees, etc.?

If Pastor Keller feels that strongly about women deacons, then it would make sense to pursue the proper, PCA recognized, channels to amend the offending practice. Just perusing the PCA BCO, it seems like they amend it on an almost annual basis.


----------



## Curt

It is not only the PCA which has such issues. They do, however, have a tendency to overlook the "faults" of their stars. Consider St. Andrews Chapel re: the Second Commandment.


----------



## Prufrock

LeeJUk said:


> Sorry Grillsy for the way that read,
> 
> I was not accusing you of calling him a heretic and I said Are we Roman Catholics, not YOU because it seems that a lot of people here are saying he must conform to the Denomination or the BCO.
> 
> Well thats fine seems that everyone wants the denomination to be happy and everyone to be nice and uniform. In my opinion whats happening here is that tradition has become more important than scripture and I'm not gonna win any hearts and minds of the PCA so I'll leave it, pointless to go on.



Lee, it's okay to leave the topic, but I must say that you're still wholly misunderstanding what's going on here. At root, this has nothing to do with tradition; it has nothing to do with scripture; it has nothing to do with doctrines, beliefs, teachings, dogmas, etc. It has do with honesty and integrity.

Here's why: The officers of the church have standards of practice as to how the public order of the church will work; they have sworn to conform to these standards. However, this is not happening; and not only is this not happening, the parties in question are saying, "Hey, we're doing everything just rightly in accord with the BCO." So the issue isn't at all over what they believe; or even really what they're doing: it's about integrity. If he wants to have women deacons allowed in the churches -- okay. In his integrity, he needs to admit that such is _not_ the current acceptable practice, and go through the proper channels and procedures to attempt to allow such a practice. It's like sneaking a cookie from the cookie jar as your mother catches you doing it; telling her you're not really *taking* the cookie, you're just "taking" the cookie; and that this is how the cookie jar has worked all along.


----------



## Archlute

SolaScriptura said:


> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?
> 
> His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.



I agree, Ben. It makes a mockery out of Presbyterianism, and certainly creates some degree of resentment among "lesser" ministers who realize that they could never get away with the same, even if they hold the same convictions, because they do not have the popularity of a minister such as Keller to provide themselves with a defense of sorts that comes with the denomination's desire to avoid the public backlash that would result if the case were to be prosecuted.

It strikes me a bit like the Leithart case out here when he went on public record admitting verbally and in print that he disagrees with a number of the 2007 GA points against FV teaching, and yet at his trial most of the presbyters just shrugged their shoulders and gave him a pass. The main defense made for him by Rayburn could just as easily be made by defenders of Keller - that if we prosecute something like this we will lose our popularity, our publishing houses will lose money, we will become an irrelevant denomination in the public eye, and would be seen as the dreaded 'TRs' promoting a dead orthodoxy. 

A house cannot remain healthy if discipline is continually disallowed, and the same goes for a denomination. It follows the same principle of elders being able to keep their home in order if we want to see healthy and orderly churches.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Archlute said:


> A house cannot remain healthy if discipline is continually disallowed, and the same goes for a denomination. It follows the same principle of elders being able to keep their home in order if we want to see healthy and orderly churches.



I know... man, can you imagine the chaos that would ensue in my house if I had as loose a grip on my family as the church courts of the PCA apparently do with her TEs?


----------



## kvanlaan

> I know... man, can you imagine the chaos that would ensue in my house if I had as loose a grip on my family as the church courts of the PCA apparently do with her TEs?



Precisely. And the discipline in your home comes out of love for your children and concern over their souls. Where's the love here? It would be better shown in carrying out the discipline called for in the BCO than in turning a blind eye.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

SolaScriptura said:


> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?
> 
> His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.



They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now. 

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.



But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kvanlaan said:


> Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."
Click to expand...


That's exactly what it's saying. In the PCA, women are not to be ordained as deacons. Redeemer does not ordain women to the office of deacon. So what's the problem?


----------



## kvanlaan

Because the OP indicates quite clearly that Redeemer is exploiting loopholes in terminology. Merely using different terms to describe the same act doesn't excuse the practise. They are electing leaders. Are women to be leaders in the church?



> deaconesses provide input and support to elders working on complicated shepherding situations. Acts 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13



Eh? Why quote scripture as a supporting proof when it refutes your practises?



> Jenny Chang, Diaconate Director


----------



## Zenas

ColdSilverMoon said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?
> 
> His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.
> 
> Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.
Click to expand...


My frailties and ignorance on PCA BCO are expressing themselves.

It's my understanding that there is an office of deacon, and that under the PCA BCO, those in that office are only ordained, not merely installed. I also understand that Redeemer has the practice of ordaining men to the office of deacon, and installing women to, in their own words, the office of deaconess. 

Since there is no office of deaconess in the PCA BCO, and any officers must be ordained under the PCA BCO, I have two questions which arise from your assertion that Redeemer's practices are in accordance with the PCA BCO, namely:

(1) If there is no office of deaconess recognized by the PCA BCO, and Redeemer has the practice of recognizing that office, have they then added another office not prescribed by the PCA BCO? My question is merely rhetorical, the answer is implied as yes. That being the case, what authority does Redeemer rely on to conclude they have the power to do this? 

(2) In their own words, Redeemer installs women to the office of deaconess. Where, in the BCO, do they get the authority to install and not ordain officers of the church?

It seems there is a dual violation: first, creating an extra office, and two, refusing to follow the BCO with regard to those elected to that office. 

All things then considered, there then is a violation, whether the SJC chose to recognize it or not.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 01:37:01 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it's saying. In the PCA, women are not to be ordained as deacons. Redeemer does not ordain women to the office of deacon. So what's the problem?
Click to expand...


That's disingenuous and violates the spirit of the law through redefinition and refusing the follow the proscriptive mandates of the BCO. 

All officers are to be ordained, Redeemer refuses to ordain officers, but rather installs them, therefore, Redeemer refuses to follow the BCO.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 01:37:44 EST-----



kvanlaan said:


> Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."
Click to expand...


An apt description of the subversion occurring.


----------



## fredtgreco

ColdSilverMoon said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?
> 
> His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be _administratively_ out of order.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?
> 
> His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be _administratively_ out of order.
Click to expand...


My understanding, Pastor Greco, is that the SJC has already ruled that the complaint was out of order. You obviously know more than I do, so I defer to you on this. I think if there is any objectivity on the panel the complaint will be tossed - the Presbytery acted in good faith, and it is clear those bringing forward the complaint did not. But even if the SJC upholds the complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery, the practices at Redeemer won't change because they weren't directly called into question, and don't fall under the umbrella of what the complaint was about anyway.

Several other notes:

1. I am a member in good standing at Redeemer, but I did not receive that e-mail. I went through all my spam folders and deleted items but couldn't find it. I receive e-mails from Redeemer all the time, so I know they have my correct address. Strange. 

2. I see where the term "office" causes confusion, and frankly I wish they wouldn't use the term in regard to deaconesses because it does create confusion with the perpetual ordained offices of the church. That said, it is probably used for brevity more than anything else. The deaconesses at Redeemer aren't in authoritative roles as the e-mail plainly says.

3. As heated as the discussions are on the PB, this is a complete non-issue at Redeemer. Most members and regular attenders would be very surprised to learn that the deaconess issue is the least bit controversial. I think people who are familiar with the church are comfortable with the way it utilizes its deaconesses, and understand Redeemer's practices are in line with Scriptural, Reformed, and PCA standards.

4. For all the squawking on this thread and other places about the PCA not enforcing standards and bringing Redeemer to trial, I believe (though I'm not 100% certain) there are mechanisms in place for PCA members to bring a formal complaint against the church and Dr. Keller. So if you are so passionate about it, please do so and we can settle the issue once and for all. It's been 20 years and still no one has complained - perhaps one of you can be the first!


----------



## lynnie

I am surprised that some people see this as such a Tim Keller only thing. 10th Pres has a national good reputation, with Ryken now and the late James M Boice, and they have deaconesses (servants only, non authority). The New Life Churches started by Jack Miller do too. This is not unique to Redeemer at all.

I don't happen to believe in the practice, but it is longstanding and well established in the PCA, with the faithful understanding that God intended churches to be ruled by men. Now I happen to think deacons are part of the ruling office and like I said I don't agree with the PCA allowing this, but to single out Redeemer or Keller is not accurate at all.


----------



## Archlute

Isn't one big difference between 10th pres and Redeemer, however, that 10th came into the PCA with that practice already grandfathered, and Redeemer was a MNA plant that had to make a conscious decision to implement this in the face of denominational policy?


----------



## Scott1

It's very understandable wanting to believe the best of one's Pastor.

And Dr. Keller is a good teacher, and many of us have benefited from his teaching, and wish him well as a high profile ambassador of our Lord.

But I'm afraid we are in denial about this.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be _administratively_ out of order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My understanding, Pastor Greco, is that the SJC has already ruled that the complaint was out of order. You obviously know more than I do, so I defer to you on this. I think if there is any objectivity on the panel the complaint will be tossed - the Presbytery acted in good faith, and it is clear those bringing forward the complaint did not. But even if the SJC upholds the complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery, the practices at Redeemer won't change because they weren't directly called into question, and don't fall under the umbrella of what the complaint was about anyway.
> 
> As process is underway and we don't have the facts, its best to refrain from comment on this process. It is not over.
> 
> Several other notes:
> 
> 1. I am a member in good standing at Redeemer, but I did not receive that e-mail. I went through all my spam folders and deleted items but couldn't find it. I receive e-mails from Redeemer all the time, so I know they have my correct address. Strange.
> 
> 2. I see where the term "office" causes confusion, and frankly I wish they wouldn't use the term in regard to deaconesses because it does create confusion with the perpetual ordained offices of the church. That said, it is probably used for brevity more than anything else. The deaconesses at Redeemer aren't in authoritative roles as the e-mail plainly says.
> 
> The term "office" has particular meaning in the PCA. It means deacons and elders. In fact, there is specific provision in our BCO for others to not usurp the authority of office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> .....
> 7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority
> therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as
> are employed in the Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. As heated as the discussions are on the PB, this is a complete non-issue at Redeemer. Most members and regular attenders would be very surprised to learn that the deaconess issue is the least bit controversial. I think people who are familiar with the church are comfortable with the way it utilizes its deaconesses, and understand Redeemer's practices are in line with Scriptural, Reformed, and PCA standards.
> 
> I really hope some are concerned about this. If they are being taught the polity of our denomination and the documents of our faith such as the Book of Church Order, and officers are following their vows to receive and uphold it, I hope it is always a big issue.
> 
> Keeping one's public vows is always an issue, particularly for those who would lead.
> 
> 4. For all the squawking on this thread and other places about the PCA not enforcing standards and bringing Redeemer to trial, I believe (though I'm not 100% certain) there are mechanisms in place for PCA members to bring a formal complaint against the church and Dr. Keller. So if you are so passionate about it, please do so and we can settle the issue once and for all. It's been 20 years and still no one has complained - perhaps one of you can be the first!
Click to expand...


Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.

Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.

For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:



> Complaint
> 
> TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery
> 
> .....
> 
> 5. Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in the diaconal ministry.
> 
> 6. Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon” or “deaconess” though no one is ordained to this ministry.


----------



## bouletheou

Well, someone should send up a Memorial to the SJC.

That's what happened in the Wilkins case to get the ball rolling.


----------



## Scott1

> Complaint
> 
> TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery
> 
> (excerpts "Proposed reasoning and opinion" section, with emphasis added)
> 
> .....
> 
> The BCO, together with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechism, form the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America. BCO Preface, III— The Constitution Defined. Part I of the BCO, under the heading “Form of Government,” recognizes and provides for, among other things, the offices of the church, and in particular the offices of elder and deacon. *The importance of these offices is seen in that, according to the BCO, they are established by Scripture and all of the powers of the Church are administered through them. BCO 1-4 (“The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.”).
> *
> The BCO does not explicitly state that each church is required to establish a diaconate. In fact, the BCO acknowledges that a church may be unable to constitute a diaconate and therefore provides that the duties of the diaconate devolve upon the ruling elders in such a case. BCO 5- 10; 9-2. *However, far from supporting the view that the BCO permits an unordained diaconal body, this direction in the BCO makes clear that the duties incumbent on the office of deacon fall solely within the province of an ordained body.* Significantly, the BCO does not make a concession in such cases for the service of the diaconate to devolve upon, for example, other unordained members of the church. Far from such hypotheticals is the present situation; the Presbytery is not suffering from churches without qualified men willing to serve as deacons. The BCO assumes that a church with members willing and qualified to serve on the diaconate will ordain such members to the diaconate. In the words of *BCO 17-1, “[t]hose who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.” The BCO does not allow an unordained diaconate.* A coherent and integrated system of diaconal organization is fully provided for in the BCO, with explicit provision made in BCO 9-7 for non-ordained persons to assist the diaconate in its work. *The practices occurring within the Presbytery’s jurisdiction and authorized by the Presbytery’s March 13, 2009 resolution do not amount to permissible supplementing of the BCO, but rather a competing system of government.*
> 
> A view holding that the diaconal provisions of the BCO may be supplemented to allow for the creation of a wholly unordained diaconate is only tenable if the BCO considers the diaconate outside the form of government established by the Constitution. Only in such a case could one argue that the BCO’s provisions regarding the diaconate are subject to substantial variation insofar as ancillary ministries of the church are not fully developed in the Constitution. However, the BCO is a constitutional document and it specifically identifies the office of deacon together with the office of elder as constituting the offices forming the PCA’s coordinated system of government. A primary purpose of a constitution is to set forth a system of government. In fact, the formation of government is the sine qua non of a constitution. Therefore, strict interpretation of the constitution is required in matters touching upon the offices comprising the government of the church. The explicit statements of the BCO further establish the importance of the PCA’s two-office system of government. *In the chapter titled “Form of Government” the BCO states that “[t]he officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.” BCO 1-4.* Separate chapters in the BCO are given to the offices of elder and deacon. BCO 8, 9. The office of deacon, not merely diaconal-related service, is ordinary and perpetual in the Church. BCO 9-1. For these reasons, failure to ordain qualified men as deacons, where such men are functionally serving as such in an unordained capacity, undermines the letter and spirit of the BCO.
> 
> A session’s authority over the diaconate in no way diminishes the office of deacon. That the BCO rightly places the diaconate under the authority of the elders is undisputed. BCO 9-2. However, deacons, though subject to the rule of elders, do not serve at the pleasure of elders. *The primacy of the elders’ authority no more establishes that the office of deacon is unnecessary or subject to the prerogative of the elders than Christ’s plenary rule disestablishes his plenipotentiaries. The authority of office establishes those offices under its influence. Additionally, as stated in BCO 24-7, “[o]rdination to the offices of ruling elder or deacon is perpetual; nor can such offices be laid aside at pleasure; nor can any person be degraded from either office but by deposition after regular trial.” As one who holds the office of deacon holds a perpetual office, his office, though initially derived through a local church, has a distinct existence apart from any particular local church or the office of elder.*
> 
> Creating within a church an unordained body of men and women given the titles “deacon” and “deaconess,” respectively, (or referring to both men and women as “deacons”) while ordaining no one to the office of deacon, is a de facto establishment of an unauthorized diaconate. Further, such a practice vests ecclesiastical power in a class of persons—women—not authorized to hold office or exercise ecclesiastical power. BCO 1-4 (“The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.”); BCO 3-2 (“The officers exercise [ecclesiastical power] sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order . . . .”); BCO 7-2 (“In accord with Scripture, these offices [elder and deacon] are open to men only.”). Additionally, refusing the ordination of men to the office of deacon nullifies one of the two offices Christ generously gave His bride for the growth of His Kingdom. BCO 1-4; 3-5 (“The Church, with its ordinances, officers and courts, is the agency which Christ has ordained for the edification and government of His people, for the propagation of the faith, and for the evangelization of the world.”). *Therefore, such practices functionally either abolish the office of deacon or seat women in the office of deacon. In either case, there is a substantial and continuing violation of the Constitution of the PCA.*
> 
> The BCO, in diverse sections, unequivocally states that only men are qualified to hold the office/title of deacon. *BCO 7-2 (“In accord with Scripture, these offices [elder and deacon] are open to men only”)**; BCO 9-3 (“To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character….”);* *BCO 24-1 (“[E]ach prospective officer should be an active male member who meets the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1”).* The provisions of these sections, far from being advisory in nature, set forth a view of the diaconate that is based on Scripture. In BCO 7-2, the male-only restriction of the office of deacon is said to be “in accord with scripture” and BCO 24-1 states such restriction alongside those qualifications set forth in Scripture. As stated in BCO 29-1, the Constitution of the PCA, of which the BCO is a part, is “accepted by the PCA as the standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.” Whatever binding authority the BCO may have on this issue solely by virtue of its constitutional nature is only further established by references to Scripture in the very texts that principally relate to the matter under consideration. Further, the BCO is based on a system of Biblical interpretation shared by the PCA’s ecclesiastical communion in connection with which each presbyter submits to his brothers in accord with his ordination vows. BCO 24-6. *The merits of diaconal practice must be evaluated, therefore, in light of such vows and in accordance with the BCO’s clarity and scriptural emphases in the areas of women officers and diaconal authority.*


.


----------



## Romans922

bouletheou said:


> Well, someone should send up a Memorial to the SJC.
> 
> That's what happened in the Wilkins case to get the ball rolling.



Memorials are no longer allowed, the SJC Manual 16 was changed at the last GA.


Also, I believe there are complaints in Metro Philadelphia Presbytery on this issue (Phil Ryken's presbytery), although their presbytery is delayed at the moment from reaching SJC (I could be wrong). But there are complaints from Metro Atlanta and Northern California. I believe. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head those being the most 'liberal' presbyterys are having complaints against them for 'deaconess' issues.


----------



## lynnie

Archlute said:


> Isn't one big difference between 10th pres and Redeemer, however, that 10th came into the PCA with that practice already grandfathered, and Redeemer was a MNA plant that had to make a conscious decision to implement this in the face of denominational policy?



I have no idea, you have to wait for Mason


----------



## Romans922

Either way, both have agreed to follow the Standards and the BCO.


----------



## toddpedlar

Romans922 said:


> Either way, both have agreed to follow the Standards and the BCO.



There are times when I think this mode of practice is little different than the following scenario.

"Memo to Pizza Hut delivery drivers: When delivering pizza, in the Pizza Hut delivery car, employees of Pizza Hut shall not drive faster than 40 mph."

Knowing this rule, but late with a delivery, Joe the Pizza Hut delivery employee gets into the Pizza Hut delivery car with his wife Helen in the driver's seat, and she takes off at 55 mph, so that Joe can deliver his pizza. 

When the car carrying Joe and the pizza passes Brian, Joe's boss, Brian notes the speed of the car, and follows Joe to the delivery location. He promptly fires him.

Joe argues later in his own defense that he wasn't in violation of company policy because he was not the one driving. 

Would this hold up in an employee lawsuit against his company?

NO.

Neither does the practice of any PCA church who merely "commissions" deaconnesses but elects them and asks them to take vows alongside their ordained mail deacon colleagues, and gives them the same roles and responsibilities.


----------



## brianeschen

Complaints are against action or inaction of Presbytery. It does not deal with individuals. In a recent case, SESSION OF CROSSROADS COMMUNITY CHURCH SJC 2008-1 RE MARK GRASSO ET AL SJC 2008-10 VS. PHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERY, the SJC reminded the complainants that when a minister's views are in question (and this was dealing with the deacon issue) there are more appropriate ways to handle it than filing a complaint.

From the concurring opinion . . .


> . . . Otherwise stated, perhaps a complaint about a candidate’s ordination exam may not be the most practical way to raise certain issues. This is especially true when there is some uncertainty as to exactly what the views, beliefs, and practices of the candidate are.
> 
> What would be the effect of the complaint being sustained? Would the man suddenly be "unordained?" What would be the effect of any ecclesiastical functions, such as baptisms or marriages, that he performed during this time?
> 
> It is within this context that we would suggest that the better way in this case, and other cases where the views, beliefs, and practices of men are called into question, would be for the party who is concerned about these views, beliefs, and practices to make such inquiries as are necessary and practical to ascertain exactly what these views, beliefs, and practices are; then, assuming they are contrary to Scripture or our Constitution, formally file a Charge, pursuant to BCO 32-2 and 32-3. This procedure not only removes the question of whether or not a strong presumption of guilt exists (BCO 31-2), but allows a court to directly try the issue raised in the Charge. (BCO 32-3) Furthermore, this procedure will require an accurate record of the questions and answers, in that all testimony shall be recorded and become a part of the Record. (BCO 35-7) This will eliminate the problem of not having a complete or accurate Record upon which to judge and decide the case.


If there is concern about a minister's practices, investigation needs to be made. If the concern is substantiated by the investigation, charges need to be filed. That's what the SJC seems to be saying.


----------



## lynnie

_Neither does the practice of any PCA church who merely "commissions" deaconnesses but elects them and asks them to take vows alongside their ordained mail deacon colleagues, *and gives them the same roles and responsibilities. *_

For what its worth (and I am on the anti deaconess side of the debate), I have two PCA deaconess friends and they don't have the same roles and responsibilities. Its more like the women are in the kitchen and the men are in the rest of the house.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

lynnie said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't one big difference between 10th pres and Redeemer, however, that 10th came into the PCA with that practice already grandfathered, and Redeemer was a MNA plant that had to make a conscious decision to implement this in the face of denominational policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, you have to wait for Mason
Click to expand...


Yes, Redeemer has had deaconesses since its founding in 1989. They didn't (and still do not) view this as contrary to denominational policy.


----------



## Scott1

Remember that deacons and elders in the PCA go through an extensive process of selection and confirmation, the idea being that the congregation receives them as authority God has blessed them with in the particular church.

The process involves nomination, instruction, examination, declaration of exceptions to doctrine if any, character references, election by the congregation.

If selected, they are ordained (for life) and then installed (for term of office). A fitting sermon illustrating these doctrinal principles is to be given as charge to both the officer and the congregation receiving them.

Hands are laid on by session and a religious ceremony installs them, publicly, before the people. It a solemn occassion, and a significant event in the life of a church.

One of the most disturbing practices that has come to light is this practice of refusing to lay hands on men to ordain them as deacons. In order to justify the flagrant violation of their constitution and vows, some are are actually arguing that that ordination does not need laying on of hands. In addition, some are making the incredible claim that the office of deacon is not perpetual in the PCA, and therefore, a woman 'deaconess' can lay aside ordination once they leave the presbytery, because almost no other presbytery accepts that as an office.

A lot of things are getting lost in their accommodation, important things.

The following video, shows "Deb" being installed as 'deaconess' at the church that is subject of this post. It demeans the doctrine of ordination- a doctrine explicitly taught in our Book of Church Order.

Setting aside the shallow content of the very brief charge given here (that draws on a secular movie for insight), this accommodation has turned the whole process and the doctrines it represents on their head.

What is depicted here might go on in a mainline church that almost completely fallen away from the truth of Scripture without much concern. But in the PCA, a confessional church, connectional in polity, this is grounds for discipline. A complaint with at least 15 different amends could be filed on the basis of this instance alone.

May God grant remedy- in His Time, and for peace and purity of His Church.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvJ2CUnRnlc]YouTube - 5/24/09 Officer Ordination & Installation[/ame]


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Scott1 said:


> Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.
> 
> Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.
> 
> For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complaint
> 
> TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery
> 
> .....
> 
> 5. Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in the diaconal ministry.
> 
> 6. Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon” or “deaconess” though no one is ordained to this ministry.
Click to expand...


Scott,

There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing. How can Redeemer possibly be faulted for 1. Ordaining male deacons, and 2. Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent? 

I know you don't like the practice, and that's fine - I understand and respect your reasoning. But you cannot say Redeemer is willfully violating the BCO when it is plainly obvious the church is not out of line with the BCO.


----------



## Edward

LeeJUk said:


> So What if he's disobeying the official position of a denomination, your right its an issue of rebellion, Tim Keller doesnt want to rebel against God's word and so that means he must rebel against the denomination because obviously for him, he believes God says that it's OK. Sure I value the westminster confession of faith, but if my interpretation of scripture differs from it on a point, then I've got 2 options either
> 
> 1) Please the denomination
> 2) Go with what I think God says in his word
> 
> So if we claim to be going on scripture alone, should the man say...well I dont care what I think God's word teaches, I'll just be comfortable and conform to the "official" position.
> 
> Are we Roman Catholics now?



You've left out an option - he's free to leave (and take his church -- I'm sure that an overwhelming majority of Redeemer would go with him) and join the EPC (probably an excellent fit), or the ARP, or one of several other bodies. He could even go to the PCUSA. But if he chooses to stay in the PCA, he should abide by the Book of Church Order.


-----


Unrelated thought. Interesting who isn't on this thread.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Scott1 said:


> If selected, they are ordained (for life) and then installed (for term of office). A fitting sermon illustrating these doctrinal principles is to be given as charge to both the officer and the congregation receiving them.
> 
> Hands are laid on by session and a religious ceremony installs them, publicly, before the people. It a solemn occassion, and a significant event in the life of a church.
> 
> One of the most disturbing practices that has come to light is that this church is refusing to lay hands on men to ordain them as deacons. (In order to justify the flagrant violation of their constitution and vows, some are are actually arguing that that ordination does not need laying on of hands. In addition some are making the incredible claim that the office of deacon is not perpetual in the PCA, and therefore, a woman 'deaconess' can lay aside ordination once they leave the presbytery, because almost no other presbytery accepts that as an office.)



Scott, women are not ordained as officers at Redeemer. So there is no "laying aside" ordination because they are not ordained to begin with. You shouldn't disseminate false information by claiming Redeemer's deaconesses are ordained. In addition, laying on of hands is not a requirement for ordination. Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA amends to the BCO to make it a requirement, he will willingly comply. 





Scott1 said:


> following video, which purports to show "Deb" being installed as 'deaconess' at the church that is subject of this post, is demeaning of the profound meaning of the doctrine of ordination- a doctrine explicitly taught in our Book of Church Order.



She wasn't being ordained. So how is it demeaning to ordination? For that matter, how is it demeaning at all? The associate pastor defines the role of deacon, describes it as a "high calling," describes the rigorous selection process, and encourages the congregation to do their part in as unofficial deacons in their every day lives. It may be demeaning in your personal view of how such a ceremony should be conducted, but it violates no Scriptural or BCO elements.


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.
> 
> Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.
> 
> For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complaint
> 
> TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery
> 
> .....
> 
> 5. Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in the diaconal ministry.
> 
> 6. Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon” or “deaconess” though no one is ordained to this ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing. How can Redeemer possibly be faulted for 1. Ordaining male deacons, and 2. Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?
> 
> I know you don't like the practice, and that's fine - I understand and respect your reasoning. But you cannot say Redeemer is willfully violating the BCO when it is plainly obvious the church is not out of line with the BCO.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons. 

Deacons (male) of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. Why is there an option (again, if I am correct)? If one is a deacon than they are a deacon, they are to be ordained. There are no options. 

BCO 9-7 referring to those who assist the deacons, it clearly says that such people are selected by the Session, not nominated, trained, examined, and elected by the congregation. That is only for ordained elders/deacons. This whole thing is messed up. 



Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.


----------



## Archlute

Mason, several times in this thread you have made the assertion that Redeemer is merely following Scriptural and Reformed precedent, but if it were undoubtedly supported by Scripture and previous Reformed practice it would not even be up for debate. 

The case from Scripture is quite weak, it's really not even noteworthy apart from the fact that it has become such a big issue among the modern day church, which tends to cave to pressure on this issue. Saying that "Phoebe was a deaconess" is a bit facile, since the meaning of the term (whether official deacon, or just one noticed for her service to the church in an unofficial capacity) is not very clear, and the discussion of what are almost assuredly the wives of the deacons in 1 Timothy has to employ agonizingly convoluted exegetical arguments to make it say something other than what Paul is clearly saying in the overall context of the pastoral epistles.

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.
> 
> Deacons of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. And to continue to back a church which continues to rebel against Scripture/Standards/BCO is to continue to serve the Devil himself, it is to not follow God's own command (openly and unrepentantly) of the 5th Commandment (as well as others).
> 
> 
> Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.



So, Pastor Barnes, all those churches (perhaps your included?) that commission VBS leaders, missionaries (long and short-term), and a variety of other church roles are doing so to find loopholes and in so doing "serve the Devil himself?" I don't think you would agree with that! The truth is PCA churches commission people all the time to various roles and I don't think you would call them rebellious against Scripture and the BCO. 

The bottom line is you don't agree with deaconesses being utilized, and that's fine - I understand completely. But if you disagree with them being commissioned then you must disagree with ALL commissioning in every single PCA church. If you do, then you are in the vast minority of PCA pastors. If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.

Unordained deaconesses are not contrary to Scripture. In fact, a strong case can be made that they are promoted and established in Scripture. Calvin even utilized unordained deaconesses in his church - was Calvin rebellious against Scripture and a servant of the devil? The Westminster Standards are silent on the role of deacons and deaconesses - so how is Redeemer rebellious against them? As discussed above the BCO does not prohibit commissioning groups of people within the congregation, so Redeemer is not rebelling against the BCO. 

I respect your role as a TE, Pastor Barnes, and your desire to maintain the purity of the Church and the PCA. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments - on this issue you are dead wrong.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?



Can I have an example of this commissioning from Scripture?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Archlute said:


> As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.



From the _Institutes_, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:



> Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.



In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.


----------



## jwithnell

I was challenged a bit on another forum, so I looked up the Redeemer website -- http://download.redeemer.com/pdf/NominationForm.pdf


----------



## Michael Doyle

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the _Institutes_, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.
Click to expand...


I am sorry my friend Mason, observing this post from afar, while I do admire your diligence in defending what I am sure you believe to be true, and I do disagree vehemently, the reformed precedence you confirm is a real stretch. If that is the best you have, I think your position is terribly weak.

Peace Brother


----------



## lynnie

_From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:


Quote:
Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love. 

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent. _


Very interesting. Excellent debate point!

Mason, do you think that in light of the struggle with egalitarianism and rejection of male leadership in the home and the church, it might be getting to the point of causing brethren to stumble to use this terminology (deaconesses)? I mean, might it not be better to call them "diaconal assistants" or " The Women's ministry team" or something else? They can be honored and set apart without such loaded language. In a culture struggling to throw off all gender differences, it seems to be unwise for the church to do something so confusing, especially a place like Redeemer in the heart of NYC. You can see from just this thread of educated posters that many assume it is an authoritative role.

Like I said my deaconess friends are humble, gentle, feminine, non pushy women. They are not authoritative in their roles in any way. And somebody needs to break up the crackers and fill the little cups before communion, and somebody needs to get the tables ready for the fellowship dinners, and plan meals and clean up after. And older women need to help younger ones in many ways. It is wonderful to see Redeemer encourage women to serve. But at this point, doesn't it seem like maybe the terms should be changed? Do you think it may lead to compromise with feminist egalitarianism? I don't know, I am just asking. I wonder if it can cause brethren to stumble. 

Brad, you are really begging for a mod to step in again, aren't you..........


----------



## WarrenInSC

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?
> 
> His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be _administratively_ out of order.
Click to expand...


Hello Pastor Greco,

1) There may be more than one uninformed 'lay' person on here, like myself, who would appreciate a concise definition, applied to this situation, if it's not violating any confidentiality, about being 'judically out of order' versus being 'administratively out of order".

2) For what it's worth, the sooner an SJC panel deals with this clearly divisive situation, the better. Our PCA needs resolution on this. The blatant disregard our constitution involved is going to snowball in all sorts of areas if not addressed soon, In my humble opinion.

3) Many thanks for your deep and devoted service to our church.


----------



## fredtgreco

WarrenInSC said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be _administratively_ out of order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Pastor Greco,
> 
> 1) There may be more than one uninformed 'lay' person on here, like myself, who would appreciate a concise definition, applied to this situation, if it's not violating any confidentiality, about being 'judically out of order' versus being 'administratively out of order".
Click to expand...


Warren,

A case is administratively out of order because it is defective in form. In other words it asks for relief the ecclesiastical court cannot grant ("make the U.S. Congress pass a law about gay marriage") or it is filed untimely (e.g. beyond the period required for a complaint), or some such.

A case is judicially out of order if it is rejected on substantive grounds.


----------



## Scott1

> *ColdSilverMoon*
> There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing.



Again, it is understandable you would want to defend the good name of your Pastor.

However, we must faithfully represent our polity, governance and Book of Church Order to those not familiar with it.



*Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:*

a)	*deaconess as an office in the church* (the church email calls it an office, that's what started this thread)


Notice in the video “Deb” is given the oath of office for deacons or elders (about 2/3 through the video).

*Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:*

a)	*giving the oath of office to deaconess*




(For reference, here is the oath of office, the one "Deb" takes in the video for deacons and elders in the PCA):



> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Ordination and Installation
> 
> 24-6.
> 
> The day having arrived, and the Session being convened in the
> presence of the congregation, a sermon shall be preached after which the
> presiding minister shall state in a concise manner the warrant and nature of
> the office of ruling elder, or deacon, together with the character proper to be
> sustained and the duties to be fulfilled. Having done this, he shall propose to
> the candidate, in the presence of the church, the following questions, namely:
> 
> 1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as
> originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only
> infallible rule of faith and practice?
> 
> 2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and
> the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of
> doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further
> promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with
> any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will, on
> your own initiative, make known to your Session the change
> which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this
> ordination vow?
> 
> 3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the
> Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general
> principles of biblical polity?
> 
> 4. Do you accept the office of ruling elder (or deacon, as the case
> may be) in this church, and promise faithfully to perform all the
> duties thereof, and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the
> profession of the Gospel in your life, and to set a worthy example
> before the Church of which God has made you an officer?
> 5. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?
> 
> 6. Do you promise to strive for the purity, peace, unity and
> edification of the Church?



-----Added 11/6/2009 at 04:47:33 EST-----



> *ColdSilverMoon*
> In addition, laying on of hands is not a requirement for ordination.



Mason,

In order to defend this blatantly unconstitutional behavior and violation of vows by officers to receive the governance and polity of their denomination, do you really want to say we do not lay hands on for ordination in the PCA? 

Really?



> Acts 6
> 
> 1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
> 
> 2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
> 
> 3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
> 
> 4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
> 
> 5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
> 
> 6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, *they laid their hands on them.*





> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Book of Church Order
> CHAPTER 17
> 
> Doctrine of Ordination
> 17-1. Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be
> inducted by the ordination of a court.
> 
> 17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an
> office in the Church of God, *accompanied with prayer and the laying on of
> hands*, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship


----------



## William Price

I am a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian, but have many friends who are, and this includes on this board. But, I have to ask, with all sincerity, even outside the BCO, why would one have a position of leadership created when the scriptures declare that a woman is not to teach nor usurp authority over the man? Since when does one need to circumvent scripture in order to 'make a position'?

And, please understand I ask this with utmost respect for my friends here and elsewhere.


----------



## Scott1

William Price said:


> I am a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian, but have many friends who are, and this includes on this board. But, I have to ask, with all sincerity, even outside the BCO, why would one have a position of leadership created when the scriptures declare that a woman is not to teach nor usurp authority over the man? Since when does one need to circumvent scripture in order to 'make a position'?
> 
> And, please understand I ask this with utmost respect for my friends here and elsewhere.



Within our denomination, those who are arguing for 'deaconess' are a very small, but high profile minority. Remember, very very few churches are doing the violations shown in the video.

And remember also the esteemed Pastor from New York City is right on many, many things and we do not want to see him harden and fall- that's why this so painful!

In recent past, they have been arguing one of two ways:

1) deaconess is not an office (and therefore there is no authority)

or

2) deaconess is an office, but does not have the kind of authority of which you speak (teaching or usurping over men)

The problem is, as you can see in the video, in case#1, they are doing all the accoutrements of office: nominating, examining, taking exceptions, electing, installing, etc. even copying word-for-word the ordination vows (except changing them to the word 'woman')

It's as if they are saying- it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and enjoys being in the presence of other ducks, but... somehow it is not a duck.

In case#2 they are not understanding the spiritual charge of the I Timothy 3 office of deacon. Granted, there is not a lot explicit about the exact duties of deacons in Scripture. Mostly, we have analogy, but principles can be discerned and applied.

That's what we do.

In the PCA, that is understood and chartered in our Book of Church Order as overseeing property stewardship, mercy ministry and the development of a "spirit of liberality" in the congregation.

In presbyterianism generally, governance of the local church (often referred to as the "particular" church) is by and through deacons and elders.

Unordained men and women assist them in many ways, but under their oversight. We have many ministries, including mercy ministries that men and women coordinate and run, but under governing authority and one layer of accountability of deacons.

The systems works well in practice, and from what I've observed, unordained men and woman and children have a "safe" biblical framework within which to use their God given talents and abilities without usurping authority or operating under pretense of name recognition by office.
No question deacon is an office with a higher level of authority too. As a Deacon myself, I can tell you we exercise authority all the time. It's not the same sphere as the Elders, but our Book of Church Order clearly assumes it- both implicitly and explicitly- and our people understand it (and are grateful for it).


----------



## Edward

Scott1 said:


> Within our denomination, those who are arguing for 'deaconess' are a very small, but high profile minority. Remember, very very few churches are doing the violations shown in the video.



An open question, not particularly directed at you:

Does anyone have a rough count as to how many churches have Deaconesses, or how many Presbyteries tolerate this?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the _Institutes_, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.
Click to expand...


Is "Deb" and all the other "deaconesses" over 60 and widows?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Scott1 said:


> *ColdSilverMoon*
> There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is understandable you would want to defend the good name of your Pastor.
> 
> However, we must faithfully represent our polity, governance and Book of Church Order to those not familiar with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:*
> 
> a)	*deaconess as an office in the church* (the church email calls it an office, that's what started this thread)
> 
> 
> Notice in the video “Deb” is given the oath of office for deacons or elders (about 2/3 through the video).
> 
> *Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:*
> 
> a)	*giving the oath of office to deaconess*
Click to expand...


Scott, as I've said before, I don't like the term "office" applied to deaconesses because it can cause confusion with ordained offices. I'm sure it's done for simplicity and brevity, but I'll admit it can cause confusion. Same with the simultaneous ordination of the officers and commissioning of deaconesses: it's easier to have a uniform, blanket installation. 




Scott1 said:


> Doctrine of Ordination
> 17-1. Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be
> inducted by the ordination of a court.
> 
> 17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an
> office in the Church of God, *accompanied with prayer and the laying on of
> hands*, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship


[/QUOTE]

The laying on of hands is not considered a requirement for ordination. At their discussion at the GA, Ligon Duncan agreed that he considered the deacons at Redeemer to be ordained without laying of hands.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 07:46:22 EST-----



lynnie said:


> Mason, do you think that in light of the struggle with egalitarianism and rejection of male leadership in the home and the church, it might be getting to the point of causing brethren to stumble to use this terminology (deaconesses)? I mean, might it not be better to call them "diaconal assistants" or " The Women's ministry team" or something else? They can be honored and set apart without such loaded language. In a culture struggling to throw off all gender differences, it seems to be unwise for the church to do something so confusing, especially a place like Redeemer in the heart of NYC. You can see from just this thread of educated posters that many assume it is an authoritative role.
> 
> Like I said my deaconess friends are humble, gentle, feminine, non pushy women. They are not authoritative in their roles in any way. And somebody needs to break up the crackers and fill the little cups before communion, and somebody needs to get the tables ready for the fellowship dinners, and plan meals and clean up after. And older women need to help younger ones in many ways. It is wonderful to see Redeemer encourage women to serve. But at this point, doesn't it seem like maybe the terms should be changed? Do you think it may lead to compromise with feminist egalitarianism? I don't know, I am just asking. I wonder if it can cause brethren to stumble.



Lynnie, you raise two excellent points:

1. Deaconess is used because it is the most accurate description of their role. Besides, deaconess is less nebulous and much easier to say and write than diaconal assistant. As I've stated on here multiple times, deaconess - whether or not a formal role in the church - has Scriptural and Reformed precedent. 

2. I know you're anti-deaconess, but I think those of us who are experienced with their role realize they do not overstep the role of women in the church and the home as outlined in the Bible. No one is arguing that deaconesses are in positions of authority or headship within the church. You know deaconesses firsthand, so like me you know that they are not after some egalitarian ideal the way many on here and other inflammatory blogs would have us believe. They are godly women who want to serve the church and the community with the gifts God has given them. 

I think part of the hubbub about this is basic fear of the unknown. People in conservative places who might not be familiar with deaconesses are concerned that they are somehow overtaking the biblically defined sexual roles within the church. They fear that the next step from deaconesses is ordained elders and pastors, despite the fact that there is no real reason to believe that will happen. Those of us familiar with the situation know the practical utilization of deaconesses, at least in the PCA, is completely in line with biblical teaching for men and women. I would guess that most of the anti-deaconess crowd would have many of their fears allayed if they spent a few months at Redeemer an saw the practical function of the diaconal ministry...


----------



## lynnie

Thanks Mason.

I see both sides.

Yes, my experience with PCA deaconesses is such that I know they are godly non authoritative women in churches led by "real men", not wimps. 

But it may be that some or much of the fear is well founded. We once were in a supposedly Calvinistic baptist church in our past that had some real hard driving women deaconesses in it who had an attitude that the elders ruled the church but stayed OUT of women's ministry. Women deaconesses can turn into controlling witches, believe me I've seen it. Give them a title and they become the Mom bossing the house. 

So it goes back to what the bible says, and even if I disagree, Keller/Ryken have a reasonable position. But when you go back to the BCO and their vows, even if the BCO is wrong, they do seem to be highly questionable based on the replies here.

I wish they could go back to ordaining men and calling women the assistants. As somebody in their 50s watching younger girls in their 20s wrestle with the role of women and mothers and careers, I tend to think that they need all the help we can give to create a church culture that upholds complementarianism. They won't get it in the world. Every tiny bit of help is a plus.


I love Tim Keller's teaching. Let's all keep him in prayer as he influences so many younger folks today.


----------



## Blue Dog

Thank You Jason D.


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.
> 
> Deacons of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. And to continue to back a church which continues to rebel against Scripture/Standards/BCO is to continue to serve the Devil himself, it is to not follow God's own command (openly and unrepentantly) of the 5th Commandment (as well as others).
> 
> 
> Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Pastor Barnes, all those churches (perhaps your included?) that commission VBS leaders, missionaries (long and short-term), and a variety of other church roles are doing so to find loopholes and in so doing "serve the Devil himself?" I don't think you would agree with that! The truth is PCA churches commission people all the time to various roles and I don't think you would call them rebellious against Scripture and the BCO.
> 
> The bottom line is you don't agree with deaconesses being utilized, and that's fine - I understand completely. But if you disagree with them being commissioned then you must disagree with ALL commissioning in every single PCA church. If you do, then you are in the vast minority of PCA pastors. If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.
> 
> Unordained deaconesses are not contrary to Scripture. In fact, a strong case can be made that they are promoted and established in Scripture. Calvin even utilized unordained deaconesses in his church - was Calvin rebellious against Scripture and a servant of the devil? The Westminster Standards are silent on the role of deacons and deaconesses - so how is Redeemer rebellious against them? As discussed above the BCO does not prohibit commissioning groups of people within the congregation, so Redeemer is not rebelling against the BCO.
> 
> I respect your role as a TE, Pastor Barnes, and your desire to maintain the purity of the Church and the PCA. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments - on this issue you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...


I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself. 


The commissioning of VBS leaders, missionaries, etc. is found where in Scripture/Standards/BCO? Pray for such people --> ABSOLUTELY, but why are we commissioning? What does this even mean? And yes I would call them rebellious, there is nothing that would suggest that they need to do it. 

I would agree that I am in the VAST minority in the PCA. For one, I am on the PB, that right there makes me in the minority!

Unordained deacons/deaconesses (if you would use that name, I wonder what the word in French/Latin is). Unordained servants as Calvin refers to them are the one's being referred to in BCO 9-7. And they are APPOINTED by the Session. Not nominated, trained, examined, elected (and then take vows for ordination and then not ordained). 

The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.

Reductio ad absurdum: The BCO doesn't reject dogs in worship, that means we can do it: http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/my-former-pastors-church-plant-50422/


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> Reductio ad absurdum: The BCO doesn't reject dogs in worship, that means we can do it: http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/my-former-pastors-church-plant-50422/



[/quote]

Carrying that thought to the next level. Perhaps Redeemer should find a seeing eye dog, whose work is somewhat diaconal in nature, and commission it as a deacon or deaconess.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.



I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.




Romans922 said:


> commissioning of VBS leaders, missionaries, etc. is found where in Scripture/Standards/BCO? Pray for such people --> ABSOLUTELY, but why are we commissioning? What does this even mean? And yes I would call them rebellious, there is nothing that would suggest that they need to do it.
> 
> I would agree that I am in the VAST minority in the PCA. For one, I am on the PB, that right there makes me in the minority!



If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well? 



Romans922 said:


> Unordained deacons/deaconesses (if you would use that name, I wonder what the word in French/Latin is). Unordained servants as Calvin refers to them are the one's being referred to in BCO 9-7. And they are APPOINTED by the Session. Not nominated, trained, examined, elected (and then take vows for ordination and then not ordained).



The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight. 



Romans922 said:


> The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. *Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what*. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.



Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> commissioning of VBS leaders, missionaries, etc. is found where in Scripture/Standards/BCO? Pray for such people --> ABSOLUTELY, but why are we commissioning? What does this even mean? And yes I would call them rebellious, there is nothing that would suggest that they need to do it.
> 
> I would agree that I am in the VAST minority in the PCA. For one, I am on the PB, that right there makes me in the minority!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unordained deacons/deaconesses (if you would use that name, I wonder what the word in French/Latin is). Unordained servants as Calvin refers to them are the one's being referred to in BCO 9-7. And they are APPOINTED by the Session. Not nominated, trained, examined, elected (and then take vows for ordination and then not ordained).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. *Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what*. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.
Click to expand...


I know of none who commission anyone in my own presbytery.


----------



## Prufrock

*[Moderator]
Let's drop the Sproul topic. Nobody was bringing false witnesses against anyone.
[/Moderator]*


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Moderator ruling: The moderators will do the moderating. Stick to the topic of the thread. If anyone wants to discuss Sproul's views contra the standards, start a new thread. *


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?
> 
> 
> 
> The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. *Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what*. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of none who commission anyone in my own presbytery.
Click to expand...


Simply do a Google search for "commissioning" and "Mississippi Valley Presbytery." Or you can search for each church by individual name. You'll find plenty: commissioning school kids, camps, missionaries, VBS leaders, etc. 

I only bring it up to point out the (apparent) inconsistencies in belief and practice not only of you, Pastor Barnes, but of a great number of people on here and elsewhere. People get in an uproar over commissioning deaconesses, but don't mind commissioning kids or camps or anything else that isn't so "scary." I don't have a problem with any of it: commissioning is simply a way of formalizing a role within the church. Yet if you're going to take Redeemer to task for commissioning deaconesses, you have a looooong list of PCA churches who in effect do the same thing...


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?
> 
> 
> 
> The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.
> 
> 
> 
> Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of none who commission anyone in my own presbytery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply do a Google search for "commissioning" and "Mississippi Valley Presbytery." Or you can search for each church by individual name. You'll find plenty: commissioning school kids, camps, missionaries, VBS leaders, etc.
> 
> I only bring it up to point out the (apparent) inconsistencies in belief and practice not only of you, Pastor Barnes, but of a great number of people on here and elsewhere. People get in an uproar over commissioning deaconesses, but don't mind commissioning kids or camps or anything else that isn't so "scary." I don't have a problem with any of it: commissioning is simply a way of formalizing a role within the church. Yet if you're going to take Redeemer to task for commissioning deaconesses, you have a looooong list of PCA churches who in effect do the same thing...
Click to expand...


Again, I would ask you to at least point out some actual instances. I searched myself and only found 'commissionings' that had to do with 10th Pres in Philadelphia, and 'commissions' which are those groups of presbyters which are like committees but have the power to make decisions and act on them. Most of which had to do with the SJC and FV, and others commissioned by the presbytery to ordain TE's.

Do you actually know of some or are you just assuming?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> Again, I would ask you to at least point out some actual instances. I searched myself and only found 'commissionings' that had to do with 10th Pres in Philadelphia, and 'commissions' which are those groups of presbyters which are like committees but have the power to make decisions and act on them. Most of which had to do with the SJC and FV, and others commissioned by the presbytery to ordain TE's.
> 
> Do you actually know of some or are you just assuming?



Just a quick example from First Presbyterian of Jackson (Ligon Duncan's blog):



> The summer is officially underway at First Presbyterian, and as usual, we are not gearing down, but gearing up! *Vacation Bible School is only a week away now, and this Sunday we will also have the commissioning of the Twin Lakes Summer Staff*. Do greet them, their friends and families at the 11:00 o’clock service on Sunday morning. And pray for our VBS leadership and all the wonderful volunteers who make VBS happen.


----------



## Mushroom

Such subtlety and artifice ought to cause one to blush. Sadly, we are often too jaded for that.


----------



## Romans922

As you see above, I don't agree with everything Ligon does... 

Noticed a few things from the video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEDyL-h9M3o"]YouTube - Redeemer NYC Deaconess Ordination/Installation[/ame]

Male and female deacons are all being installed together (0:03); Deb, elected to be a female deacon is being used as the exemplar to represent the other 17 being installed later that morning; The Pastor states: "Deb is assuming the Diaconal Role this morning." (0:13); Nominated (0:20) by members of Redeemer as a Candidate just as the other elders and deacons; Extensive Training Process (0:28); Interviewed by other officers of the Church (0:35); Elected by vote of congregation (0:41); Deaconess for Deb is an extraordinary calling (1:17); She is charged (1:34); Six Ordination Questions are asked to the woman (4:26); The Pastor clearly uses the word ordination in regard to what is going on (5:09); The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her. (6:02).


----------



## Archlute

Romans922 said:


> The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her. (6:02).



I haven't taken the time to watch this clip yet, but if this is true then would it be appropriate to say - yikes?!?


----------



## Scott1

Understand what is NOT happening in the case of "commissioning" Sunday school workers that IS happening under the leadership of the esteemed Pastor from New York City:

1) not being elected by the congregation
2) not being examined for doctrine and asked to declare differences
3) vows are not taken by the congregation to submit to their authority
4) any vows taken are not the officer vows (e.g. BCO 24-6)
5) not taking a title of governing office
6) not being ordained
7) not being installed in a parallel ceremony to that of officers
8) a sermon charge is not directed at them
9) a sermon charge is not directed at the congregation in receiving them

Mason,
ordination and installation of governing officers of the church, in the PCA, is an ordinance of worship. It is a holy rite of oath, that reflects our doctrinal beliefs as Presbyterians, and it is specified by our Book of Church Order.

You should know that.

There is not a valid comparison with "commissioning" a Sunday School worker. Not even close.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> As you see above, I don't agree with everything Ligon does...
> 
> Noticed a few things from the video: YouTube - Redeemer NYC Deaconess Ordination/Installation
> 
> Male and female deacons are all being installed together (0:03); Deb, elected to be a female deacon is being used as the exemplar to represent the other 17 being installed later that morning; The Pastor states: "Deb is assuming the Diaconal Role this morning." (0:13); Nominated (0:20) by members of Redeemer as a Candidate just as the other elders and deacons; Extensive Training Process (0:28); Interviewed by other officers of the Church (0:35); Elected by vote of congregation (0:41); Deaconess for Deb is an extraordinary calling (1:17); She is charged (1:34); Six Ordination Questions are asked to the woman (4:26); The Pastor clearly uses the word ordination in regard to what is going on (5:09); The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her. (6:02).



As I've stated earlier, the same vows are given to ordained deacons and unordained deaconesses for simplicity's sake. Remember, Redeemer has 5 different worship services throughout the day - such installation/ordination takes place at each service. To maintain consistency they simply perform the same vows at each one, the same way Tim Keller preaches the same sermon at each service. The church is clear that they do not ordain their female deacons. 



Scott1 said:


> Understand what is NOT happening in the case of "commissioning" Sunday school workers that IS happening under the leadership of the esteemed Pastor from New York City:
> 
> 1) not being elected by the congregation
> 2) not being examined for doctrine and asked to declare differences
> 3) vows are not taken by the congregation to submit to their authority
> 4) any vows taken are not the officer vows (e.g. BCO 24-6)
> 5) not taking a title of governing office
> 6) not being ordained
> 7) not being installed in a parallel ceremony to that of officers
> 8) a sermon charge is not directed at them
> 9) a sermon charge is not directed at the congregation in receiving them
> 
> Mason,
> ordination and installation of governing officers of the church, in the PCA, is an ordinance of worship. It is a holy rite of oath, that reflects our doctrinal beliefs as Presbyterians, and it is specified by our Book of Church Order.
> 
> You should know that.
> 
> There is not a valid comparison with "commissioning" a Sunday School worker. Not even close.



Scott, I don't why you can understand that Redeemer does not ordain its deaconesses. They are officially and clearly commissioned but not ordained to an office. Therefore none of what you say is really germane to this discussion. 

So the deaconesses undergo an extensive interview and selection process...since when is that a bad thing?

I'll say it for the millionth time: Redeemer does not ordain its deaconesses. They commission them, but do not ordain them. This is not a violation of Scripture or the BCO. No one has demonstrated - in this discussion or anywhere else - where commissioning deaconesses violates the BCO. If you are against commissioning in general, then there are about a thousand PCA churches that are just as guilty as Redeemer.


----------



## TimV

Mason, do you feel you have to obey Deb?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> Mason, do you feel you have to obey Deb?



Of course not...why should I?


----------



## William Price

Would this deaconness have leadership authority over men within the church?


----------



## Brian Withnell

he beholds said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's really sad is what's _behind_ the issue of "deaconess." It's the question, "Did God really say _________?" Are we really not suppose to eat from that tree? Are deacons really suppose to be the husband of one wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think there is a case to be made for women deaconesses. I personally am not buying it, but we can't deny that it can be made. For example, the RPCNA is a very conservative, Reformed, godly denomination, and they have ORDAINED women deaconesses. I don't see their position as being "Did God really say _________?" Though I am sure that they could indeed be wrong about things. (I think they are wrong about hymns being false worship, for instance.)
> 
> What I think is wrong about Redeemer is their "Did the BCO really say _________?"
Click to expand...


I'm going to agree with my wife on this one on two counts. First, even if it is just what the denomination has said, it can still be "Did God really say that we are to keep our vows?"

The second point I'd like to make is that it is just plain wrong for the lies to be coming out about this. Why do I say lies? Because what is said in political circles seems very different than what is said to the congregation (the email).

If they feel that strongly about it, they should leave the PCA and either join a denomination that is agreeable to their view, or return to what they vowed, and teach it. It is not honorable for someone to subvert the government from within when they have vowed to uphold it.


----------



## TimV

> Originally Posted by TimV
> Mason, do you feel you have to obey Deb?





> Of course not...why should I?



Because the guy who carried out the ordination asked the congregation whether or not they would obey her, and everyone said yes.

I'd like to get some names, and write an open letter to Redeemer's session.


----------



## Brian Withnell

William Price said:


> Would this deaconness have leadership authority over men within the church?



It would seem that "Jenny" (chairmen of the deaconate) would have leadership authority over the deacons.


----------



## Zenas

TimV said:


> Originally Posted by TimV
> Mason, do you feel you have to obey Deb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not...why should I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the guy who carried out the ordination asked the congregation whether or not they would obey her, and everyone said yes.
> 
> I'd like to get some names, and write an open letter to Redeemer's session.
Click to expand...


I'd like to mail you the pen and paper.


----------



## William Price

Brian Withnell said:


> William Price said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this deaconness have leadership authority over men within the church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that "Jenny" (chairmen of the deaconate) would have leadership authority over the deacons.
Click to expand...


I read their web page. I am sorry, but I find their deaconess unscriptural according to 1Timothy 2:12. This is a quote of their duties as assigned under their own pages:



> * Practically assist and encourage Redeemer members and regular attendees in challenging circumstances
> * Pray, answer questions and give counsel after the Redeemer services
> * Conduct church membership interviews
> * Various other administrative and operational tasks and roles



Sorry, but I find the second and third parts of this, as done in the administrative fashion completely unscriptural. In order to perform these tasks, they must exercise authority. This in and of itself proves unscriptural.


----------



## Brian Withnell

William Price said:


> I read their web page. I am sorry, but I find their deaconess unscriptural according to 1Timothy 2:12.



Don't be sorry. I certainly am not sorry that I find the whole thing disgusting and a blight on the Church of our Savior and Lord. I find it even more heinous that there seems to be a covert activity to change the doctrinal standards through degrees. I came to reformed faith through a RPCES church (which joined with the PCA many years ago). I helped with planting three PCA churches. There is a great deal of distress in seeing this kind of thing happening in the PCA. I am not sorry that I find this unscriptural, I am sorry it was not quickly rooted out long ago!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There has been a clarification from Tim Keller of the video first posted above. See the link below at Reformedmusings. 
Tim Keller’s Response to the YouTube Video Reformed Musings


----------

