# The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses TIM KELLER



## he beholds

I recently read this article on commissioning (not ordaining) deaconesses. It answered some questions that I had concerning the practice, especially in regards to our conversations here on the PB during GA. 

I mostly wanted to post this article because after reading it I felt guilty for making judgments against those that commissioned deaconesses, without really looking for their defenses of the practice. I have been, and still am, unconvinced on whether deaconesses are biblical, but I was certain (haha) before that it seemed shady or even dishonest to "commission" deaconesses within the PCA. I had thought that the churches that did this were attempting to find loopholes in the BCO or were just plain ignoring it. I don't think I should have formed any opinion at all about it without going on more than just our conversation here. Anyway, hopefully that's a lesson learned for me.

Some points made in the article: 

When the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES) joined with the PCA, their 155th Synod stated, "they are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconesses and set them apart by prayer…. We affirm the right of a local church to have separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses."
The PCA did not consider their Synods to be binding on us, BUT they were to be treated with respect.
When 10th Pres and others came over from the RPCES, with their Deaconesses, they were accepted into the PCA presbyteries because of this respect.
"The understanding in these presbyteries was that, under Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-7, godly women could be appointed to assist the deacons in their work, and this was a valid way for sessions to do so."
Once Redeemer was established with a diaconate that included unordained deaconesses, "Our practice was debated but upheld by our Northeast Presbytery in 1994. It was deemed the right of local sessions to determine how the women mentioned in BCO 9-7 were to be commissioned and identified."
"BCO 9 never refers to the diaconate as exercising ruling authority—indeed it is clear that it always acts under the rule of the session, and cannot act without prior permission of the session or in some cases the whole congregation (9-2)."
(He then adds this "However, in 24-5 the BCO requires that members take a vow of obedience to the deacons. This seems to indicate that BCO conceives ordination as always entailing some kind of ruling authority. That would preclude women.")

He also lays out biblical reasons for deaconesses, but what I remember being in question here on the PB, and especially for me, was whether the PCA allows for deaconesses. 
It was a short, interesting article that I thought might help others see that churches with Deaconesses are not simply ignoring the PCA, but have been upheld by presbyteries and possibly is supported/allowed by the BCO. 
Perhaps everyone else already knew this, but it didn't seem to dawn on me that this wasn't some rogue group trying to undermine the BCO but that it was working within the bounds of our church. 

Is this news to any of you? Does this make the debate different?


----------



## Scott1

I have great respect for the gifts God has given this brother, and acknowledge and respect his office.

In this instance, all the rationalizations of doing wrong by the vows taken can be easily challenged. See the complementary article by Mr. Duncan for some of that.

Unfortunately, much of the argumentation takes place in a vacuum.

In a confessional denomination, doctrine and practice is upheld by vow. We are not free to disregard that.


----------



## he beholds

Scott1 said:


> In a confessional denomination, doctrine and practice is upheld by vow. We are not free to disregard that.



I don't know what the vows say. What about commissioning deaconesses breaks the vows?


----------



## Scott1

he beholds said:


> # When the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES) joined with the PCA, their 155th Synod stated, "they are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconesses and set them apart by prayer…. We affirm the right of a local church to have separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses."
> 
> The "Joining and Receiving" requires conforming to the doctrine and practice of the denomination being joined.
> 
> # The PCA did not consider their Synods to be binding on us, BUT they were to be treated with respect.
> 
> Not sure what is meant by this- if it suggests a grouping of churches can have separate doctrine and practice it is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of a confessional denomination.
> 
> If you carefully review the history, the RPCES majority was very similar to that of the PCA, and they had soundly rejected the intermixing of deacon and 'deaconess' as the esteemed Pastor now advocates and practices. This was simply NOT the case with the former denomination, even were that relevant to what happens when one joins a constitution in a confessional denomination.
> 
> # When 10th Pres and others came over from the RPCES, with their Deaconesses, they were accepted into the PCA presbyteries because of this respect.
> Another red herring from otherwise very logical teacher.
> 
> By the way, the church mentioned does *not* mix deacons and deaconess without distinction as the esteemed Pastor advocates.
> 
> # "The understanding in these presbyteries was that, under Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-7, godly women could be appointed to assist the deacons in their work, and this was a valid way for sessions to do so."
> The section says godly MEN and WOMEN, in an obvious parity, not a special class of one specially invested with all the accouterments of office.
> 
> 
> # Once Redeemer was established with a diaconate that included unordained deaconesses, "Our practice was debated but upheld by our Northeast Presbytery in 1994. It was deemed the right of local sessions to determine how the women mentioned in BCO 9-7 were to be commissioned and identified."
> The practice of nominating, electing, commissioning, swearing in and installing women in substantially the same process and serving without distinction from the office of Deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order.
> It is contrary to the vows of office.
> It is contrary to the confessed doctrine of the denomination.
> It degrades the office of Deacon.
> It misrepresents the nature of office generally.
> 
> # "BCO 9 never refers to the diaconate as exercising ruling authority—indeed it is clear that it always acts under the rule of the session, and cannot act without prior permission of the session or in some cases the whole congregation (9-2)."
> (He then adds this "However, in 24-5 the BCO requires that members take a vow of obedience to the deacons. This seems to indicate that BCO conceives ordination as always entailing some kind of ruling authority. That would preclude women.")
> Absolutely wrong, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the BCO, and the nature of ecclesiastical authority, and the office of Deacon.
> 
> This is serious misrepresentation, and the polity needs to be taught, is required to be taught and modeled to all members.


.


----------



## he beholds

Thanks for posting that analysis, though to me it just sounds like your opinion and is not proving to me. Could you explain *why* it goes against the BCO and "The practice of nominating, electing, commissioning, swearing in and installing women in substantially the same process and serving without distinction from the office of Deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order.
It is contrary to the vows of office.
It is contrary to the confessed doctrine of the denomination.
It degrades the office of Deacon.
It misrepresents the nature of office generally."

Etcetera.

I'm not saying that your understanding is incorrect, but it does not seem binding, but rather opinion. Perhaps your opinion comes from very specific facts, but those ones aren't listed. Thanks!


----------



## Edward

When you see a camel trying to stick its nose under the edge of the tent, you need to kick it in the nose, even if it is a 'nice' camel. And I'm not convinced that all of the camels are nice.


----------



## jjraby

Edward said:


> When you see a camel trying to stick its nose under the edge of the tent, you need to kick it in the nose, even if it is a 'nice' camel. And I'm not convinced that all of the camels are nice.



who's the camel?


----------



## he beholds

So are you both saying that even reading this article and Keller's defense of commissioning deaconesses, he is disregarding the church and his vows? Or do you think he is in bounds to do so, as his presbytery deemed, but you don't personally find deaconesses as biblical? My prior issue was with the feeling that he was doing something "illegal" in our denom. But I find his article compelling that he is fully allowed to do what he's doing. I think the rest is just our opinions on the practice. But please explain to me where I am wrong if he is not really allowed to do this. And not just Keller, obviously. He's just the most well-known. And I love his sermons and what little I've read of him, so I am actually glad to find that he's not sneaking by and not playing semantics.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?

If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.


----------



## he beholds

Southern Presbyterian said:


> It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?
> 
> If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.


 
I definitely agree with you, but I think that if a BCO prohibits something and someone vows to work within the bounds of that BCO, then they have agreed to that prohibition. The BCO of course doesn't really trump the Bible, ever, but the vow has been made. For instance, I know of an elder in the RPCNA who took vows when the consumption of alcohol was forbidden for officers in that church. They've since abolished that requirement, but this elder is convicted that since he made the vow, he has to stand by it, even now. Their constitution didn't really nullify the Bible and didn't make alcohol biblically acceptable or unacceptable, but for their elders it still was an authority over them. 

I think the ultimate goal is to see what is scriptural and form/reform the BCO to that, but not disobey it (unless it is actually causing you to sin--but then you've got HUMONGOUS problems if that were the case). Semper Reformanda, right?

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

Oh, and this is why the article pleased me, because I respected Keller as a preacher--tremendously--but I felt that he was disobeying the BCO. Now I feel that I was wrong, after reading his defense and showing where the Presbytery has granted that it is allowable (which is the authority over his church, nay?) and by showing that the BCO allows for men and women to be specifically appointed to assist the deacons.


----------



## Jack K

Good post, Jessica. By reading that article you've made an effort to understand the "other side," not just assume you know what's going on with them.

I've been closely involved with pastors on both sides of the deaconess debate in the PCA. I'm convinced they largely fail to understand each other.


The *no-deaconesses side* often accuses the others of putting cultural concerns ahead of Scripture and confessional adherence. In my experience this is simply not true. The PCA pastors I've known who support deaconesses are very strongly interested in being biblical, which is why they push the issue. And while it's true they may not be as interested in strict confessionalism, their reasons have more to do with conforming to Scripture than with conforming to culture. It also does not mean they have no regard for the confessions. In most cases they still revere the confessions deeply.

We may say their interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. I myself am unconvinced that the Bible allows for deaconesses as practiced by most of these churches. But if we claim they're capitulating to culture, or don't like the confessions, we show we really haven't taken the time to know them very well.

And when it comes to Dr. Keller in particular, the charge that he has no respect for the PCA is just laughable. He was there at its founding. He's ministered at the denominational level. He knows the PCA from the inside out and clearly cares for it. Young idealists who try to lecture him on what the PCA is all about need to rethink their strategy.


On the other hand, the *pro-deaconesses side* often accuses the others of placing tradition and blind confessionalism ahead of Scripture. This too is is untrue. I've yet to meet a deaconess opponent who didn't have a very high regard for Scripture. And concern for being true to confessional vows is a good thing, not a bad thing. By and large, they've thought through this issue carefully, not blindly followed tradition.

Again, some may claim this side is wrong. But none should say it's just because they're knee-jerk traditionalists. That's unfair and shows a lack of understanding too.


I believe Duncan and Keller have done a superb job of showing us how to have this discussion _with understanding,_ and without using accusations of culture-capitulation or stick-in-the-mud-traditionalism that are so easy to throw around but are unhelpful and usually untrue.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Southern Presbyterian said:


> It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?
> 
> If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.



Being Presbyterian means that you do not just take it on yourself to disregard what the BoCO says in order to follow your view of what you believe Scripture teaches. There is an order to the situation and it is that you take it to the proper authorities to get the BoCO changed. If you are not willing to submit to the BoCO then one should leave the denomination in the same way that you are not willing to submit to the Elders of the church, you should find another church.

CT

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

Jessica,
Have you read the Ligon Duncan response found here: byFaith Magazine - In the Church - The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons


----------



## Edward

Southern Presbyterian said:


> It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?
> 
> If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.



But here we have a case where neither the BCO nor scripture allowed the practice of having a non-ordained deaconesses instead of ordained male deacons. BCO: "9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need."

---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------




jjraby said:


> who's the camel?



Look at the history of the northern church from 1920 to 1968, or the southern church from the 1950s to the merger. Then apply that to the PCA from the J&R to the present.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

ChristianTrader said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?
> 
> If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being Presbyterian means that you do not just take it on yourself to disregard what the BoCO says in order to follow your view of what you believe Scripture teaches. There is an order to the situation and it is that you take it to the proper authorities to get the BoCO changed. If you are not willing to submit to the BoCO then one should leave the denomination in the same way that you are not willing to submit to the Elders of the church, you should find another church.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Hermonta,

The only point I'm trying to make is this, why is it that this matter seems to be discussed only in terms of how it relates to the BoCO? We and the documents that we govern ourselves by must in all points bow to Scripture. We cannot take refuge behind a clause or statement of the BoCO that permits anything that is contra-Scripture and think we are justified in our belief or action because the "rule book" allows for it. That's what the Pharisees were doing in Matthew 15; using their traditions to trump the Word of God. And that's how I see this line of argumentation. 

___________________________


I shall remove myself from this discussion now. I haven't really got a dog in this fight anyway and further participation on my part can only serve to derail the thread.

Blessings to all,


----------



## he beholds

ChristianTrader said:


> Jessica,
> Have you read the Ligon Duncan response found here: byFaith Magazine - In the Church - The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons



I have it but skipped right to Keller's side, since that was the view that I didn't agree with. I'll read it, though.



Edward said:


> But here we have a case where neither the BCO nor scripture allowed the practice of having a non-ordained deaconesses instead of ordained male deacons. BCO: "9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need."



If you took away the "instead of" your post would seem to support Keller.


----------



## Scott1

Jessi,

The shortest answer to how this violates the vows of PCA officers is that the Book of Church Order establishes, reflecting its doctrine, a system of governance of the local church by officers, deacon and elder.

This doctrine (polity) must be taught and followed, as a responsibility of office.

Officers vow to receive and uphold it, members vow to submit to it.

There have been many previous threads on this topic, and quick search will reveal those.

The most helpful way to answer this is to look for threads that argue from the specific language of the BCO, rather than a generalized discussion, because the former is where vows tie in.


----------



## sdesocio

Edward ,
Im not sure who you are talking about either. Who is the Camel?


----------



## Edward

he beholds said:


> If you took away the "instead of" your post would seem to support Keller.



The BCO permits non-ordained women and men to be appointed by the session to assist the ordained deacons. While I don't like the term 'deaconess' since it is open to abuse (and I suppose the proper counterpart to such deaconesses would be 'male deaconesses), the BCO violations come from not having an ordained male diaconate to be assisted, electing the deaconesses and male deaconesses instead of having the session appoint them, not from having the the females assist. So the 'instead of' is a key element of the violation in many of the 'deaconess' PCA churches.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------




sdesocio said:


> Im not sure who you are talking about either. Who is the Camel?



I sometimes collect points here when I'm clear in my communication. So I try to be circumspect in my language these days.


----------



## Jack K

Edward said:


> the BCO violations come from not having an ordained male diaconate



Really? You know PCA churches that don't ordain deacons at all? The only ones I know of with deaconesses ordain male deacons and then commission/install/appoint/whatever the women.


----------



## Scott1

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> CHAPTER 1
> The Doctrine of Church Government.
> 
> 1-1. The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or
> presbyterian, is comprehended under five heads: a. The Church; b. Its
> members; c. Its officers; d. Its courts; e. Its orders.
> 
> ....
> 
> 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.



There is no class of "unordained officers" as the esteemed Pastor argues.

The authority of office, the BCO confesses, comes directly from Christ (that is deacons and elders).



> 7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders
> and deacons. …. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.



The confessed doctrine is deacons and elders are qualified by Scripture, among the qualifications is that men are appointed to that authority in His church.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------




he beholds said:


> So are you both saying that even reading this article and Keller's defense of commissioning deaconesses, he is disregarding the church and his vows?
> There is substantial evidence to suggest that this view is contrary to the constitution of the denomination, and the vows to uphold it, and to teach the doctrine reflected by it.
> 
> Or do you think he is in bounds to do so, as his presbytery deemed, but you don't personally find deaconesses as biblical?
> I'm not sure what is being referred to specifically. The practices are clearly contrary to the constitution and the vows to uphold it.
> 
> In a confessional church, one is not free to disobey one's vows to uphold the constitution, nor to misrepresent what it says.
> 
> I Timothy 5 qualifies widow servants, quite different than what the esteemed Pastor is advocating.
> 
> 
> 
> My prior issue was with the feeling that he was doing something "illegal" in our denom. But I find his article compelling that he is fully allowed to do what he's doing.
> This is why this is so difficult, it is disruptive of the peace and purity of the church.
> 
> I think the rest is just our opinions on the practice.
> Presbyterians, above all, are specific on their practice of governance.
> 
> But please explain to me where I am wrong if he is not really allowed to do this. And not just Keller, obviously. He's just the most well-known. And I love his sermons and what little I've read of him, so I am actually glad to find that he's not sneaking by and not playing semantics.



One of the greatest aspects of presbyterian governance, the esteemed Pastor has said, is the accountability it affords.


----------



## he beholds

I don't know how there can simply be "substantial evidence" that the view is against the constitution of the denom, yet still exist, very, very publicly. I think the view is either against the const. or not--not that there's this collection of evidences for us to sort through. 
I understand where you are coming from, truly, for I really disliked the practice before, thinking it was semantics; but reading his argument in defense of the practice, it seems clear cut to me that the issue is not with the BCO or the vows. What do we make of Keller's Presbytery upholding the practice? Isn't it un-Presbyterian of us, if anyone, to disregard the ruling of a church authority, which is what Presbytery is, right? I'm not advocating "The Church said it, I believe it," as regards to the theology of the matter, but the church has OK'd the practice. As good presbyterians () we should probably not make up our own individual cases and verdicts regarding the standing of a pastor or groups of pastors.

The Bible is definitely not clear cut on the issue. (Well, of course it is, but our ability to understand it is not!) Keller says this in the argument, but I've already thought this and probably said it when discussing it here: The RPCNA ordains deaconesses. I know, they are not the standard for biblical orthodoxy that we seek to meet, but it is a fellow Reformed church who cannot be faulted as liberal or camels or guilty of some major liberal slide, ie:


Edward said:


> Look at the history of the northern church from 1920 to 1968, or the southern church from the 1950s to the merger. Then apply that to the PCA from the J&R to the present.


----------



## Scott1

he beholds said:


> I don't know how there can simply be "substantial evidence" that the view is against the constitution of the denom, yet still exist, very, very publicly.
> "Substantial evidence to suggest" is a polite way of saying that something is being misrepresented. We actually use this term in official PCA discourse in order to further humility and charity.
> 
> Yes, there are some things that exist publicly that are very disturbing- their existence doesn't make them right, however.
> 
> (Look at what happened to an entire presbytery with the federal vision teaching, and be encouraged there was repentance, and restoration).
> 
> I think the view is either against the const. or not--not that there's this collection of evidences for us to sort through.
> I understand where you are coming from, truly, for I really disliked the practice before, thinking it was semantics; but reading his argument in defense of the practice, it seems clear cut to me that the issue is not with the BCO or the vows.
> There is substantial evidence to suggest it most certainly IS with the constitution (BCO) and the vows.
> 
> Take time to look at the BCO- it clearly does not present the view of church governance being promoted by the esteemed Pastor.
> 
> What do we make of Keller's Presbytery upholding the practice? Isn't it un-Presbyterian of us, if anyone, to disregard the ruling of a church authority, which is what Presbytery is, right? I'm not advocating "The Church said it, I believe it," as regards to the theology of the matter, but the church has OK'd the practice.
> No, it has not.
> 
> In fact, General Assembly specifically ruled against it two years ago.
> http://theaquilareport.com/index.ph...pca-ga-deaconesses-cannot-serve-on-diaconates
> 
> As good presbyterians () we should probably not make up our own individual cases and verdicts regarding the standing of a pastor or groups of pastors.
> 
> The Bible is definitely not clear cut on the issue.
> The case for women as I Timothy 3 deacons is at best, unclear. Viewing it as favorably as possible to a contrary view, it is unclear. For that reason alone it ought not be done.
> 
> Were the esteemed Pastor arguing a biblical case for changing the BCO to accommodate a different doctrine, based on sixty year old servant widows who take a vow a celebacy, and are clearly under authority of the church officers- deacons and elders, this might be different.
> 
> But that is not at all what is being done.
> 
> What is being done is a mixing without distinction of women into the authoritative governing role of Diaconate, and making ordination a mere technicality.
> 
> (Actually the esteemed Pastor is also arguing that the BCO does not require officers be ordained, and that it does not require laying on of hands for ordination, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as "unordained officers," that officers must be ordained, and that laying on of hands is required for ordination in the denomination...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Well, of course it is, but our ability to understand it is not!) Keller says this in the argument, but I've already thought this and probably said it when discussing it here: The RPCNA ordains deaconesses. I know, they are not the standard for biblical orthodoxy that we seek to meet, but it is a fellow Reformed church who cannot be faulted as liberal or camels or guilty of some major liberal slide, ie:
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the history of the northern church from 1920 to 1968, or the southern church from the 1950s to the merger. Then apply that to the PCA from the J&R to the present.
> 
> The "joining and receiving" is based on a common, confessed doctrine- the local church is governed by deacons and elders. Qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elected, ordained and installed, with membership receiving their authority by vow.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You might also find helpful a complaint filed regarding permitting these practice in the presbytery. I'm not sure of the present status, and would not presuppose result, but you can see the concern about this.
http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/06/co...al-assemblys-standing-judicial-commissio.html

Hopefully, the denomination's confessed polity is being taught and modeled in your congregation as it is in the vast majority- that makes it easy to spot a counterfeit.


----------



## Edward

Jack K said:


> You know PCA churches that don't ordain deacons at all?



Yes, some of the smallest ones don't have a separate diaconate - diaconal duties are carried out by the session in those churches. And that isn't a problem when it is impossible to seat a board of deacons (see BCO 9-2). That provision, of course, doesn't apply to megachurches. The problem is having folks commissioned to assist a body that doesn't exist. 



Jack K said:


> The only ones I know of with deaconesses ordain male deacons and then commission/install/appoint/whatever the women.



Didn't we have this discussion last summer? or was that someone else? 

From the Redeemer website:

_Diaconate

The Diaconate,* a group of men and women* nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ's command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves. Leaders - redeemer.com_


----------



## Jack K

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know PCA churches that don't ordain deacons at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the smallest ones don't have a separate diaconate - diaconal duties are carried out by the session in those churches. And that isn't a problem when it is impossible to seat a board of deacons (see BCO 9-2). That provision, of course, doesn't apply to megachurches. The problem is having folks commissioned to assist a body that doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I know of with deaconesses ordain male deacons and then commission/install/appoint/whatever the women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we have this discussion last summer? or was that someone else?
> 
> From the Redeemer website:
> 
> _Diaconate
> 
> The Diaconate,* a group of men and women* nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ's command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves. Leaders - redeemer.com_
Click to expand...

 
I should have been more clear. I meant "Are there really PCA churches that have deacons (male) but don't consider them ordained?"

As for Redeemer NYC... I'm not personally familiar with their practices, but the article linked in the OP would suggest the men (but not the women) are ordained. I'm not sure how the paragraph you cited leads you to the conclusion that the men are not ordained. The other issues you mentioned—electing the women and having them serve in practice as equals with the men rather than as assistants—_are_ typical in PCA churches I've observed that have deaconesses.


----------



## lynnie

Scott- good post #22.

Jesse, I used to be in Keller's presbytery, and the big stink was not about having deaconesses. It was about not ordaining deacons. Basically, both groups were set in place the same way.

Now I know you are probably thinking what's the big deal. Well, the big deal is Hebr. 6:1-2 _Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. _ 

It means something to lay hands on people. It is a foundational doctrine. Remember the reference to Timothy being ordained and the laying on of hands by the presbytery? In the OT, God's hand denoted authority. In James 5, elders lay hands on the sick and the sick will be healed and their sins forgiven them. Elders and deacons are set apart to church office by the laying on hands. 

You can't treat men and women in a diaconate the same way. You can't lay hands on the women and ordain them the way you do men, and you can't take vows as a PCA minister and then refuse to lay hands and ordain your male deacons.

Yes, Keller is a wonderful preacher and been enormously used of God. But if Redeemer still refuses to set apart the deacons by the laying on of hands, and treats the men and women exactly the same, they are just plain wrong. It isn't whether commissioning women is right or wrong, it is that not ordaining men deacons is wrong.


----------



## he beholds

Scott, I really am trying to understand the whole thing, so I thank you so much for responding so thoroughly! I am still conflicted, but I will check out the links you offered. 
Lynnie, I hear what you are saying. Do we know (Where's Mason?) whether they lay hands on the deacons? 

(I'm thinking spinoff, why do our elders not lay hands on the sick?)


----------



## Scott1

he beholds said:


> Scott, I really am trying to understand the whole thing, so I thank you so much for responding so thoroughly! I am still conflicted, but I will check out the links you offered.
> Lynnie, I hear what you are saying. Do we know (Where's Mason?) whether they lay hands on the deacons?
> 
> (I'm thinking spinoff, why do our elders not lay hands on the sick?)



You're welcome.

One thing that may be helpful in understanding all this is that there are different ways we can look at this issue.

The first way is in terms of the constitution of the denomination, what that says.

We're not free to disobey that, nor free to misrepresent what it says.

In the PCA, someone who disagrees with her polity, at minimum cannot practice something different (because they vow to receive and uphold it). They cannot misrepresent what it says to others either. For example, if one believed in bishops as means of governance, they cannot install them at their local church (even though they personally believe in bishops, and even though there is a case for bishops in church history). Nor can they say that the denomination polity allows them to govern by bishops.

The officer vows that he receives the polity as in accordance with the Word of God, that he vows that freely and as matter of conscience. In the PCA, if his view were to change, it is required he come out and make his change of view known since his ordination.

It's not a matter of arguing from within that he governs by bishops because there are bishops in the Bible. That's contrary to his vows.

Think of it this way, let's say someone after ordination becomes convinced of certain points of Arminianism. They don't believe the limited atonement or unconditional election but somehow manage to believe the other three points of Calvinism. In a confessional church, they can't start arguing "from the Bible" that our Lord died "for all men" (rather than specifically for all His people, the elect), without running counter to their vows.

I'm afraid that's what happened with Deacon polity in a few instances.

This is serious stuff for an officer. Vows are serious things. God holds officers to a higher standard. 

Many times the discussion goes to the biblical grounds for I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 women deacons (very weak, virtually nonexistent in the witness of church history- a modern invention) by avoiding those texts, and the priority of creation, and the normative examples of Christ choosing men for office (the synoptic gospels, Acts 6, etc.) and tries to "shoe horn" references to woman servants of the church into the governing offices, which is just not there.

But the front line issue with the esteemed Pastor from New York is that he is leading a polity that historic presbyterianism (which we embrace, including in our BCO), would not recognize.

In the process, the argumentation goes into nonsensical propositions about the BCO such as we can have "non ordained" officers, and they can do everything an officer can do except they are not technically ordained.

Or, they argue that Deacon is merely a substitute word for "Deacon," implying (ridiculously) that the BCO says it is not a highly qualified office (by Scripture), chosen by election as leaders are chosen, ordained, installed.

Then, the argument blindly takes the male and female assistants (which are appointed by session) and twists that to say that means they are to be elected by the congregation, just like the officers, and that only women get a special title for this role.

The BCO gives Deacons, constituted as a Board (not mixed with assistants) oversight responsibilities of property, mercy ministry, and developing the grace of liberality in the congregation.

It's more than doing mercy only, important though that is.

In the very superficial discussions about our polity, this all often gets lost- and unfortunately (for the peace and purity of the church) unchallenged.

But it is so obvious the PCA does not confess the polity the esteemed Pastor advocates and apparently practices in defiance of his constitution, and the vows of officers to uphold and members to submit to it. Read Mr. Duncan's complement article to the one you referenced, and you will see our polity.

But they are not arguing on equal ground, really.

One is advocating something that "there is substantial evidence to suggest" is contrary to his constitution while the other is arguing what the constitution confesses. It is kind of like having a speed limit of 65mph and one side arguing from the standpoint that is in fact the "law," while the other asserts his right to drive 95mph as his own practice, without reference to the posted speed limit.

That's why the argument is quickly over when one looks at the PCA's polity as defined by the BCO.

It's very clear on the parameters of its polity- governance by deacons and elders, who are qualified by Scripture as men, leading in this capacity.

That doesn't mean it's infallible. But debating that your polity is not biblical once one has taken oath that it is biblical- that's a whole other issue.


----------



## Edward

Jack K said:


> I meant "Are there really PCA churches that have deacons (male) but don't consider them ordained?"



Yes. 

Check out the minutes from the 35th and 36th GAs: (Usually comes up under review of Presbytery minutes - this should be from the 36th GA. 

"Response to Northern California Presbytery:

Presbytery's response does not adequately address the specific issue identified by the 35th GA. The newly installed Session of the particularized church "commissioned" unordained men and women for a body which the Presbytery minutes called the "diaconate" "

"Response to Philadelphia Presbytery:

We agree with the Presbytery that BCO 9-3 would not directly apply to the commissioning of unordained women, if they are not considered to be members of the Diaconate. However, the record indicates that "four deaconesses and one deacon were commissioned," and the record of the particularization service refers to "Vows/Commissioning of Diaconate."

I know I've seen more, but this is what I can lay my hands on with a quick search. 

As for Redeemer: 

" Video of Redeemer Presbyterian (NYC) Deacons, Men and Women, no distinction

The following is posted as a joint 'commissioning' service for Deacons, men and women, without distinction at this church."

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/vi...n-nyc-deacons-men-women-no-distinction-51355/

(Update note to that thread - Mr. Keller has said that the use of the ordination language in that service by a long - time PCA preacher (who had intervening service at an EPC church) was a mistake, and I'll take him at his word on that. )


----------



## he beholds

Well, at least as it stands right now, the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right? I feel much more comfortable with the situation even with that. And I think that I personally agree with the allowance that the BCO gives--even if I am unconvinced either way regarding the matter (did the Bible have deaconesses). To me, the language does sound like assistants are allowed.


----------



## Notthemama1984

If I remember correctly though, Keller does not have them as assistant deacons. His head deacon is female. She is in charge of the entire diaconate.


----------



## TimV

Jack K said:


> And while it's true they may not be as interested in strict confessionalism, their reasons have more to do with conforming to Scripture than with conforming to culture.



But that disdain for an oath implicit in putting Scripture ahead of the confession *is* a product of modern culture. In other eras people could see that while the Scriptures trump the confession and while by definition the confession is fallible, one take an oath with the idea of swearing to one's own hurt and not changing.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Chaplainintraining said:


> If I remember correctly though, Keller does not have them as assistant deacons. His head deacon is female. She is in charge of the entire diaconate.


 
Yes, the staff page on their website lists Jenny Chang as "Director of the Diaconate." So, unless we have a boy-named-Sue situation...


----------



## lynnie

This is not about conforming to scripture instead of strict confessionalism.

_ 5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. _

You can read and logic at a second grade level and see that in scripture, the first deacons were set apart by the laying on of hands. Refusal to do so is not trying to put scripture ahead of confessions. 

Jesse spinoff......my PCA churches laid hands on the sick. In my last one I had anointing with oil and prayer by the elders three times and God healed me w/o needing medicine (not that I am against medicine). My current church does it as well. It seems to be a neglected doctrine in some circles, or misunderstood, I am not sure. It should be foundational, that the laying on of hands is commanded. It is symbolic and a means of grace- it is God's "hand" that matters, not our hands or elders hands- but it matters.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Jack K said:


> On the other hand, the pro-deaconesses side often accuses the others of placing tradition and blind confessionalism ahead of Scripture. This too is is untrue. I've yet to meet a deaconess opponent who didn't have a very high regard for Scripture. And concern for being true to confessional vows is a good thing, not a bad thing. By and large, they've thought through this issue carefully, not blindly followed tradition.



The pro-deaconess side has a sound and orderly method to get their views adopted by the entire PCA: Modify the appropriate sections of the church’s constitution. The process is well understood. It is the process by which ultimately the constitution conforms itself to Scripture.

Until such time churches should restrain themselves from acting in what appears to be a contra-constitutional way.

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------




he beholds said:


> When 10th Pres and others came over from the RPCES, with their Deaconesses, they were accepted into the PCA presbyteries because of this respect.



I fail to see how this helps in Keller's situation.


----------



## Scott1

he beholds said:


> the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right?



General Assembly two years ago ruled the opposite,
http://theaquilareport.com/index.php...-on-diaconates

I'm not sure where this is in the process.

The highest court of the denomination affirms what is in the Book of Church Order- that Diaconate is composed of Deacons, qualified and examined by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, elected, ordained and installed as recognition of perpetual office- all doctrine in the Book of Church Order. Also in the solemn oath officers take to receive and uphold it. 

Diaconate is not composed of Deacons and (female only) assistants of section 9-7, which includes both male and female assistants appointed by Session. In no way do they substitute for the office.

Yet, in practice and apparently in teaching, that is what is being proliferated under the authority of the esteemed Pastor.


----------



## he beholds

Scott1 said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly two years ago ruled the opposite, affirming what is obvious from the Book of Church Order- that Diaconate is composed of Deacons, examined by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, elected, ordained and installed as recognition of perpetual office- all doctrine in the Book of Church Order.
> 
> It is not composed of Deacons and (female only) assistants of 9-7, which includes both male and female assistants appointed by Session.
> 
> I'm not sure where this is in the process.
Click to expand...


Did they _rule_ this or pass it along to some committee or something like this?


----------



## brianeschen

he beholds said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly two years ago ruled the opposite, affirming what is obvious from the Book of Church Order- that Diaconate is composed of Deacons, examined by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, elected, ordained and installed as recognition of perpetual office- all doctrine in the Book of Church Order.
> 
> It is not composed of Deacons and (female only) assistants of 9-7, which includes both male and female assistants appointed by Session.
> 
> I'm not sure where this is in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they _rule_ this or pass it along to some committee or something like this?
Click to expand...

 
The GA has actually ruled on it. There should be no female deacons in the PCA. No female members of a diaconate. This is not a case of BCO against Scripture. The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture. If it is wrong there are ways to change it and that way is not to ignore it. When it is ignored you get disorder instead of order . . . division instead of unity.


----------



## Scott1

brianeschen said:


> The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture. If it is wrong there are ways to change it and that way is not to ignore it. When it is ignored you get disorder instead of order . . . division instead of unity.



And violation of the oath of office.

The oath requires a Pastor to swear he approves of the polity of the denomination (system of government), which in the PCA is governance of the local church by deacons and elder (not deacons and female only assistants of the deacons)


Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order



> FORM OF GOVERNMENT 21-1
> CHAPTER 21
> The Ordination and Installation of Ministers
> 
> Questions for Ordination
> Then, addressing himself to the candidate, he shall propose to him
> the following questions:
> 
> ....
> 
> 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?




And to submit to its practices, implying even if one does not always agree




> 4. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?



And that such vow is freely done



> 5. Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart,
> to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a
> sincere desire to promote His glory in the Gospel of His Son?



And maintain its peace and purity (which is its doctrine, including polity)



> 6. Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the
> truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of
> the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise
> unto you on that account?



And to model such before the believing and unbelieving world



> 7. Do you engage to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all
> your duties as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, whether
> personal or relational, private or public; and to endeavor by the
> grace of God to adorn the profession of the Gospel in your
> manner of life, and to walk with exemplary piety before the
> flock of which God shall make you overseer?



....


Misrepresenting what the polity of the Book of Church Order is, that is another further issue.


----------



## Scott1

The polity of the PCA is clearly laid out throughout the Book of Church Order.

It is governance of the local church by deacons and elders who go through similar, often common process for their office. None of this applies to non-officers (e.g. male and female assistants, appointed to assist).

The doctrine of ecclesiastical power is clearly laid out as doctrine:



> PREFACE TO
> THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
> I. THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH
> 
> Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine,
> government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.



It's not merely opinion, one view being as good as the next.

It is the constitution, which every officer agrees to uphold by sacred oath.



> III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED
> 
> The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church.



There are no "un-ordained" officers



> PART I
> FORM OF GOVERNMENT
> CHAPTER 1
> 
> The Doctrine of Church Government.
> 
> 1-1. The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or presbyterian, is comprehended under five heads: a. The Church; b. Its members; c. Its officers; d. Its courts; e. Its orders.



Those officers, by which the power is exercised are deacons and elders (not unordained assistants who serve with them without distinction, being called by the same title, going through the same installations service, mocking the ordination ceremony but only changing a couple of words)



> 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.





> CHAPTER 4
> The Particular Church
> 
> 4-2. Its officers are its teaching and ruling elders and its deacons.



This doctrine and practice is to be taught, modeled in every congregation of the denomination, bound not by opinion, but by oath and obedience, unless and until the confessed doctrine is changed, and the constitution (e.g. Book of Church Order) is changed.


----------



## Gage Browning

[/QUOTE]This doctrine and practice is to be taught, modeled in every congregation of the denomination, bound not by opinion, but by oath and obedience, unless and until the confessed doctrine is changed, and the constitution (e.g. Book of Church Order) is changed.[/QUOTE]

Amen.


----------



## Scott1

In the PCA, qualifications for offices are taken from our confessed understanding of Scripture (same as the church historically), one of those being that they are to be men.

There are not women deacons in the PCA's confessed polity or practice because it does not believe that is biblical. (There are plenty of unordained men AND women called to help in mercy and other ministries, servants, but that is not the office of Deacon, nor are they, in any sense, the Diaconate).



> 7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders
> and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders
> and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual
> oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are
> specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching
> elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to
> the physical and spiritual needs of the people. In accord with Scripture, these
> offices are open to men only.



In fact, the Constitution specifically says no one should usurp a title of office.



> 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.



Confessing its doctrine, the BCO understands that Scripture requires the offices of deacon and elder are qualified to be men.



> 7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders
> and deacons.... In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.



To argue that the BCO and the vows allow one to have women deacons, a female "diaconate" is a clear violation of both.


----------



## Gage Browning




----------



## Scott1

In the PCA, the Deacons spiritual charge of office is multiple:



> 9-2. It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to
> the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is their duty
> also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise
> effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these
> gifts among the objects to which they are contributed. They shall have the
> care of the property of the congregation, both real and personal, and shall
> keep in proper repair the church edifice and other buildings belonging to the
> congregation....



The BCO charges the office basically with:

1) property stewardship
2) oversight of mercy ministry
3) developing "the grace of liberality in the congregation"

Deacons, and by derivation "Diaconate" (the Board of Deacons) is not only charged with mercy ministry.

It is incomplete, a misrepresentation of the office, to say the office is only one of overseeing mercy ministry, or to argue that it is merely a substitute word for "helper."

Diaconate also stewards the money, physical property and has an exhortational role in bringing out the generosity of God's people.

Every one of these is part of the governance of the local church, it is part of leadership, and equipped and qualified by God.

All of this is doctrine confessed by the constitution, the Book of Church Order, in the PCA.

It is upheld by oath.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

Recognizing the authoritative nature of the office of Deacon, Diaconate meets with Session



> 9-2 It is desirable that the Session and the Board of Deacons meet in
> joint session once a quarter to confer on matters of common interest.



Members elect deacons and elders as officers in the same manner



> CHAPTER 24
> Election, Ordination and Installation of Ruling Elders and Deacons
> Election
> 
> 24-1. Every church shall elect persons to the offices of ruling elder and
> deacon in the following manner:



The officer (deacons and elders) takes oath to receive this polity



> 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?



The members take vows to receive the authority of the office of Deacon



> The ruling elder or deacon elect having answered in the affirmative,
> the minister shall address to the members of the church the following
> question:
> Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and
> receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon), and do you
> promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement and
> obedience in the Lord to which his office, according to the Word
> of God and the Constitution of this Church, entitles him?



To imply the following is a misrepresentation of the confessed, constitutional polity of the denomination:

(These arguments below are NOT the polity, confessed doctrine or constitution of the PCA, as other posts above have shown):

1) the office of Deacon is not one of vocation,
2) Deacons need not be ordained
3) Deacons are women
4) Deacons only do mercy
5) Deacons do not have authority
6) Deacons do not govern
7) Assistants can do the same thing as officers
8) Diaconate includes non Deacons 
9) Deacons do not need to have hands laid on for ordination
10) Deacons are merely "helpers"
11) Congregations can choose their own polity because the BCO does not say anything about what unordained assistants can do
12) Special title can be given to female only assistants to Deacons
13) The RPCES had women who served without distinction from Deacons (they never did, and rejected that)
14) That "joining and receiving" in the PCA allows individual churches to choose their own separate polity
15) Officers (deacons and elders) do not have to contend for their confessed polity, constitution, and vows.


----------



## sdesocio

Edward,




> I sometimes collect points here when I'm clear in my communication. So I try to be circumspect in my language these days.



If you need to be circumspect maybe it would be best to not say it at all...


----------



## he beholds

brianeschen said:


> The GA has actually ruled on it. There should be no female deacons in the PCA. No female members of a diaconate. This is not a case of BCO against Scripture. The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture. If it is wrong there are ways to change it and that way is not to ignore it. When it is ignored you get disorder instead of order . . . division instead of unity.



I don't know, I'm still unconvinced that the churches who have deaconesses are breaking vows. I'd like to see the report from the GA which ruled against them (and then disciplined these guys?). Keller's argument (that churches are permitted to have female assistants to the deacons) seems solid, but if the court really did rule against him I'd like to see it. I know you are an elder, so word may have come to you in a way that hasn't reached the lay people, but maybe you could direct me to the ruling? (I obviously can ask my own elders/pastor and may, but I'm not trying to stir things up and get deaconesses in our church.) I just find it so hard to understand how the denom can say, "You may not do this!" Yet the people still do this, w/out punishment.


----------



## Edward

sdesocio said:


> If you need to be circumspect maybe it would be best to not say it at all..



With a simple mouse click, you can ignore all of my posts. If you need some help on how to do that, let me know, and I'll pm you detailed instructions. That might make your experience here more enjoyable.


----------



## sdesocio

Edward, Im not looking to block you, just suggesting that maybe if a comments needs to ommit key items, like who said what, it might not be entirely beneficial for a conversation. I think I understand the "camel" reference, but Im not sure.


----------



## kvanlaan

> The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture.



I think this is a very foundational part of the discussion and is something that a group of very learned men sweated over for a long time. That times are changing, and some people have new ideas about it, is irrelevant. If it is unbiblical, that's another matter, but my guess is that whatever group (read: church) creates these documents, obviously feels that their exegesis is correct on it, as it is a peer review of sorts, being generated by a group of church leaders. If I don't agree with it, perhaps I should find another sandbox to play in, instead of generating conflict.



> I sometimes collect points here when I'm clear in my communication. So I try to be circumspect in my language these days.
> 
> 
> 
> If you need to be circumspect maybe it would be best to not say it at all...
Click to expand...


And then again, sometimes it is worth the points. Edward, if you do it so save a brother/sister/church pain or grief by enlightening them with information that you have seen in the past, then by all means, don't be backward about coming forward.


----------



## Wayne

Sorry to enter this so late. In the OP, one or two bits of correction that might save some confusion:



> When the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES) joined with the PCA, their 155th Synod stated, "they are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconesses and set them apart by prayer…. We affirm the right of a local church to have separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses."



The 155th Synod of the RPCES was in 1977. The RPCES joined the PCA five years later, in 1982. I'm not sure where the first part of that quote ("they are free...") provided above in the OP comes from, but it would *only* be the adopted final action which had authority within the RPCES. The statement of final action at that 155th Synod of the RPCES reads in full:



> We affirm in the absence of any compelling biblical evidence to support the ordination of women to the special office of deacon, that this office be limited to qualified men. At the same time acknowledging that the Scriptures contain many examples of women who serve, we affirm the right of a local church to have a separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses. (RPCES Minutes, p. 111)



Thus, except for providing the label of "deaconesses", their conclusion was not much different than was was found in the PCA's _BCO_. The RPCES studies, like the PCA's studies, do not have constitutional authority. They are instead "pious advice":



> . . . In receiving these denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America recognizes the history of the respective denominations as part of her total history and receives their historical documents as valuable and significant material which will be used in the perfecting of the Church. (Minutes of 9th PCA GA, p. 305, & cited by Paul R. Gilchrist, Stated Clerk of the RPCES, in the Preface to _Documents of Synod_)



If anything, the PCA's 1974 inclusion of "men and" into _BCO_ 9-7 might arguably have been a fit of egalitarianism and actually muddies the current discussion. I would vote for the removal of that 1974 addition to the text of _BCO_ 9-7.

The background to the PCA's _BCO_ 9-7 can be found here: Historical Development of the PCA Book of Church Order : Chapter 9, Paragraph 7

I still need to confirm these details, but I am given to understand that within the committee tasked with drafting the Southern Presbyterian _BCO_, there were two men who thought it Biblical to have deaconesses in the Church. Other committee members opposed them on this. A compromise statement was the result. The wording that was finally approved remains closely similar to what now appears in the PCA's _BCO_ 9-7. (compare the 1867 text with what was finally adopted in 1879).

Beyond all that, a wide range of articles on the diaconate can be accessed here: PCA Historical Center: Additional Resources on the Office of Deacon


----------



## Scott1

Thanks much for the history, Wayne.

It's very clear that the adopted RPCES position was NOT what is being practiced, or advocated by the esteemed pastor from Manhatten- men and women serving without distinction as deacons. 

Can you clarify regarding BCO 9-7?



Wayne said:


> If anything, the PCA's 1974 inclusion of "men and" into BCO 9-7 might arguably have been a fit of egalitarianism and actually muddies the current discussion. I would vote for the removal of that 1974 addition to the text of BCO 9-7.





> 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.



It would seem allowing Session to appoint (not congregation to elect as is the case for officers) both men and women to assist the Deacons was to establish a kind of parity between men and women serving in a kind of "ministry group" under Diaconate, not operating autonomously.

And very much not to create a special class for women only serving in that.

In any event, it doesn't seem there is anything even REMOTELY suggesting a parallel process for officers (deacons and elders) for any other class of persons in the BCO.

(As we are aware from public presentation, the esteemed Pastor is promoting women for qualifying by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, examining by those qualifications [ignoring the parts about them being for men], training them with officers, nominating them from the congregation like officers, having a "commission" just like an officer's ordination [without hands being laid on Deacons at all, apparently], installing them jointly, and, in at least one instance having the congregation take vows to submit to them, with apparently no one in the covenant community noticing to object. Somehow, saying they are not substituting for officers, and somehow saying this was RPCES practice when it clearly was not).


----------



## Wayne

Just to be clear, I make no comment about any contemporary application, only about the history of the matter.

After all, I'm just the archivist.


----------



## Scott1

Wayne said:


> If anything, the PCA's 1974 inclusion of "men and" into BCO 9-7 might arguably have been a fit of egalitarianism and actually muddies the current discussion. I would vote for the removal of that 1974 addition to the text of BCO 9-7.



And a valuable archivist, indeed.

Can you elaborate on this statement, as an archivist?


----------



## Wayne

I did say "arguably". 

The inclusion of "men and" creates a dilemma. If you have non-ordained women, selected by the Session to assist the deacons, and you were to allow for calling them "deaconesses", then in that scenario, what do you call the non-ordained men who also assist the deacons?


----------



## Edward

Wayne said:


> what do you call the non-ordained men who also assist the deacons?



Male deaconesses seems like the best solution.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wayne

That would pretty much put an end to the whole matter, wouldn't it?


----------



## Scott1

Wayne said:


> I did say "arguably".
> 
> The inclusion of "men and" creates a dilemma. If you have non-ordained women, selected by the Session to assist the deacons, and you were to allow for calling them "deaconesses", then in that scenario, what do you call the non-ordained men who also assist the deacons?


 
It seems section 9-7 is is clear- it is not creating titles, officers, whether male or female, for those who may be appointed to assist the deacons. 

It's almost as illogical, and contrary to the BCO, as saying that men assistants could be titled "bishops" and then serve without distinction from elders on Session. "_The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Bishops_ (to serve without distinction from elders on Session)."


----------



## SRoper

I remember thinking when this article first came out that Keller argues for a position that is actually more moderate than Redeemer's actual practice. It seems that the article is arguing for a recognized body of deaconesses that assist the deaconate, wheras the actual practice of Redeemer is to have men and women serve in the deaconate without distinction, even to the point of having a woman as head of the deaconate.


----------



## Scott1

SRoper said:


> I remember thinking when this article first came out that Keller argues for a position that is actually more moderate than Redeemer's actual practice. It seems that the article is arguing for a recognized body of deaconesses that assist the deaconate, wheras the actual practice of Redeemer is to have men and women serve in the deaconate without distinction, even to the point of having a woman as head of the deaconate.


 
Yes,
there is substantial evidence to suggest that this publicly argued position in this article, and at the General Assembly two man debate, are much less of a violation of polity and vows than actually what is being practiced.

While the article focuses on "commissioning," the actual practice is reducing ordination to mere technicality. And undermining all the doctrines that go with it. That includes the presbyterian doctrine of office, and of the office of Deacon particularly (by arguing it is only a substitute word for "helper," or only charged with doing mercy.

But the doctrine is deacons oversee mercy, property stewardship and developing the grace of liberality in the congregation and therefore, as officers with authority, meet regularly with Session. And, that it is a perpetual call upon a man, who is qualified by Scripture by I Timothy 3 and Titus I.

It is confusing the attributes of church office, nomination, qualification, election, ordination and installation and simply inserting women into all those functions. So the unordained serve together with officers "without distinction."

It appears, what is being practiced is that the Session is composed of men as officers there, though it also appears women are regularly meeting with them there (don't forget the BCO advises joint meeting between Diaconate and Session at least quarterly [BCO 9-4]). The practiced "diactonate" appears to be a woman dominated entity- with the leadership being women.

In that context, it is hard to say one is only arguing for "commissioning" (not ordaining) 'deaconess.'

Though the reasoning in the article would make inroads toward "de facto" women's ordination, it is a far cry from what appears to be the actual practice.

One wonders why the basis for the actual practice being participated in is not being argued for in the public discourse, e.g. that ordination does not require the laying on of hands, that chair of Diaconate is a woman, that technically unordained lay people are installed in the same or similar ceremony at the ordained, that they are chosen by election of the congregation, etc.


----------



## brianeschen

he beholds said:


> I don't know, I'm still unconvinced that the churches who have deaconesses are breaking vows. I'd like to see the report from the GA which ruled against them (and then disciplined these guys?). Keller's argument (that churches are permitted to have female assistants to the deacons) seems solid, but if the court really did rule against him I'd like to see it. I know you are an elder, so word may have come to you in a way that hasn't reached the lay people, but maybe you could direct me to the ruling? (I obviously can ask my own elders/pastor and may, but I'm not trying to stir things up and get deaconesses in our church.) I just find it so hard to understand how the denom can say, "You may not do this!" Yet the people still do this, w/out punishment.



That is a very good question. I will have to do some research on the ruling and get back to you on specifics. Our Presbytery was heavily involved in the women deacon issue so it is probably more on our radar than in other Presbyteries. 

It is important to remember that just because men are not disciplined does not mean they are following the constitution. There is a difference between the constitution and the enforcement of the constitution. A very good analysis of the decline of Presbyterianism in America was done by Gary North in a book called "Crossed Fingers" in which he explains that the law is merely suggestions without accompanying sanctions for violation of the law. As an illustration of this point, it has been clearly demonstrated that Federal Vision teaching is outside the bounds of Reformed theology, but if no elder is willing to press charges against Federal Vision teachers, this heresy will continue unchecked in churches. However, just because it is unchecked does not make it right. It is my belief that the tools of discipline that were handed down to us in Scripture and explained in our standards have been too widely neglected in our day. There is a lot of pressure against using discipline in the church. It just isn't "nice." Unfortunately, the neglect of biblical discipline gives the impression to church members that certain unacceptable practices are actually acceptable. This is destructive to the peace and purity of the church.

After research . . .

1) From the GA Committee on Constitutional Business 2010


> E. Overture 10 from Northern California Presbytery: “Amend BCO 1-4, 4-2, 5-10, 7-2, 9-2, 9-7, & Add BCO 9-8 to Appoint Unordained Men and Women to Carry Out Diaconal Ministry” In the opinion of the CCB, Overture 10 is in conflict with other parts of the Constitution on the following grounds:
> 1) The insertion of “ordained” to describe the office of elder and deacon in the proposed revision of BCO 7-2 implies that there is an unordained office, which conflicts with BCO 17-1.
> 2) The statement in the proposed revision of BCO 9-2, “In a church in which deacons
> are not ordained,” could imply the existence of deacons who have not been ordained, which also conflicts with BCO 17-1.
> 3) In the proposed new BCO 9-8, there is reference to “a local church which does not have ordained deacons,” which could imply the existence of deacons who have not been ordained, which also conflicts BCO 17-1.
> 4) Regardless of what may be the intention of the Overture, the ambiguous wording of the proposed Amendments gives rise to various interpretations, at least one of which is in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. Adopted 8-0-0
> 
> VI. Advice to the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records
> In the opinion of the CCB, the response of Northern California Presbytery to the 37th	General Assembly regarding the exceptions taken to its Minutes by the 35th General Assembly is not satisfactory in that, as was the case in the Presbytery’s response to the 36th General Assembly, it failed to address the issues raised by the exceptions - namely, that a diaconate (synonymous with the expression “Board of Deacons” [see BCO19-15 and 24-10]) may only include men who are elected, ordained, and installed; and that the practice in question denies qualified men their constitutional and biblical right to be considered for this office. Adopted.8-0-0
> 
> In the opinion of the CCB, the response of the Philadelphia Presbytery to the 37th General Assembly regarding the exception taken to its Minutes by the 35th General Assembly is satisfactory in that it agrees with the judgment of the 36th General Assembly that it was erroneous to call the body in question a “diaconate.” Although the presbytery correctly notes that having ordained deacons is not a requirement of the Book of Order for the formal organization of a church, the argument that one deacon does not constitute an organized Board does not preclude the ordination of only one qualified man as a deacon. It would be constitutionally appropriate for a congregation to elect one deacon and for the session to select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist that deacon (BCO 9-7). Adopted. 8-0-0


2) From the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records (I cannot locate my copy at the moment, but will include this when I find it – it details the back and forth between NorCal and GA as well as Philadelphia and GA regarding the issue of women deacons on a diaconate. If anyone has their copy of this report, feel free to beat me to it.)

3) Finally, this article ( Women and the Office of Deacon in the PCA ) from Dominic Aquila is helpful for properly defining the office of deacon biblically/constitutionally.


----------

