# Complaint filed against PCA Metro NY Presbytery (Deaconesses)



## Romans922

You can read about over at the Bayly Blog.

BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Woman deacons and Metro NY Presbytery: Complaint filed...

Please note other items: Metro Atlanta Presbytery and Northern California Presbytery have adopted similar proposals concerning deaconesses (not the complaints, just the proposals). Philadelphia (the one with Phil Ryken's Church) is in the process of doing the same.

On a positive note: Rocky Mountain Presbytery has adopted a statement contrary to the other presbyteries in line with the BCO


----------



## toddpedlar

Good! Probably won't go anywhere, but they've been in violation of the BCO in practice (holding to the letter, I suppose, by using the dodge of ordaining nobody but having a 'vibrant diaconal ministry') for YEARS in Metro NY.


----------



## jonmo

Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.


----------



## Marrow Man

One of the TEs mentioned in the Metro NY Presbytery report (Craig Higgins) was my campus minister in college. While I consider to him to be a brilliant, godly man, this isn't the first time in the last few years that I've read/seen/heard something regarding him that has distressed me. When the committee report concerning the FV came up at the PCA GA a couple of years ago, he was either minister directly before or directly after Sproul's famous admonition (which means he was speaking from the other viewpoint).


----------



## N. Eshelman

Romans922 said:


> You can read about over at the Bayly Blog.
> 
> BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Woman deacons and Metro NY Presbytery: Complaint filed...
> 
> Please note other items: Metro Atlanta Presbytery and Northern California Presbytery have adopted similar proposals concerning deaconesses (not the complaints, just the proposals). Philadelphia (the one with Phil Ryken's Church) is in the process of doing the same.
> 
> On a positive note: Rocky Mountain Presbytery has adopted a statement contrary to the other presbyteries in line with the BCO



Ryken's church has had women deeks for a LONG time. I believe that they were grandmothered in when 10th came into the PCA from the UPCNA.


----------



## jonmo

Joshua said:


> No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.



I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.


----------



## Edward

*

It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight. 

I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.


----------



## Scott1

jonmo said:


> Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.



Yes, Tim Kellar is a gifted teaching elder and the church he serves is a great asset.

We need to pray he and the leadership will respond humbly as this is being "called out" for accountability to the larger church.

There appears to be a failure here to follow the denomination's polity (something all elders and deacons vow to) in a very significant way:

1) refusing to ordain and install Deacons
2) denying the congregation of the benefits of the presbyterian system of government

(That is the church is governed by elders and deacons, with unordained men and women assisting) 

We also have to remember that a particular church is not intended to be overly dominated by one person in presbyterian polity. We all have a tendency to "worship" people by being "respectors of persons." That is not right, biblically.

There are many checks in the PCA system including ordaining and installing associate pastors (called by the congregation). Leadership (governance) really is designed to come from the plurality of elders (usually ruling elders). So, one teaching elder's views ought not be dominating polity- that should be coming from the ruling elders.

If what is coming out is true, there has been a real failure of that, and the situation has been allowed to get out of hand.

We all need to pray here that this will be met with humility, submission and charity all around. This needs to be shown to the outside watching as well as for the peace and purity of Christ's church.


----------



## Craig

jonmo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.
Click to expand...


Definitely keep reading the Bayly Blog...Tim Bayly has documented Redeemer's violations clearly...and has shown that Tim Keller less than forthright when it comes to Redeemer and their deaconesses.

Tim Bayly on deaconesses being "grandfathered" in:
BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: The RPCES heritage in the PCA: Jim Hurley, Joel Belz, Will Barker, Steve Smallman, and Dominic Aquila...

Tim's systematic dealing with the RPCES decisions re: deaconesses:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6a
Part 6b


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

While I take great issue with Pastors Tim and David Bayly in some of the highly inappropriate and unfounded things they've said about Pastor Keller and Redeemer (you can see my comments there - I don't want to start a "blog war"), I do commend them for their desire to maintain the integrity of the PCA polity and to uphold Scripture. I understand their concern about the deaconess issue, but I think these presbyteries have a strong case; I support the Metro NY Presbytery (and the 3 others), but can see the strength of the complaints against them.

As I understand it, the complaint against the Metro NY Presbytery will first go before the presbytery itself, and then before the presbytery's standing judicial committee. Since the presbytery itself just passed these resolutions, it seems highly unlikely that they would reverse course and uphold the complaint. 

From there, I believe it would go before the GA judicial committee. At that point, one of two things will happen: the complaint will be rejected and things will continue as they are, or they will uphold the complaint against the Metro NY Presbytery, which would directly affect my church (Redeemer) and pastor. While I hope they reject the complaint, my hunch is that they will uphold it, and rule against the practice of not ordaining male deacons.

If that happens, I suspect the Metro NY Presbytery will disagree with the decision but will comply, and as a result Redeemer will ordain male deacons - I think it is highly unlikely that Redeemer would leave the PCA over this. In practice, I doubt anything will change - a handful of male deacons will be ordained, but the day to day function of the diaconate will likely remain completely unchanged. 

So in the end, I think everyone will be satisfied: Redeemer can retain its strong female presence in the diaconate, only now with some ordained male deacons, and the anti-deaconess camp will be happy because the BCO will be strictly upheld and it will be viewed as a repudiation of liberalization (as much as I personally disagree). So in the end, this complaint could actually be a good thing overall for the PCA. While I personally hate to see my church under fire, I am glad this issue is being addressed, and will hopefully be resolved once and for all.

I pray for the PCA, particularly for unity, and for wisdom of the men on the judicial committees. I also pray for Redeemer and Pastor Keller, especially for wisdom as they navigate these choppy waters.


----------



## Marrow Man

Edward said:


> It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.
> 
> I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.



It ain't necessarily peachy in the ARP, either. The presbytery I'm in, by and large, is opposed the whole deaconness thing as well (the ARP policy is to allow the practice on a sessional basis -- the wording allowing it in the Form of Government is very vague, btw). The memorial (same as overtures in the PCA) has been presented to rescind the practice, but it cannot get any traction outside of our presbytery.

This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in. The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books. And barring anything extraordinary, it's won't go away.


----------



## Edward

Marrow Man said:


> This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in.



Agreed. 

I grew up in the PCUS, and unlike some of the younger brothers, I know that change like this is generally a one way street. Southern Baptists, under the leadership of Patterson and Patterson is the only case I can think of where the liberals were not just stopped in their tracks, but rolled back decisively. 

The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.


----------



## ww

Praying for the elimination of Egalitarianism within the PCA as soon as it is able to do so as I believe this to be of the utmost importance.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Edward said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I grew up in the PCUS, and unlike some of the younger brothers, I know that change like this is generally a one way street. Southern Baptists, under the leadership of Patterson and Patterson is the only case I can think of where the liberals were not just stopped in their tracks, but rolled back decisively.
> 
> The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.
Click to expand...


As a recent convert from the PC(USA) I can concur wholeheartedly. Egalitarianism is not a disease that many recover from, especially those with "big names" doing the pushing.


----------



## TimV

Don't count out NorCal. There are still three Presbyterian churches in that Presbytery, and they have more energy and knowledge than those of churches there like Keller's who say "We have no women Deacons. Please welcome Amy Chung, our head of the Deaconate" and think that they can even spell the word integrity.


----------



## WarrenInSC

*Indeed, Division Started w/ Ignoring the BCO*



Edward said:


> ...*
> 
> It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.
> 
> I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.



Indeed. It has already 'blown up into a mess" - that's the problem. We in the PCA are supposed to be part of a confessional and connectional church. When a high profile church with a high profile pastor knowingly and deliberately ignores the governing instrument of our unity, the BCO, that is an attack on the very heart of our unity. It is deeply divisive and distresses the brotherhood of believers within our PCA. It is a great service to the peace and unity of the church to call out this blatant non-conformance and bring it to account. This is really two issues - the issue of deaconesses, which is clearly settled in our standards, consistents with centuries of understanding by the Church as a whole, and the issue of deliberate unconstitutional process. Just think - if this unconstitutional process is allowed to go unchallenged and not rolled back, the same unconstitutional process could then be pointed to as acceptable practice within the PCA - and then made a habit, but on other deep issues of faith and practice.


----------



## Marrow Man

Let me ask a dumb question: in the ARP, we have the "local option" with regard to deacons and deaconnesses (I'm not making this up -- our Form of Government defines deacons as "persons* of good character, honest repute, exemplary life, brotherly love, sympathetic nature, and sound judgment, and who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture"; the asterisk leads to the following statement: "Circumstances of the local congregation shall require each session to determine the meaning of the word 'persons.' "). But it is still left up to local sessions. Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?


----------



## TimV

> Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?



Neither. They are headed to take their BCO seriously.


----------



## ww

Marrow Man said:


> Let me ask a dumb question: in the ARP, we have the "local option" with regard to deacons and deaconnesses (I'm not making this up -- our Form of Government defines deacons as "persons* of good character, honest repute, exemplary life, brotherly love, sympathetic nature, and sound judgment, and who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture"; the asterisk leads to the following statement: "Circumstances of the local congregation shall require each session to determine the meaning of the word 'persons.' "). But it is still left up to local sessions. Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?



Hopefully C: None of the Above! Here is an Overtures link and Overture 5 is seeking to open up the question of what is the woman's role in the Church. 

Presbyterian Church in America


----------



## TimV

> It cannot be put in the same category with the creeds and confessions even though you promise to uphold them all. I sure hope they go straight to the Word when it comes to women in leadership.



But that's chaos. If I said I thought that cussing was fine, and I joined this board and agreed not to cuss then I have to abide by my word. These people joined the PCA with eyes wide open, and they are ignoring their vows. That's the problem, not women Deacons. There are ways to change the BCO legally and orderly.


----------



## WarrenInSC

*Vows are words - words have meaning*



TimV said:


> It cannot be put in the same category with the creeds and confessions even though you promise to uphold them all. I sure hope they go straight to the Word when it comes to women in leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's chaos. If I said I thought that cussing was fine, and I joined this board and agreed not to cuss then I have to abide by my word. These people joined the PCA with eyes wide open, and they are ignoring their vows. That's the problem, not women Deacons. There are ways to change the BCO legally and orderly.
Click to expand...


Precisely - when every one of the TE's & RE's in Metro NY took a vow, they said words before the Lord and His Church that are supposed to MEAN something - not some post-modernist personal reinterpretation that changes with time & culture.


----------



## Edward

Marrow Man said:


> Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?



IF the innovation is allowed to stand, based upon my recollection of what transpired in the PCUS, I would guess that it would initially be permissive, and a few years later become required. And now (or at least a couple of years ago, based on the last statistics I saw) 75% of the 'deacons' in the PCUSA are women, and right around half of the elders. So I know how this story ends if proper discipline isn't enforced at this stage.


----------



## Romans922

jonmo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.
Click to expand...



Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution.


----------



## Hamalas

Oh Lord I pray for my denomination.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Edward said:


> The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.


Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so.


----------



## Zenas

Mason, 

Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up? 

Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst?


----------



## brianeschen

jonmo said:


> Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.


City Church San Francisco left because they wouldn't submit to the vows they agreed to submit to. BCO 8 - the elder and BCO 9 - the deacon. They knew getting into the denomination that the PCA holds that these two offices are for qualified MEN only. They remained in long enough for the PCA to get them started financially and then they bolted.


----------



## Marrow Man

This issue bears some similarities with another thread I started here. Though it is over different issues (WCF v. BCO), the root problem is similar: how do we handle ministers who enter a denomination knowing full well what that denomination teaches and yet begin teaching (in some capacity) differently from the system accepted by that denomination. It seems a recipe for disaster.


----------



## BG

Marrow Man said:


> This issue bears some similarities with another thread I started here. Though it is over different issues (WCF v. BCO), the root problem is similar: *how do we handle ministers who enter a denomination knowing full well what that denomination teaches and yet begin teaching (in some capacity) differently from the system accepted by that denomination.* It seems a recipe for disaster.



Tim great point. I do not understand why we tolerate this for a single minute. It is vital to the health of the denomination that we put these men out of the denomination the minute that they publicly or privately teach against the standards. This issue has been settled for thousands of years, there is no reason to be tolerant, but unfortunately we will. We should keep in mind that this is only the beginning.


----------



## Marrow Man

*

I cannot understand the arrogance of someone who would disturb the peace and unity of the church and split a denomination by pushing an agenda like this. The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter. But causing a split over egalitarianism and/or quasi-feminism?!? For shame.


----------



## Edward

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so.
Click to expand...


Private conversations with a few of the men involved, and reading some of the material in connection with the threat of a Presbytery to withdraw a few years ago. Probably not worth a thread from me, because I don't think I'd say much beyond that, and would likely not defend my point further if someone could refute it.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Marrow Man said:


> The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books.



Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.


----------



## Edward

Marrow Man said:


> The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter.



I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.


----------



## fredtgreco

nleshelman said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.
Click to expand...


From a Position Paper approved by the ARP General Synod:
( Women in the Life of the Church )



> The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church discussed and debated these matters with vigor from the 1960's until the early 1980's. A key development was the defeat of a 1969 proposal to rewrite the Form of Government so as to open all offices to women. The 1969 General Synod declined to open the offices of elder and minister to women but did permit
> Sessions to allow women to serve in the office of deacon


----------



## Marrow Man

Edward said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.
Click to expand...


Eh, you may be correct. I understand your point. I only meant that the conservatives who left in 1973 did so for the "right" reasons. If a disgruntled group leaves now b/c of egalitarianism, that is not the right reason.


----------



## toddpedlar

jonmo said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.
Click to expand...


The primary issue I have is that the office of deaconness is not Scriptural, and is certainly contrary to the confession, and without a doubt contrary to the BCO.

So what has been done at Redeemer and other churches is to dispense with the "office" of deacon entirely so that men and women can equally well fill exactly the role that ordained deacons do in churches that hold to the BCO they claim as their own as part of the PCA. The deaconesses at Redeemer and other places that have merely "commissioned" people doing the diaconal role do just what deacons do at places that properly ordain deacons. 

So the other problem, which is not much less significant than the Biblical issue, is that these churches are skirting (no pun intended) the BCO which they claim to uphold. They are doing what they want to do in such a way that they are not violating the letter of the BCO, but are CLEARLY violating the intent. This is the source of the complaint, and in my opinion a highly dishonest way of operating. It would be far better and more respectable to practice according to the BCO as it is written, and work to change it, than to sidestep the BCO and practice the way you'd rather (with male and female deacons holding office equally, though you argue strenuously that they really aren't holding office) and pretend you're not violating the church constitution.


----------



## Knoxienne

I will say that I'm disturbed by the number of these reformed womens' conferences and retreats (from a variety of reformed denominations) where women travel around and speak. I stopped attending these because they annoy me no end. These women already have a podium, and have made a business career out of traveling around to these conferences. Certainly they belong to churches which forbid women elders, but if they're lecturing and teaching *publicly* in "business suits" behind a podium, what's the next step? Why do they need a podium to minister to other women? 

Further, while I think it's wonderful for women to get together and teach one another, I'm uncomfortable with women's theological bible studies. I think this is where the trouble can start. They're already teaching theology like an elder instead of teaching according to Titus II. The Greek in the Titus II passage for teach is "sophronidzo" - different than the Greek "didaktikos" used for passages which speak of elders teaching. "Sophronidzo" means sober-mindedness, and that is what is to be communicated to other women in the areas of keeping the home and loving their husbands and children.
And if women are going to teach women these things, the home, not the public sphere, is where this all needs to take place.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution.



Pastor Barnes,

Redeemer doesn't believe they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution. Did you read the lengthy resolution that the Metro NY Presbytery and others passed? They make a lengthy argument that they ARE submitting to the BCO. I understand why you and others disagree - I suppose this will be resolved when it comes before the SJC.



Zenas said:


> Mason,
> 
> Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up?
> 
> Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst?



Andrew,

No it is not disingenuous or deceitful, and your point is at the core of Redeemer's philosophy on non-ordained female deacons. The BCO makes it clear that the role of the deacon is one of service, mercy ministry, and is at times advisory (BCO 9-1, BCO 9-6). So even if you ordain a male deacon, there is no practical (day to day) role of authority (teaching, exhortation, rule, policy-making, etc) that he has that precludes a woman from serving in the same capacity. Thus an ordained male deacon has no clear role that distinguishes him functionally from an unordained deaconess - the only difference would be that he is in a church office and she is not. 

I think the problem people have with Redeemer's practice is the fact that they do not ordain male deacons at all. People view this as a violation of the BCO, because it makes women and men equal within the diaconate, even though women aren't ordained into the office. So it seems everyone would be satisfied with the result if Redeemer (and other churches) simply ordained male deacons, even if the daily function of the diaconate didn't change - I don't think this would be disingenuous at all. 



TimV said:


> There is a method set up in the BCO for legitimate discourse, even such as would lead to changes in the BCO. But that is not the route chosen by the sneaks and liberals. They would rather constantly chip and erode. First this issue, then the next, and the next and so on.
> 
> They, if they get their way on this issue, will use the same technique, which will be to ignore their vows, openly flaunting the BCO until they can bring the debate to a field of their own choosing.



Tim,

I don't think anyone is openly flaunting the BCO. If you read the rationale for their practice (in the link Pastor Barnes provided), you will find they make a strong case for why they are in submission to the BCO. You (and plenty of others) may disagree, but it is anything but ignoring or flaunting the BCO.

Also, this practice has not been one of "sneaks and liberals." The fact that they have made their views and practices widely known for 20+ years flies in the face of that argument. I know you've had a bad experience and want to see the integrity of the BCO upheld, as we all do. Hopefully this complaint and the procedures that follow will resolve this issue for good.


----------



## Romans922

The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative. 

The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.


----------



## Montanablue

Romans922 said:


> The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.
> 
> The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.



I'm a little confused of your point here, since (I believe) Redeemer is not ordaining their deaconesses. Could you clarify?


----------



## BG

B


----------



## Romans922

Montanablue said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.
> 
> The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little confused of your point here, since (I believe) Redeemer is not ordaining their deaconesses. Could you clarify?
Click to expand...


1) My point was stating that the office of a deacon (which is an ordained office NOT an UN-ORDAINED office, one can't be a deacon without being ordained) is an authoritative office (meaning it cannot be held by a woman, because women can't have authority over men within the Church).

2) Redeemer does not ordain men or women (they aren't supposed to ordain women, but to make men/women seem equal as it has to do with the office of deacon, they don't ordain either). This is another major problem I wasn't even addressing. For they are forsaking the ordination of deacons (who are to be male).


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very essence of one being ordained to an office declares it to be Authoritative.
> 
> The problem here is the lack of understanding on the meaning of 'ordination' and 'office,' and what being ordained to an office INSTITUTED by Christ through the Apostles means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little confused of your point here, since (I believe) Redeemer is not ordaining their deaconesses. Could you clarify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) My point was stating that the office of a deacon (which is an ordained office NOT an UN-ORDAINED office, one can't be a deacon without being ordained) is an authoritative office (meaning it cannot be held by a woman, because women can't have authority over men within the Church).
> 
> 2) Redeemer does not ordain men or women (they aren't supposed to ordain women, but to make men/women seem equal as it has to do with the office of deacon, they don't ordain either). This is another major problem I wasn't even addressing. For they are forsaking the ordination of deacons (who are to be male).
Click to expand...


This is a helpful clarification, Pastor Barnes - thank you for posting this. Just to present Redeemer's viewpoint so Kathleen and others know:

1) Redeemer is not advocating for ordaining women to deacon or any other office. In fact, Tim Keller wrote a paper in August 2008 titled "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Deacons." So no one saying women should be ordained into an office of the church.

2) Redeemer's argument is that while men only are to be ordained deacons, the BCO does not mandate any deacons be ordained at all. BCO 9-2 even says that if there are no ordained deacons for "any reason" the responsibility of the deacons falls to the Session. Pastor Barnes and others may say this provision was intended for a small church that lacks enough men to fill a diaconate, but Redeemer's position is that this is not at all clear in the BCO. So at Redeemer, the Session fills the role of the ordained diaconate, and they have the unordained men and women assistants explicitly allowed in BCO 9-7.


----------



## Romans922

If they are the 'assistants' why are they said to be the 'diaconate'?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> If they are the 'assistants' why are they said to be the 'diaconate'?



Because they fill the functional role (service, mercy, etc) of a diaconate, even if not ordained to the office.


----------



## Romans922

So then the Session does not fill the role of the diaconate, as you said?


----------



## Montanablue

Thanks for the explanation, Mason. I rather expected that that was what Redeemer's stance was, but its nice to have it confirmed from someone who is a member there.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"?  
Can someone give the text of the BCO 9-7? It would seem to me the BCO would be dealing with a case of _cannot_, not _will not_ as to ordaining deacons.


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"?
> Can someone give the text of the BCO 9-7? It would seem to me the BCO would be dealing with a case of _cannot_, not _will not_ as to ordaining 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.

That's kind of funny, as I read it now. "The Session of a church should select" If I am not mistaken, the Session does not do this at Redeemer the congregation nominates and elects them. {I could be mistaken about this}. "appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons" But Mason has said that there are no deacons. And if there are then it is VERY confusing, for those who are considered deacons, are described here (in Mason's view) in 9-7 as one's who are appointed to assist the deacons. And we know that the deacons are not the elders. For that is a different office altogether.

BCO 9-2 states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> So then the Session does not fill the role of the diaconate, as you said?



The Session fills the role of the ordained deacons. The unordained (or commissioned) diaconate performs the practical, day-to-day work of service, mercy ministry, etc.

Just to add: this is a great discussion, but I'll be away most of the day. It's beautiful day here in NYC - we'll be at Central Park with everyone else in the city...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

What does the portion say that speaks of if a session is unable to ordain deacons?
As to this section, how is expediency not over turned by potential scandal in this case? This whole thing seems to reek of willfulness not subjection.



Romans922 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"?
> Can someone give the text of the BCO 9-7? It would seem to me the BCO would be dealing with a case of _cannot_, not _will not_ as to ordaining 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## DMcFadden

Not being a Presbyterian may cause me to miss some (much? all?) of the nuance here.

However, having gone to Fuller when the PCUSA was in the midst of struggling with the outcome of the Kenyon case in 1974 (Kenyon was a student of Gerstner who dissented from the ordination of women and was denied ordination in the PCUSA), I vividly remember the arguments. Interestingly enough, Jack Rogers (my old Fuller prof) quite prominent in the arguments regarding Kenyon has gone on to recount the facts of the Kenyon case in his latest book defending the ordination of homosexuals. He uses the issue of ordination of women as a case study of how to interpret/reinterpret the Bible in times of controversy.

Follow Rogers' logic on ordaining women and ordaining gays and you have the grist for the mill of Wayne Grudem's objections as to where egalitarianism inevitably leads. 

Mincing words over constitutional fine points in your BCO or even in the confessions misses the larger cultural trend of which Presbyterian churches are not immune. The logic of egalitarianism is utterly totalitarian in its breathtaking scope and claim upon pride of place in our thinking. It brooks no dissent, will tolerate no demurrers (no matter how deeply held for reasons of conscience -- ask Kenyon!), and knows no conclusion other than becoming enshrined in the common conscience as the only acceptable moral position.

The tepid "toes touching the edge of the water" initiatives of some of the conservative Presbyterian denominations are not being done in an intellectual or cultural vacuum. The debate over women's roles underlies the entire discussion. And, the course on which some of them are on, if Dr. Grudem is correct in his historical judgment, is also pretty predictable. Grudem avers that egalitarianism is a "new path to liberalism." Reading Jack Rogers (now remembered by me 35 years later mostly as the guy who made fun of Warfield, Henry, Gerstner, Sproul, and Schaffer in class) would tend to support Grudem's claim.

The actions being advocated should not be considered in isolation from the drift of cultural and intellectual history in this country. Taken in isolation, the accommodations may seem reasonable and even wise to avoid institutional upset. However, the history of the PCUSA suggest a different trajectory. Remember that in the 70s Rogers was an icon of "evangelical" mainline Presbyterianism who worked within the system well enough to become eventually the stated clerk (or whatever you folks call the PCUSA mucky muck).


----------



## Romans922

In case everyone missed it, like Chris probably  I edited my last post to this:

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.

That's kind of funny, as I read it now. "The Session of a church should select" If I am not mistaken, the Session does not do this at Redeemer the congregation nominates and elects them. {I could be mistaken about this}. "appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons" But Mason has said that there are no deacons. And if there are then it is VERY confusing, for those who are considered deacons, are described here (in Mason's view) in 9-7 as one's who are appointed to assist the deacons. And we know that the deacons are not the elders. For that is a different office altogether.



*BCO 9-2* states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
ruling elders."

Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?


----------



## Turtle

Romans922 said:


> So then the Session does not fill the role of the diaconate, as you said?



BCO 12-5 "The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the church, for which purpose it has power:

...

b. To examine, ordain, and install ruling elders and deacons on their election by the church, and to require these officers to devote themselves to their work; to examine the records of the proceedings of the deacons;..."


I suppose that if the Session takes for itself the liberty to choose not to ordain and install deacons then it appears the "unordained deacons" can take the liberty to tell the Session to also refrain from "requiring the deacons to devote themselves to their work".


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thanks very much Andrew. This is really pretty stinky; defenders of this have to tie themselves in pretzels to defend it. This is just placing their own agenda ahead of subjection to the brethren in the PCA and our very clear BCO. It is scandalous. 



Romans922 said:


> In case everyone missed it, like Chris probably  I edited my last post to this:
> 
> 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.
> 
> That's kind of funny, as I read it now. "The Session of a church should select" If I am not mistaken, the Session does not do this at Redeemer the congregation nominates and elects them. {I could be mistaken about this}. "appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons" But Mason has said that there are no deacons. And if there are then it is VERY confusing, for those who are considered deacons, are described here (in Mason's view) in 9-7 as one's who are appointed to assist the deacons. And we know that the deacons are not the elders. For that is a different office altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> *BCO 9-2* states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
> reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
> ruling elders."
> 
> Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?


----------



## Scott1

> *ColdSilverMoon*


I do agree with you that this can indeed work to the good of our denomination and to the glory of God. We all need to be praying toward that end. Thank you for explanation of the likely process.

While some of the expectations expressed are reasonable (such as in the end the church will ordain deacons), it seems there is more to this.

Every officer in the PCA is under vows to seek the peace, purity and unity of the church. Part of this is following the polity and doctrine of the church's constitution. In effect, they confess and receive it as a condition of their ordination and receiving by the congregation (installation).



> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> If that happens, I suspect the Metro NY Presbytery will disagree with the decision but will comply, and as a result Redeemer will ordain male deacons - I think it is highly unlikely that Redeemer would leave the PCA over this. In practice, I doubt anything will change - a handful of male deacons will be ordained,
> I think the issue is not really a cosmetic ordination of a few deacons. It is following the system of government of our denomination. That system reflects doctrine, things that are to be taught from the pulpit to the people as part of the truths we confess in a confessional church.
> 
> The PCA Presbyterian polity is governance through deacons and elders with unordained men and women assisting them. The unordained men and women function more or less in parity to one another, each doing actual ministry (service) in the church. But in no way do they do so under color of authority of office. Nor do they replace the oversight authority of the officers (elders and deacons).
> 
> Whole worship services in the PCA are dedicated to the doctrines of ordination and installation. There is a formal recognition of what God has done in appointing officers (deacons and elders) to govern God's people. Sermons are often directed toward the officers and to the congregation regarding eac and their part in receiving authority God has placed over them for their own good- Deacons and Elders.
> 
> but the day to day function of the diaconate will likely remain completely unchanged.
> 
> The Diaconate is constituted of the men elected, ordained and installed as Deacons, there are no un-ordained men or women in Diaconate.
> 
> There are many men and women involved in mercy ministry, however, and some of them do assist the Deacons in their work. But in PCA polity, the Deacons are in overseeing authority over that. It is the Deacons responsibility to see that mercy is "getting done" in the local congregation. There are many, many vehicles for doing that, including ministry groups, but they are all under authority of the church officers (elders and deacons).
> 
> So in the end, I think everyone will be satisfied: Redeemer can retain its strong female presence in the diaconate, only now with some ordained male deacons, and the anti-deaconess camp will be happy because the BCO will be strictly upheld and it will be viewed as a repudiation of liberalization (as much as I personally disagree).
> I think it will be more an encouragement that we are a "confessional" church and a "connectional" one, in accordance with the precepts of Scripture- we do not operate as an island unto ourselves. God appoints leadership for accountability and He holds them accountable. Even membership vows are a serious thing, and something that needs to be taught- the nature and seriousness of vows.
> 
> So in the end, this complaint could actually be a good thing overall for the PCA.
> I believe that and am earnestly praying for that. We have to admit there has been some blindness to sin here, and repentance leads to forgiveness, growth and reconciliation. That is something church members and the outside world need to see modeled in those who would presume to lead God's people.
> 
> While I personally hate to see my church under fire, I am glad this issue is being addressed, and will hopefully be resolved once and for all.
> I know it is hard not to view things like this personally, that's only normal.
> 
> But have faith, God has His purposes in this. Remember, it is elders from within this presbytery (I do not know which churches) that have brought this to light through this process. They are good people, who are seeking the peace and purity of the church, in Metro New York and generally.
> 
> In the end, this is about God being glorified through people He has chosen behaving differently than those governed by ways of pride, the ways of this world.


----------



## Turtle

DMcFadden said:


> Not being a Presbyterian may cause me to miss some (much? all?) of the nuance here.
> 
> However, having gone to Fuller when the PCUSA was in the midst of struggling with the outcome of the Kenyon case in 1974 (Kenyon was a student of Gerstner who dissented from the ordination of women and was denied ordination in the PCUSA), I vividly remember the arguments. Interestingly enough, Jack Rogers (my old Fuller prof) quite prominent in the arguments regarding Kenyon has gone on to recount the facts of the Kenyon case in his latest book defending the ordination of homosexuals. He uses the issue of ordination of women as a case study of how to interpret/reinterpret the Bible in times of controversy.
> 
> Follow Rogers' logic on ordaining women and ordaining gays and you have the grist for the mill of Wayne Grudem's objections as to where egalitarianism inevitably leads.
> 
> Mincing words over constitutional fine points in your BCO or even in the confessions misses the larger cultural trend of which Presbyterian churches are not immune. The logic of egalitarianism is utterly totalitarian in its breathtaking scope and claim upon pride of place in our thinking. It brooks no dissent, will tolerate no demurrers (no matter how deeply held for reasons of conscience -- ask Kenyon!), and knows no conclusion other than becoming enshrined in the common conscience as the only acceptable moral position.
> 
> The tepid "toes touching the edge of the water" initiatives of some of the conservative Presbyterian denominations are not being done in an intellectual or cultural vacuum. The debate over women's roles underlies the entire discussion. And, the course on which some of them are on, if Dr. Grudem is correct in his historical judgment, is also pretty predictable. Grudem avers that egalitarianism is a "new path to liberalism." Reading Jack Rogers (now remembered by me 35 years later mostly as the guy who made fun of Warfield, Henry, Gerstner, Sproul, and Schaffer in class) would tend to support Grudem's claim.
> 
> The actions being advocated should not be considered in isolation from the drift of cultural and intellectual history in this country. Taken in isolation, the accommodations may seem reasonable and even wise to avoid institutional upset. However, the history of the PCUSA suggest a different trajectory. Remember that in the 70s Rogers was an icon of "evangelical" mainline Presbyterianism who worked within the system well enough to become eventually the stated clerk (or whatever you folks call the PCUSA mucky muck).




Very good points. While I agree with you that "The debate over women's roles underlies the entire discussion." it also seems that the issue of "titles" in the church is also at issue. BCO 7-3 addresses this as well. "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 Scripture." 

Your observation of egalitarianism is well made and timely.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Romans922 said:


> BCO 9-2 "In a church in which it is impossible for any
> reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
> ruling elders."
> 
> Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?



This will be the sticking point in all this I think. 

If they have several men called commisioned or unordained "deacons" in the Church, performing the role of deacons for the session, then how is it impossible to secure actual deacons? 

I'm not in the PCA, so this isn't my fight yet, but it seems pretty clear that not ordaining deacons when you have plenty of qualified men to do it, is motivated by another reason than the impossibility of available candidates. 

The only loophole I see is the ambiguous phrase "impossible *for any reason*."


----------



## BG

C


----------



## Scott1

Puritan Sailor said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BCO 9-2 "In a church in which it is impossible for any
> reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
> ruling elders."
> 
> Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be the sticking point in all this I think.
> 
> If they have several men called commisioned or unordained "deacons" in the Church, performing the role of deacons for the session, then how is it impossible to secure actual deacons?
> 
> I'm not in the PCA, so this isn't my fight yet, but it seems pretty clear that not ordaining deacons when you have plenty of qualified men to do it, is motivated by another reason than the impossibility of available candidates.
> 
> The only loophole I see is the ambiguous phrase "impossible *for any reason*."
Click to expand...


There's no loophole.

"For any reason" modifies impossible.

In addition, if it is impossible, all the deacon responsibilities (overseeing property stewardship, overseeing mercy ministry, developing a spirit of liberality in the congregation, falls back on the elders- not an unordained group of men or women. 

This section was written for very small start-up churches.

The functions of deacons falling back on elders is not practically even possible in a church with more than a few score members, as the elders' have many other areas of responsibility.




> *WDG *
> 
> Chris said: "So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"? "HHMMNN? Good Question. I wonder if it is already happening?



I have never heard of any officer in the denomination calling for that and really do not believe that is the case.

In fact, Dr. Keller has specifically taught that he clearly sees the elder function qualified as men, in accord with Scripture. Even in the (very) few cases where individual churches have violated our BCO with these practices, most have made a point they believe the office of elder is qualified for men only.

While falling away can happen quickly, there appears to be virtually no one advocating this in the PCA at this time. And while being realistic, we also need to be charitable- and give credit where credit is due.
__________________


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Josh has already made a nicely explained request of you on this. Drop it.


WDG said:


> Chris said: "*So, when will we see "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Female Elders"? *"HHMMNN? Good Question. I wonder if it is already happening?


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I think the problem people have with Redeemer's practice is the fact that they do not ordain male deacons at all.



No, that is only a part of the problem. 

Calling folks who are not deacons 'deacons' is another part of the problem, and one that can't be ignored.


----------



## TimV

> I don't think anyone is openly flaunting the BCO.



Does the BCO say that Deacons have to be ordained?


----------



## gene_mingo

TimV said:


> I don't think anyone is openly flaunting the BCO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the BCO say that Deacons have to be ordained?
Click to expand...


Sure looks that way to me Tim.




> 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.
> 
> 17-3. As every ecclesiastical office, according to the Scriptures, is a
> special charge, no man shall be ordained unless it be to the performance of a
> definite work.
> 
> CHAPTER 7
> 
> Church Officers-General Classification
> 
> 7-1. Under the New Testament, our Lord at first collected His people out
> of different nations, and united them to the household of faith by the ministry
> of extraordinary officers who received extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and
> who were agents by whom God completed His revelation to His Church.
> Such officers and gifts related to new revelation have no successors since
> God completed His revelation at the conclusion of the Apostolic Age.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.


----------



## TimV

OK, I asked



> Does the BCO say that Deacons have to be ordained?



Josh answered



> Sure looks that way to me Tim.



and then quoted from the relevant section of the BCO that all the rest of us who have been following the debate know about. You know, the place where it says all Deacons have to be ordained.

So, does Keller's Church in New York or Brian Kay's church in San Luis Obispo California have Deacons who are not ordained?



> . In the PCA, ordained deacons may also only be men, though unordained leaders (deaconal or otherwise) may be either men or women. (See articles by Rev. Brian Kay, Rev. Tim Keller, Kathy Keller, and others.)



http://www.trinityslo.org/images/Trinity_Positions.doc

PS, this is not a trick question. Brian Kay says



> Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained.


----------



## Edward

TimV said:


> ... have Deacons who are not ordained?



No. In the PCA the office of deacon is an ordained one. If you aren't ordained, you aren't a deacon. Use of the term in connection with unordained folks is a misuse of the term. Words have a defined meaning in this context. 

If folks are misusing words, they should either be educated or disciplined as appropriate, by the responsible church courts.


----------



## TimV

> No. In the PCA the office of deacon is an ordained one. If you aren't ordained, you aren't a deacon. Use of the term in connection with unordained folks is a misuse of the term. Words have a defined meaning in this context.



Well, that seems clear to me. And when I read this sort of thing by Brian Kay



> Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained.



even in a Presbytery which up until a few months ago had a practicing homosexual as Moderator, I wonder where the men are in this denomination.

Note to Moderators: The relevant committee decided that NorCal's long term Moderator's adultery by sodomy was no longer a private church matter, and can be spoken of publically, so there is no reason at all it can't be brought up here.


----------



## Edward

TimV said:


> Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained.
Click to expand...


I've been trying to speak in general terms, not deal with specific men and bodies in my recent posts. (I'm not sure I was as diligent about that upthread). 

But let me take a shot at editing that quote to something that might be a bit more precise. 

"Folks that we refer to as 'deacons' may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained, and some of them really are deacons".


----------



## TimV

> "Folks that we refer to as 'deacons' may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained, and some of them really are deacons".



"and those Deacons who aren't Deacons we call Deacons just to prove we aren't being sneaky"


----------



## toddpedlar

TimV said:


> "Folks that we refer to as 'deacons' may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained, and some of them really are deacons".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "and those Deacons who aren't Deacons we call Deacons just to prove we aren't being sneaky"
Click to expand...


"...and all deacons we won't ordain because we believe women should be allowed to be deacons. So, we give both men and women the title deacon (or deaconess) because we want them to serve in the office, and because we don't want to be in violation by ordaining women. So nobody gets ordained, but hey, that's okay, the work is getting done, and we get to have our deaconnesses"


----------



## WarrenInSC

*Ok, my head's dizzy now you win...*



toddpedlar said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Folks that we refer to as 'deacons' may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained, and some of them really are deacons".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "and those Deacons who aren't Deacons we call Deacons just to prove we aren't being sneaky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...and all deacons we won't ordain because we believe women should be allowed to be deacons. So, we give both men and women the title deacon (or deaconess) because we want them to serve in the office, and because we don't want to be in violation by ordaining women. So nobody gets ordained, but hey, that's okay, the work is getting done, and we get to have our deaconnesses"
Click to expand...


Ok - you win - my head is dizzy now.

Moving on... I understand Metro Atlanta Presbytery passed an essentially look-a-like resolution this week. Hopefully our good Lord will raise up gentle but firm TE's and RE's in that Presbytery to hold it to account as well. Some of my best friends are members of.....oh - did I say that?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Scott1 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BCO 9-2 "In a church in which it is impossible for any
> reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
> ruling elders."
> 
> Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be the sticking point in all this I think.
> 
> If they have several men called commisioned or unordained "deacons" in the Church, performing the role of deacons for the session, then how is it impossible to secure actual deacons?
> 
> I'm not in the PCA, so this isn't my fight yet, but it seems pretty clear that not ordaining deacons when you have plenty of qualified men to do it, is motivated by another reason than the impossibility of available candidates.
> 
> The only loophole I see is the ambiguous phrase "impossible *for any reason*."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no loophole.
> 
> "For any reason" modifies impossible.
> 
> In addition, if it is impossible, all the deacon responsibilities (overseeing property stewardship, overseeing mercy ministry, developing a spirit of liberality in the congregation, falls back on the elders- not an unordained group of men or women.
> 
> This section was written for very small start-up churches.
> 
> The functions of deacons falling back on elders is not practically even possible in a church with more than a few score members, as the elders' have many other areas of responsibility.
Click to expand...


I agree the initial intent behind the article refers to smaller churches. But that intent is not specifically stated and the phrase "for any reason" leaves a lot of wiggle room if you ignore the initial intent. Plus, if it's ok for laymen to assist the deacons, then there is no reason why they can't assist the elders who have assumed the diaconate role. The justification would be whatever reason made it impossible for the session to secure ordained deacons. So, in theory, you could abide by the letter and not be in violation. Bring in the original intent regarding smaller/newer churches and of course it all falls apart.


----------



## Scott1

Puritan Sailor said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be the sticking point in all this I think.
> 
> If they have several men called commisioned or unordained "deacons" in the Church, performing the role of deacons for the session, then how is it impossible to secure actual deacons?
> 
> I'm not in the PCA, so this isn't my fight yet, but it seems pretty clear that not ordaining deacons when you have plenty of qualified men to do it, is motivated by another reason than the impossibility of available candidates.
> 
> The only loophole I see is the ambiguous phrase "impossible *for any reason*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no loophole.
> 
> "For any reason" modifies impossible.
> 
> In addition, if it is impossible, all the deacon responsibilities (overseeing property stewardship, overseeing mercy ministry, developing a spirit of liberality in the congregation, falls back on the elders- not an unordained group of men or women.
> 
> This section was written for very small start-up churches.
> 
> The functions of deacons falling back on elders is not practically even possible in a church with more than a few score members, as the elders' have many other areas of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the initial intent behind the article refers to smaller churches.
> 
> Although very small churches would be a most common example, there are other situation such as churches in “destitute regions,” after natural disasters, etc. where it might be practically impossible to secure deacons.
> 
> But understand in context, the BCO charters deacon and elder as the fundamental governance of the church:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many other places explicitly and implicitly state the basic governance of the church is through deacons and elders (it is not an optional system, but rather, a fundamental point of doctrine which binds the denomination together.)
> 
> But that intent is not specifically stated and the phrase "for any reason" leaves a lot of wiggle room if you ignore the initial intent.
> 
> Charitably, I would not presume the framers were trying to create ambiguity or “wiggle room.” That's not a basis in a confessional church. To the contrary, the basis is clear articulation of the truths that bind. In good faith, they realized they might not be able to articulate every condition of impossibility.
> 
> 
> Plus, if it's ok for laymen to assist the deacons,
> 
> I think you are referring to BCO 9-7 which says the Session may appoint godly men and women to assist the deacons. It does not say replace them and it does not say they do so on their own initiative- but are appointed by Session.
> 
> then there is no reason why they can't assist the elders who have assumed the diaconate role. The justification would be whatever reason made it impossible for the session to secure ordained deacons. So, in theory, you could abide by the letter and not be in violation.
> 
> We assume good faith and honesty in complying with the constitution. If this were really a question, a “reference” can be filed under BCO polity and a quick answer would be given.
> 
> Bring in the original intent regarding smaller/newer churches and of course it all falls apart.
> 
> *Electing, ordaining, and installing deacons qualified by I Timothy 3 is not an option in the PCA. Duly called, elected, ordained and installed deacons and elders are the basic governance of the denomination and of presbyterianism historically.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Scott1 said:


> *Electing, ordaining, and installing deacons qualified by I Timothy 3 is not an option in the PCA. Duly called, elected, ordained and installed deacons and elders are the basic governance of the denomination and of presbyterianism historically.*



Amen. I'm not disagreeing with you, only exploring the hypothetical explanations some might attempt to offer. In light of the evidence I've seen so far, I don't think the church in this situation has a legitimate justification for the practice under the BCO, but of course that is for the church courts to decide when both sides are heard.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

**Okay; some moderators have conferred. If someone with authority to speak to the matter shows a moderator why this is private we will consider removing this thread, but as far as we know at present this is a public complaint, duly filed with the Presbytery and not a private matter.
*


----------



## he beholds

I am in the PCA, so I definitely don't like to see division in our denomination.
And although there are definitely going to be different opinions on what Scripture says on the matter within the PCA and the Reformed faith in whole, (other, reputable Reformed churches do have women deaconesses--RPCNA, at least) I think that as long as our denomination deems it a sin, we should not play with words so as to use women in any way as deaconesses. 
Women can serve in a million different ways, and they can serve alongside the deacons in many different ways. And there may be the same women always volunteering to serve, but to give them a Scriptural title, that your denomination does not support, is wrong. 

At our church my husband was called upon for the month to open and close the church. This includes duties typically done by deacons: unlocking, turning on lights, putting the hymn numbers up in the front of the church, taking out the garbage, turning out lights, locking up, etc. However, my husband does not consider himself an unordained deacon. He is simply serving in a way that was delegated to him by the deacons. My husband did not suddenly feel like he was a leader of the church nor that he could now sit in on diaconal meetings to make decisions. Could a woman be delegated a similar duty? Of course! There is nothing in scripture that says, "Only men should unlock doors and make coffee." But she should remain a member of the laity as my husband did. 

I personally am unconvinced either way about women deaconesses. There clearly were some in the Bible...were they not really deaconesses? I don't know. But the point is, even if you disagree with your church, you should do what you vowed to do. If you think they are wrong, there are proper means to change the rules. Breaking them, however, is not one of them.


----------



## Scott1

Vows every ruling elder and deacon in the PCA takes relating to upholding the system of polity (governance of the church):

(teaching elders take similar vows)



> FORM OF GOVERNMENT 24-6
> 
> 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*?21-5 THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
> 
> ...




System of governing the church is elders and deacons



> PART I
> FORM OF GOVERNMENT
> CHAPTER 1
> The Doctrine of Church Government.
> 
> 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.*



When it is impossible to secure deacons (BCO 9-2), then their duties fall to Session.



> B. The Organization of a Particular Church
> 
> 5-10. If deacons are elected, follow the procedures of (1) through (5)
> above. If deacons are not elected, *the duties of the office shall devolve upon
> the ruling elders.*






> CHAPTER 7
> Church Officers-General Classification
> 7-2. *The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders
> and deacons.*






> 9-4. The *deacons of a particular church shall be organized as a Board*, of
> which the pastor shall be an advisory member.





> 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.



The plurality of elders (session) is responsible for ordaining and installing deacons



> 12-5. The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual
> government of the church, for which purpose it has power: …
> 
> b. *To examine, ordain, and install ruling elders and deacons on their
> election by the church, and to require these officers to devote
> themselves to their work;*





> 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:* At such times as determined by the Session,
> communicant members of the congregation may submit names to the Session,
> *keeping in mind that each prospective officer should be an active male member
> who meets the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1*.



Even in the case of a board of trustees, the powers and duties of the elders and deacons are not infringed:



> 25-7. If a particular church is incorporated, the provisions of its charter and
> bylaws must always be in accord with the Constitution of the Presbyterian
> Church in America. All the communing members on the roll of that church
> shall be members of the corporation. The officers of the corporation,
> whether they be given the title trustee or some other title, shall be elected
> from among the members of the corporation in a regularly constituted
> congregational meeting. *The powers and duties of such officers must not
> infringe upon the powers and duties of the Session or the Board of Deacons*.


----------



## Hamalas

> I personally am unconvinced either way about women deaconesses. There clearly were some in the Bible...were they not really deaconesses?



I'm curious, were there particular examples you had in mind? I can't think of any in the NT.


----------



## he beholds

Hamalas said:


> I personally am unconvinced either way about women deaconesses. There clearly were some in the Bible...were they not really deaconesses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, were there particular examples you had in mind? I can't think of any in the NT.
Click to expand...


Phoebe...but I am not sure she was really a Deaconess.


----------



## lynnie

Scott-

What if this goes before the GA and the offending church pastor says he had 100 guys go for deacon training, and when they did an interview every single one was addicted to internet p0rn? 

Or he says he does not want to ordain anybody who watches Sunday football, etc.

That may be far fetched ( well, in today's world maybe not) but the point is, don't we have to consider them innocent until proven guilty? I was just as quick as almost everybody else here to charge them as guilty so I don't mean to point fingers at anybody else. I didn't realize until this morning that this should wait for the church courts before we hold trial here. It looks like something is wrong, and David Minor is a wise older man, but is it OK to hold trial in the public realm here, or not? I can't say I know the answer for sure but I know I was guilty of going too far myself in my critical remarks.


----------



## TimV

> What if this goes before the GA and the offending church pastor says he had 100 guys go for deacon training, and when they did an interview every single one was addicted to internet p0rn?



5-10. If deacons are elected, follow the procedures of (1) through (5)
above. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon
the ruling elders. 



> but the point is, don't we have to consider them innocent until proven guilty?



The people who hear the case can't talk about it while it's pending. See BCO 32-17. There is also grounds for appeal in a case of prejudgment, but that only applies to those hearing the case.

In this situation, everything's done out in the open, so it's open for public discussion by everyone who isn't hearing the case.


----------



## Scott1

lynnie
Your concerns to protect "innocence" are valid. I have the same concerns. It bothers me to see some of the uncorroborated things and conclusions made about brothers in the Lord and generalizing them broadly, even if they are wrong about some things.

I am thankful we in the PCA have as many procedural mechanisms in the PCA as we do to protect that.

After studying this for quite some time, I've come to understand this somewhat differently. That is, what is really happening.

We have a presbytery majority (actually 3) that has passed declarations that we can read right now. It says, in effect, they are not going to follow their church's constitution. 

The declaration acknowledges "certain tensions" with their BCO (constitution) and seems to ask that their constitution be retroactively changed to adjust to their disobedience. 

This is like on a highway with a 65mph speed limit, an automobile association passing a charter for its members acknowledging "certain tensions with the speed limit" and saying:

1) some motorists will go 64mph
2) some motorists will go 65mph
3) some motorist will go 100mph
(attaching as an exhibit references to past histories of compliance with the posted speed limited)

The problem is, officers (elders and deacons) are under vows. They have made a profession, have received doctrine and polity and confess it publicly, and sealed by vows. 

The big issue here that jumps right out, if I'm understanding this correctly is a refusal to constitute Deacons as governance of the church. Denying men, called by God, equipped by God to serve as Deacons. Denying congregations of their right to receive them as such. This is no small thing. It goes to the heart of what our denomination confesses (our church polity).

I don't think anyone is alleging a defense such as a church of 6,000 could never find one person called as per I Timothy 3 to be a deacon. I don't think that is even a defense offered. In fact, encouragingly, it seems some are already coming to terms with the fact that they have been wrong in not constituting their church with Deacons and will soon be doing that.

There are so many fundamental doctrines tied up in this, it may not be immediately clear. The doctrine of "ordination" involves much, as does "installation" whereby the congregation receives its officers, and vows are mutually taken.

This would not be apparent to many looking in on this, as it is within a denomination, but the BCO allows "references" to determine whether practices are constitutional. They could have sent a "reference" up to determine the constitutionality of this, but have never done so. 

The immediate concerns here are:

1) vows
2) confessional church 
3) "connectional" church
4) devaluation of ordination
5) devaluation of the office of Deacon

Another thing I was not aware of until recently. Our General Assembly last year ruled on many of these points last year.

My understanding is this is final, because the rulings require churches or presbyteries to bring practices in accordance with their constitution. They cannot be appealed.

(Summary from the Aquila Report- Mr Aquila is recent past moderator of our General Assembly and runs a denominational news service):



> To summarize, the GA affirmed:
> 1. Men only are to be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
> 2. Women cannot be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
> 3. Women cannot be commissioned or ordained as deacons.
> 4. Women cannot serve on diaconates.



Even beyond these practices is what only recently came to light- a few churches have been refusing to ordain and install deacons (at all)! Some, in the process are making arguments like (I Timothy 3) Deacons are only "helpers" with no office, authority, oversight or reward so "it doesn't matter." Others are making arguments like "ordination" is only a ceremony, has no spiritual significance, therefore, "it doesn't matter," we'll just commission.

These practices (refusing to ordain and install deacons, deacons are only helpers anyway, ordination is only a ceremony...) are very wrong biblically, confessionally, and in terms of vows taken.


----------



## lynnie

Scott, that was really interesting and I thank you for taking the time to write it out. Even though the violation does seem obvious, I will personally try to stay out of it now and let the courts decide, but I can see where another's conscience might be different on talking about it.

I don't understand something you wrote:

_*Another thing I was not aware of until recently. Our General Assembly last year ruled on many of these points last year.

My understanding is this is final, because the rulings require churches or presbyteries to bring practices in accordance with their constitution. They cannot be appealed.*
(Summary from the Aquila Report- Mr Aquila is recent past moderator of our General Assembly and runs a denominational news service):


Quote:
To summarize, the GA affirmed:
1. Men only are to be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
2. Women cannot be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
3. *Women cannot be commissioned or ordained as deacons.*
4. Women cannot serve on diaconates. _

If this is final and cannot be appealed, why do I know of churches in the PCA with commissioned deaconesses? Do they get left alone until somebody in their presbytery complains, and then they have to comply? I don't get it


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Romans922 said:


> *BCO 9-2* states this which Mason referred to: "In a church in which it is impossible for any
> reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
> ruling elders."
> 
> Mason how is it in your church it is IMPOSSIBLE to secure deacons?



It doesn't matter. The BCO says if it is impossible for "any reason," and such terminology was obviously vague for a reason. 



Scott1 said:


> The Diaconate is constituted of the men elected, ordained and installed as Deacons, there are no un-ordained men or women in Diaconate.
> 
> There are many men and women involved in mercy ministry, however, and some of them do assist the Deacons in their work. But in PCA polity, the Deacons are in overseeing authority over that. It is the Deacons responsibility to see that mercy is "getting done" in the local congregation. There are many, many vehicles for doing that, including ministry groups, but they are all under authority of the church officers (elders and deacons).



Part of the problem is also a semantics issue. Deacon can refer to generic servant or to ordained office in our current terminology. So a female can be unordained and be called a deacon as Phoebe was in Romans 16. Even Calvin advocated unordained women servants he called "deaconesses" in the _Institutes_. 



Edward said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem people have with Redeemer's practice is the fact that they do not ordain male deacons at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is only a part of the problem.
> 
> Calling folks who are not deacons 'deacons' is another part of the problem, and one that can't be ignored.
Click to expand...


Again, it's a semantics issue, as I mentioned above. The Apostle Paul and Calvin refer to unordained women as deacons - I hardly see how this is a problem. 



Scott1 said:


> I don't think anyone is alleging a defense such as a church of 6,000 could never find one person called as per I Timothy 3. I don't think that is even a defense offered. In fact, encouragingly, it seems some are already coming to terms with the fact that they have been wrong in not constituting their church with Deacons and will soon be doing that.



Scott, 

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. Just a few things:

First of all, Redeemer's membership is only a little over 2,000, not 6,000. 

Second, it doesn't matter what reason Redeemer has for not having ordained deacons - it was clearly the intent by the BCO authors that none be given since they stipulate that it can be for "any reason." 

Lastly, no one is undervaluing the role of deacons. The diaconate performs crucial functions within the church. Those in the pro-deaconess camp believe that Scripture does not necessarily make it an office or position of authority within the church. As such women should not be somehow given a different role from men in terms of the practical work deacons are called to do. It's not an undervaluing of deacons - simply a different perspective on the nature of their role within the church.


----------



## Scott1

lynnie said:


> Scott, that was really interesting and I thank you for taking the time to write it out. Even though the violation does seem obvious, I will personally try to stay out of it now and let the courts decide, but I can see where another's conscience might be different on talking about it.
> 
> I don't understand something you wrote:
> 
> _*Another thing I was not aware of until recently. Our General Assembly last year ruled on many of these points last year.
> 
> My understanding is this is final, because the rulings require churches or presbyteries to bring practices in accordance with their constitution. They cannot be appealed.*
> (Summary from the Aquila Report- Mr Aquila is recent past moderator of our General Assembly and runs a denominational news service):
> 
> 
> Quote:
> To summarize, the GA affirmed:
> 1. Men only are to be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
> 2. Women cannot be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
> 3. *Women cannot be commissioned or ordained as deacons.*
> 4. Women cannot serve on diaconates. _
> 
> If this is final and cannot be appealed, why do I know of churches in the PCA with commissioned deaconesses? Do they get left alone until somebody in their presbytery complains, and then they have to comply? I don't get it



You're most welcome, Lynnie.

I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps someone familiar with the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records or the Standing Judicial Commission of our denomination can answer that for us.

Remember recently that a presbytery was cited and admonished by General Assembly in connection with not protecting their people from harm from the "federal vision" error.

Several things happened there procedurally and the presbytery eventually repented, the vows were protected. Praise God for that!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

lynnie said:


> To summarize, the GA affirmed:
> 1. Men only are to be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
> 2. Women cannot be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
> 3. *Women cannot be commissioned or ordained as deacons.
> 4. Women cannot serve on diaconates.
> 
> If this is final and cannot be appealed, why do I know of churches in the PCA with commissioned deaconesses? Do they get left alone until somebody in their presbytery complains, and then they have to comply? I don't get it *


*

Lynnie, it's a semantics issue. Women are commissioned as short term missionaries, to Vacation Bible School, and to women's ministries. Are they not servants in these ministries? If deacon is a synonym for servant, why can't they be called deacons? 

The GA report is attempting to prevent the practice of commissioning female deacons as a way of effectively ordaining them. Commissioning them to works of mercy and service is not the same as ordaining them to an office or position of authority - at least not at Redeemer.*


----------



## TimV

> If deacon is a synonym for servant, why can't they be called deacons?



Mason, in the PCA do Deacons have to be ordained?


----------



## lynnie

_The GA report is attempting to prevent the practice of commissioning female deacons as a way of effectively ordaining them. Commissioning them to works of mercy and service is not the same as ordaining them to an office or position of authority - at least not at Redeemer. _

Interesting.

Do you think though, when it comes to not making weaker brethren and new Christians stumble, there might be a lack of wisdom in the use of words? I mean, might it not be interpreted as support for egalitarianism?

Thanks.


----------



## Scott1

> *ColdSilverMoon*
> Part of the problem is also a semantics issue. Deacon can refer to generic servant or to ordained office in our current terminology. So a female can be unordained and be called a deacon as Phoebe was in Romans 16. Even Calvin advocated unordained women servants he called "deaconesses" in the Institutes.



But not in the BCO. Deacon is an office, Diaconate is a plurality of Deacons in the BCO. They are qualified by I Timothy 3 and elected, ordained, installed in the BCO. There is no ambiguity about Deacon in the BCO.



> *ColdSilverMoon*
> Second, it doesn't matter what reason Redeemer has for not having ordained deacons - it was clearly the intent by the BCO authors that none be given since they stipulate that it can be for "any reason."



BCO 9-2 says only if it is _impossible_ to secure Deacons. The BCO establishes them as a basic part of the governance of PCA churches BCO 1-4, 4-2 (cf post# 80 above). Deacons are not optional.



> In a *church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons*, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders.





> *ColdSilverMoon*
> Lastly, no one is undervaluing the role of deacons. The diaconate performs crucial functions within the church. Those in the pro-deaconess camp believe that Scripture does not necessarily make it an office or position of authority within the church. As such women should not be somehow given a different role from men in terms of the practical work deacons are called to do. It's not an undervaluing of deacons - simply a different perspective on the nature of their role within the church.



Yes, Deacons are very important. They oversee property stewardship, mercy ministry, and developing a spirit of liberality in the congregation in a leadership capacity.

The unordained men and women who assist them are also important. Much mercy ministry (and other tasks) would not get done without them.

But the office (qualified by I Timothy 3, ordained, installed, received by vows of Deacon and by the congregation) is recognized in our BCO (and I believe in Scripture) as having real governing authority. It’s not something that is interchanged with un-ordained men and women in service.


----------



## lynnie

Scott- I have two deaconess friends in two PCA churches. I don't believe in it, but at least we all agreed elders rule and deacons(nesses) serve. 

So I am not disgreeing with this comment below but do you have an exact quote for me, for my personal satisfaction, that the BCO does say they have *real governing authority*. I mean, the way I've heard it thrown around they (deacon men) have no governing authority. Only elders. Thanks.

_But the office (qualified by I Timothy 3, ordained, installed, received by vows of Deacon and by the congregation) is recognized in our BCO (and I believe in Scripture) as having real governing authority. It’s not something that is interchanged with un-ordained men and women in service._


----------



## TimV

> So I am not disgreeing with this comment below but do you have an exact quote for me, for my personal satisfaction, that the BCO does say they have real governing authority.



It's covered in 7-3, and says the office is not one of ruling but of service. You can see the PCA BCO here

Presbyterian Church in America:  Stated Clerk / Administrative Committee


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> If deacon is a synonym for servant, why can't they be called deacons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason, in the PCA do Deacons have to be ordained?
Click to expand...


Deacons as an office in the church, yes. Deacons in the generic sense of servant, no.


----------



## TimV

> Deacons as an office in the church, yes. Deacons in the generic sense of servant, no.



Then what reason other than trickiness does your church website use the word interchangeably?

The BCO specifically says that a category of people can be appointed by the church to help the Deacons. The BCO doesn't use the word Deacon for those people since they aren't Deacons.

It's not semantic, it's trickiness.


----------



## brianeschen

lynnie said:


> If this is final and cannot be appealed, why do I know of churches in the PCA with commissioned deaconesses? Do they get left alone until somebody in their presbytery complains, and then they have to comply? I don't get it


According to quotes from some who hold to the practice of women deacons, the only thing that will make them change is for a judicial action. That would be either a complaint against the action of a presbytery such as what some in New York Metro and Northern California have done or charges to be brought out on individual elders who practice contrary to the BCO. A law without sanctions is impotent. There will be no conformity to the law without sanctions. God's ways are best.


----------



## Scott1

lynnie said:


> Scott- I have two deaconess friends in two PCA churches. I don't believe in it, but at least we all agreed elders rule and deacons(nesses) serve.
> 
> So I am not disgreeing with this comment below but do you have an exact quote for me, for my personal satisfaction, that the BCO does say they have *real governing authority*. I mean, the way I've heard it thrown around they (deacon men) have no governing authority. Only elders. Thanks.
> 
> _But the office (qualified by I Timothy 3, ordained, installed, received by vows of Deacon and by the congregation) is recognized in our BCO (and I believe in Scripture) as having real governing authority. It’s not something that is interchanged with un-ordained men and women in service._





PART I
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 1
The Doctrine of Church Government.

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*.

CHAPTER 24
Election, Ordination and Installation of Ruling Elders and Deacons

Quote:
25-7. If a particular church is incorporated, the provisions of its charter and
bylaws must always be in accord with the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church in America. All the communing members on the roll of that church
shall be members of the corporation. The officers of the corporation,
whether they be given the title trustee or some other title, shall be elected
from among the members of the corporation in a regularly constituted
congregational meeting. *The powers and duties of such officers must not
infringe upon the powers and duties of the Session or the Board of Deacons.* 

There are more that explicitly and implicitly recognize governing authority to Deacons in post# 80.


Consider also the vows the congregation receiving their elders and deacons take:

BCO 24-6 (6) 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?[/quote]


----------



## lynnie

Thanks.

I think this is gonna be one big PCA mess


----------



## Scott1

lynnie said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I think this is gonna be one big PCA mess



Not if God's people pray for humility, subjection to their brethren and charity all around.

(Also, remember 99% of all PCA churches have been in good faith following the BCO on this all along- at least one changed its practice recently to bring it into accord)


----------



## WarrenInSC

*Not If Metro NY, et al.....*



lynnie said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I think this is gonna be one big PCA mess



....reconsider, reverse, and come back into clear compliance with the BCO.

It's not hard knowing what to do - it's the doing.

Maybe the internal Presbytery complaint will give Metro NY a chance to gracefully reconsider it's course - it's up to them to end the cause of division. What can we do about it? Pray that those in Metro NY who have promised by vow to rule in certain way's will see fit to keep their vows. They CAN clean up the mess - if they want to.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> Deacons as an office in the church, yes. Deacons in the generic sense of servant, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what reason other than trickiness does your church website use the word interchangeably?
> 
> The BCO specifically says that a category of people can be appointed by the church to help the Deacons. The BCO doesn't use the word Deacon for those people since they aren't Deacons.
> 
> It's not semantic, it's trickiness.
Click to expand...


The use of deacon to describe female servants in mercy ministries of the church is a traditional and biblical term. It's not trickiness, just a respect for the most accurate way the Bible and Reformed theologians have described the role of women in the church in the capacity of providing mercy and service ministries. 

At Redeemer, that's the way it is used. It does not imply a church office or position of authority - that would be clearly contra-Scripture.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

1 Tim. 3:12
12 Let deacons each be the *husband of one wife*, managing their children and their own households well


----------



## TimV

> The use of deacon to describe female servants in mercy ministries of the church is a traditional and biblical term. It's not trickiness, just a respect for the most accurate way the Bible and Reformed theologians have described the role of women in the church in the capacity of providing mercy and service ministries.



Mason, this issue has basically nothing to do with how you interpret the Bible. To prevent chaos, every denomination, every country, every state has a constitution. These constitutions define themselves as accurate, because they have to; it's always been that way, and it always will.

The PCA BCO defines itself as accurate. It has to. It doesn't claim infallibility, but it does say that for practical purposes the constitution is to be considered accurate.

This is a really, really basic legal principle, and any court case will take this as a given, because any court has to.


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> At Redeemer, that's the way it is used. It does not imply a church office or position of authority - that would be clearly contra-Scripture.



They are free to make their own definitions. The only precondition is that they should first peacefully withdraw from the PCA.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> The use of deacon to describe female servants in mercy ministries of the church is a traditional and biblical term. It's not trickiness, just a respect for the most accurate way the Bible and Reformed theologians have described the role of women in the church in the capacity of providing mercy and service ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason, this issue has basically nothing to do with how you interpret the Bible. To prevent chaos, every denomination, every country, every state has a constitution. These constitutions define themselves as accurate, because they have to; it's always been that way, and it always will.
> 
> The PCA BCO defines itself as accurate. It has to. It doesn't claim infallibility, but it does say that for practical purposes the constitution is to be considered accurate.
> 
> This is a really, really basic legal principle, and any court case will take this as a given, because any court has to.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, Tim. I don't think anyone is calling the BCO inaccurate in its terminology. People are accusing those who have female deacons as playing word games to skirt the BCO, but I don't think this is necessarily true. In the BCO Deacon refers to the church office where only ordained men can serve, but Scripture also refers to females as deacons in their role of ministry and service. Just because the BCO uses it one intended way doesn't mean churches can't also use the word in its other intended way. 

As an analogy, in the U.S. Constitution "state" refers to one of the U.S. states, such as California or New York. But in legal and political terminology, state can also refer to a foreign nation, such as the concept of a "failed state." Just because the Constitution uses state one way does not mean the U.S. government can't also use it to refer to foreign nations as well. It doesn't mean they are being tricky or sneaky; rather, it shows that there can be two uses for the same word, just like "deacon" in the BCO. 

Having said all that, you may be right and the courts at some level may uphold the complaint filed against the Metro NY Presbytery. I just hope the right thing is done, regardless of how they rule. If it's against my church and presbytery, so be it. We all want the good and proper thing done here - no one, to my knowledge, is being sneaky of subversive.


----------



## Craig

> I agree with you, Tim. I don't think anyone is calling the BCO inaccurate in its terminology. People are accusing those who have female deacons as playing word games to skirt the BCO, but I don't think this is necessarily true. In the BCO Deacon refers to the church office where only ordained men can serve, but Scripture also refers to females as deacons in their role of ministry and service. Just because the BCO uses it one intended way doesn't mean churches can't also use the word in its other intended way.
> 
> As an analogy, in the U.S. Constitution "state" refers to one of the U.S. states, such as California or New York. But in legal and political terminology, state can also refer to a foreign nation, such as the concept of a "failed state." Just because the Constitution uses state one way does not mean the U.S. government can't also use it to refer to foreign nations as well. It doesn't mean they are being tricky or sneaky; rather, it shows that there can be two uses for the same word, just like "deacon" in the BCO.



Mason,
your point rests on equivocation. 

Your analogy is even worse. Perhaps the state of Ohio ought to view itself as a foreign nation since "state" is used in more than one sense? Preposterous.

I think, given your reasoning, this would completey legit:
The BCO is a governing document for the "PCA" (which means "Presbyterian Church in America"). We all know Presbyterian is a word describing church government. Further, "America" can refer to a country, or even a continent. Perhaps Redeemer is confused as to whether the BCO is intended for the entire continent, or just the country...then there's the whole problem of which Presbyterian church...I mean, the EPC is also a Presbyterian church, located within "America"...don't forget the PCUSA. 

Even after all of this, who knows if the BCO is a governing document for Redeeemer...I mean, that church is located in the state of New York...and we all know "state" can refer to a foreign nation.

Hopefully PCA refers to the American continent...that would help elucidate things...but still...is continent being used as a noun or an adjective? If an adjective, it refers to exercising restraint, or moderation on appetite and/or behavior. 

Man, looks like this issue is even deeper than anyone had thought!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Craig said:


> I agree with you, Tim. I don't think anyone is calling the BCO inaccurate in its terminology. People are accusing those who have female deacons as playing word games to skirt the BCO, but I don't think this is necessarily true. In the BCO Deacon refers to the church office where only ordained men can serve, but Scripture also refers to females as deacons in their role of ministry and service. Just because the BCO uses it one intended way doesn't mean churches can't also use the word in its other intended way.
> 
> As an analogy, in the U.S. Constitution "state" refers to one of the U.S. states, such as California or New York. But in legal and political terminology, state can also refer to a foreign nation, such as the concept of a "failed state." Just because the Constitution uses state one way does not mean the U.S. government can't also use it to refer to foreign nations as well. It doesn't mean they are being tricky or sneaky; rather, it shows that there can be two uses for the same word, just like "deacon" in the BCO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> your point rests on equivocation.
> 
> Your analogy is even worse. Perhaps the state of Ohio ought to view itself as a foreign nation since "state" is used in more than one sense? Preposterous.
Click to expand...


Craig, I think you're missing my point. This is not equivocation at all - does the Bible not refer to women (and men, for that matter) as deacons in the sense of service to the church? How is it wrong then for a church to use that very term to describe those very actions of its members? Simply because the BCO uses it in one context does not mean that churches cannot use it in a different appropriate context. 

The analogy to the Constitution is perfectly valid - are we to assume Afghanistan is now a part of the US because the Bush administration referred to it as a "failed state" in 2002? Of course not! Just because the Constitution uses the word state in one way does not preclude all other uses of the word. The exact same applies to the word deacon: the BCO uses it one way (as a church office), but that does not imply it is the exclusive use of the word. 

I think your post illustrates how much terminology and semantics factors into this debate. The anti-deaconess group sees the actions of Redeemer and other churches as contrary to the Constitution because they only accept the use of the term deacon as used in the BCO. The counter-argument is that using the term deacon does not always imply an office or position of authority as defined in the BCO. Again, this is not a new usage of the term deacon (or deaconess), which has been used in church history from the Bible to the present to describe unordained servants working in the church. So the word can be used to describe ordained officers (men only, of course), or lay workers in ministries of mercy and service.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The Scriptures also refer to both women and men being "elders" in the sense that they are more chronologically advanced than others. Does this mean women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the Church?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Scriptures also refer to both women and men being "elders" in the sense that they are more chronologically advanced than others. Does this mean women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the Church?



Of course not, Ben. And no one is saying deaconesses should be ordained to the office of Deacon either...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Scriptures also refer to both women and men being "elders" in the sense that they are more chronologically advanced than others. Does this mean women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the Church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, Ben. And no one is saying deaconesses should be ordained to the office of Deacon either...
Click to expand...


Physically being Ordained or not would you not say women at Redeemer and other places in the PCA are acting like Ordained Deacons and are being put in positions normally reserved for Ordained Deacons?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Scriptures also refer to both women and men being "elders" in the sense that they are more chronologically advanced than others. Does this mean women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the Church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, Ben. And no one is saying deaconesses should be ordained to the office of Deacon either...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physically being Ordained or not would you not say women at Redeemer and other places in the PCA are acting like Ordained Deacons and are being put in positions normally reserved for Ordained Deacons?
Click to expand...


At Redeemer, the answer is no, they are not acting like ordained deacons.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mason,

I think you need to look at the use of words a bit differently, especially within the context of a Church.

The word _deacon_ is not a commonly used term in the English language. In fact, it only connotes for us religious office. In contrast, the word _servant_ does not necessarily do so. Translation in Scripture is more than a bare use of terms. Did Scripture, in its bare mention of the word, intend to communicate Tabitha was an ordained Deacon or was she a servant to the poor?

You may say, with your local Church, that the Scriptures you are reading call her a deacon. The real question is whether or not several hundred more women and men who are not Deacons in the Church are, in fact, deacons by what Scripture might have been communicating in Acts concerning Tabitha. Are we not _all_ deacons in one sense of the term?

Is everybody a deacon and nobody a Deacon or are some people Deacons and others are not? That's the question. In my estimation this is the kind of game we would not tolerate with our own children if we asked them a plain question.

Let me use another example: the word _apostle_. The Scriptures do not monolithlicly apply this simply to the Apostles but, in fact, it is used, as its name connotes, for messengers in portions of the Scripture. Are there apostles at your Church that the Church openly recognizes as apostles? If not, why not if the Scriptures use that term to refer to activities that some of your members are engaged in? Why doesn't your Church have the same zeal to recognize "unordained apostles" as she does deacons?


----------



## Scottish Lass

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, Ben. And no one is saying deaconesses should be ordained to the office of Deacon either...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physically being Ordained or not would you not say women at Redeemer and other places in the PCA are acting like Ordained Deacons and are being put in positions normally reserved for Ordained Deacons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At Redeemer, the answer is no, they are not acting like ordained deacons.
Click to expand...


What is the visible difference between how ordained deacons function and how the non-ordained group functions?


----------



## Craig

Scottish Lass said:


> What is the visible difference between how ordained deacons function and how the non-ordained group functions?



At Redeemer, NO deacons are ordained. Rich asks a pertinent question of the e-gal's position on deacons quite nicely:



> Is everybody a deacon and nobody a Deacon or are some people Deacons and others are not?That's the question. In my estimation *this is the kind of game we would not tolerate with our own children if we asked them a plain question*. (_emphasis mine_)


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Semper Fidelis said:


> Mason,
> 
> I think you need to look at the use of words a bit differently, especially within the context of a Church.
> 
> The word _deacon_ is not a commonly used term in the English language. In fact, it only connotes for us religious office. In contrast, the word _servant_ does not necessarily do so. Translation in Scripture is more than a bare use of terms. Did Scripture, in its bare mention of the word, intend to communicate Tabitha was an ordained Deacon or was she a servant to the poor?
> 
> You may say, with your local Church, that the Scriptures you are reading call her a deacon. The real question is whether or not several hundred more women and men who are not Deacons in the Church are, in fact, deacons by what Scripture might have been communicating in Acts concerning Tabitha. Are we not _all_ deacons in one sense of the term?
> 
> Is everybody a deacon and nobody a Deacon or are some people Deacons and others are not? That's the question. In my estimation this is the kind of game we would not tolerate with our own children if we asked them a plain question.
> 
> Let me use another example: the word _apostle_. The Scriptures do not monolithlicly apply this simply to the Apostles but, in fact, it is used, as its name connotes, for messengers in portions of the Scripture. Are there apostles at your Church that the Church openly recognizes as apostles? If not, why not if the Scriptures use that term to refer to activities that some of your members are engaged in? Why doesn't your Church have the same zeal to recognize "unordained apostles" as she does deacons?



You make some very good points, Rich, and I believe they are very fair concerns. To answer your last question, the reason is probably because Redeemer believes that women should have a formal role as deacons beyond generic way that we are all to be "deacons," but that they should not be ordained to church office. I'm not a spokesman for Redeemer or Tim Keller, so I don't want my comments to be taken as such. However, since I am very involved in the church, I think it's fair to say that their official position is something like this: "Specially called women should have a formally recognized role in the mercy and service ministries of the church, and these women are called deaconesses. They do not hold church office and are not in a position of authority." 

I understand the concerns that you and others have expressed here - I see how it can come across as equivocating or playing word games like children often do. The official resolution passed by the Metro NY Presbytery even acknowledges that while they believe their practice is not forbidden in the BCO, neither is it explicitly allowed. So I think the concerns raised are valid, and that's why I'm in favor of this complaint if for no other reason than to settle the issue for good. 

However, I don't think it's the intent of Redeemer or Tim Keller to play word games or jump through legal loopholes. They believe women should have a formal role in the diaconate, which is probably the minority position in the PCA. But when they call women "deaconesses" they are not implying an ordained office as described in the BCO. Instead, they are describing what they believe is a biblical role for women in service and mercy ministries in the church.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Craig said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the visible difference between how ordained deacons function and how the non-ordained group functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At Redeemer, NO deacons are ordained. Rich asks a pertinent question of the e-gal's position on deacons quite nicely:
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand that from the above posts. Let me rephrase for clarity:

*Mason*, What is the visible difference between how ordained deacons function in most PCA churches and how the non-ordained group at Redeemer functions?


----------



## lynnie

_However, I don't think it's the intent of Redeemer or Tim Keller to play word games or jump through legal loopholes. _

I think we should be very careful not to accuse motivations and intentions. I might happen to disagree with certain actions myself, but to question the leadership's hearts and intentions is wrong. In their efforts to see that all the sheep are cared for they might be making decisions that the GA will find unwise or unbiblical or unpresbyterian, but it doesn't mean their intention is to play "word games." That terminology is generally used for deceit and evasion, and I think we should not imply that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mason,
> 
> I think you need to look at the use of words a bit differently, especially within the context of a Church.
> 
> The word _deacon_ is not a commonly used term in the English language. In fact, it only connotes for us religious office. In contrast, the word _servant_ does not necessarily do so. Translation in Scripture is more than a bare use of terms. Did Scripture, in its bare mention of the word, intend to communicate Tabitha was an ordained Deacon or was she a servant to the poor?
> 
> You may say, with your local Church, that the Scriptures you are reading call her a deacon. The real question is whether or not several hundred more women and men who are not Deacons in the Church are, in fact, deacons by what Scripture might have been communicating in Acts concerning Tabitha. Are we not _all_ deacons in one sense of the term?
> 
> Is everybody a deacon and nobody a Deacon or are some people Deacons and others are not? That's the question. In my estimation this is the kind of game we would not tolerate with our own children if we asked them a plain question.
> 
> Let me use another example: the word _apostle_. The Scriptures do not monolithlicly apply this simply to the Apostles but, in fact, it is used, as its name connotes, for messengers in portions of the Scripture. Are there apostles at your Church that the Church openly recognizes as apostles? If not, why not if the Scriptures use that term to refer to activities that some of your members are engaged in? Why doesn't your Church have the same zeal to recognize "unordained apostles" as she does deacons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make some very good points, Rich, and I believe they are very fair concerns. To answer your last question, the reason is probably because Redeemer believes that women should have a formal role as deacons beyond generic way that we are all to be "deacons," but that they should not be ordained to church office. I'm not a spokesman for Redeemer or Tim Keller, so I don't want my comments to be taken as such. However, since I am very involved in the church, I think it's fair to say that their official position is something like this: "Specially called women should have a formally recognized role in the mercy and service ministries of the church, and these women are called deaconesses. They do not hold church office and are not in a position of authority."
> 
> I understand the concerns that you and others have expressed here - I see how it can come across as equivocating or playing word games like children often do. The official resolution passed by the Metro NY Presbytery even acknowledges that while they believe their practice is not forbidden in the BCO, neither is it explicitly allowed. So I think the concerns raised are valid, and that's why I'm in favor of this complaint if for no other reason than to settle the issue for good.
> 
> However, I don't think it's the intent of Redeemer or Tim Keller to play word games or jump through legal loopholes. They believe women should have a formal role in the diaconate, which is probably the minority position in the PCA. But when they call women "deaconesses" they are not implying an ordained office as described in the BCO. Instead, they are describing what they believe is a biblical role for women in service and mercy ministries in the church.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your candor, Mason, and I recognize you're not a spokesman for Redeemer any more than I'm a spokesman for the PCA.

What I find problematic is that, from my perception (and many others), this is so much "I don't like the PCA decision so my minority position becomes de-facto position at Redeemer...."

There is a reason for Presbyterian government and it sometimes requires that men put their personal opinions aside and submit for the unity of the faith. I'm a grown man who has lived under authority for my entire adult life and it gives me a certain perspective about what is prudent and what is foolish when it comes to authority. There are things that I know I could get away with in a court of law but these are the same things I would never do because it would violate the spirit of demonstrating that I am a professional who is committed to honoring those in authority over me.

My three year old will pick up a toy during devotions in the kids' room at night. I'll tell her to put it down but she will subtlely stick out her hand and touch the toy. Would I be able to convict her in a court of law for disobedience? It doesn't matter because we instinctively know when a child or an adult is reaching out and getting their way to try to skirt the policy of the higher court.

The way to demonstrate respect to the form of government we have in the PCA is Godly appeal. The way to demonstrate that we believe in the Providence of God is to wait on His timing. Reaching out and "touching the toy" when the higher court has ruled demonstrates an Independent and not a Presbyterian spirit. What the local Church believes they gain in one issue tears the Church apart with their unwillingness to submit to the Church out of love and respect.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Scottish Lass said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the visible difference between how ordained deacons function and how the non-ordained group functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At Redeemer, NO deacons are ordained. Rich asks a pertinent question of the e-gal's position on deacons quite nicely:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that from the above posts. Let me rephrase for clarity:
> 
> *Mason*, What is the visible difference between how ordained deacons function in most PCA churches and how the non-ordained group at Redeemer functions?
Click to expand...


Anna,

From my experience in different PCA churches, _visibly_ there is no difference between what ordained deacons do at other churches and what unordained deacons/deaconesses do at Redeemer. I'm not an elder or deacon, so I don't know what goes on at meetings at any of these churches. But in terms of outward appearance, there is no obvious difference in terms of the actual, physical work. 

This will probably be my last post in this thread. I think my position is known, and hopefully I've accurately articulated the position of Redeemer. This is a great discussion, in my opinion - this issue shows the health of the PCA, not its unhealth. That Godly men like Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan can write thoughtful, civil, Scripture-based articles from opposite ends of this issue speaks volumes about the caliber of the leadership in this denomination. Furthermore, it seems as though everything in debating/discussing this has been done appropriately within the court system of the denomination, and I expect everyone will submit when decisions are made in order to maintain unity. All of that points to a thriving presbyterian system that we should be thankful for. We all want the right thing to be done based on Scriptural principles. If that means my church will rebuked and compelled to change its current practice, so be it; if not, I will be equally thankful.


----------



## Romans922

Mason, 

Therein lies the problem. If there is no visible difference from one who is ordained and one who is not ordained, then there is definitely a misunderstanding of what ordination is and what it means (and the authority that comes with it).


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> ... I expect everyone will submit when decisions are made in order to maintain unity.



If the decision is in favor of deaconesses, I am quite sure that there will be a split. 

If the decision is to uphold the BCO, history has shown that departure rather than submission should not be a surprise when it comes to the role of women.

And is grudging submission by those whose heart has not been changed a healthy thing for the body?


----------



## toddpedlar

Edward said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I expect everyone will submit when decisions are made in order to maintain unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the decision is in favor of deaconesses, I am quite sure that there will be a split.
> 
> If the decision is to uphold the BCO, history has shown that departure rather than submission should not be a surprise when it comes to the role of women.
> 
> And is grudging submission by those whose heart has not been changed a healthy thing for the body?
Click to expand...


I think Mason is right in what Redeemer and others will do if faced with a negative verdict in this instance... they will continue to do exactly what they're now doing, but will actually ordain men among the diaconate, but they and the women will have exactly the same roles. In other words, they will not change their practice in any concrete sense. I'm not sure which situation is worse - that one, or the current, neither of which are in line with the BCO.


----------



## Scott1

It appears today the New York Metro presbytery of the PCA met and rescinded their previous resolution allowing refusal to ordain and install deacons, electing 'deaconess' to office, etc. (rescinded the resolution that violated their vows, polity, and confession).

This is very good news.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Please, God's people, continue to pray.


----------



## Edward

Scott1 said:


> It appears today the New York Metro presbytery of the PCA met and rescinded their previous resolution allowing refusal to ordain and install deacons, electing 'deaconess' to office, etc. (rescinded the resolution that violated their vows, polity, and confession).
> 
> This is very good news.
> 
> .



That would be good news if it indicates a true change of heart. 

Not so good if it is merely tactical repositioning. 

I'll withhold judgment for now.


----------



## Hamalas

Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears today the New York Metro presbytery of the PCA met and rescinded their previous resolution allowing refusal to ordain and install deacons, electing 'deaconess' to office, etc. (rescinded the resolution that violated their vows, polity, and confession).
> 
> This is very good news.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be good news if it indicates a true change of heart.
> 
> Not so good if it is merely tactical repositioning.
> 
> I'll withhold judgment for now.
Click to expand...


Your point is true, but I prefer to assume the best about my Brothers. Praise God!


----------



## Scott1

Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears today the New York Metro presbytery of the PCA met and rescinded their previous resolution allowing refusal to ordain and install deacons, electing 'deaconess' to office, etc. (rescinded the resolution that violated their vows, polity, and confession).
> 
> This is very good news.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be good news if it indicates a true change of heart.
> 
> Not so good if it is merely tactical repositioning.
> 
> I'll withhold judgment for now.
Click to expand...



There's no "if."

This is reason to be thankful to our God, and thankful toward these brothers.

It took humility and courage to do this.

As we pray for humility, submission to the brethren, and charity all around, let's now pray especially for encouragement for our brothers who have done the right thing (and quickly and by large majority, I might add), ask God's wisdom and blessing for them on their way forward.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

I'm glad they did this for unity's sake and to avoid the appearance of playing word games with the BCO.


----------



## TimV

If the knowledge is public, did a majority of Redeemer's delegates vote with the majority? I'm not sure what percentage Redeemer's Elders are in relationship with the other churches in that Presbytery.


----------



## WarrenInSC

*It's more than appearance - It was the fact of the matter*



ColdSilverMoon said:


> I'm glad they did this for unity's sake and to avoid the appearance of playing word games with the BCO.



Mason, 

It wasn't the "appearance" of doing so - it was the bold act of in-your-face actually doing so. Acknowledging that is part of the heart felt repentence that Edward mentioned he was looking for - not a tactical ploy for appearances sake. I prefer, at this point, to take yestersday's Rescision action at face value, assume the best of motives, and praise the Lord for it!

What will be interesting to watch now is the other Prebyteries who passed copy cat resolutions: Metro Atlanta just in the last couple of weeks, N. Calif, and - I think - Philly. Will these Presbyteries reconsider and rescind following Metro NY's lead, as they followed it early passing essentially the same resolution? Or will they be left out on a limb now that Metro NY has recanted the resolution? Time will tell.
LOTS of popcorn.


----------



## Scott1

Below is the request for "amends," in the complaint. We have every reason to be thankful and welcoming of our brothers here. They acted quickly and decisively.

Yes, a few churches will need to make some good faith changes to their practices from here, but we must be charitable toward our brothers here. (Remember not all churches in the presbytery were failing in this, not all elders in a particular church failed in this, and remember also it is elders of this presbytery who brought this complaint). 

One of the things that would be quite profitable to have come out of this is teaching and sermons on the doctrine of ordination, the nature of vows, and the significance of congregations receiving officers whom God has appointed for them. Also, a structure which will facilitate the doing of more mercy ministry with Deacons fulfilling their part in leading in this, and encouraging God's people generally in growing more in this (mercy ministry).

No one likes being in this position. Repentance is a wonderful thing, a true sign of the Spirit's work in our life, so let's not make it more difficult. 

This is about the peace and purity of Christ's church, it is not about about anyone having to prove something to anyone to disprove their cynicism.





> Amends
> 
> Wherefore, in consideration of the foregoing, each complainant hereby requests the following amends, such requests to be considered jointly and severally (i.e. together and as separate remedies):
> 
> 1. That the New York Metropolitan Presbytery nullify, rescind, annul and/or retract the resolutions concerning diaconal ministry passed at its March 13, 2009 meeting;
> 
> 2. That the New York Metropolitan Presbytery affirmatively adopt, by written resolution, a statement rejecting views 5 and 6 contained in such resolutions as contrary to the system of government required by the Constitution of the PCA;
> 
> 3. That the New York Metropolitan Presbytery request each Session within its jurisdiction to evaluate the functioning of its Diaconate with respect to conformity to the Constitution of the PCA, particularly with respect to violations exemplified in the current practice of views 5 and 6 in the aforementioned resolutions; and
> 
> 4. That the New York Metropolitan Presbytery direct churches within its jurisdiction that are in continuing violation of the Constitution through the practices reflected in views 5 and 6 to move into full conformity with the Constitution of the PCA in this matter by rejecting such practices and that the New York Metropolitan Presbytery offer assistance to sessions regarding the difficulties that may arise in the process of bringing their diaconal practices into full conformity with the Constitution of the PCA.


----------



## fredtgreco

Does that mean that amends 2-4 were rejected?


----------



## Scott1

fredtgreco said:


> Does that mean that amends 2-4 were rejected?



Complete information on this has not come out yet. 

My understanding is the Presbytery met quickly and with a good turnout decisively rescinded, retracted the resolution.

Remember, the original complaint also alleged that this resolution, being of great magnitude was not properly noticed for voting, not properly debated, and that very few presbyters actually voted. It alleged presbytery procedure was not properly followed.

I don't understand this to have been the presbytery judicial commission granting amends of the complaint, only that, before that, presbytery met and quickly redressed the substance of point 1, and am not sure the status of 2-4.


----------



## Edward

Thanks to all who have replied today to my most recent post. I pray that you all are correct, but I'll wait and see what happens in Orlando in a few weeks.


----------



## Clay7926

This is wonderful news! I had the chance to share this with Dr. George Knight III of the OPC (WONDERFUL man! It's truly a pleasure to know him), and he was truly pleased at the news. My wife, who attended a church in the Metro-NY Presbytery, was also glad to hear this news. 

One thing that Dr. Knight mentioned we should pray for is that the men in the PCA (and OPC) will follow scripture without fear in this matter, and also that we are able to encourage our women that while these roles (elder/deacon) and biblically reserved for men alone, we truly do want women to use their gifts in the church in a biblical way.


----------



## Scott1

Clay7926 said:


> This is wonderful news! I had the chance to share this with Dr. George Knight III of the OPC (WONDERFUL man! It's truly a pleasure to know him), and he was truly pleased at the news. My wife, who attended a church in the Metro-NY Presbytery, was also glad to hear this news.
> 
> One thing that Dr. Knight mentioned we should pray for is that the men in the PCA (and OPC) will follow scripture without fear in this matter, and also that we are able to encourage our women that while these roles (elder/deacon) and biblically reserved for men alone, we truly do want women to use their gifts in the church in a biblical way.



Absolutely, Henry.

The immediate concern here is keeping vows, confession and the church's polity. Each of these reflects doctrine and is basis for the peace, purity and unity of the church. The doctrine of ordination, the biblical nature of vows, the doctrine of church government, the nature of congregations receiving the leaders who God has appointed and they have confirmed. That's why this is of such immediate concern. Our officers have taken vows to receive and uphold this.

Consider this part of the vows pastors take:


> BCO 21-4
> 
> 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?





One of the things God may use this to bring out is more teaching of these important doctrines. That those doctrines are taught from the pulpit so members will understand them. They are part of what we "confess" as a church. If that happens, it will be more difficult for something like this to happen again in the future, because even congregation members will know something is not right and use the processes our system affords to object.

It's also very important to understand and have taught that "mercy" is not only for officers, but a way of life for every believer. It does not require an office, title, or even recognition. It is rewarded spiritually, and that is something every believer ought seek, particularly as they grow in Christ.

Let's continue praying, there is more that needs to happen (and I believe it will). It's not easy to admit one is wrong and then suffer through making it right- yet that is what God asks of us. Officers, particularly are chosen for exemplifying a life that models this. We have a right to expect to see that here because of the vows and the qualifications for officers. 

We also need to be available to help these brothers as some will need to see how to set up their polity in this area. Perhaps God will also see fit to use these circumstances to bring out more effective biblical structures to do more mercy.

Remember, our polity, which we confess is biblical doctrine is:



> Elders and deacons govern the local church.
> 
> They are qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (men, exemplary life). They are examined for comprehensive Bible knowledge, and comprehensive knowledge of and agreement with our standards as a summary of the doctrine of Scripture. They are tested for calling and giftedness. If married, the officer's wife is also examined.
> 
> They are elected by the congregation, ordained and installed.
> 
> The congregation, in choosing and confirming their officers, receives their leaders as "agreeable to the Word of God." This is a formal receiving, a sermon directed toward that charge, and the vows the congregation takes in receiving them, is really a part of worship.
> 
> Unordained men and women are involved in delivering mercy in an individual capacity, as part of ministry groups, and as appointees by the Session to assist the deacons. None of that infringes on the duties and powers of the governing officers (deacons and elders) nor does it confuse it.



That's our polity. It's a good one. It's biblical.


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Nothing terribly earth-shattering in our conversation, but I thought I would pass those tid-bits along, for what they're worth.



Thanks for the additional insight.


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Question 28: What are the punishments of sin in this world?
> 
> Answer: The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as *blindness of mind*, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies,names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.



We are all prone to be blinded by sin. 

Officers (Deacons and Elders) are held to a higher standard because to whom much is given, much is required. They are chosen for having certain qualifications, including an exemplary life and so are chosen for having lives characterized by faith and repentance... willing to suffer for Christ's sake to make things right.

Often, an ordination and installation sermon is directed toward the seriousness of the call to office and to the congregation in receiving them as officers of Christ's Church.

I do believe and expect officers to care about their vows, the polity they confess, their example of humility to others, their obedience to lawfull authority, their submission to the brethren, their connectional relationship with others, and avoiding even the appearance of evil.


----------

