# Deaconesses in the PCA Timetable



## Romans922

Wes White just put up a timetable of the last few years concerning the Deaconess debate in the PCA: The Issue of Deaconesses in the PCA (2007 

I found it to be helpful to get my head around the issue.


----------



## Moireach

Isn't this an RP issue too?

I thought the PCA was full of female ministers? Surely it's without question that they would have Deaconesses when they have the former?


----------



## Zach

Moireach said:


> Isn't this an RP issue too?
> 
> I thought the PCA was full of female ministers? Surely it's without question that they would have Deaconesses when they have the former?



Only the mainline PC(USA) and EPC have female Ministers in them here in the States as far as I know.


----------



## Moireach

Zach said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this an RP issue too?
> 
> I thought the PCA was full of female ministers? Surely it's without question that they would have Deaconesses when they have the former?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the mainline PC(USA) and EPC have female Ministers in them here in the States as far as I know.
Click to expand...


I got mixed up there then! I must have misread a post somebody put on about the PC(USA). Out of interest, what are the sizes of the PC(USA) and PCA?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I believe that there have been two female TE's in the history of the EPC to date, and one of them is retired. The PCUSA is absolutely chock full of female TE's.

The PCUSA is right at 2 million members. I am not sure for PCA.


----------



## Wayne

The PCA has about 350,000 members. The PC(USA) had, at its peak around 1965, some 4.5 million members and has been losing roughly 50,000 members per year since that time. Mark is correct that they currently claim 2 million members.

Rev. Ligon Duncan was reported to have once said that the PCA has as many people in the pews on any given Sunday as does the PC(USA). I've put that quote to some knowledgeable people in the past and they concluded that it is probably a fair estimate.


----------



## Zach

I did not know that there were so few female TEs in the EPC. My apologies for presenting it as if there were more.


----------



## Kevin

aprox 350k in the PCA. 2 million in the PCUSA (or so). However I have heard it claimed that there are more "bums in seats" on ant given Sunday in PCA churches then there are in PCUSA churches.


----------



## Moireach

Thanks, very interesting. And of that 350 thousand how many are reformed and confessional?
Sorry to be digressing.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

The PCUSA has virtually zero interest in purging its church rolls, as "per capita" is the manna that feeds the beast, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Kevin

Moireach said:


> Thanks, very interesting. And of that 350 thousand how many are reformed and confessional?
> Sorry to be digressing.



All ordained officers are required to hold to the standards. Members need only a credible profession of faith and trinitarian baptism.


----------



## Scott1

The Presbyterian Church in America is chartered fully integrated in doctrine and polity with male leadership in ecclesiastical authority and modeling that. 

This comports with historical Presbyterianism and the overwhelming witness of Church history. 

For example, in church meetings where the Pastor is not available, any male member may be chosen to lead the meeting, e.g.


> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> 20-3. When a congregation is convened for the election of a pastor it is
> important that they should elect a minister of the Presbyterian Church in
> America to preside, but if this be impracticable, they may elect any male
> member of that church....



Following the creation pattern, it is throughout the polity because it has long been held as unconfused doctrine.

So, when someone argues that only one or two brief sections of the PCA BCO need to be changed to accommodate women as ecclesiastical authority, they are simply ignorant of their constitution.

For officers, this is serious because they receive it as authority (members also, but to a lesser extent), and ask God, and other believers to witness those vows.

While anyone can disagree based on conviction, and can go to their spiritual court and be dismissed, they are not free to trivialize their vows or misrepresent their confessed policy.

Many, in their public positioning on this, do not give evidence of being conscience of how really serious God takes vows and truth telling, especially among those who would presume to lead His people.


----------



## Rufus

Wayne said:


> Rev. Ligon Duncan was reported to have once said that the PCA has as many people in the pews on any given Sunday as does the PC(USA). I've put that quote to some knowledgeable people in the past and they concluded that it is probably a fair estimate.



Is it that the PCUSA has nobody attending or that the PCA has visitors and non-members constantly attending, or an equilibrium (that's my guess)?


----------



## jwright82

Scott1 said:


> So, when someone argues that only one or two brief sections of the PCA BCO need to be changed to accommodate women as ecclesiastical authority, they are simply ignorant of their constitution.



So would it have to be fundamentally altered? I mean how much would have to change, can you guess? I mean if its a lot than just say that.


----------



## Scott1

jwright82 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when someone argues that only one or two brief sections of the PCA BCO need to be changed to accommodate women as ecclesiastical authority, they are simply ignorant of their constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would it have to be fundamentally altered? I mean how much would have to change, can you guess? I mean if its a lot than just say that.
Click to expand...


It would be substantial and wide ranging, because it would not be historic, biblical Presbyterian polity at all. 

Above all else, Presbyterians have majored on (good) biblical polity.

Consider the Northern California Overture in 2010 (which was declined at first hearing):



> OVERTURE 10 from Northern California Presbytery (to CCB & OC)
> “Amend BCO 1-4, 4-2, 5-10, 7-2, 9-2, 9-7 & Add a BCO 9-8
> to Appoint Unordained Men and Women to Carry Out Diaconal Ministry”



That Overture proposed changing six(!) sections of the BCO and adding a new section. So, 7 different parts. And that just gets started.

Those arguing that just adding or deleting a phrase in one or two places is all that is needed simply misunderstand (and misrepresent) historic Presbyterian polity, and that of the PCA.

Same goes for those using reasoning that Deacons are not really officers, anyone who "helps" is a Deacon, and that there is not any authority in the office of Deacon, because it's not really an office.

Yet, historic biblical polity (and that of the PCA) recognizes that the authority of the office of Deacon springs directly from Jesus Christ to govern His church, just as the authority of Elders, Ministers and Bishops does.



> PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
> 
> I. THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH
> 
> ....
> 
> It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom. Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away. Since the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven, He is present with the Church by His Word and Spirit, and the benefits of all His offices are effectually applied by the Holy Ghost....



Those who devalue the office of Deacon to have men and women serve without distinction as mere "helpers who do mercy" are really attacking an appointment that comes from our Lord Himself. They are undermining the doctrines of ordination and vocation, and the authority of church office- all church offices.

They may say, for now, they are not challenging the office of elder, but really they are undermining every authoritative position in the Body of Christ with imagined human notions of governance.

We must pray that does not happen in our generation, as the saints who have gone before us prayed in theirs.


----------



## raekwon

I'm curious as to where the numbers for the "just as many in the pews" anecdote came from. PC(USA) claims average attendance of half its membership per congregation.


----------



## jwright82

Scott1 said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when someone argues that only one or two brief sections of the PCA BCO need to be changed to accommodate women as ecclesiastical authority, they are simply ignorant of their constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would it have to be fundamentally altered? I mean how much would have to change, can you guess? I mean if its a lot than just say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be substantial and wide ranging, because it would not be historic, biblical Presbyterian polity at all.
> 
> Above all else, Presbyterians have majored on (good) biblical polity.
> 
> Consider the Northern California Overture in 2010 (which was declined at first hearing):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OVERTURE 10 from Northern California Presbytery (to CCB & OC)
> “Amend BCO 1-4, 4-2, 5-10, 7-2, 9-2, 9-7 & Add a BCO 9-8
> to Appoint Unordained Men and Women to Carry Out Diaconal Ministry”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Overture proposed changing six(!) sections of the BCO and adding a new section. So, 7 different parts. And that just gets started.
> 
> Those arguing that just adding or deleting a phrase in one or two places is all that is needed simply misunderstand (and misrepresent) historic Presbyterian polity, and that of the PCA.
> 
> Same goes for those using reasoning that Deacons are not really officers, anyone who "helps" is a Deacon, and that there is not any authority in the office of Deacon, because it's not really an office.
> 
> Yet, historic biblical polity (and that of the PCA) recognizes that the authority of the office of Deacon springs directly from Jesus Christ to govern His church, just as the authority of Elders, Ministers and Bishops does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
> 
> I. THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH
> 
> ....
> 
> It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom. Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away. Since the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven, He is present with the Church by His Word and Spirit, and the benefits of all His offices are effectually applied by the Holy Ghost....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who devalue the office of Deacon to have men and women serve without distinction as mere "helpers who do mercy" are really attacking an appointment that comes from our Lord Himself. They are undermining the doctrines of ordination and vocation, and the authority of church office- all church offices.
> 
> They may say, for now, they are not challenging the office of elder, but really they are undermining every authoritative position in the Body of Christ with imagined human notions of governance.
> 
> We must pray that does not happen in our generation, as the saints who have gone before us prayed in theirs.
Click to expand...


I feel the same way, thank you for your answers (very enlightening).


----------



## Edward

Moireach said:


> Thanks, very interesting. And of that 350 thousand how many are reformed and confessional?



Depends on your definition of 'reformed and confessional'. If you limit it to strict subscription, I'd guess about 10 - 15%. Higher, of course, among the officers, lower among the members at large.


----------



## SRoper

Wayne said:


> Rev. Ligon Duncan was reported to have once said that the PCA has as many people in the pews on any given Sunday as does the PC(USA). I've put that quote to some knowledgeable people in the past and they concluded that it is probably a fair estimate.



I find it difficult to believe since there are so many more PCUSA congregations than PCA congregations. 10,500 vs 1400 or 7.5 times as many congregations. I just can't put any plausible average attendance per congregation that would make the numbers work, but maybe I am underestimating the average attendance in a PCA congregation.


----------



## Kevin

raekwon said:


> I'm curious as to where the numbers for the "just as many in the pews" anecdote came from. PC(USA) claims average attendance of half its membership per congregation.



Rae, this may just be a PCA urban myth. I have heard it several times however. 

I know that our church plant has only a dozen or so members but our average attendance is several times that. I also know United Churches with 700+ on the roll with 50-80 on a given Sunday morning. So if that translated to the PCUSA it is possible. Also consider the "retention to roll rate" in established denominations. In mainline churches 10-15% seems to be the norm. Even the SBC goes through regular debates over how many of the alleged 20 million actually attend SBC churches. Some claim only 25%.

So I don't know of a study that proves it, but it is possibly true. If mainline attendance rates of 10% (+/-) holds (and in my experience it seems to) and if PCA attendance only closely approximates membership numbers, then it is possible.


----------



## Scott1

My understanding is that the PCA's member numbers are likely substantially underreported because of the voluntary nature of reporting to the central denomination. That is, the approximate 346,000 members number is not a complete picture of the denomination.

I am not sure of that status within other denominations as for comparison.


----------



## Jack K

Many of the larger PCA churches in particular don't merely have attendance that equals their membership but attendance that far exceeds it. The large urban churches have young evangelicals who fill the seats but don't put much stock in membership. The large southern churches are filled with Baptists who attend but can't bear to formally affiliate with Presbyterians. Put that together with the standard for mainlines (I don't buy the PC(USA) claim of 50% attendance), and the statement attributed to Rev. Duncan sounds reasonable.


----------



## Edward

Scott1 said:


> My understanding is that the PCA's member numbers are likely substantially underreported because of the voluntary nature of reporting to the central denomination.



Thanks for the reminder. A fairly large percentage of the churches, for various reasons, don't report. Although the general assumption is that they tend to be the smaller congregations, there is known underreporting. 

Here's a quote from the Stated Clerk's letter:

"Forty-nine percent of churches filed 2009 Annual Statistical Reports. " 

I don't think that means you can double the numbers as to members, but it does show that that the number unreported is not tiny.


----------



## Wayne

Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the PCA's member numbers are likely substantially underreported because of the voluntary nature of reporting to the central denomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reminder. A fairly large percentage of the churches, for various reasons, don't report. Although the general assumption is that they tend to be the smaller congregations, there is known underreporting.
> 
> Here's a quote from the Stated Clerk's letter:
> 
> "Forty-nine percent of churches filed 2009 Annual Statistical Reports. "
> 
> I don't think that means you can double the numbers as to members, but it does show that that the number unreported is not tiny.
Click to expand...


I hadn't really thought much about this, but some volunteer number cruncher might study the PCA Yearbook [if you'll do the work, I'll provide the copy]
and provide an estimate. 

If only about half our PCA churches report their stats, and if the 350k number is based on that half that does report, wouldn't it be wild if the actual number is closer to 700k? Or at least over 1/2M?


----------



## Romans922

I just saw this article that charges Sam Wheatley (the one who has recently written a paper and brought this issue to the light again) of misleading his readers with false information and misquotes.

PCA advocates of woman officers get their facts wrong. Once again... - BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...


----------



## Edward

Wayne said:


> If only about half our PCA churches report their stats, and if the 350k number is based on that half that does report, wouldn't it be wild if the actual number is closer to 700k?



But as I mentioned, a large number of the non-reporting churches are likely the smaller ones. I doubt that there are many in the size range of Briarwood or Park Cities not reporting - or even in the FPC Jackson/Coral Ridge range. 

So if we are talking about 500 churches with an average of 50 members, you are only looking at adding 25,000, not 350,000. Of course, the 50 members is just an 'informed speculation' on my part. 

You might make up a larger addition from the non-member regular attenders. It's my recollection that the weekly attendance at Redeemer NYC is a multiple of the actual membership, for example. 

If I had to pull a number out of thin air, it would probably be in the 425-450,000 range.

I will say this for the PCUSA - they do make statistics readily available.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------




Wayne said:


> I hadn't really thought much about this, but some volunteer number cruncher might study the PCA Yearbook [if you'll do the work, I'll provide the copy



If no one else steps up, mention that to me in about 6 months and I make take you up. I'm way too busy at work right now to try to do something like that. But it sounds fun. The easiest way to try to get a big picture is to see how many of the non-reporting churches have multiple pastors. I'd speculate that that number will be very small. And shared pastors would be even more telling.


----------



## Wayne

Edward said:


> I will say this for the PCUSA - they do make statistics readily available.



Hey, what about us? - PCA Historical Center: Statistical Tables for PCA Churche and Membership, 1973 - 2003

(not saying that page is all that easy to find. Plus I know I've updated it past 2008--will have to check that file tomorrow.)


----------



## Wayne

Romans922 said:


> I just saw this article that charges Sam Wheatley (the one who has recently written a paper and brought this issue to the light again) of misleading his readers with false information and misquotes.
> 
> PCA advocates of woman officers get their facts wrong. Once again... - BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...



Bayly's point that the supposed Warfield quote was actually from McGill probably won't hold much water with many. Bayly would do well to show why it makes any difference for the quote to come from McGill rather than Warfield. BBW is at least quoting McGill in the article. Bayly should then attempt to either show how McGill's views were suspect or deficient and not to be relied upon, or else how Warfield is quoting in some fashion other than approval. (if such can be shown).

Bayly's far stronger argument of correction is with RPCES history. Several years ago he secured copies of the RPCES Synod recordings and has studied them closely. 
I can supply PDF copies of the print format of those Synod Minutes to any who might request them, if you want to see for yourself. If you send me a PM, include your email address.


----------



## Edward

Wayne said:


> Hey, what about us?



Check on the congregation level statistics on the PCUSA website sometimes. It can provide hours of entertainment comparing membership to attendance, giving, etc over a 10 year period. Membership creeps up usually until there is a change of pastors and the rolls scrubbed (or they want to cut their per capita), but the attendance numbers can provide some useful information. as can watching folks vote with their pocketbooks.


----------



## J. Dean

Zach said:


> Only the mainline PC(USA) and EPC have female Ministers in them here in the States as far as I know.


While that is true in the case of the EPC, it is also true that many in the denomination do not agree with it.


----------



## Wayne

Zach, you forgot about the Cumberland Presbyterians, who were actually the first to authorize women pastors, etc.

[Wikipedia -- "1889: The Nolin Presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church ordained Louisa Woosley as the first female minister of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, USA."]

It wasn't until 1930 that the PC,USA allowed the ordination of women as ruling elders. Leading up to that event, two factors--the PC,USA had received most of the Cumberland Church into its midst in 1906, and modernism (i.e., theological liberalism) was clearly taking over the denomination by the 1920s.

Then it wasn't until 1956 that the PC,USA ordained its first woman teaching elder.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Edward said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, what about us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check on the congregation level statistics on the PCUSA website sometimes. It can provide hours of entertainment comparing membership to attendance, giving, etc over a 10 year period. Membership creeps up usually until there is a change of pastors and the rolls scrubbed (or they want to cut their per capita), but the attendance numbers can provide some useful information. as can watching folks vote with their pocketbooks.
Click to expand...


PCUSA in general does not encourage purging the rolls, as this cuts the precious manna of per capita. However, one of the first "official" jobs of an interim minister in the PCUSA is to purge the rolls to get them back to some level of realism. This helps out the finances of a "ministerless" church while a PNC is at work. I presume this is also the case in the more traditionally reformed denominations?


----------



## Zach

Wayne said:


> Zach, you forgot about the Cumberland Presbyterians, who were actually the first to authorize women pastors, etc.
> 
> [Wikipedia -- "1889: The Nolin Presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church ordained Louisa Woosley as the first female minister of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, USA."]
> 
> It wasn't until 1930 that the PC,USA allowed the ordination of women as ruling elders. Leading up to that event, two factors--the PC,USA had received most of the Cumberland Church into its midst in 1906, and modernism (i.e., theological liberalism) was clearly taking over the denomination by the 1920s.
> 
> Then it wasn't until 1956 that the PC,USA ordained its first woman teaching elder.



My apologies! I am not very well versed in my Presbyterian History yet. That is very interesting.



J. Dean said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the mainline PC(USA) and EPC have female Ministers in them here in the States as far as I know.
> 
> 
> 
> While that is true in the case of the EPC, it is also true that many in the denomination do not agree with it.
Click to expand...


It was not my intention to come across as suggesting everyone in the EPC believes in ordaining women, I was merely pointing out that it is permitted.


----------



## J. Dean

Zach said:


> It was not my intention to come across as suggesting everyone in the EPC believes in ordaining women, I was merely pointing out that it is permitted.


I didn't take it as such. Just wanted to make clarification on a point.


----------



## Zach

J. Dean said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not my intention to come across as suggesting everyone in the EPC believes in ordaining women, I was merely pointing out that it is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as such. Just wanted to make clarification on a point.
Click to expand...


Thank you for clarifying. What do you think the split is within the EPC of those in favor or those opposed to ordaining women as Teaching Elders? Or does it really depend almost entirely upon where individual churches stand on the matter?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

I'd be interested myself in the pro-anti female ordination split in the EPC. Also in the number of RPCNA and ARP churches that have women deacons and who don't.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

That is a good question Jonathan. I have no idea what the actual numbers are but it is my impression at least that women deacons are a minority in the ARP and RPCNA.


----------

