# PCA Overture on Deaconesses



## Scott

PCA Overture on Deaconesses


----------



## sastark

As someone who recently began attending an Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (and *love* it!) this is very interesting. Thanks for the head's up.


----------



## sastark

Oh, and look at that, my 1,000th post.


----------



## DMcFadden

Congrats, Seth! 

(Any Biola Betty's in your future?)


----------



## sastark

DMcFadden said:


> Congrats, Seth!
> 
> (Any Biola Betty's in your future?)



Sorry, what's a "Biola Betty"?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

My church (PCA) views it as a service role. Hence we have deaconesses. It will be interesting to see the GA's view on this...


----------



## ModernPuritan?

allowing a deaconess in the church that would be interesting.. they obviously could not be elders and such. but there are a few female deacons mentioned in the NT. So let them deal with things like visitation, food ministries,- things that wifes would do more naturally or something along those lines


----------



## ModernPuritan?

ColdSilverMoon said:


> My church (PCA) views it as a service role. Hence we have deaconesses. It will be interesting to see the GA's view on this...



its something ive never seen- what do they do specifically thats different from what the men do?..


----------



## Romans922

Scott said:


> PCA Overture on Deaconesses



Um, What is really interesting about this is that not only has Philadelphia Presbytery overtured the PCA GA, but so has Western Canada Presbytery on the same issue. The only difference is that Philadelphia has an added clause that Western Canada does not and that is, "whose members are representative of various positions within the PCA".


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ModernPuritan? said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church (PCA) views it as a service role. Hence we have deaconesses. It will be interesting to see the GA's view on this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its something ive never seen- what do they do specifically thats different from what the men do?..
Click to expand...


Nothing, at least as far as I can see. Here's a description:

Diaconate - redeemer.com


----------



## Davidius

sastark said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats, Seth!
> 
> (Any Biola Betty's in your future?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, what's a "Biola Betty"?
Click to expand...


I think he wants to know whether you have a girlfriend.


----------



## sastark

Davidius said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats, Seth!
> 
> (Any Biola Betty's in your future?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, what's a "Biola Betty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he wants to know whether you have a girlfriend.
Click to expand...


I certainly hope I don't! My wife might have a thing or two to say about that!


----------



## TimV

Practically speaking it wouldn't make much difference in the PCA. Churches like Keller's and several others make statements like this:



> 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.
> On the question of deacons, the Presbyterian tradition has not spoken, nor does it still speak, with one voice on the question of women in diaconal ministry, or on the question of whether deacons should be spoken of as "ordained." However, at Church of the Redeemer, we affirm that women may serve in diaconal ministry, and particularly, that women are Scripturally permitted to serve as deacons. In principle, we believe that our denomination, the PCA, should change its current position delineated in the Book of Church Order, and open up the ordained office of deacon to women as well as to men. However, at present, in submission to the PCA Book of Church Order – until the PCA changes its position on this issue – we will not officially ordain women to the office of deacon at church of the Redeemer. We will, however, select, train, and commission both men and women to serve as deacons in an “un-ordained” capacity at Church of the Redeemer. (For a complete treatment of this subject, see “Diaconal Ministry at Church of the Redeemer,” by the council of elders.
> Women and Ministry



and



> The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated and elected into the office by the Redeemer members, exists to express in practical ways Christ's command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves. We offer help to those in crisis or challenging situations by assessing their needs and working together to find solutions.



So they are saying "We can't allow women Deacons because the PCA doesn't allow it. So in the mean time, we allow women Deacons". And unless things have changed, the current head of their Diaconate is a woman, who took the place of the last leader, who was a woman.

The PCA where I still have my membership goes even further, with "unordained" Deacons that are Baptist and Arminian. The problem will probably come at the Denominational level when someone points out to these guys that all Deacons have to be ordained. The BCO doesn't allow for a third officer, so they'll eventually have to plug the loophole that so many people are climbing through.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Hence we have deaconesses.



Are they formally ordained (laying of hands) or simply titled 'deaconess' for their role of service?


----------



## DMcFadden

sastark said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, what's a "Biola Betty"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he wants to know whether you have a girlfriend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly hope I don't! My wife might have a thing or two to say about that!
Click to expand...



Just being funny. Students at my college used to speak of students at your college as Biola Bob's and Betty's. It was quaint and anachronistic even "back in the day."


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kvanlaan said:


> Hence we have deaconesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they formally ordained (laying of hands) or simply titled 'deaconess' for their role of service?
Click to expand...


Deaconesses are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained members.


----------



## sastark

DMcFadden said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he wants to know whether you have a girlfriend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hope I don't! My wife might have a thing or two to say about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just being funny. Students at my college used to speak of students at your college as Biola Bob's and Betty's. It was quaint and anachronistic even "back in the day."
Click to expand...



No problem. I figured that's what you meant, but didn't want to jump to any conclusions.


----------



## Romans922

Yes this is for all PCA churches, but one thing you must realize about "study committees" in the PCA is that whatever report is produced by the study committee is not lawfully binding on anyone, it rather is to be viewed as "Pastoral Advice".


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

> Overture 9 recommends that General Assembly “erect a study committee on deaconesses” to determine whether the election of women to the office of deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order (BCO).



Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and contrary to the Scripture, in my opinion


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and *contrary to the Scripture*, in my opinion



And there is the rub. Why would the study committee not study the question in relation to Scripture rather than the BOC?


----------



## TimV

> And there is the rub. Why would the study committee not study the question in relation to Scripture rather than the BOC?



They have to do both. For purposes of (among other things) not always re-inventing the wheel, the BCO itself says that while not inspired it is to be considered authoritative.



> Deaconesses are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained members.



Whether or not Deaconesses are Scriptural or not, the above is really a word game. The BCO requires all Deacons to be ordained, so someone unordained can't be a Deacon. According to the BCO you can't use that word for unordained people, and the only reason people do is to sneak around the BCO. According to these church "mission statements" that allow "unordained" Deacons, those Elders could, if they could talk their churches into it, allow their 5 year old daughters to be "unordained" Deacons.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and *contrary to the Scripture*, in my opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the rub. Why would the study committee not study the question in relation to Scripture rather than the BOC?
Click to expand...


Thank you! My thoughts exactly. I mean, sure the BCO is useful, but the Scripture is of first importance (Or at least, it *should* be!).

By the way, the PCA BCO already allows individual Sessions to "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 distress or need." (BCO 9-7). 

Thus BCO already allows for women to engage in diaconal service, but that service is to be at the direction of the Elders, and under the supervision of the ordain diaconate.

This overture seems to me to indicate more of a motive of pride than service. Those who speak of a desire to be of service to the church often seem to be more interested in the office or title, than the actual service itself.

Now, before everyone jumps on me...I know I'm overstating the case, but hopefully to make the point. 

No change is needed in the BCO. The BCO already provides for women to be involved in diaconal service. It simply does not provide that the OFFICE is open to women.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and *contrary to the Scripture*, in my opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the rub. Why would the study committee not study the question in relation to Scripture rather than the BOC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you! My thoughts exactly. I mean, sure the BCO is useful, but the Scripture is of first importance (Or at least, it *should* be!).
> 
> By the way, the PCA BCO already allows individual Sessions to "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 distress or need." (BCO 9-7).
> 
> Thus BCO already allows for women to engage in diaconal service, but that service is to be at the direction of the Elders, and under the supervision of the ordain diaconate.
> 
> This overture seems to me to indicate more of a motive of pride than service. Those who speak of a desire to be of service to the church often seem to be more interested in the office or title, than the actual service itself.
> 
> Now, before everyone jumps on me...I know I'm overstating the case, but hopefully to make the point.
> 
> No change is needed in the BCO. The BCO already provides for women to be involved in diaconal service. It simply does not provide that the OFFICE is open to women.
Click to expand...


I hope there's enough boiling water in this pot for two. 

Seriously though, it does seem to be a pride or power issue. What God fearing church and it's elders would say to any member, male or female, you can't visit the sick, you can't feed the hungry, you can't voluntarily clean the fellowship hall bathrooms because you're not a deacon(ess)? Obviously none would. So if a person (again, male or female) feels lead of the Lord to serve his/her fellow man is such ways why is the title deacon necessary? I see no command in Scripture that requires a title for us to serve one another. 

*getting off my




now.*


----------



## Craig

The Bayly blog has discussed the women deacons issues...and specifically Tim Keller

Women deacons...the nub of the issue

Tim Keller...women deacons serving communion

A brief discussion of the danger Redeemer Presbyterian presents with their violation of BCO

Tim Keller "rebranding sin" (it's in the USA Today article linked from the blog post)...yes, I know this is not a discussion about deaconesses...but interesting to note.


----------



## Croghanite

ColdSilverMoon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence we have deaconesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they formally ordained (laying of hands) or simply titled 'deaconess' for their role of service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deaconesses are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained members.
Click to expand...


What is the title for the men that are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained?


----------



## wsw201

Not only does the PCA BCO allow for women to serve under the direction of the diaconate but they also have WIC (Women In the Church). So the idea of having a position called "Deaconess" is unwarranted. Plus there is no Scriptural warrant for this position. Some try and use Pheobe and play around with 2 Tim but it takes some serious exegetical gymnastics to pull it off.


----------



## Craig

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Seriously though, it does seem to be a pride or power issue. What God fearing church and it's elders would say to any member, male or female, you can't visit the sick, you can't feed the hungry, you can't voluntarily clean the fellowship hall bathrooms because you're not a deacon(ess)? Obviously none would. So if a person (again, male or female) feels lead of the Lord to serve his/her fellow man is such ways why is the title deacon necessary? I see no command in Scripture that requires a title for us to serve one another.
> 
> *getting off my
> 
> 
> 
> now.*



A deacon is more than a custodian or one who passes out food...it is a position of authority...Stephen was noted for his ability to teach...and it was his final sermon/indictment that led to his martyrdom. After my pastor has been preaching on this subject for the last month or so, I'm convinced deacons do, in fact, exercise authority...and that a deaconness is not the same thing as a deacon.

Unfortunately, there are churches in the PCA that think little of violating the BCO...women have hands laid on them for their "commissioning" at the *same time* men are...thus, it becomes clear they believe men and women may hold the *same* office Liberti PCA doing exactly that (click on image #12)


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

wsw201 said:


> Not only does the PCA BCO allow for women to serve under the direction of the diaconate but they also have WIC (Women In the Church). So the idea of having a position called "Deaconess" is unwarranted. Plus there is no Scriptural warrant for this position. Some try and use Pheobe and play around with 2 Tim but it takes some serious exegetical gymnastics to pull it off.


----------



## JBaldwin

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and *contrary to the Scripture*, in my opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the rub. Why would the study committee not study the question in relation to Scripture rather than the BOC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you! My thoughts exactly. I mean, sure the BCO is useful, but the Scripture is of first importance (Or at least, it *should* be!).
Click to expand...


My first thought was they will address according to the BCO, because the Scriptures already told them what they are supposed to do and they don't like it. It's easier to get around a manmade ordinance than it is the Word of God.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Craig said:


> A deacon is more than a custodian or one who passes out food...it is a position of authority...Stephen was noted for his ability to teach...and it was his final sermon/indictment that led to his martyrdom. After my pastor has been preaching on this subject for the last month or so, I'm convinced deacons do, in fact, exercise authority...and that a deaconness is not the same thing as a deacon.



I'm sorry, I thought the discussion was about those in "service roles" needing a title for that function. Thus the genesis of the term deaconess if the person serving happens to be a woman. Maybe I've misread the intent of the thread. 

Personally, growing up in an Independent Baptist church, the deasonesses were what we called the wives of the deacons. 

I agree with your statement above.


----------



## Croghanite

LAYMAN JOE said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they formally ordained (laying of hands) or simply titled 'deaconess' for their role of service?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconesses are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the title for the men that are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained?
Click to expand...


Does anyone know the answer to my above question considering chapter 9-7 PCA BCO. What is the title given to the men appointed by the deacons for their service?


----------



## Christusregnat

ModernPuritan? said:


> allowing a deaconess in the church that would be interesting.. they obviously could not be elders and such. but there are a few female deacons mentioned in the NT. So let them deal with things like visitation, food ministries,- things that wifes would do more naturally or something along those lines



Howdy Jeff,

The deaconesses in the New Tesament include the following:

Paul
Christ
The Civil Magistrate
Stephen
Phillip

In the book of Romans, the two deacons that are mentioned are Phoebe and the Civil Magistrate.

First, deaconess is not a biblical term. The Greek only knows of "diakonos" and applies it to anyone who happens to perform services on behalf of others.

Christ served the circumcision; Paul served Christ; Stephen served God; the Magistrate serves God.

The book of Romans is a non-ecclesiatical book. It knows little/nothing of church forms, offices, etc. It knows theology, and lots of it. In a book so structured, the only other conspicuous use of "diaconos" (beside that of Phoebe) is that applied to the civil power, which is the "servant of God" - His deacon.

Anywho, there are all kinds of servants in the NT. The question is, who is qualified for the office of deacon in the church? See Acts 6 for the answer: the male members of the congregation. This is explicit by the fact that Peter gathered the heads of households and told them:

"3_*Brothers*_, choose seven _*men *_from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." 5This proposal pleased _*the whole group*_. They chose Stephen, a _*man *_full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. "

Notice, men were gathered, men elected, men served. Very simple.

What's even more simple is the fact that the deacon's role GREW OUT OF THE APOSTLES / ELDERS' office, and therefore, of necessity, carries authority over the entire church.

Cheers,


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Any PB'r going to be on Bills and Overtures at PCA GA this year; my pastor will be. Should wey open a thread under Presbyterian Polity to discuss this overture when it comes up during GA like we did the FV last year?


----------



## fredtgreco

NaphtaliPress said:


> Any PB'r going to be on Bills and Overtures at PCA GA this year; my pastor will be. Should wey open a thread under Presbyterian Polity to discuss this overture when it comes up during GA like we did the FV last year?



I'll be on Overtures this year (as last). This Overture is very disconcerting.

I won't go into all the details, since this Board affects nothing, and the GA is much more significant. I will give my remarks there.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

You'll have to introduce yourself to my pastor, Arnie Robertstad if you rub elbows; he's also my sister's husband.


----------



## fredtgreco

NaphtaliPress said:


> You'll have to introduce yourself to my pastor, Arnie Robertstad if you rub elbows; he's also my sister's husband.



Absolutely.

And I do think it would be a good idea to open a thread on this like last year.

I just won't be contributing.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

LAYMAN JOE said:


> LAYMAN JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconesses are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the title for the men that are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the answer to my above question considering chapter 9-7 PCA BCO. What is the title given to the men appointed by the deacons for their service?
Click to expand...


First of all, 9-7 says that it is Session (the Elders) not the Deacons who appoint these individuals.

Secondly, There is no title given to them. That was my point when I said earlier:


> This overture seems to me to indicate more of a motive of pride than service. Those who speak of a desire to be of service to the church often seem to be more interested in the office or title, than the actual service itself



They are simply _"godly men and women of the congregation"_ who are selected and appointed by session _"to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in distress or need." _(BCO 9-7). 

If theirs is a desire to serve, and they have not been ordained to the office of deacon, they ought to be willing to do so without a man-made title, In my humble opinion


----------



## wsw201

LAYMAN JOE said:


> LAYMAN JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconesses are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the title for the men that are members of the diaconate for their service, but not ordained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the answer to my above question considering chapter 9-7 PCA BCO. What is the title given to the men appointed by the deacons for their service?
Click to expand...


There is no title. Scripture doesn't give them a title so neither does the PCA BCO. 

The men who may help the Deacons, just like any woman, are simply Christians looking to excercise their gifts in the church. A title should not be necessary.

In my humble opinion, giving women titles like deaconess is just a copitulation to the postmodern, egalitarian kingdom of man.


----------



## Stephen

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Overture 9 recommends that General Assembly “erect a study committee on deaconesses” to determine whether the election of women to the office of deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order (BCO).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and contrary to the Scripture, in my opinion
Click to expand...



Some would argue that deaconesses are contrary to Scripture, certainly Calvin recognized them, but the BCO is often amended or changed.


----------



## Stephen

An overture has been made to the 36th General Assembly of the PCA, but it still must go to the Bills and Overtures Committee (B&O). B&O can still vote against recommending it to the floor of GA, so until an action is made by the committee it is still speculation. I understand the concern of many on this issue, and I certainly have some reservations, but we have to wait for B&O to meet and make a recommendation.


----------



## shackleton

I have never seen a clear definition as to what deacons do anyway and if their role was to free up the apostles from "waiting tables" or in other words do the day to day running of the church and care of the people why can't women do it? The people who mow grass, cook food, take care of the bulletins etc. technically are doing the jobs of a "deacon" but are not usually called deacons. The only problems I see with it is that deacons are ordained and women are not to be ordained but it looks like that is changing because most churches are lightening up on women in office.


----------



## TimV

> looks like that is changing because most churches are lightening up on women in office.



And homosexuals in office, and evolutionists in office, and so forth. But those old dudes on the Standing Judiciary Committee don't give a fig for that, which is one of the things I like about the Denomination in general.


----------



## Mushroom

Just another milestone along my beloved denom's slouching towards Gommorha. Why aren't the leaders of the PCA (and you know who you are) up in arms at this assault upon her peace and purity? Oh... that's right.... never forget the PCA TE & RE Motto: If it ain't in my Church or Presbytery, "what me worry?"

I will not be surprised that in 10 years we'll be debating the ordination of Jezebels as TE's or admission of sodomites to the Table. At what point in this decline will faithful men stand against the tide? After its too late? Great! Then those who oppose the compromise with Belial, yet who've sat idly by while it festered, can stomp off in a huff and add a new acronym to the alphabet soup that Reformed Presbyterianism has become in this country. But all the moral indignation they profess will not wash out the stain of their cowardice and lack of real love for Christ's bride (the kind that produces real action in the defense of her peace and purity). Their shame will be deserved, even if not acknowledged by them.


----------



## Mushroom

TimV said:


> looks like that is changing because most churches are lightening up on women in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And homosexuals in office, and evolutionists in office, and so forth. But those old dudes on the Standing Judiciary Committee don't give a fig for that, which is one of the things I like about the Denomination in general.
Click to expand...


Hey Tim, This is off-topic, but should give you a laugh. Ever heard of Roandoak Christian Commune?

If you're going to an EV Free Church in Morro Bay, I may have visited there 30 years ago. We're the same age, may have crossed paths if you were in SLO back in the 70's or 80's.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Brad said:


> Just another milestone along my beloved denom's slouching towards Gommorha. Why aren't the leaders of the PCA (and you know who you are) up in arms at this assault upon her peace and purity? Oh... that's right.... never forget the PCA TE & RE Motto: If it ain't in my Church or Presbytery, "what me worry?"
> 
> I will not be surprised that in 10 years we'll be debating the ordination of Jezebels as TE's or admission of sodomites to the Table. At what point in this decline will faithful men stand against the tide? After its too late? Great! Then those who oppose the compromise with Belial, yet who've sat idly by while it festered, can stomp off in a huff and add a new acronym to the alphabet soup that Reformed Presbyterianism has become in this country. But all the moral indignation they profess will not wash out the stain of their cowardice and lack of real love for Christ's bride (the kind that produces real action in the defense of her peace and purity). Their shame will be deserved, even if not acknowledged by them.



I don't know how I feel about women deaconesses. I can see legitimate points both ways. But regardless, I think your reaction is a bit over the top. If they start electing women elders I would leave the church and likely the denomination - clearly, without question against Scripture. But the deaconess issue seems to be semantics as much as anything else, and at the very least a debatable issue. This is hardly a step towards Gomorrah...


----------



## Mushroom

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another milestone along my beloved denom's slouching towards Gommorha. Why aren't the leaders of the PCA (and you know who you are) up in arms at this assault upon her peace and purity? Oh... that's right.... never forget the PCA TE & RE Motto: If it ain't in my Church or Presbytery, "what me worry?"
> 
> I will not be surprised that in 10 years we'll be debating the ordination of Jezebels as TE's or admission of sodomites to the Table. At what point in this decline will faithful men stand against the tide? After its too late? Great! Then those who oppose the compromise with Belial, yet who've sat idly by while it festered, can stomp off in a huff and add a new acronym to the alphabet soup that Reformed Presbyterianism has become in this country. But all the moral indignation they profess will not wash out the stain of their cowardice and lack of real love for Christ's bride (the kind that produces real action in the defense of her peace and purity). Their shame will be deserved, even if not acknowledged by them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how I feel about women deaconesses. I can see legitimate points both ways. But regardless, I think your reaction is a bit over the top. If they start electing women elders I would leave the church and likely the denomination - clearly, without question against Scripture. But the deaconess issue seems to be semantics as much as anything else, and at the very least a debatable issue. This is hardly a step towards Gomorrah...
Click to expand...




What's really just way cool about this is that obviously we are enjoying a period of new revelation! 2000 years of Church history has passed without the benefit of this new understanding that engenders (pun intended) the need for this discussion. Aren't we just so... so... blessedly progressive? No, its not a step towards Gomorrah, it must be a leap into the glorious light of human equality whose sun is the radiant glow of feminism!

Thanks for straightening me out, brother.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Brad said:


> Just another milestone along my beloved denom's slouching towards Gommorha. Why aren't the leaders of the PCA (and you know who you are) up in arms at this assault upon her peace and purity? Oh... that's right.... never forget the PCA TE & RE Motto: If it ain't in my Church or Presbytery, "what me worry?"
> 
> I will not be surprised that in 10 years we'll be debating the ordination of Jezebels as TE's or admission of sodomites to the Table. At what point in this decline will faithful men stand against the tide? After its too late? Great! Then those who oppose the compromise with Belial, yet who've sat idly by while it festered, can stomp off in a huff and add a new acronym to the alphabet soup that Reformed Presbyterianism has become in this country. But all the moral indignation they profess will not wash out the stain of their cowardice and lack of real love for Christ's bride (the kind that produces real action in the defense of her peace and purity). Their shame will be deserved, even if not acknowledged by them.



 You speak the truth. Though we had to leave the PCA several years ago, I still pray for the denomination regularly. There are many good godly men who remain in the PCA and desire earnestly to keep them true to their calling before Christ.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Brad said:


> What's really just way cool about this is that obviously we are enjoying a period of new revelation! 2000 years of Church history has passed without the benefit of this new understanding that engenders (pun intended) the need for this discussion. Aren't we just so... so... blessedly progressive? No, its not a step towards Gomorrah, it must be a leap into the glorious light of human equality whose sun is the radiant glow of feminism!
> 
> Thanks for straightening me out, brother.



My friend, I think you really need to re-visit church history. There are multiple examples of female deacons in the early church, as found on tombstones and as noted by early church leaders and historians. Female deacons were considered essential in some Christian churches in Persia and Syria in order to physically interact with other women, to include baptism; it was considered taboo for a man to interact with women other than his wife in any context. There were numerous female deacons through the first 700 years or so of the church until the Roman Catholic Church made its major departures from Scriptural truth. 

Actually, I don't think female deacons in early church history really contributes significantly to the debate one way or another. Just because the early church did something doesn't automatically make it right. But it would be best if you actually had a basis for your statements rather than simply making unfounded claims. 

Again, I can understand both arguments, but am personally undecided. The key is to know exactly what the Bible says, and in that regard it seems there is room for discussion.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

From a Catholic website, but still a good history of deaconesses, showing they were present in the early church. The discussion of female deacons is hardly a new one. 

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Deaconesses


----------



## SRoper

Craig said:


> Unfortunately, there are churches in the PCA that think little of violating the BCO...women have hands laid on them for their "commissioning" at the *same time* men are...thus, it becomes clear they believe men and women may hold the *same* office Liberti PCA doing exactly that (click on image #12)



Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.


----------



## Mushroom

> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.


I suppose it would be unlikely that there are any men in that Church who would stand against such blatant flouting of the Standards, the BCO, and of course, the Word of God. Sorrow mounts upon sorrow. Are there any here that are members of that Presbytery that have the courage to bring charges? Of _any Presbytery_?


----------



## Gryphonette

SRoper said:


> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.


[glumly] This is depressing.

But all too common. Human spiritual fraility, combined with our innate arrogance, guarantees that give us an inch and we'll take a mile. 

We're not especially deedy at respecting boundaries, always looking to see just _how_ far we can go without going_ too_ far, and assuming that so long as divine fire isn't raining physically down upon us, we must be doing alright.


----------



## Craig

joshua said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
Click to expand...


----------



## calgal

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's really just way cool about this is that obviously we are enjoying a period of new revelation! 2000 years of Church history has passed without the benefit of this new understanding that engenders (pun intended) the need for this discussion. Aren't we just so... so... blessedly progressive? No, its not a step towards Gomorrah, it must be a leap into the glorious light of human equality whose sun is the radiant glow of feminism!
> 
> Thanks for straightening me out, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, I think you really need to re-visit church history. There are multiple examples of female deacons in the early church, as found on tombstones and as noted by early church leaders and historians. Female deacons were considered essential in some Christian churches in Persia and Syria in order to physically interact with other women, to include baptism; it was considered taboo for a man to interact with women other than his wife in any context. There were numerous female deacons through the first 700 years or so of the church until the Roman Catholic Church made its major departures from Scriptural truth.
> 
> Actually, I don't think female deacons in early church history really contributes significantly to the debate one way or another. Just because the early church did something doesn't automatically make it right. But it would be best if you actually had a basis for your statements rather than simply making unfounded claims.
> 
> Again, I can understand both arguments, but am personally undecided. The key is to know exactly what the Bible says, and in that regard it seems there is room for discussion.
Click to expand...


I have to agree. The question I will ask before making a decision is why is a female deacon a problem? i understand the issue for Baptists: they combine the office of Deacon and Elder. I can say that Female ELDERS are unbiblical and that should be prevented however.


----------



## calgal

joshua said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the issue for Baptists: they combine the office of Deacon and Elder.
> 
> 
> 
> Which Baptists do this?
Click to expand...


I was attending a certain large SBC out west and they had deacons and no elders: the deacons acted as elders would in reformed churches. Of course this was LaHaye's old church so.....  In all seriousness, how do Baptists view the office of Elder? It seems to be either for the pastor only (from the outside).


----------



## TimV

> I suppose it would be unlikely that there are any men in that Church who would stand against such blatant flouting of the Standards, the BCO, and of course, the Word of God. Sorrow mounts upon sorrow. Are there any here that are members of that Presbytery that have the courage to bring charges? Of any Presbytery?



The vast majority of humans always follow the path of least resistance. I complained to our church about ordaining Baptists and Arminians and the two members of the Session had a hissy fit, and when I wouldn't back down things got ugly. About a third of the church supported me, but nobody was willing to do anything except...well, almost nothing. Things like "It will get better" and "I'm a firm believer in slow change".

If you file a complaint in the PCA you'll almost certainly win, and in a case like a woman Deacon laying on hands during an Elder's ordination ceremony you could force the Session to do something like enter into the Session's minutes that they'd made a mistake. But then you'd have to live with how the leadership would treat you. 

And BTW by the time a church gets that bad, the men who are willing to take a stand have pretty much all left anyway.


----------



## Mushroom

Gryphonette said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> [glumly] This is depressing.
> 
> But all too common. Human spiritual fraility, combined with our innate arrogance, guarantees that give us an inch and we'll take a mile.
> 
> We're not especially deedy at respecting boundaries, always looking to see just _how_ far we can go without going_ too_ far, and assuming that so long as divine fire isn't raining physically down upon us, we must be doing alright.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Gryphonette! It is refreshing to see that a woman can be as wise and cogent as any man and have the humility to recognize biblical boundaries. Those boundaries were not set by our all-wise God to imply inferiority, but to glorify Himself through demonstrating the necessity and benefit of order and structure, which would include both the excersize of, and the submission to, enumerated stations of authority.

We all have 'offices' in the Church. They are not all recorded in scripture as offices that call for ordination. I am personally disqualified, by my own actions in the determinate will of God, to hold the ordained offices of Elder or Deacon. I am, however, called to hold the offices of sinner saved by the blood of my beloved Redeemer, husband to my beloved wife, father to my beloved children, lay member of my beloved local Church, and therefore member of my beloved PCA. I cannot say that I excel at the exercise of said offices, but I do try to take them seriously.

Women share many of the same offices, and then some others particular to their sex that are as important as any to the health of body of Christ. Wife, mother, and wise counsel to the younger women are a few that no man can perform. I believe that in every case where His people submit in faith to the authorities He has set over them it brings Him glory, because it is so very much a part of the nature of the flesh to rebel against it.

These are disturbing events.



> My friend, I think you really need to re-visit church history.


Church history is replete with the rise, refutation, and fall of 
multitudes of errors and heresies. Granted, the occupation of ordained offices by women has been asserted and rejected many times in that history. My remarks did not imply otherwise; only that the idea had been rejected by those who historically held to the true faith, and that this recent rehashing is only the product of the arrogance of humanity's perpetual 'modernity'. 

Every generation assumes it has a 'new take' on everything it surveys. This one wants to press the PCA to investigate the issue further, and evidently has already begun to change practice prior to allowing the denom to determine its propriety. So you're right... there's nothing new under the sun, but that offers no mitigation of the sorrow to which these events give rise.


----------



## Craig

calgal said:


> I have to agree. The question I will ask before making a decision is why is a female deacon a problem? i understand the issue for Baptists: they combine the office of Deacon and Elder. I can say that Female ELDERS are unbiblical and that should be prevented however.



Check out the Bayly blog...they address this concisely HERE.

Christusregnat also addressed this on page 1


Christusregnat said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> allowing a deaconess in the church that would be interesting.. they obviously could not be elders and such. but there are a few female deacons mentioned in the NT. So let them deal with things like visitation, food ministries,- things that wifes would do more naturally or something along those lines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howdy Jeff,
> 
> The deaconesses in the New Tesament include the following:
> 
> Paul
> Christ
> The Civil Magistrate
> Stephen
> Phillip
> 
> In the book of Romans, the two deacons that are mentioned are Phoebe and the Civil Magistrate.
> 
> First, deaconess is not a biblical term. The Greek only knows of "diakonos" and applies it to anyone who happens to perform services on behalf of others.
> 
> Christ served the circumcision; Paul served Christ; Stephen served God; the Magistrate serves God.
> 
> The book of Romans is a non-ecclesiatical book. It knows little/nothing of church forms, offices, etc. It knows theology, and lots of it. In a book so structured, the only other conspicuous use of "diaconos" (beside that of Phoebe) is that applied to the civil power, which is the "servant of God" - His deacon.
> 
> Anywho, there are all kinds of servants in the NT. The question is, who is qualified for the office of deacon in the church? See Acts 6 for the answer: the male members of the congregation. This is explicit by the fact that Peter gathered the heads of households and told them:
> 
> "3_*Brothers*_, choose seven _*men *_from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." 5This proposal pleased _*the whole group*_. They chose Stephen, a _*man *_full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. "
> 
> Notice, men were gathered, men elected, men served. Very simple.
> 
> What's even more simple is the fact that the deacon's role GREW OUT OF THE APOSTLES / ELDERS' office, and therefore, of necessity, carries authority over the entire church.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


----------



## calgal

joshua said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Baptists do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was attending a certain large SBC out west and they had deacons and no elders: the deacons acted as elders would in reformed churches. Of course this was LaHaye's old church so.....  In all seriousness, how do Baptists view the office of Elder? It seems to be either for the pastor only (from the outside).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I suppose you meant Arminian Baptists, then? Reformed Baptists (and there may be exceptions) definitely view a difference between the offices of Deacon and Elder. Elders are those who meet the qualifications for overseers as outlined by Paul in Timothy and Titus. They are to be able to teach, etc. So they rule, teach, preach, counsel, etc. Deacons do not perform these functions (although they may teach a class, etc. if asked by the Elders). They generally overwatch the finances of the Church, the needs of the Church, serving, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry RB's! I was thinking Arminians


----------



## Gryphonette

*Bingo. ;^)*



Brad said:


> Those boundaries were not set by our all-wise God to imply inferiority, but to glorify Himself through demonstrating the necessity and benefit of order and structure, which would include both the excersize of, and the submission to, enumerated stations of authority.
> 
> We all have 'offices' in the Church. They are not all recorded in scripture as offices that call for ordination. I am personally disqualified, by my own actions in the determinate will of God, to hold the ordained offices of Elder or Deacon. I am, however, called to hold the offices of sinner saved by the blood of my beloved Redeemer, husband to my beloved wife, father to my beloved children, lay member of my beloved local Church, and therefore member of my beloved PCA. I cannot say that I excel at the exercise of said offices, but I do try to take them seriously.
> 
> Women share many of the same offices, and then some others particular to their sex that are as important as any to the health of body of Christ. Wife, mother, and wise counsel to the younger women are a few that no man can perform. I believe that in every case where His people submit in faith to the authorities He has set over them it brings Him glory, because it is so very much a part of the nature of the flesh to rebel against it.
> 
> These are disturbing events.



One of my favorite go-to parts of Scripture to illustrate God-ordained roles and tasks is Numbers 4, such as this passage:

29 "Count the Merarites by their clans and families. 30 Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting. 31 This is their duty as they perform service at the Tent of Meeting: to carry the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, posts and bases, 32 as well as the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs, ropes, all their equipment and everything related to their use. Assign to each man the specific things he is to carry. 33 This is the service of the Merarite clans as they work at the Tent of Meeting under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest." Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting. 

Now, do we really believe that the Merarites were the only people in all of Israel who possessed the necessary ability to carry the frames of the the tabernacle and those other_accouterments_ of the Tent of Meeting? And that they, to a man, possessed a deep, burning desire to do so? Not one would have preferred to be a baker or shepherd or something?

The LORD didn't ask their opinion of the tasks set to their hand, or say do this if it meets with their approval...He said DO IT. You, Merarites, do THIS. Gershonites, do THAT. And so on.

I've never seen how anyone can reasonably and logically insist that the LORD wants everyone to do whatever they feel like doing, considering how He didn't hesitate to instruct _this _family to perform _this_ function, and _that_ family to perform _that_ function, regardless of what they may or may not have personally wanted to do.

And seeing as the LORD loves obedience better than sacrifice, I've also never seen the sense of assuming that the reason women aren't to lead the church, etc. is because they're _incapable_ of doing so. If they're _incapable_ of doing so, then obedience doesn't really come into it, does it? Integral to obedience is that one_ could_ choose to perform a particular action - or not, depending on the situation - but refrains due to loftier considerations. What makes our obedience worthwhile is because we women _are_ doubtless perfectly capable of running any _number_ of churches, thankyouverymuch, and doing it well, but we don't because the LORD _said_ not to.

If the primary reason we don't perform a task because we'd gum it up if we _did_, that takes a good bit of the bloom off the offered obedience, doesn't it?


----------



## Mushroom

Gryphonette said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those boundaries were not set by our all-wise God to imply inferiority, but to glorify Himself through demonstrating the necessity and benefit of order and structure, which would include both the excersize of, and the submission to, enumerated stations of authority.
> 
> We all have 'offices' in the Church. They are not all recorded in scripture as offices that call for ordination. I am personally disqualified, by my own actions in the determinate will of God, to hold the ordained offices of Elder or Deacon. I am, however, called to hold the offices of sinner saved by the blood of my beloved Redeemer, husband to my beloved wife, father to my beloved children, lay member of my beloved local Church, and therefore member of my beloved PCA. I cannot say that I excel at the exercise of said offices, but I do try to take them seriously.
> 
> Women share many of the same offices, and then some others particular to their sex that are as important as any to the health of body of Christ. Wife, mother, and wise counsel to the younger women are a few that no man can perform. I believe that in every case where His people submit in faith to the authorities He has set over them it brings Him glory, because it is so very much a part of the nature of the flesh to rebel against it.
> 
> These are disturbing events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite go-to parts of Scripture to illustrate God-ordained roles and tasks is Numbers 4, such as this passage:
> 
> 29 "Count the Merarites by their clans and families. 30 Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting. 31 This is their duty as they perform service at the Tent of Meeting: to carry the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, posts and bases, 32 as well as the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs, ropes, all their equipment and everything related to their use. Assign to each man the specific things he is to carry. 33 This is the service of the Merarite clans as they work at the Tent of Meeting under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest." Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the Tent of Meeting.
> 
> Now, do we really believe that the Merarites were the only people in all of Israel who possessed the necessary ability to carry the frames of the the tabernacle and those other_accouterments_ of the Tent of Meeting?  And that they, to a man, possessed a deep, burning desire to do so? Not one would have preferred to be a baker or shepherd or something?
> 
> The LORD didn't ask their opinion of the tasks set to their hand, or say do this if it meets with their approval...He said DO IT. You, Merarites, do THIS. Gershonites, do THAT. And so on.
> 
> I've never seen how anyone can reasonably and logically insist that the LORD wants everyone to do whatever they feel like doing, considering how He didn't hesitate to instruct _this _family to perform _this_ function, and _that_ family to perform _that_ function, regardless of what they may or may not have personally wanted to do.
> 
> And seeing as the LORD loves obedience better than sacrifice, I've also never seen the sense of assuming that the reason women aren't to lead the church, etc. is because they're _incapable_ of doing so. If they're _incapable_ of doing so, then obedience doesn't really come into it, does it? Integral to obedience is that one_ could_ choose to perform a particular action - or not, depending on the situation - but refrains due to loftier considerations. What makes our obedience worthwhile is because we women _are_ doubtless perfectly capable of running any _number_ of churches, thankyouverymuch, and doing it well, but we don't because the LORD _said_ not to.
> 
> If the primary reason we don't perform a task because we'd gum it up if we _did_, that takes a good bit of the bloom off the offered obedience, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Amen! How very well articulated, sister. I see you're in Fort Worth, a town where I can't wander without bumping into relatives... my Dad and his 9 brothers and sisters grew up on Northside, and he's the only one to ever leave. I lived for awhile in Lake Worth and Azle. Nice place! Almost as nice as Virginia.


----------



## Stephen

SRoper said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, there are churches in the PCA that think little of violating the BCO...women have hands laid on them for their "commissioning" at the *same time* men are...thus, it becomes clear they believe men and women may hold the *same* office Liberti PCA doing exactly that (click on image #12)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
Click to expand...


Brother, I hope you are not serious. This is clearly a violation of PCA standards. I would encourage you and others to petition the session against this kind of action. This goes beyond simply recognizing woman as assisting in deaconal work but puts them in a category of spiritual oversight.


----------



## Craig

Stephen said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, there are churches in the PCA that think little of violating the BCO...women have hands laid on them for their "commissioning" at the *same time* men are...thus, it becomes clear they believe men and women may hold the *same* office Liberti PCA doing exactly that (click on image #12)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, I hope you are not serious. This is clearly a violation of PCA standards. I would encourage you and others to petition the session against this kind of action. This goes beyond simply recognizing woman as assisting in deaconal work but puts them in a category of spiritual oversight.
Click to expand...


I hope so too...but his church has 2 deaconesses listed on the diaconate.


----------



## SRoper

Stephen said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, there are churches in the PCA that think little of violating the BCO...women have hands laid on them for their "commissioning" at the *same time* men are...thus, it becomes clear they believe men and women may hold the *same* office Liberti PCA doing exactly that (click on image #12)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, I hope you are not serious. This is clearly a violation of PCA standards. I would encourage you and others to petition the session against this kind of action. This goes beyond simply recognizing woman as assisting in deaconal work but puts them in a category of spiritual oversight.
Click to expand...


Is it clear? Does the BCO specify who should do the laying on of hands? I understand that it is against the spirit of the BCO, but I don't know it well enough to know exactly what is required.


----------



## TimV

BCO 9-3 says Deacons have to be men, Chapter 17 implies the laying of hands is done by officers and the right hand of fellowship, being separate, would be others.


----------



## JBaldwin

TimV said:


> BCO 9-3 says Deacons have to be men, Chapter 17 implies the laying of hands is done by officers and the right hand of fellowship, being separate, would be others.



I was going to go look this up, because I thought that's what the BCO teaches. I think this overture to the GA is simply pushing a matter that in my opinion has already been settled.


----------



## TimV

Your are of course right. It's just the same old pushing and pushing until something gives. Then you push for the next thing, and before you know it, you've got women Bishops and pastors like the NP neoBarthians want.


----------



## Mushroom

TimV said:


> Your are of course right. It's just the same old pushing and pushing until something gives. Then you push for the next thing, and before you know it, you've got women Bishops and pastors like the NP neoBarthians want.



Yep. Keep pushing the envelope until you find the room you want.

A brother pointed out today that the real sorrow lies in the fact that the overture only addresses whether the ordination of female deacons complies with the BCO. It's coherence with scripture should be the main issue, of course.


----------



## Craig

The PCA's BCO is available for free HERE.

*BCO 9-3
To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.

BCO 17-1
Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.

BCO 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.*

The BCO is completely clear on this: 
The office of deacon is for MEN.

Ordaining men is itself an act of authority, done by a court...17-2 says this court makes an *authoritative* admission to office...women laying on hands during an ordination is an act of authority...a court itself is authoritative...and a woman being part of that clearly makes her position one in which authority is exerted.

This is a clear-cut case.


----------



## fredtgreco

I would even go so far as to say that deacons ought not to be involved in ordination and laying on of hands, since they are not a court. It would be as if a Session took to itself the prerogative of "ordaining" a minister of the gospel.


----------



## Christusregnat

Stephen said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overture 9 recommends that General Assembly “erect a study committee on deaconesses” to determine whether the election of women to the office of deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order (BCO).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to the Book of Church Order, and contrary to the Scripture, in my opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some would argue that deaconesses are contrary to Scripture, certainly Calvin recognized them, but the BCO is often amended or changed.
Click to expand...


Stephen,

Please provide a quotation from Calvin, and give the context and his grammatical and exegetical reasoning, if you wouldn't mind.

Here's the so-called "Genevan Book of Order":

Of the Deacons, and
Their Office and Election

The deacons *must be men *of good estimation and report,[a] discreet, of good conscience; charitable, wise, and finally adorned with such virtues as St. Paul requires in them. Their office is to gather the alms diligently, and faithfully to distribute them,* with the consent of the ministers and elders; also to provide for the sick and impotent persons; having ever a diligent care, that the charity of godly men be not wasted upon loiterers and idle vagabonds.[c] Their election is, as has been before rehearsed in the ministers and elders. 
a. Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 3:8-13 b. Rom. 12:7-8 c. 2 Thess. 3:10-12 

The first published version had the title:

"The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc., Used in the English Congregation at Geneva; and Approved by the Famous and Godly Learned Man, John Calvin."

Note that Calvin approved of the office of deacon being men. Perhaps he recanted? 


Cheers,*


----------



## Christusregnat

Brad said:


> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it would be unlikely that there are any men in that Church who would stand against such blatant flouting of the Standards, the BCO, and of course, the Word of God. Sorrow mounts upon sorrow. Are there any here that are members of that Presbytery that have the courage to bring charges? Of _any Presbytery_?
Click to expand...


Brad,

The Nor-Cal presbytery has an overature to forbid the "non-ordained" office of deaconess. 

Redeemer NY has been sponsoring liberal churches in our area. One of which, City Church of San Francisco, joined the RCA and now has women elders. This is a fact, not a speculation about the "woman deacon" issue. Women deacon arguments are logically (and practically) related to mama-elder issues.

Sad.

Thankfully, my pastor, and a few others are moving to change the mushy middle (VERY mushy in Nor-Cal) into something resembling a body of *men*.

Cheers,


----------



## TimV

Could you please PM me your pastor's email? I need to get my membership transfered.
Thanks
Tim


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
Click to expand...


----------



## Christusregnat

TimV said:


> Could you please PM me your pastor's email? I need to get my membership transfered.
> Thanks
> Tim



Tim,

Was this intended for me?

If so, you would reside in the Southwest Presbyterian of the PCA. We're in Pleasanton, Cali (Bay Area). Wanna move?

Cheers,


----------



## Craig

Christusregnat said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please PM me your pastor's email? I need to get my membership transfered.
> Thanks
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Was this intended for me?
> 
> If so, you would reside in the Southwest Presbyterian of the PCA. We're in Pleasanton, Cali (Bay Area). Wanna move?
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Wow! What a Presbytery! My wife and I love Northern California...I'll PM estimates on the cost to move us and my monthly income needs. I think we could scrape by with a modest 2,500 sq ft apartment in San Fran


----------



## Christusregnat

Craig said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please PM me your pastor's email? I need to get my membership transfered.
> Thanks
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Was this intended for me?
> 
> If so, you would reside in the Southwest Presbyterian of the PCA. We're in Pleasanton, Cali (Bay Area). Wanna move?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! What a Presbytery! My wife and I love Northern California...I'll PM estimates on the cost to move us and my monthly income needs. I think we could scrape by with a modest 2,500 sq ft apartment in San Fran
Click to expand...


Ha! Who wants to live in S.F.? It's way overrated. We're moving out to the Livermore wine country soon (next door to Pleasanton, where we currently are). Good times, good wines, good weather.

Cheers,


----------



## Archlute

Pilgrim said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## TimV

> Tim,
> 
> Was this intended for me?
> 
> If so, you would reside in the Southwest Presbyterian of the PCA. We're in Pleasanton, Cali (Bay Area). Wanna move?
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks! I thought the Bay area was NorCal Presbytery! I'm about 5 hours south.


----------



## Gage Browning

*Is the laying on of hands "ordination" w/out authority?*

Are they formally ordained (laying of hands) or simply titled 'deaconess' for their role of service?[/QUOTE]
*The short answer is "YES"...some are!*

Liberti Church in Pennsylvania definitely laid hands on their women deacons. 
You can see the pictures via this link-
*Liberti Church*
Pictures 19 and 21 clearly depict the laying on of hands.

So can you lay hands on and not ordain? Can you ordain w/out that office having any authority? If some are arguing that the office doesn't have "authority" then why not just follow the BCO 9.7? It says that individual Sessions are allowed to "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 distress or need." (BCO 9-7). Why not just follow BCO 9.7? In my mind it's because of the issue of authority. 

It seems to me that if "we" are "laying hands" and ordaining women then we must remove BCO 9.3 - which says, "To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment."

It seems to me that the office is clearly one of authority. BCO 17-2 clearly states it is:
"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."


----------



## Christusregnat

TimV said:


> Tim,
> 
> Was this intended for me?
> 
> If so, you would reside in the Southwest Presbyterian of the PCA. We're in Pleasanton, Cali (Bay Area). Wanna move?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I thought the Bay area was NorCal Presbytery! I'm about 5 hours south.
Click to expand...


Tim,

My bad. Yes, bay area is NorCal Presbyterian. I misunderstood, and was saying that San Luis is in Southwest... silly me.

Move to the Bay Area! We have homeschool families in our church, and we also support a missionary from S.A. (Charl van Wyk). I visited S.A. in 2004, and had a wonderful time.

I see you have lots of kids, and that you do contracting; what sort? I'm a CPA contractor in San Fran, and commute in from Pleasanton.

Godspeed,

Adam


----------



## SRoper

fredtgreco said:


> I would even go so far as to say that deacons ought not to be involved in ordination and laying on of hands, since they are not a court. It would be as if a Session took to itself the prerogative of "ordaining" a minister of the gospel.



Well that's the real issue, and it's seperate from the issue of the propriety of woman deacons.



> So can you lay hands on and not ordain? Can you ordain w/out that office having any authority? If some are arguing that the office doesn't have "authority" then why not just follow the BCO 9.7? It says that individual Sessions are allowed to "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 distress or need." (BCO 9-7). Why not just follow BCO 9.7? In my mind it's because of the issue of authority.
> 
> It seems to me that if "we" are "laying hands" and ordaining women then we must remove BCO 9.3 - which says, "To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment."
> 
> It seems to me that the office is clearly one of authority. BCO 17-2 clearly states it is:
> "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."



I guess it depends on when the laying on hands is appropriate. Is it only done for ordination? I have seen it done in the commissioning of missionaries, for example. In such cases it is often done with lay persons among those who are doing the laying on of hands. Is this also inappropriate?


----------



## doctorcello

*Central Info Location about PCA and Female Deacons*

I am working on a website to archive all links and info about the female deacon/deaconess discussion in the PCA. Please send me your links, etc.

http://www.waysidechurch.org/femdeacs/femdeacs.htm

Thank you!


----------



## Stephen

Christusregnat said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you have what happened at my church last week; a woman deacon was a part of the laying on hands in the ordination and installation of a new RE. So much for woman deacons being acceptable because the office of deacon is not an office of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it would be unlikely that there are any men in that Church who would stand against such blatant flouting of the Standards, the BCO, and of course, the Word of God. Sorrow mounts upon sorrow. Are there any here that are members of that Presbytery that have the courage to bring charges? Of _any Presbytery_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brad,
> 
> The Nor-Cal presbytery has an overature to forbid the "non-ordained" office of deaconess.
> 
> Redeemer NY has been sponsoring liberal churches in our area. One of which, City Church of San Francisco, joined the RCA and now has women elders. This is a fact, not a speculation about the "woman deacon" issue. Women deacon arguments are logically (and practically) related to mama-elder issues.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Thankfully, my pastor, and a few others are moving to change the mushy middle (VERY mushy in Nor-Cal) into something resembling a body of *men*.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


I was curious about your statement, "the N. California Presbytery has an overture to forbid the "non-ordained" office of deaconess." There is no overture like this that was submitted to the stated clerk of the GA, so I wanted to clarify this statement.


----------

