# PCA Overture #5



## Scott1 (Feb 26, 2009)

This is a topic of interest that developed in another thread and can be discussed here.

An "Overture" to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly regarding erecting a Study Committee, broadly charged to examine the "role of women" in the denomination.

It may be helpful to consider the polity, purpose, and practical ramifications of such a proposal, were it to be enacted.



> OVERTURE 5 from James River Presbytery (to OC, AC)
> 
> “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church”
> Whereas, The Book of Church Order follows Scripture in forbidding the ordination of
> ...



-----Added 2/26/2009 at 05:05:11 EST-----

Here's an overview of PCA practice as I understand it. Those familiar with polity, please feel free to supplement this with your knowledge.

The denomination is composed of approximately 77 Presbyteries (regional groupings of individual churches) which may, individually propose amendments to the General Assembly of the denomination.

The General Assembly (GA) is considered the highest court of the Church, a place where actual ecclesiastical business is conducted and concluded. In the PCA, the GA is broadly based, with every single "particular church" (individual congregation) able to send voting delegates. There is an aspired goal to allow equalized representation between ruling elders (those who rule in the affairs of a particular church) and teaching elders (those who teach God's Word, administer the sacraments, etc.)

The constitution of the denomination is composed of:

1) Book of Church Order
2) Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism)

To amend the Book of Church order part of the constitution, the following process is required:

1) majority of those present and voting at GA
2) 2/3 of the presbyteries must affirm within the next year
2) the subsequent GA must again confirm by a majority of those present and voting

(To amend the Westminster Confession of Faith requires a 3/4 vote in each case)

"Study Committees" are often created to advise on unfamiliar issues or new applications of familiar issues. While not legally binding, they are to be given "due and serious consideration" by lower church courts- sessions and presbyteries. Procedure allows for both "majority" and "minority" reports. The GA may approve either a "majority" or "minority" report, neither report, or approve both for consideration by local courts.

For example, a couple GA's ago, a study committee approved a report that outlined the serious errors of "Federal Vision" theology and summarized key points of error to help sessions and presbyteries recognize it if it surfaced in their jurisdiction. It concluded with a summary of 9 points in which it is out of accord with the constitution of the denomination (Westminster Standards). The report was supported unanimously by the committee and was approved by an overwhelming majority by the General Assembly.

While Study Committee reports are not absolutely binding, they have the effect of settling issues within the denomination and providing guidance going forward, especially for difficult or complex issues.



> “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church”
> Whereas, The Book of Church Order follows Scripture in forbidding the ordination of
> women to positions of authority over men; and
> The Book of Church Order reflects doctrine on this point. It uses the phrase, “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only. (BCO 7-1) and is internally consistent on this as a point of doctrine throughout, which is reflected in several other provisions.
> ...



Basically, the PCA, in reflecting the doctrine of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture, creates a framework for particular churches to be governed by Elders and Deacons and assisted by "laypeople" men and women, with a high level of participation in the life of the congregation as each member uses his or her gifts for His Honor and His Glory.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 26, 2009)

A few examples of ministry groups focusing on mercy ministry that thrive, involving both women and men, in local PCA congregations:

1) Comfort and Care
2) Stephen's Ministry
3) New Baby Welcome
4) Military mothers
5) Women in the Church (WIC)
6) Pairing older women mature in the faith with younger women.
7) Hospitality committee

It is a beautiful thing to see Christ's Body work together, complementing one another in this way for the Honor and Glory of our God.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks for this post, Scott. I hope the GA supports a study committee for this important and unfortunately polarizing issue. I think you make some very good comments. I have just a couple of thoughts:

1. Regarding deaconesses - I am torn on this, because I really think the arguments on both sides of this issue are equally valid. My current PCA church has non-ordained female deacons, my former PCA church did not have female deacons. The argument for deaconesses is primarily (though not entirely) grounded in the idea that it is a ministry of service, not authority. So its advocates believe one can affirm the clear Scriptural principles of male headship within the church and still have women in an "official" capacity as servants. The opponents believe that it is an ordained office of the church, and thus should be limited to men only. Looking at both arguments objectively, I think both sides have equally strong cases. 

The BCO currently prohibits female deacons but does allow females to serve as assistants to elders in more or less the same capacity as a deacon. So churches with female deacons do not ordain their deaconesses, but do allow them to assist the elders in service roles as de facto deacons. I think the best solution for everyone would be to allow the individual presbytery or session to decide the issue, recognizing that both views are within bounds of the WCF and have well-reasoned Scriptural arguments.

2. Role of women in the church - this is a somewhat more difficult and nebulous issue, because much of the debate and disagreement arises out of semantics problems. First of all, I don't think anyone in the PCA is pushing for female elders, teaching or ruling. This is a crucial and important point, and I'm glad the PCA is sticking to its guns on this. How women fit within the organizational structure below the level of elder is another story. Some believe women shouldn't be in any position beyond basic secretarial-type work. Others believe, as my current church does, that women can do anything an unordained man can do. So obviously there is going to be some people taking probably an overly conservative/traditional view, and others pushing the boundaries of what women should be doing in the church. 

This is a huge topic with a lot of side issues, but for me the biggest need is to define terms. Some PCA churches have women "ministers," but these are non-ordained women in roles such as head of children's music and other ancillary roles. While the role itself may be acceptable, the title of minister bring to mind a position of authority, specifically that of an elder, and thus gives the impression that her role is greater than what it actually is. So I would like to see the GA accept the study committee, if for no other reason than to define acceptable terminology for roles of women in the church. 

But I would also like to see more clarity as to exactly what the extent of a woman's leadership role should be. Clearly there should be no elders or pastors, and women should not teach both sexes in a formal worship setting or in Sunday School. But should women read Scripture, sing, pray in corporate worship? I think these roles either need to be defined by the GA or explicitly left for the individual sessions to decide. Regardless, I think the study committee would serve a valid and important task on this important issue, for unity's sake if nothing else.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks much for your input. 
A lot of people are thinking this through. 

It took me a year or so to come to terms with this and understand the biblical issues as well as the context of the way our denomination does things. My comments below are intended only to reflect my thinking now in response to the points you make well here, as these points are being made elsewhere and will be made this General Assembly.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> Thanks for this post, Scott. I hope the GA supports a study committee for this important and unfortunately polarizing issue. I think you make some very good comments. I have just a couple of thoughts:
> 
> 1. Regarding deaconesses - I am torn on this, because I really think the arguments on both sides of this issue are equally valid.
> As I survey the Scriptural basis for Deacons, I see by analogy, all men in Acts 6. Qualifications for the office are directed at men with examination of a deacon’s wife in I Timothy 3, and elders and deacons mentioned together as ordinary leaders together in church office in Philippians 1. In addition, Titus 1 qualifies elders, and I think by inference, deacons as men.
> ...



I’m afraid a “study committee” with a vague mandate, composed of people known to have different views would only harden opinion, not bring clarity to practice. It would create more confusion as to authority to follow, and lessen the peace and purity of the church.

Imagine, Mason,
if we tasked a study committee to study the "five points of Calvinism" and produced a majority and minority report. Just imagine what the effect of that would be on the unity (and theology) of our reformed denomination!


Again, if a church really believes there is a question about whether, the BCO allows, for example, refusing to constitute the church with a Board of Deacons, and substitute a non-ordained group of women, elect them by the congregation, and have them take similar vows to the ordained office, they can send up a reference and get a clear answer… the BCO clearly does not permit this.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 26, 2009)

I have a couple view points on this...

1) All TE's should have a clear view of what THEIR view is on the issue of women in the Church. Especially as it has to do with deaconesses. All have been through seminary, all have been given the tools to exegete and form conclusions from Scripture. Therefore, I don't believe anyone (I could be wrong) who is a TE can actually say, 'we need a study committee to study women in the church, I really don't know what they should be doing'. And if RE's are having difficulty then they should ask their TE or one in their presbytery to teach them what Scripture says, or at least persuade them to the wrong opinion. A Study Committee is not needed as it has to do with Deaconesses or the role of women. Scripture for one is clear, our standards are clear.

2) All TE's and RE's have vowed to submit to the BCO and West. Standards. Both are clear as to the teaching on women as deaconesses. Even in Good Faith subscription, don't they have to at least state their differences with both? If they have not then there should be no problem.

3) If TE's and RE's are sure that Scripture teaches that women are to be deaconesses than the only thing a presbytery needs to do is overture the GA to change the BCO, and change the Standards. Let the GA handle it and make a decision on the matter.


----------



## Tim (Feb 26, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> 6) Pairing older women mature in the faith with younger women.



This is really cool. I have never thought about doing this as formally as seems to be indicated here. What a great idea!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Feb 26, 2009)

I plan on voting no at this point. It's just an end run around the Deaconess issue from last year.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 26, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> I plan on voting no at this point. It's just an end run around the Deaconess issue from last year.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 26, 2009)

Kevin, 

How long will debate last this year? Whoever is closer receives a complimentary beverage by the other. I'll time it!


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 26, 2009)

There is so much valuable, necessary ministry being done by un-ordained men and women. The church could not properly function without it. In fact it is part of church leadership (especially Elders and Deacons) to, by God's grace, create a culture where giftings of the congregation are called out and used for God's Honor and Glory. One of the examinations of the office of Deacon in the PCA is "encouraging others in liberality." That's part of how God qualifies a man to serve in the office of Deacon. He is to lead in encouraging the congregation generally (un-ordained men and women) to develop in that.

Let me give an example from my church experience.

A certain ministry group is a full time ministry group at our church. There are many women in this ministry group, some men, but many women.

They work with and assist the Board of Deacons in delivering mercy ministry in an incredible way. Quietly, they go alongside people in distress and grief. Make meals, visit, pray with and for, run errands, hug them, cry with them. 

It is amazing what they do, and there is great reward in Heaven for this (men and women). I really sense those I see have the spiritual maturity to realize that. What's amazing is that some people who were ministered to end up volunteering and then ministering too- sometimes in incredibly difficult situations.

I'm afraid we lose the great spiritual truths and purpose in all of this when we argue:

1) "deacon" is merely a synonym for "helper"
2) "ordination" is no different than "serving"
3) "people cannot feel esteemed unless they have a title" 

Unfortunately, in the attempt to ordain women to ecclesiastical office, albeit in steps, these are the arguments that are being made. I believe they are superficial, and biblically wrong, and very damaging to Christ's church.

There is no way a Board of Deacons could possibly meet every mercy need. It is not supposed to. Living a compassionate, generous, merciful life is the calling of every person growing in Christ. There are instances where it is more appropriate for a woman to assist. So women and men assist the Deacons, the deacons oversee and are really administratively responsible to see it is getting done in the congregation of believers. This is part of their calling to the high office.

Also, the wives of deacons, for those who are married, are a great aid and comfort, not only to their husband's as they give themselves to the high calling of the office of Deacon but they end up assisting their husband's in their tasks too. And there is great reward for their faithfulness and service too.

This is a beautiful thing to see working in the Body of Christ. It is a powerful witness for our Lord and it involves really every member of the congregation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks Scott, for bringing this up and for the good discussion. Just a few points:



Scott1 said:


> As I survey the Scriptural basis for Deacons, I see by analogy, all men in Acts 6. Qualifications for the office are directed at men with examination of a deacon’s wife in I Timothy 3, and elders and deacons mentioned together as ordinary leaders together in church office in Philippians 1. In addition, Titus 1 qualifies elders, and I think by inference, deacons as men.



As I said, I'm not sure of this myself. You present the argument against deaconesses well, but in my view the opposing view is just as strong. That is for another thread, I think.




> It provides for men and women to be appointed to assist the deacons… appointed by session, not elected by the congregation, not “commissioned” and “to assist the deacons,” an office clearly established in the BCO in 9-1 to 9-6.
> 
> One presbytery last general assembly was cited for taking this language and not ordaining any deacons and then electing “deaconesses,” a group of women only, and substituting that for the Board of Deacons laid out in the BCO as an integral part of the governance of the church.



The problem is that the BCO (9-2) makes provisions for a church without ordained deacons "for any reason." In that case, the ruling elders take the role of the the diaconate, and may appoint men and women to assist them as you note in section 9-7. Again, this is an area where a study committee may help bring more clarity, regardless of how they decide. 



> Unfortunately, this would seem to greatly disrupt the peace and purity of our denomination. Look at how many people on Puritan Board have said ordaining women would be a ‘deal breaker” for even becoming members of our denomination.



I would have to disagree with this, and would add that the BCO shouldn't reflect a desire to keep people in the church, regardless of the reason - it should be based on Scriptural principles alone. The PCA is a diverse group of 400,000+ members, and the 1,200+ congregations with very different styles. I seriously doubt allowing each session to decide the issue of deaconesses would disrupt the peace and purity of the denomination. 



> I’m afraid a “study committee” with a vague mandate, composed of people known to have different views would only harden opinion, not bring clarity to practice. It would create more confusion as to authority to follow, and lessen the peace and purity of the church.



Again, I'm not sure I agree with this. The purpose of the study committee is to bring MORE clarity to this issue, especially the role of women in the church in general. Would you not agree there is a large disparity from church to church in terms of the the role of women (other than as elders and ordained deacons, which are clearly not acceptable practices)? It seems we should draw the line somewhere, or _explicitly_ leave it to the individual sessions to decide. Otherwise there is just confusion as to what is or isn't allowed and which congregations are or are not in violation of the BCO.



> Imagine, Mason,
> if we tasked a study committee to study the "five points of Calvinism" and produced a majority and minority report. Just imagine what the effect of that would be on the unity (and theology) of our reformed denomination!



The difference is that the five points are explicit in the WCF, whereas the issue of deaconesses and women in the church is not (outside clearly defined roles of male-only authority). Debating the WCF should only occur within the context of developing a new confession, not in the practice of each individual church. No one is arguing for a change or re-evaluation of the WCF, just a clarification where the WCF is silent. This seems like a promotion of unity and purity of the church, rather than a harm to unity and purity. 

Either way and regardless of my opinion, I hope the GA and PCA in general continue to make firm decisions based on sound biblical principles. I love the PCA as a denomination and hope the Lord continues to make it prosper. I pray He will give the elders guidance and discernment on these and other issues at the GA this summer. 

Thanks again for a good discussion, Scott!


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 26, 2009)

If the PCA would approve deaconesses, the denomination would split.

Mason, does redeemer ny, ordain male deacons?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 26, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Mason, does redeemer ny, ordain male deacons?



No.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 26, 2009)

My comments.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> Thanks Scott, for bringing this up and for the good discussion. Just a few points:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your gracious interaction. May God grant us discernment- for His Honor and His Glory.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 26, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Kevin,
> 
> How long will debate last this year? Whoever is closer receives a complimentary beverage by the other. I'll time it!



Is this overature really another round of debate on women deacons? While I can see that issue being addressed, I don't read it that way. 

I don't even care about being a deacon, but being a woman and having been in both the PCUSA and the PCA, I can see that there is a completely different understanding of what is allowed in many churches outside the role of deacon and elder. 

For example, I know a woman who was a gifted Bible teacher and counselor who felt God was leading her to have a ministry in the church. She was not interested in becoming a pastor, she didn't want to be an elder nor a deacon. She wanted to teach and counsel women within the church. 

She went to the pastor of her PCA church who felt that church had a real need for a woman on staff with those gifts, so he took it to the elders who agreed to pay for her to have one year of further training and hire her when her training was completed. When she completed the training, and it was time to hire her, many of the elders backed out of the deal, because they said they didn't believe a woman should be functioning in that role in the church. They then told her to go get a job working with a counseling ministry. 

If this overture will help address some of these kinds of areas, I think they should go ahead with it.


----------



## TimV (Feb 26, 2009)

> I think the study committee would serve a valid and important task on this important issue, for unity's sake if nothing else.



So, you've joined a denomination that says all Deacons have to be ordained, and women, baptists and arminians can't be Deacons.

So, for unity's sake (otherwise you'll think we're big, fat, meanies) we should be open to the baggage you've brought in which are contrary to the rules of the church you've joined.

Like the man who promised to be loyal to his wife if she'd marry him, but came from an adulterous background, you insist that your wife be open to his sleeping around, for unity's sake.

Your argument really sounds persuasive! I mean for unity's sake we should all stop being big, fat, meanies.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 26, 2009)

> JBaldwin
> She went to the pastor of her PCA church who felt that church had a real need for a woman on staff with those gifts, so he took it to the elders who agreed to pay for her to have one year of further training and hire her when her training was completed. When she completed the training, and it was time to hire her, many of the elders backed out of the deal, because they said they didn't believe a woman should be functioning in that role in the church. They then told her to go get a job working with a counseling ministry.
> 
> If this overture will help address some of these kinds of areas, I think they should go ahead with it.



A matter like this would ordinarily and I think biblically first go to the people directly involved, then session, and perhaps appeal to presbytery. Those mechanisms are available- they take courage and humility to use, but they are there. 

A (divided) report "study committee" would not really impact a situation like you describe. The situation you describe sounds like it was also a financial decision and the session makes final decisions regarding spending.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 26, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I think the study committee would serve a valid and important task on this important issue, for unity's sake if nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim, I said no such thing. That's a classic straw man argument. Please quote me in context:



> *But should women read Scripture, sing, pray in corporate worship? I think these roles either need to be defined by the GA or explicitly left for the individual sessions to decide.* Regardless, I think the study committee would serve a valid and important task on this important issue, for unity's sake if nothing else.



I never said the PCA should change or amend their views for unity's sake. I clearly said the committee would be valuable for defining the exact role of women outside of the the role of pastor/elder. And I don't believe women, Arminians, or Baptists should be ordained in any capacity. Have I ever said otherwise? Why do you think this is my "baggage?" Please don't attribute things to me that I clearly don't believe and have never advocated. I'm sure you appreciate the same courtesy. 

I'm not advocating for female deacons - as I said very plainly, I'm undecided on the issue. My point is that a study committee may help clarify the issue one way or another.


----------



## TimV (Feb 26, 2009)

> Have I ever said otherwise?



You said, when asked this question



> Mason, does redeemer ny, ordain male deacons?



No.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 26, 2009)

One of many reasons why I am glad to be joining a denomination that does not allow "Good Faith" or "System" Subscription.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 26, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Have I ever said otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry Tim, I'm completely lost. I really have no idea where you're coming from on this. I'm going to bed now, but I'll continue this in the AM..


----------



## TimV (Feb 27, 2009)

> I never said the PCA should change or amend their views for unity's sake. I clearly said the committee would be valuable for defining the exact role of women outside of the the role of pastor/elder. And I don't believe women, Arminians, or Baptists should be ordained in any capacity. Have I ever said otherwise?



Yes, in the same post




> I'm not advocating for female deacons - as I said very plainly, I'm undecided on the issue. My point is that a study committee may help clarify the issue one way or another.



Sorry for being terse, Mason. It's just that I came out of a very difficult situation in the PCA where the Session thought the BCO was just an advice manual.

*In the PCA all Deacons have to be ordained*. You can't call someone a Deacon unless they are ordained. You go to a church that has women Deacons. You yourself are undecided, which means you think that it may be fine for you to have Deacons that are not ordained, and that is contrary to the BCO.

This isn't a matter for debate. It is a matter of submitting to the church that you've joined, whether the local church or the Presbytery.

By putting this issue into the realm of debate, you give it credibility. For the sake of unity, someone in your Church should write a letter to the Session asking for clarification as to why they are calling people Deacons without ordaining them. And if the answer isn't clear, then the matter should be brought to the Presbytery.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 27, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > JBaldwin
> > She went to the pastor of her PCA church who felt that church had a real need for a woman on staff with those gifts, so he took it to the elders who agreed to pay for her to have one year of further training and hire her when her training was completed. When she completed the training, and it was time to hire her, many of the elders backed out of the deal, because they said they didn't believe a woman should be functioning in that role in the church. They then told her to go get a job working with a counseling ministry.
> >
> > If this overture will help address some of these kinds of areas, I think they should go ahead with it.
> ...



In this case it was not a matter of money, because shortly after this, they hired a man and then kicked out the one other woman on staff and replaced her with a man.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 27, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> One of many reasons why I am glad to be joining a denomination that does not allow "Good Faith" or "System" Subscription.



I realize this is not the topic on this thread. However, I don't think this is really a cause or basis for the general views arising from the present debate. Also, it doesn't seem to completely describe the system the PCA has.



> BCO 21-4
> 
> While our Constitution does not require the candidate’s affirmation
> of every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith
> ...


*


An officer takes a vow that every single statement and proposition of the Westminster standards must be agreed (and implicitly, understood) unless a peer-reviewed "exception" is granted. In many cases, the "exception" may not be taught. In my limited experience, there are very few things "excepted." Many candidates are turned down because of them. We are a confessional church, after all.

I'm not sure what we call this, but it seems like full subscription, allowing for the "scruples" presbyterianism has historically allowed for. It seems like it holds the Westminster Standards in the highest possible regard, guards every single word and doctrine, while acknowledging they are not infallible, and still allows the possibility of conscience-based exception to be judged by a high court of those gifted and called to teach doctrine.

In my opinion, while not a perfect system, it is an excellent one, and protects all the vital biblical interests.


-----Added 2/27/2009 at 07:35:43 EST-----



JBaldwin said:





Scott1 said:






JBaldwin 
She went to the pastor of her PCA church who felt that church had a real need for a woman on staff with those gifts, so he took it to the elders who agreed to pay for her to have one year of further training and hire her when her training was completed. When she completed the training, and it was time to hire her, many of the elders backed out of the deal, because they said they didn't believe a woman should be functioning in that role in the church. They then told her to go get a job working with a counseling ministry.

If this overture will help address some of these kinds of areas, I think they should go ahead with it.

Click to expand...


A matter like this would ordinarily and I think biblically first go to the people directly involved, then session, and perhaps appeal to presbytery. Those mechanisms are available- they take courage and humility to use, but they are there. 

A (divided) report "study committee" would not really impact a situation like you describe. The situation you describe sounds like it was also a financial decision and the session makes final decisions regarding spending.

Click to expand...


In this case it was not a matter of money, because shortly after this, they hired a man and then kicked out the one other woman on staff and replaced her with a man.

Click to expand...


I understand your concern about what happened in an individual case. 

Looking from outside, it's hard to know the points of view, including the elders who have authority and responsibility before God and to whose visible authority we submit to as part of our vows.

We just don't want to create a false expectation regarding what a (divided) "study" does.

There are many ways to redress, appeal and have input in the PCA, even in the context of submitting to the authority God has put in place. "Appealing" is very presbyterian, and I'm thankful for that.*


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 27, 2009)

TimV said:


> Sorry for being terse, Mason. It's just that I came out of a very difficult situation in the PCA where the Session thought the BCO was just an advice manual.
> 
> *In the PCA all Deacons have to be ordained*. You can't call someone a Deacon unless they are ordained. You go to a church that has women Deacons. You yourself are undecided, which means you think that it may be fine for you to have Deacons that are not ordained, and that is contrary to the BCO.
> 
> ...



I can understand where you're coming from, Tim. I remember you having a bad experience with a PCA church over similar issues, which is unfortunate. I just don't want ideas attributed to me (or my church) that I am completely against. 

Just to clarify, Redeemer does not call people "_D_eacons" without ordaining them. They call them "_d_eacons" in the generic sense of a servant, not in the office of the church. The church's stance is that in the absence of an ordained diaconate, generic "deacons," or servants, of either sex assist the elders in that capacity as the BCO provides. I understand why many people disagree with this interpretation of the BCO, but I think it's a good faith interpretation. No one, to my knowledge, has ever challenged the church on this. 

But really I don't think discussing that is the point of this thead. I think Scott wanted to discuss the overture for a study to further define the role of women in the church. I am somewhat surprised that Scott is opposed to it, though I understand his reasoning. I think such a study would be very helpful in defining common terms, avoiding misunderstandings, and thus promoting peace and unity within the church.


----------



## TimV (Feb 27, 2009)

> Just to clarify, Redeemer does not call people "Deacons" without ordaining them. They call them "deacons" in the generic sense of a servant, not in the office of the church.



Mason, that simply is a false statement. I went to your church website and in 15 seconds found:



> As the church continues to grow, so does the need for Elders, Deacons, and Deaconesses. Once a year, we accept nominations for these offices.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 27, 2009)

> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 
> But really I don't think discussing that is the point of this thead. I think Scott wanted to discuss the overture for a study to further define the role of women in the church. I am somewhat surprised that Scott is opposed to it, though I understand his reasoning. I think such a study would be very helpful in defining common terms, avoiding misunderstandings, and thus promoting peace and unity within the church.



Hopefully, it is not surprising.

After all, a large majority saw it the same way at last year's general assembly...

In our system, a "study" with a pre-determined split result does not bring clarity, it divides. Study reports are a mechanism that can be helpful in bringing a settling peace on new and complex issues and for new applications of original issues...

This is not one of those at all,

and

studies are not used to interpret clear BCO provisions (in our system "references" do that)

nor to change our BCO (proposing amendments does that).

Nor are vague, generalized mandates appropriate for "studies," financially for the church or otherwise, and I think you acknowledged that.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 27, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Just to clarify, Redeemer does not call people "Deacons" without ordaining them. They call them "deacons" in the generic sense of a servant, not in the office of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I searched for about 10 minutes and couldn't find that statement. Regardless, it's probably a mis-statement of the webmaster - deacons are elected, but are not ordained. Go to the diaconate section and it is very clearly explained.


----------



## TimV (Feb 27, 2009)

OK, it's 8:30 here. Now I got to another window and Google. It's still 8:30

Officer Nominations - redeemer.com


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 27, 2009)

Mason,

I appreciate your desire to be precise and to uphold the good name of your church.

I would say to you (as someone who also does appreciate Tim Keller and Redeemer's ministry) that the only observable difference (to the outside (and PCA) world) between deacons and deaconesses at Redeemer is the actual physical laying on of hands during the service. Every other effort (it appears) as here seems to indicate a similarity/identity.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 27, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Mason,
> 
> I appreciate your desire to be precise and to uphold the good name of your church.
> 
> I would say to you (as someone who also does appreciate Tim Keller and Redeemer's ministry) that the only observable difference (to the outside (and PCA) world) between deacons and deaconesses at Redeemer is the actual physical laying on of hands during the service. Every other effort (it appears) as here seems to indicate a similarity/identity.



I think that's probably an accurate statement.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 27, 2009)

Another concern that has become clear to me in the last year in considering the reasoning being given for having a study committee, is a very important one.

It seems we are devaluing the high calling of the office of Deacon by using it as if it is only a substitute word for "helper." 

The office of Deacon is a high office with great reward, great use, and great need.

In the process of arguing this way, we are devaluing our theology of "ordination" and even our presbyterian form of church government. Above all else, reformed presbyterians would not leave church government to "local option."

These are important principles in a confessional church and cannot be left to self-determination. They need to be addressed, examined and defended with fear and trembling before the Word of God.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 27, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> First of all, I don't think anyone in the PCA is pushing for female elders, teaching or ruling. This is a crucial and important point, and I'm glad the PCA is sticking to its guns on this.


In my experience, I have seen pushing female deacons joined with the goal to have female elders. Thankfully the PCA is strongly against it.


----------



## WarrenInSC (Feb 27, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Mason,
> 
> I would say to you (as someone who also does appreciate Tim Keller and Redeemer's ministry) that the only observable difference (to the outside (and PCA) world) between deacons and deaconesses at Redeemer is the actual physical laying on of hands during the service. Every other effort (it appears) as here seems to indicate a similarity/identity.



Given the clear lack of conformity to the BCO that RPC in Manhattan exhibits, how does the deliberate flaunting of the standards that unity us as a demonination get challenged, if not taken by up by it's own Presbytery? This deliberate act of non-conformity strikes at the heart of our unity as a church. If various factions of the PCA believe they can just ignore different parts of the BCO while calling for the rest of the denomination to 'study the matter', we lose our basis for unity. To call for 'study committees' while continuing to ignore conformance to the BCO in the matter seems cynical to me. I could at least accept the requests for 'study committees' as being made in good faith if current practice was brought into conformity with BCO first. but.........


----------



## Archlute (Feb 27, 2009)

A quick question for one such as myself who is a little confused on one point: I can see why they might want to commission deaconesses, but what is the purpose of not continuing to ordain male deacons? That really turns the issue on it's head for me.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 27, 2009)

Archlute said:


> A quick question for one such as myself who is a little confused on one point: I can see why they might want to commission deaconesses, but what is the purpose of not continuing to ordain male deacons? That really turns the issue on it's head for me.



Keep in mind most of the few churches that have deaconesses, especially those that came from the RPCES do ordain Deacons in accordance with the BCO and have their "deaconesses" under the authority of the [Board of] Deacons.

Where these churches are out of accord with our BCO, is that, in some cases they are:

1) electing the "deaconesses"
2) "commissioning" them with the same or similar vows as ordination
3) not appointing men to also serve like this (as assistants to the deacons) per BCO 9-7. 

In addition, there is no BCO warrant for the office "deaconess."

The (very) few churches that are much farther out of accord are, in addition:

4) refusing to constitute a BCO Diaconate to govern in the church

Because they cannot ordain women (no presbytery would allow that) and have no mechanism to set the un-ordained group of mostly women in authority, they are de facto placing them as tactical governors of the church below the Elders (session). This, of course, is blatantly unconstitutional (BCO) and unbiblical.

Meanwhile, it seems the very few churches in the second category are mainly advancing generally "role of women" and "deacon is really only another name for servant" arguments, not BCO ambiguity. Churches in the first category of non-compliance do not seem to be making these two arguments.

Remember, the doctrinal understanding of the PCA, required by in the Book of Church Order, is that Deacons are part of the basic governing structure of each church.

Deacons are qualified by I Timothy 3 with un-ordained women and men assisting them in ministering mercy, liberality and property stewardship to each congregation of believers. This tends to result in Deacons leading in and overseeing mercy and all sorts of tactical operations of the church but involving a high level of lay people (both men and women) in the process. In my opinion, this is close to the biblical model and is a very good thing because it spreads out involvement for our Lord's work in these key areas, while clearly calling out the men God has equipped and called for the high office of Deacon.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 28, 2009)

Anyone see a trend here:

[FONT=&quot]The RPCES considered the issue of deaconesses through three means 1974-1978; first, via a Study Committee on the Role of Women, second, via Study Committee on The Functions of Deacons, third via a response to an overture in 1978 to reconsider the issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From the Minutes of the General Synod (GS) of the RPCES there is the following chronology of events relating to the deaconess issue.[/FONT]
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1974, 152nd GS – Appointed a Study Committee on the Role of Women in the Church, (M152GS, p. 141] to report to the 153rd General Synod.[/FONT]
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1975, 153rd GS – [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Appointed a study committee at the 153rd General Synod [M153GS, p. 28] to study The Functions of Deacons to report back to the 154th General Synod. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Study Committee on the Role of Women made its first report and recommended that women be ordained and installed as deacons [M153 GS, pp. 250-251]. The action of the Synod was that the committee be reconstituted and report to the 154th General Synod with exegetical support for its conclusions. [/FONT]
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1976, 154th GS – [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The report to the 154th GS on the Functions of Deacon dealt mostly with the role of deacons and their relationship to trustees but included the proposal (never enacted) that “Women, as well as men, _may be ordained _to the office of deacon” [M154thGS, p. 63-64, emphasis added. Full report pp. 59-65] a brief reference to that proposal was included at the 155th General Synod (1977) and the 156th General Synod (1978). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Study Committee on the Role of Women made its second report [M154thGS, pp. 65-112]. The committee recommended that women be ordained as deacons [M154thGS, p. 110]. The Synod did not approve that recommendation. The Synod continued and enlarged the committee, to have divergent viewpoints, and directed that a minority report be prepared. The committee’s recommendation that women serve as members of synod agency boards failed by a vote of 65-67 [M154thGS, p.112]. [/FONT]
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1977, 155th GS – [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Synod, in response to an overture, advised Presbyteries to correct churches that had ordained women as deacons or have elected women as trustees [M155GS, pp.120-121][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Committee on the Role of Women made its third report [M155GS, 73-111] with a majority report and two minority reports. The majority report recommended the ordination of women as deacons [M155GS, p. 110]. Minority report #1 recommended that women not be deacons, but may be appointed (ordained) deaconesses in the sense of helpers to the deacons [M155GS, p. 91]. Minority report #2 dealt more extensively with the nature of ordination.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Synod adopted the following affirmation as a final action on the committee report, “[/FONT]*We affirm in the absence of any compelling biblical evidence to support the ordination of women to the special office of deacon, that this office be limited to qualified men. At the same time acknowledging that the Scriptures contain many examples of women who serve, we affirm the right of a local church to have a separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses” *[M155GS, p. 111, bold face type in original]. Two negative votes were recorded.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1978, 156th GS – The last action of the RPCES General Synod on the matter was in response to an overture to reconsider the issue of women deacons and “to affirm the prerogative of each particular church within the denomination to determine whether its diaconate shall include women as well as men, and whether they shall be ordained or unordained, and whether they shall be called ‘deacons’ or deaconesses’” [M156GS, p. 134]. The synod answered the overture by adopting the following resolution:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Resolved: that in the light of the action of the 155th General Synod, we do not recommend allowing each particular church within the denomination to determine whether its diaconate shall include men as well as women, nor that they be allowed to ordain a woman as a deacon. We also remind churches that they are free to elect Spirit filled women as deaconesses and to set them apart by prayer (_156th General Synod Minutes of the RPCES,_ 1978, pp. 133-134).[/FONT]


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 28, 2009)

Yes, Andrew,

a careful reading of the RPCES materials shows:

1) they never ordained women to the office of Deacon
2) they recognized the biblical office of Deacon as a basic part of the governance of Christ's Church
3) they understood "deaconesses" were under the authority of the Board of Deacons

It also seems pretty clear that as this faithful biblical denomination worked through this, in the end, they understood and respected that the I Timothy 3 office of Deacon is not interchangeable with "deaconesses." 

Unfortunately, that key biblical principle (that Deacons are part of the basic governance of Christ's church, and un-ordained people, both men and women, are to assist them) is getting lost in some of the argumentation being used in a favor of a "study" committee.

Rather, the RPCES understood the latter to be an un-ordained group of women, assisting a properly consitituted Board of Deacons, and clearly under their oversight. Most of the few churches in the PCA that have deaconesses are coming out of this perspective.

Granted, there is some unclear understanding with regard to electing them, the use of ordination vows, and recognizing parity of un-ordained men in these capacities, but I really don't sense they are at all arguing to jointly put women in the I Timothy 3 office of Deacon.

What is disturbing is that a very few churches and people are arguing that way- that the (I Timothy 3) office of Deacon can be either men or women- despite the overwhelming biblical case against that. In the process they are using argumentation that:

4) the high office of Deacon really only means "helper"
5) "ordination" really only means "praying for" (hence, "commission" with similar vows)
6) since Deacon only means helper, they really do not have a spiritual calling as part of the basic governance of the church

This reflects a great misunderstanding our our doctrines of vocation, ordination, and even our system of church government.

To be clear, and to be charitable, I don't sense the few former RPCES churches that have deaconesses (again, most do not have them in the PCA) are arguing the above 4-6. The large majority of them had then the same position the PCA had then and has now with regard to practice and biblical doctrine behind the practice.

But a much smaller grouping of opinion spurring on the push for a "study" committee IS making those arguments, either explicitly or implicitly.


----------

