# Christian Post: PCA to consider clearer restrictions re. deaconesses



## lynnie

Presbyterians to Consider Clearer Restrictions Against Women Leaders | Christianpost.com

Women in the Presbyterian Church in America may face stricter rules regarding the offices they serve in.

The Central Carolina Presbytery has submitted an overture for consideration by the denomination's highest governing body, asking that women be stripped of the title "deaconess."

Currently, women in the PCA are excluded from serving as ministers, elders and deacons but the Book of Church Order allows for them to "assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need."

To avoid confusion and to prevent misuse of the provision, Andrew Webb, pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church in Fayetteville, N.C., authored the overture, claiming that several churches in the PCA currently elect and commission women to the office of deacon and call them by the title deacon or deaconess.

"[BCO 9-7] is now being used as a loophole to allow women to be elected as deacons," said Webb, according to PCA's magazine, By Faith. "The issue is, in essence, unresolved in our denomination. We need to come to a place where we come to a decision one way or another."

Webb proposes adding language to the Book of Church Order that would establish a clear distinction between assistants and deacons.

"These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church," the overture states.

The overture reiterates the denomination's belief that the "officers of the Church ... are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons (BCO 1-5) and that in accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only."

Women ordination is one of the issues that caused some 260 congregations to split from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern) in 1973 and form what is now the PCA. They opposed the PCUS' approval of women ordination as well as "the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture."

Webb says the new generation of pastors is leaning toward "egalitarianism," which concerns him.

"If we follow evangelicalism, we will inevitably become egalitarian. What we’re trying to do is stake our claim," he said, as reported by By Faith.

A study last year by the Barna Group found that the percentage of U.S. Protestant women serving as senior pastors doubled over the past decade, from 5 percent in the 1990s to 10 percent in 2009. More than half of female pastors were affiliated with a mainline church.

The proposal on women will be considered during PCA's 38th General Assembly in Nashville, Tenn., this summer. Overtures in 2009 requesting the formation of a committee to study women's roles in PCA churches were rejected.

PCA is the second largest Presbyterian church body in the U.S. with some 340,000 members.


----------



## Reformed Rush

May God continue to bless the ministry of Andrew Webb!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am really glad to see this.


----------



## Scott1

> From the news account....
> 
> Women in the Presbyterian Church in America may face stricter rules regarding the offices they serve in.



This is not a correct framing of the issue.

There is no new "restriction."

The issue is the constitution is not being obeyed in a few, high profile instances. This is emboldening a very few to go even further in disobedience, causing dismay in most who know this is wrong, and creating confusion in others.

The question is whether the rationalization of disobeying the constitution and of holy vows will be repented of, sanctioned by our connectional system, or tolerated by God's people politic.

The mechanism for clarification is made to come through the church courts, and through "references." These seem, at the moment, to mostly be being avoided.

The question is whether the modeled sin of disobedience to polity and vows will be sanctioned and repented of, the rationalization of disobedience rebuked, and confusion being created by those disobeying will cease.

Presbyterian wheels of justice are made to grind slowly, but finely in the end.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I pray this goes through. I would love to see the Keller vs. Duncan debate to go away.


----------



## Romans922

I didn't know women held any office now? So how would there be restrictions concerning the offices they hold?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Dr. Keller commissions deaconnesses. He uses the "assistant to the deacon" wording as a loophole to do this.


----------



## Marrow Man

Can't the Women's organizations within these churches do the same thing (i.e., assist the deacons) without being "commissioned" with a title via a loophole? Which is more important?


----------



## lynnie

_They have replaced the authority, and the board with a mostly female entity. On the one hand denying any real authority in the office, on the other hand claiming it valid as "assistants" who assume the primacy of office and function._


Scott.....to be fair here, it may vary from church to church. I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are humble, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured. They are in no way authoritative at all, nor are they doing what the men do or have traditionally done. In fact, the men have almost never done what they do, nor do the men have any desire to take over all the fellowship meals and ministry to Moms with new babies and so forth.

Having said that I am on your side as far as the wording, the ordaining/commissioning, the vows, all of it. There is no reason they can't be set apart and honored as the "Women's ministry team" or "diaconal assistants" or some other term. The present situation is not only wrong but unnecessary, especially in today's culture where there is enough confusion and resistance to male leadership already.

But having said that, in my experience at least, they are not taking over any male church functions or male authority. Might be different at Redeemer and elsewhere, I don't know for sure, but it isn't functionally wrong at some PCA churches (which is probably why the issue has been left alone for so many years).


----------



## Scott1

Marrow Man said:


> Can't the Women's organizations within these churches do the same thing (i.e., assist the deacons) without being "commissioned" with a title via a loophole? Which is more important?


 
Yes, this is practice in the overwhelming majority of PCA churches. It works well in practice.

The denomination's polity is careful qualification of officers, deacons and elders, by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, through which the particular church is governed.

Un-ordained men AND women assist them in many ways, but not replace them, nor their function. In fact, if it is impossible to secure Deacons, the duties fall back on the elders in PCA polity.

The system is clear, and deliberately chosen as a belief based on Scriptural polity.

In a very few instances, the following has been done with regard to un-ordained women:

1) nominate from the congregation
2) qualify as officers (doctrine, standards and life) 
3) elect by congregation
4) commission
5) use same or similar vows as officers
6) have congregation take vows of submission
7) lay aside perpetual office when transferring to another church in the denomination that does not allow this

Rather than resolve any supposed ambiguity with a "reference" (to determine the constitutionality of the practice), they persist, demand study committees with guaranteed divided results, or argue that the office of Deacon is not really authoritative, ordination is merely a technicality, electing is the same as appointing, etc....

because they want their notion of men and women serving without distinctions as "helpers."

In practice, Diaconates liaison with and rely on mercy ministry groups in the church as part of their general oversight of mercy ministry. These ministry groups are composed of un-ordained men and women and are a valuable part of church life. They do not usurp title or function, but help the church live out its life of covenant community.


----------



## JBaldwin

> There is no new "restriction."
> 
> The issue is the constitution is not being obeyed in a few, high profile instances. This is emboldening a very few to go even further in disobedience, causing dismay in most who know this is wrong, and creating confusion in others.
> 
> The question is whether the rationalization of disobeying the constitution and of holy vows will be repented of, sanctioned by our connectional system, or tolerated by God's people politic.
> 
> The mechanism for clarification is made to come through the church courts, and through "references." These seem, at the moment, to mostly be being avoided.
> 
> The question is whether the modeled sin of disobedience to polity and vows will be sanctioned and repented of, the rationalization of disobedience rebuked, and confusion being created by those disobeying will cease



Scott, I think you are right that they should have addressed the disobedience directly rather than say anymore than has already been said. It's a rather a round about way (In my humble opinion) to take steps to clarify that which has already been made clear, and I fear that while they are doing a good thing, they will end up stepping on the women who are doing what they should within the Scriptural guidelines. I've already seen this in a few churches where over-zealous male leadership has prevented women from doing legitimate women's ministry using the "women shouldn't lead" argument.


----------



## Scott1

Yes, Lynnie, I understand what you are pointing out. Many people looking in from the outside do not know the context or background or variations of practice that we do.

A few comments below.



lynnie said:


> _They have replaced the authority, and the board with a mostly female entity. On the one hand denying any real authority in the office, on the other hand claiming it valid as "assistants" who assume the primacy of office and function._
> 
> 
> Scott.....to be fair here, it may vary from church to church. I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are humble, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured. They are in no way authoritative at all, nor are they doing what the men do or have traditionally done. In fact, the men have almost never done what they do, nor do the men have any desire to take over all the fellowship meals and ministry to Moms with new babies and so forth.
> 
> The practices do vary- not all churches do all attributes of office (nomination, qualification, election, commission with same or similar vows, setting aside office when going to another presbytery, etc.)
> 
> The church you mention is not nearly violating the constitution to the extent of another well known one.
> 
> The church you mention, from their web site, and from some personal knowledge DOES have a fully constituted (male) Diaconate distinguished from its 'deaconess.'
> 
> Where this church is violating their constitution clearly is they elect them, and are not involving men similarly. Remember the BCO says Session will appoint godly men AND women as assistants to the deacon.
> 
> It's also more understandable due to their history in the RPCES not as newly advocating modernism. The problem is the vestiges of the practice were supposed to go away when the merged with the PCA, which has a clear polity on this, one based on its understanding of Scripture.
> 
> What they can do to fix this is admit their practice has not been following their BCO and change their practice by doing the following:
> 
> 1) Session appoints deacon assistants
> 2) Allow men and women to serve in parity in this capacity
> 3) Organize mercy ministry groups under clear oversight of the Diaconate
> 
> The fullest repentance would involve not using the term 'deaconess' and not presume to use titles for this. Remember, this function is filled by either men or women in their capacity as assistants to the Deacons. It's not as if women have a special province as they assist and men do not, both are assistants, serving without title or without the authority of Deacons, officers.
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that I am on your side as far as the wording, the ordaining/commissioning, the vows, all of it. There is no reason they can't be set apart and honored as the "Women's ministry team" or "diaconal assistants" or some other term. The present situation is not only wrong but unnecessary, especially in today's culture where there is enough confusion and resistance to male leadership already.
> 
> Yes, and it is creating confusion amongst people who do not know our polity!
> 
> But having said that, in my experience at least, they are not taking over any male church functions or male authority. Might be different at Redeemer and elsewhere, I don't know for sure, but it isn't functionally wrong at some PCA churches (which is probably why the issue has been left alone for so many years).



A very few have, others are being emboldened to push that. Imagine a congregation taking a vow to submit to the authority of a woman and NOBODY EVEN NOTICING- NOT OFFICERS, THE 'DEACONESS' CANDIDATE OR ANYONE IN THE CONGREGATION UNTIL IT SHOWS UP AND IS SEEN BY OUTSIDERS MONTHS LATER ON YOU TUBE!!!


----------



## Romans922

Scott1 said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't the Women's organizations within these churches do the same thing (i.e., assist the deacons) without being "commissioned" with a title via a loophole? Which is more important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is practice in the overwhelming majority of PCA churches. It works well in practice.
> 
> The denomination's polity is careful qualification of officers, deacons and elders, by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, through which the particular church is governed.
> 
> Un-ordained men AND women assist them in many ways, but not replace them, nor their function. In fact, if it is impossible to secure Deacons, the duties fall back on the elders in PCA polity.
> 
> The system is clear, and deliberately chosen as a belief based on Scriptural polity.
> 
> In a very few instances, the following has been done with regard to un-ordained women:
> 
> 1) nominate from the congregation
> 2) qualify as officers (doctrine, standards and life)
> 3) elect by congregation
> 4) commission
> 5) use same or similar vows as officers
> 6) have congregation take vows of submission
> 7) lay aside perpetual office when transferring to another church in the denomination that does not allow this
> 
> Rather than resolve any supposed ambiguity with a "reference" (to determine the constitutionality of the practice), they persist, demand study committees with guaranteed divided results, or argue that the office of Deacon is not really authoritative, ordination is merely a technicality, electing is the same as appointing, etc....
> 
> because they want their notion of men and women serving without distinctions as "helpers."
> 
> In practice, Diaconates liaison with and rely on mercy ministry groups in the church as part of their general oversight of mercy ministry. These ministry groups are composed of un-ordained men and women and are a valuable part of church life. They do not usurp title or function, but help the church live out its life of covenant community.
Click to expand...


Or in certain cases this has happened:

[video=youtube;ZEDyL-h9M3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEDyL-h9M3o[/video]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tim Keller’s Response to the YouTube Video Green Baggins


----------



## Mushroom

> I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are *humble*, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured.


Lynnie, the fact that they would accept the title of deaconess belies the assertion that they are in fact humble. What would prevent them from declining such nomenclature in deference to scripture while carrying out those tasks?


----------



## Montanablue

Brad said:


> I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are *humble*, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured.
> 
> 
> 
> Lynnie, the fact that they would accept the title of deaconess belies the assertion that they are in fact humble. What would prevent them from declining such nomenclature in deference to scripture while carrying out those tasks?
Click to expand...

 
I would assume that they don't realize they are violating Scripture. If their session allows and/or encourages it, why wouldn't they offer to serve? It probably seems like the right thing to do and a good way to help others. I don't know that accepting a title makes you proud. I would hesitate to guess at motivations or inner character without having at least met these women.


----------



## lynnie

Thanks for that link; first time I read this reply.

_Dear Bob,

Thanks for your note about the video of our May, 2009, service in which a deaconess was being commissioned. Having watched it myself, I can understand your concern! But I can also assure you that this is not our practice, and that it was only one of our newer ministers making a mistake.

We do not ordain our deaconesses nor do we ask our congregation to obey and submit to them. The minister in the video is newer on our staff and he accidentally read the deacons’ questions from the BCO and did not use the different questions we commonly use for deaconesses. Others who go to Redeemer can attest that this is not our practice, and it will not be in the future. The minister in the video apologized when he realized what he had done.

The best way to understand what happened is to consider the case of another of our ministers who recently inadvertently baptized a number of infants without asking their parents any of the questions. In charity onlookers assumed this was a mistake, and no one assumed that either the minister or Redeemer was in violation of the Book of Church Order. I spoke to this minister yesterday and he was grateful that no one had put his mistake on You Tube!

I must say I was surprised that the person who filmed the service and the person who posted and re-posted the video clip did not first do the courteous and charitable thing, namely, to ask simply, “Is this what it looks like on the surface, or is there a good explanation?” If they had done so, as texts like Proverbs 17:9; 18:17; 25:8-10 urge, they would have saved you (and others) both time and concern.

I hope this response helps. By the way-you can share this letter with anyone else that expresses concern.

Tim Keller_

********************

Scott......I really appreciate your excellent commentary. I'll give the new minister above the benefit of the doubt at this point. Maybe it is hard to be in Keller's shadow and he was nervous. But it is happening in a context of so much confusion of terms and practice that I think it is good Andy Webb did this. 

I have been wondering though, speaking of polity.....do churches have to do what the PCA GA rules or what? I thought they did. I read their FV report from a couple years ago and now there are FV battles and I don't get it. Isn't the GA final law? Is the souixland thing more just them claiming they ARE compliant with the GA, when Carpenter says they are not compliant? I mean, you have to comply with the GA or leave, right?

---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------




Montanablue said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are *humble*, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured.
> 
> 
> 
> Lynnie, the fact that they would accept the title of deaconess belies the assertion that they are in fact humble. What would prevent them from declining such nomenclature in deference to scripture while carrying out those tasks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would assume that they don't realize they are violating Scripture. If their session allows and/or encourages it, why wouldn't they offer to serve? It probably seems like the right thing to do and a good way to help others. I don't know that accepting a title makes you proud. I would hesitate to guess at motivations or inner character without having at least met these women.
Click to expand...



Exactly. You gonna argue with Boice or Ryken or your brilliant pastor with his degree from Westminster? 

It is their humility that causes them not to question. It is sometimes- usually???- my contemptuous argumentative sin nature  that makes somebody like me argue doctrine with a leader. To be fair though, I was asked to be a deaconess in my last church and tried to be real careful in how I declined, and I didn't cause a problem except with one lady who got huffy. So yeah, it certainly is possible to decline.


----------



## Mushroom

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tim Keller’s Response to the YouTube Video Green Baggins


Boy, if this was just a mistake on the part of one young TE, who were all the rest of the people in that room who acquiesced and affirmed the whole affair? Not one other Officer there to intervene and correct? Not one member with a cursory knowledge of PCA polity or the BCO to raise a hand? The 'deaconess' doesn't have enough knowledge to suggest something's wrong? I heard a whole lot of "Yes's" to the questions addressed to the members. What does this say about the teaching and shepherding at Redeemer? If one man can so easily lead such a large group into gross error without so much as a peep, I would say there is evidently some serious failures in those areas at that Church. I'm surprised that Keller expresses no embarassment over that fact, but lays the entire responsibility on this poor uninformed _seminarian_.


----------



## Scott1

> *lynnie*
> 
> Scott......I really appreciate your excellent commentary. I'll give the new minister above the benefit of the doubt at this point. Maybe it is hard to be in Keller's shadow and he was nervous. But it is happening in a context of so much confusion of terms and practice that I think it is good Andy Webb did this.
> 
> Thanks, Lynnie.
> 
> I accept what the teaching elder says and what the esteemed senior teaching elder later posted by letter. And accepting that in Christian charity, it seems a question that would make this understandable, though, has never been answered.
> 
> If this whole thing was a mistake, why didn't any of the other officers present, any of the congregation present, or the 'deaconess' candidate recognize these were not the vows that were supposed to be taken?
> 
> As best I know, this has not been answered.
> 
> The impression left is that the candidate did not know the vows she had trained for (the video says they received "extensive training).
> 
> The impression is left that none of the other church officers present at the ceremony knew what the officers vows were, and no one in the apparently large audience of church members knew what the vows of officers were.
> 
> In the case of the congregation, they also apparently did not know they were not supposed to take vows of submission to non officers.
> 
> Is it really the case, nobody knew the vows of officers from the BCO until some other PCA members looked in months later on You Tube?
> 
> Also, since the ceremony and vows (both by candidate and congregation) were invalid, were the ceremonies voided and then done later correctly?
> 
> This has never been answered as best I know.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been wondering though, speaking of polity.....do churches have to do what the PCA GA rules or what? I thought they did. I read their FV report from a couple years ago and now there are FV battles and I don't get it. Isn't the GA final law? Is the souixland thing more just them claiming they ARE compliant with the GA, when Carpenter says they are not compliant? I mean, you have to comply with the GA or leave, right?
> 
> Lots of different issues in these examples, Lynnie.
> 
> Maybe the best way to understand the issue of vows and polity is that they are a matter of the denomination constitution. They are not optional.
> 
> Ultimately, they are enforced by the church courts.
> 
> Officers are bound by holy vow specifically to receive and obey their polity.
> 
> Study committees (like the unanimous one about "federal vision" theology) are very different- they effectively express the opinion of the majority of the General Assembly at a given point in time. They are given "due and serious" consideration by lower courts (sessions and presbyteries) but are not strictly binding on them. They can be quite useful for local churches and presbyteries trying to discern difficult or complicated issues (like "federal vision" theology). They are especially helpful when they are unambiguous and unanimous (as the "federal vision" one was). It concluded with 9 statements that can be used to spot this errant theology if it appears in a church of presbytery.
> 
> When study committees have split opinions (majority, minority- 2 reports) they really don't function to settle anything, but merely to express opinion.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the first year and a half that the unconstitutional practices of a very few churches regarding 'deaconess' came to light, some of those promoting those unconstitutional practices pressed for a pre-determined divided study report. They even suggested in advance who would be on the committee (guaranteeing a 4/3 split), even though the views of the people were already known and published.
> 
> On the one hand, they argued that the constitution was unclear. On the other, that 2 reports, one majority, one minority, not binding, would somehow bring clarity and "settle" the issue.


.


----------



## Mushroom

> If their session allows and/or encourages it, why wouldn't they offer to serve?


Maybe read the scriptures? Maybe bother to know what their denomination states is appropriate to Church order?


----------



## Romans922

Brad said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Keller’s Response to the YouTube Video Green Baggins
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if this was just a mistake on the part of one young TE, who were all the rest of the people in that room who acquiesced and affirmed the whole affair? Not one other Officer there to intervene and correct? Not one member with a cursory knowledge of PCA polity or the BCO to raise a hand? The 'deaconess' doesn't have enough knowledge to suggest something's wrong? I heard a whole lot of "Yes's" to the questions addressed to the members. What does this say about the teaching and shepherding at Redeemer? If one man can so easily lead such a large group into gross error without so much as a peep, I would say there is evidently some serious failures in those areas at that Church. I'm surprised that Keller expresses no embarassment over that fact, but lays the entire responsibility on this poor uninformed _seminarian_.
Click to expand...

 
I am called to take Keller at his word, but it is very difficult. This is not a 'SEMINARIAN'. This is an ordained minister, he therefore has been educated especially on this topic. Whether he is young or old, as an ordained minister, he surely knows what he was doing. This isn't just something misspoken, there are a number of things 'misspoken' if that is the case. And this isn't just someone accidentally using the wrong name. Look at what happens, it isn't just one thing here:

Male and female deacons are all being installed together (0:03); Deb, elected to be a female deacon is being used as the exemplar to represent the other 17 being installed later that morning; The Pastor states: "Deb is assuming the Diaconal Role this morning." (0:13); Nominated (0:20) by members of Redeemer as a Candidate just as the other elders and deacons; Extensive Training Process (0:28); Interviewed by other officers of the Church (0:35); Elected by vote of congregation (0:41); Deaconess for Deb is an extraordinary calling (1:17); She is charged (1:34); Six Ordination Questions are asked to the woman (4:26); The Pastor clearly uses the word 'ordination' in regard to what is going on (5:09); The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her. (6:02). 


I have to take Keller at his word, however, in this case it is very difficult.


----------



## SolaScriptura

In regard to the OP - Good job, Andy! I hope it passes.


----------



## lynnie

I've heard it said in my presbytery that a woman is free to do anything a man can do except hold church office. It is considered legalism by some to say that a woman should not be President or a hard driving CEO or a soldier in combat. Another example is a major PCA teacher (with deaconesses) who says that as long as the spouses agree and the wife is submitted, you can arrange your marriage however you like. The woman can be the primary breadwinner out in the corporation while hubby is home all day with the toddlers.

When you cast aside traditional historic understandings of gender roles, it is hard to have "well the BCO says so" as your rule. So I don't see how things will get ultimately better unless this is approached at the very root. Unless gender differences are seen to extend into the very inner souls of men and women, and office in the church is rooted in that broader perspective, this will never end.

It is ironic. I have been considered liberal by some conservative Christians in my past because I 'll say that many traditional roles of women have been removed from the home so it isn't necessarily wrong have a job ( teaching, nursing, midwives, retail, all sorts of things). But if I say in the PCA that a woman with babies and preschoolers needs to make every effort to be home with them, suddenly I am a legalist, because men and women can do the same things except church office, no difference, women and careers and babies is totally fine.


----------



## TimV

> I've heard it said in my presbytery that a woman is free to do anything a man can do except hold church office.



In all PCA Presbyteries non ordained men can occasionally give the Sunday sermon. Next time someone says the above ask if a woman can give the Sunday sermon.


----------



## Idelette

Montanablue said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are *humble*, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured.
> 
> 
> 
> Lynnie, the fact that they would accept the title of deaconess belies the assertion that they are in fact humble. What would prevent them from declining such nomenclature in deference to scripture while carrying out those tasks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would assume that they don't realize they are violating Scripture. If their session allows and/or encourages it, why wouldn't they offer to serve? It probably seems like the right thing to do and a good way to help others. I don't know that accepting a title makes you proud. I would hesitate to guess at motivations or inner character without having at least met these women.
Click to expand...

 
If anyone is taking any sort of position within the church they ought to first examine the Scriptures and not take any role lightly. These are serious responsibilities that one would have to really examine themselves and pray about these matters. And quite honestly, if that was truly the case, I think a humble woman would not feel comfortable taking a role that the Word of God has not commanded or instructed women to do. 

As a side note, as a somewhat young Christian, I was asked to take certain leadership roles several times. I prayed about these things and searched the Scriptures beforehand and had to respectfully decline. I think if anyone is truly seeking wisdom from above, God will give discernment no matter the lack of teaching or youthfulness in the faith.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

This is a very poorly conceived and weak overture to change the BCO. Thankfully it will almost certainly fail. Here's why:

1. It is extra-biblical. Prohibiting use of the word deaconess to refer to non-ordained female workers in the church is a prohibition not found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible. 

2. It is narrow. Are we really willing to say that John Calvin, B.B. Warfield, and Tim Keller (and many others in the historical Reformed church) do not belong in the PCA? That's what this overture would effectively do in that it would forbid deaconesses from serving as they did in the churches these men pastored. I can't imagine a majority - or even a significant minority - of PCA elders wishing to go against Calvin on this issue. This proposal is being brought forth from a fringe group within the PCA. Thankfully, it seems they are a very vocal minority rather than in the mainstream of the denomination.

3. It is petty and small. Why is it necessary to forbid the use of a word with Reformed and Biblical precedent under the guise of "avoiding confusion?" Where do we draw the line and what words will be forbidden next?

4. It is fundamentally divisive. The overture will only inflame an already sensitive issue in the PCA. Everyone (or at least the vast majority) support the BCO as it is and are clearly against ordaining women to any office, including the office of deacon. Why divide the denomination further when there seems to be peace over the issue? I doubt the vast majority of elders at the GA will want to cause a tangible rift in the denomination.

5. The most influential people in the PCA are pro-deaconess. Tim Keller, Bryan Chappell, Phil Ryken certainly trump Andy Webb and the few others who support the overture in terms of their influence and scholarship. I think most at the PCA will side with the former group in the more reasoned, Biblically sound, historically supported, unifying stance.

I appreciate Pastor Webb (and others) want to maintain the integrity of the PCA and combat egalitarianism. However, this overture is not the way to go. Going against Biblical and Reformed precedent while unnecessarily narrowing the breadth of the PCA and fundamentally dividing the denomination is extremely unwise. I am confident the overture will fail, and rightfully so. We need to uphold the highest Scriptural and doctrinal standards - this overture would only hurt those goals.


----------



## Kevin

Brad said:


> I know two deaconesses ( New Life, 10th Pres) and they are *humble*, gentle, non pushy feminine servants that are pretty busy with the kitchen, and with ministry appropriate to "older women teaching younger women", whether one on one, or more structured.
> 
> 
> 
> Lynnie, the fact that they would accept the title of deaconess belies the assertion that they are in fact humble. What would prevent them from declining such nomenclature in deference to scripture while carrying out those tasks?
Click to expand...


They do not believe that they are violating scripture.. And more importantly neither does their session.

---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 AM ----------

Since the thanks button is missing from Masons comments I'll say here that he is correct. It will fail. As it should, in my opinion. 

No matter what you think about the debate, we can not simply ban a word that the scriptures use.


----------



## toddpedlar

The issue is very simple, in the end. 

1) The BCO does not allow for ordaining deaconesses. 
2) The BCO does require the ordination of men unless a church is providentially hindered (i.e. by being too small, with too few qualified men) in which cases the duties of the office of deacon devolve upon the Session.
3) The proponents of deacons believe in Hurley's dictum (I'm sure Hurley isn't the only one who has said this) that a woman can do anything an unordained man can do, and therefore solve the problem by refusing to ordain men, and by giving men and women alike the job that historically the office-bearers have held.

So the problem is not merely with the Bible - it's with Presbyterian practice. Those who are 'commissioning' men and women into a "role" of deacon, while refusing to ordain men as the BCO prescribes are stepping outside the rules they do not wish to keep, and simply doing what they want to do. This is a major, major issue. It is not, now primarily about whether one agrees or disagrees with the practice of having deaconesses - it's about whether the denomination's "big guns" are willing to actually follow the appropriate procedures and be patient. They are apparently NOT willing to be Presbyterian in their practice. It is THIS problem, and not so much the deaconess issue itself, that has caused me to lose much of my respect for many of the 'leading lights' of the PCA. Your post, Mason, highlights EXACTLY what the true problem is. The Presbyterian nature of the denomination is being scuttled in many ways. Making changes in practice like this is HARD if you want to do it the right way. This is, in my opinion, why the "right way" is not being followed.


----------



## Scott1

For those not familiar with this, there has been almost three years of history on this topic and some good threads on this topic here on the Board.

The questions essentially are those posed about two and half years ago at the PCA General Assembly by an overture, a proposal, basically, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, which is one presbytery within the 77 or so in our denomination.

The overture that is the subject of the original post, is presented, understandably, with some frustration that this has not been finally disposed of in our church courts, since the practice questions seem so obvious in light of our constitution.

At this stage, and in this context, these are polity questions.

That is, how we have agreed and vowed to run the denomination in light of our confessed and vowed beliefs.

It's not a generalized debate about whether 'deaconess' is in the Bible, important though that is. It's not even a debate about what we think at this time about whether there should be 'deaconess' governing the church. If PCA churches started appointing bishops, we would not start with a generalized argument about whether 'bishop' is in the Bible or whether someone in the denomination thought we should be ordaining or commissioning bishops. We would look to the express and implied polity of the denomination constitution to determine how our denomination is governed. 

If we wanted to insert bishops into our polity, a process of constitutional amendment would be required. It could be done, that is, inserting bishops into our polity by making the case for the many amendments to our constitution that would be necessary.

It could not be done by producing a pre-determined divided study committee where 4 were against and 3 were for bishops.

Nor could it be done by a single overture.

It would take a deliberative process based on changing for evident reason the constitution.

Being as charitable as one can reasonably be, the answers from the standpoint of our constitution, our Book of Church Order, are mostly beyond reasonable doubt.

The issue here is obeying the constitution that officers have vowed to uphold. It is about keeping vows. It is about being a confessional church- that is what doctrine (polity) it confesses through its constitution.

Here are the questions about practice from that overture, the answer from our Book of Church Order with the section(s) quoted, and a short comment.

Hopefully this will be helpful in understanding the workings of this in-house debate that may be quite confusing if one is not familiar with the context or history.

PHILADELPHIA OVERTURE QUESTIONS
(Overture #9 at 2008 General Assembly)

Overture Question
Answer
Book of Church Order Reference
Comment

(a) may churches choose not to ordain any male deacons?	NO



> 1-4. The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.
> 
> 4-2. Its officers are its teaching and ruling elders and its deacons.
> 
> 9-2 In the discharge of their duties the deacons are under the supervision and authority of the Session. In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders.



If “impossible” (e.g. a small, starter church), the duties fall to the Elders.

(b) may churches choose to commission but not to ordain male deacons? NO	



> 1-4. The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.
> 
> 24-1. Every church shall elect persons to the offices of ruling elder and deacon in the following manner:
> 
> 24-7. Ordination to the offices of ruling elder or deacon is perpetual; nor can such offices be laid aside at pleasure;…



Officers are examined, elected, ordained, and installed. Congregations receive them as spiritual authority.

(c) may women be commissioned as deaconesses without ordaining them as deacons?	NO



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



Officers are examined, ordained and installed.

(d) may the same constitutional questions, or similar questions, used to ordain deacons be used to commission deacons or deaconesses who are not ordained?	NO



> 7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scriptures.
> 
> 24-6 The ruling elder or deacon elect having answered in the affirmative, the minister shall address to the members of the church the following question:
> 
> Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon), and do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement and obedience in the Lord to which his office, according to the Wordof God and the Constitution of this Church, entitles him?



The constitutional questions are for ordination, and the congregation vows to receive them as spiritual authority.

(e) may Presbyteries license and ordain men who submit themselves to the BCO but who also believe that women should serve as ordained deacons? YES



> 21-4 The Presbytery, being fully satisfied of his qualifications for the sacred office, shall appoint a day for his ordination…



It is within presbytery prerogative to confirm or deny ordination based on these beliefs. The issue for determination is perhaps more rightly stated, does the candidate agree that the Presbyterian polity is biblical one?

(f) may churches elect ordained men and commissioned women to serve together in the diaconate?	NO



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



The diaconate is the Board of Deacons. It is not a mixture of ordained and un-ordained people mixing authority.

(g) may churches use the title Deaconess for an elected position of ministry in the church or selected to serve according to BCO 9-7?	NO 



> 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons…



Unordained women AND men are appointed, not elected to assist the deacons.


----------



## Mushroom

> This proposal is being brought forth from a fringe, ultra-conservative group within the PCA.


There's a good way to dismiss those who differ with you. Shades of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

I suppose that we who sit on the other side of the fence should reciprocate by characterizing your side as a "fringe, egalitarian group"?

If by 'conservative' you mean those who want to preserve what is taught by the scriptures, then the label is nothing to be ashamed of. Perhaps you could expand upon it so we can understand your meaning.


----------



## Kevin

Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church. 

I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.

Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.

The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.

As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.


----------



## Marrow Man

ColdSilverMoon said:


> 1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.



Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.


----------



## Edward

ColdSilverMoon said:


> This proposal is being brought forth from a fringe, ultra-conservative group within the PCA.


 
I always thought of Central Carolina as being middle of the road in the PCA. 

Speaking of this issue. Wasn't Metro Atlanta supposed to take up an overture on the other side? Anyone know how that went?


----------



## Mushroom

Kevin said:


> Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.
> 
> I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.
> 
> Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.
> 
> The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.
> 
> As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.


Almost as intemporate as calling those who hold to the historic position 'fringe ultra-conservatives'?


----------



## lynnie

Mason, I don't agree but I think it is good you weighed in with a very thoughtful reply. And yes it is narrow but it is the same with baptism...Spurgeon or Piper could not be PCA elders. The PCA sticks to the books. Has its pluses and minuses, but what are essentials and non essentials is ultimately opinion. I have been a continuist in both of my PCA churches but I have to shut up about perpetuity of the gifts. If you can't take the BCO it is best to leave. I have a hard time with it myself sometimes, I mean, when we particularized I couldn't believe the rigamarole and rules and how slooooow it went, and plenty of others felt the same way. But I don't have the right to fight the BCO even if I think something is wrong. 

Scott, your posting is so excellent and helpful, but I am a little confused. 

If all those questions were asked and answered in 2008, and it sure looks they covered it from every angle, then what exactly is going on now? I mean, the questions and answers sound like it was decided already. So why did Webb do this? If the decision was stated clearly in 2008 (I had no idea by the way, so thanks for the history for us PCA dummies here), what is new about this? Is it that nobody had to pay attention to what was decided in 2008 and this is to force churches to comply now? From what you said in post #19, if there is a divided opinion then it doesn't settle anything. Was it divided in 2008? It must have been. So if it is divided again, will there be any changes? 

Sorry if I am a bit clueless, but just look at me as representing 50% of the members in the PCA (us girls) who might be trying to figure this out. Thanks!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Brad said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.
> 
> I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.
> 
> Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.
> 
> The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.
> 
> As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as intemporate as calling those who hold to the historic position 'fringe ultra-conservatives'?
Click to expand...

 
Brad, you're right, and it was inappropriate of me to use that language, which certainly comes across harsher than intended. My point is that most in the PCA - even if they are opposed to unordained deaconesses - don't have a problem with churches utilizing them as they do now. I do think those who wish to stamp out the term entirely are a fringe group, certainly out of the mainstream of the PCA. "Ultra-conservative" was a poor choice of words and a stereotype on my part - I'm deleting it from my original post. 

I think Kevin is right on in his post. All proponents of deaconesses I've encountered base their view on Scripture, not some deeper agenda to advance egalitarianism, and certainly not as a stepping stone to other things like ordaining female elders.


----------



## Mushroom

Marrow Man said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.
Click to expand...

Those committed to this movement have a decided myopia concerning these inconvenient uses of the word διάκονος.


----------



## Scott1

Thanks, Kevin.

Some interaction with your thoughts here, as this may be helpful for those following this, particularly those looking in from outside the denomination.




Kevin said:


> Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.
> 
> The office of Deacon is very much intended to be a governing one in the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> CHAPTER 3
> The Nature and Extent of Church Power
> 
> 3-1. The power which Christ has committed to His Church vests in the
> whole body, the rulers and those ruled, constituting it a spiritual
> commonwealth. This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the
> choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.
> 
> 3-2. Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is twofold. The
> officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel,
> administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and
> comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order; and they exercise it
> sometimes jointly in Church courts, after the form of judgment, which is the
> power of jurisdiction.
> 
> ....
> 
> The Particular Church
> 
> 4-1. A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians,
> with their children, associated together for divine worship and godly living,
> agreeable to the Scriptures, and submitting to the lawful government of
> Christ's kingdom.
> 
> 4-2. Its officers are its teaching and ruling elders and its deacons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is biblical.
> 
> It defines our understanding of covenant community.
> 
> I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.
> 
> Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.
> 
> I too, really don't believe most people who are advocating 'deaconess' intend it as a way to get to ordaining women elders.
> 
> Honestly, I think many people following this don't understand our polity or our constitution but have only a notion that women "ought to be doing mercy." In the process, they are using argumentation that devalues the office of Deacon, ordination, vows and the connectional nature of presbyterian polity.
> 
> God does not suffer fools who break vows lightly.
> 
> What's difficult for many of us to understand on that level of reasoning is that in the vast majority of PCA churches, the polity is being modeled well- governance of the local church through officers God has appointed, deacons and elders, with unordained men and women assisting them in many capacities.
> 
> Unordained and women are doing mercy ministry, under a general charge under authority of Session and Diaconate in our polity all the time. There may be problems at individual churches at particular points in time with regard to this, but that is what Session and Diaconate (a group of qualified, ordained men bound by vow) are there to address for the honor and glory of God.
> 
> It has been a shock to me, but a very, very few are now arguing the same for women elders in private with the same reasoning. There is no public surface of this in the denomination at all that I am aware of. But the reasoning that devalues these other things (office of deacon, ordination, connectional nature of polity, keeping vows, etc.) in the end can get us to that place. It sure did in the mainline denomination, in steps. (For them it began with women basically substituting for elders on "boards of directors", then worked down to options for deacons, then mandatory for deacons, options for ruling, then teaching elders toward a full fledged 'affirmative action' for female authoritarism. It's dismaying to see what blindness of mind, caused by sin leads to.)
> 
> I am concerned that regardless of intention, the result is the same- diminishing the role of deacon as a qualified (men only, husband of one wife) governing office of the church.
> 
> The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.
> 
> While I understand the concerns, and they are real, especially in light of the mainline denomination history (PCUSA), I don't think that is the immediate focus here, either.
> 
> It is extremely important that officers honor their vows, which is a polity of God appointing deacons and elders to govern in the particular church (PCA polity). It is not acceptable to vow that and then commission mixed groups of ordained and unordained to jointly take the authority of the office of Deacon.
> 
> As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.
Click to expand...


The overture in the original post is about our BCO, and is in the context of the polity practices of a very few, but high profile, churches in the denomination.

Those churches need to lead in exhibiting humility and subjection to their vows, our constitution, and the connectional and confessional nature of our denomination.

None of us want to see our dear brothers fall.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Marrow Man said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.
Click to expand...

 
Pastor Phillips,

The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses. 

So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.


----------



## TimV

For me the issue is letting down the defences against liberalism built into the PCA constitution by ignoring the BCO. Mason, if I grant you that there is nothing wrong with unordained deaconesses, what do suggest is done with a PCA leader who says for example he won't follow the BCO rules for ordaining male deacons? Specifically refusing to the laying on of hands, which seems to any observer to be an attempt to minimise the difference between the ordained and non ordained? If I'm willing to come half way to meet you on this, how far are you willing to come?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> For me the issue is letting down the defences against liberalism built into the PCA constitution by ignoring the BCO. Mason, if I grant you that there is nothing wrong with unordained deaconesses, what do suggest is done with a PCA leader who says for example he won't follow the BCO rules for ordaining male deacons? Specifically refusing to the laying on of hands, which seems to any observer to be an attempt to minimise the difference between the ordained and non ordained? If I'm willing to come half way to meet you on this, how far are you willing to come?


 
Tim, I think you make a fair point. While I don't think the laying on of hands is an absolute requirement for ordination, I would like to see it done. Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA asked them to lay hands on their male deacons they would comply; I don't think it's a major issue. I've also said before that I would like to see Redeemer do a better job of distinguishing between ordaining and commissioning deacons, and I don't like their use of the term "officer" to refer to deaconess. It's done for simplicity more than anything, and most people at Redeemer understand the difference. Still, I think they could be more precise with their word choice. 

So to answer your question, I think Redeemer could be more clear to avoid confusion among those who are looking at things from afar. Within the church this isn't an issue at all. But to those who only glean their information from internet rumors and random mistakes on YouTube videos I can why there is confusion about the church's practice.


----------



## Marrow Man

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor Phillips,
> 
> The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.
> 
> So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.
Click to expand...

 
Mason, my point is that within the same letter (not jumping to another book of the NT where officers are being addressed and the word is being used in a different fashion, evident from the immediate context in those books), Paul refers to Nero (as well as Christ) as a servant using exactly the same Greek word. The point is that _diakonos_ has a wide semantic range, and it would be a commitment of the fallacy of equivocation to suggest that simply because the word is used in conjunction with a woman, it must be a reference to a "female deacon." No one would dare read Romans 13 and conclude that we should install pagan governing authorities as officers (even unordained officers) within the church just because they are called "diakonia." The context of the latter chapters of the book of Romans simply does not warrant that conclusion.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Marrow Man said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor Phillips,
> 
> The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.
> 
> So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mason, my point is that within the same letter (not jumping to another book of the NT where officers are being addressed and the word is being used in a different fashion, evident from the immediate context in those books), Paul refers to Nero (as well as Christ) as a servant using exactly the same Greek word. The point is that _diakonos_ has a wide semantic range, and it would be a commitment of the fallacy of equivocation to suggest that simply because the word is used in conjunction with a woman, it must be a reference to a "female deacon." No one would dare read Romans 13 and conclude that we should install pagan governing authorities as officers (even unordained officers) within the church just because they are called "diakonia." The context of the latter chapters of the book of Romans simply does not warrant that conclusion.
Click to expand...

 
If it has a wide semantic range (and I agree it does) then why use it at all? Why just not call them the "Ordained Servants" or something similar? The point is we have chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both the ordained officers and the officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon). The distinction is made based on context. If the early church had no problem with such terminology, why should we today?


----------



## lynnie

_Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA asked them to lay hands on their male deacons they would comply; I don't think it's a major issue. _

That is good. I think it is God's goodness that this is being forced. The doctrine of the laying on of hands, and all that it signifies from OT to NT, is a doctrine that is so minimized and not grasped today that it doesn't even matter to people, such as in this example. But it does matter. It is foundational. I do hope the PCA stresses this foundational doctrine when they write up the decision.


_the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. _ ( Hebrews 6)


----------



## Marrow Man

ColdSilverMoon said:


> If it has a wide semantic range (and I agree it does) then why use it at all? Why just not call them the "Ordained Servants" or something similar? The point is we have chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both the ordained officers and the officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon). The distinction is made based on context. If the early church had no problem with such terminology, why should we today?



There are plenty of words in the NT which also have wide semantic ranges. Context is key, as you agree. We have a term, used elsewhere in the same letter, than cannot possibly be construed in any way as referring to a church office, ordained or unordained. The church in Rome would never have interpreted it that way, and neither should we.


----------



## Scott1

lynnie said:


> _Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA asked them to lay hands on their male deacons they would comply; I don't think it's a major issue. _
> 
> That is good. I think it is God's goodness that this is being forced. The doctrine of the laying on of hands, and all that it signifies from OT to NT, is a doctrine that is so minimized and not grasped today that it doesn't even matter to people, such as in this example. But it does matter. It is foundational. I do hope the PCA stresses this foundational doctrine when they write up the decision.
> 
> 
> _the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. _ ( Hebrews 6)



The constitution requires ordination by laying on of hands.

Church officers, deacons and elders, swear they receive and will uphold their constitution by oath.



> Presbyterian Church In America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> CHAPTER 17
> Doctrine of Ordination
> 
> 17-1. Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be
> inducted by the ordination of a court.
> 17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an
> office in the Church of God, *accompanied with prayer and the laying on of
> hands,* to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.
> 17-3. As every ecclesiastical office, according to the Scriptures, is a
> special charge, no man shall be ordained unless it be to the performance of a
> definite work.
> 84
> 
> 
> 21-7. The people having answered these questions in the affirmative, by
> holding up their right hands, the candidate shall kneel, and the presiding
> minister *shall, with prayer and the laying on of hands of the Presbytery,*
> according to the apostolic example, solemnly set him apart to the holy office
> of the Gospel ministry. Prayer being ended, he shall rise from his knees; and
> the minister who presides shall first, followed by all members of the
> Presbytery, take him by the right hand, saying, in words to this effect:
> 
> 24-6.
> The members of the church having answered this question in the
> affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the candidate shall then be set
> apart, with prayer by the minister or any other Session member *and the
> laying on of the hands of the Session, to the office of ruling elder (or
> deacon). Prayer being ended, the members of the Session (and the deacons,
> if the case be that of a deacon) shall take the newly ordained officer by the hand,*
> saying in words to this effect:


----------



## Scott1

Having watched this topic (inserting 'deaconess' into polity) discussed for almost three years now, it would seem time has come to resolve this.

This is a matter of vows and constitution in a confessional, connectional denomination.

A good way forward is to reference General Assembly the 2008 Philadelphia Presbytery Overture questions:

(a) may churches choose not to ordain any male deacons?
(b) may churches choose to commission but not to ordain male deacons?
(c) may women be commissioned as deaconesses without ordaining them as deacons?
(d) may the same constitutional questions, or similar questions, used to ordain deacons be used to commission deacons or deaconesses who are not ordained?
(e) may Presbyteries license and ordain men who submit themselves to the BCO but who also believe that women should serve as ordained deacons?
(f) may churches elect ordained men and commissioned women to serve together in the diaconate? 
(g) may churches use the title Deaconess for an elected position of ministry in the church or selected to serve according to BCO 9-7?


under a Book of Church Order provision our forefathers in the faith wisely designed for just such a situation. Let us seek God to overrule us:



> PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
> BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
> 
> RULES OF DISCIPLINE 41-1
> CHAPTER 41
> References
> 
> 41-1. A reference is a written representation and application made by a
> lower court to a higher for advice or other action on a matter pending before
> the lower court, and is ordinarily to be made to the next higher court.
> 
> 41-2. Among proper subjects for reference are matters that are new,
> delicate or difficult; or on which the members of the lower court are very
> seriously divided; or which relate to questions involving the Constitution and
> legal procedures respecting which the lower court feels the need of guidance.
> 
> 41-3. In making a reference the lower court may ask for advice only, or for
> final disposition of the matter referred; and in particular it may refer a
> judicial case with request for its trial and decision by the higher court.
> 
> 41-4. A reference may be presented to the higher court by one or more
> representatives appointed by the lower court for this purpose. It should be
> accompanied with so much of the record as shall be necessary for proper
> understanding and consideration of the matter referred.
> 
> 41-5. Although references are sometimes proper, in general it is better that
> every court should discharge the duty assigned it under the law of the
> Church.
> 
> A higher court is not required to accede to the request of the lower,
> but it should ordinarily give advice when so requested.
> 
> 41-6. When a court makes a reference, it ought to have all the testimony
> and other documents duly prepared, produced and in perfect readiness, so
> that the higher court may be able to fully consider and handle the case with
> as little difficulty or delay as possible.



Let's pray this will happen this year, and that all will seek charity, fidelity to sacred oath, and the peace and purity of Christ's church, above all else.


----------



## Romans922

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor Phillips,
> 
> The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.
> 
> So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mason, my point is that within the same letter (not jumping to another book of the NT where officers are being addressed and the word is being used in a different fashion, evident from the immediate context in those books), Paul refers to Nero (as well as Christ) as a servant using exactly the same Greek word. The point is that _diakonos_ has a wide semantic range, and it would be a commitment of the fallacy of equivocation to suggest that simply because the word is used in conjunction with a woman, it must be a reference to a "female deacon." No one would dare read Romans 13 and conclude that we should install pagan governing authorities as officers (even unordained officers) within the church just because they are called "diakonia." The context of the latter chapters of the book of Romans simply does not warrant that conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has a wide semantic range (and I agree it does) then why use it at all? Why just not call them the "Ordained Servants" or something similar? The point is we have chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both the ordained officers and the officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon). The distinction is made based on context. If the early church had no problem with such terminology, why should we today?
Click to expand...

 
For one they are already called 'servants' by the word diakonos. Ordained is shown in Acts 6 by the laying on of hands. WE have not chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both ordained officers and lay people. This has been instituted by our Lord. Furthermore, the term 'elder' is the same. Is each instance in Scripture, does 'elder' mean ordained elder? No. It sometimes means those who are older (elders). So does that mean we should change their name too? No, our Lord instituted them as 'Elders' and they are ordained. Besides, there are no 'officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon)'. There are members. And then there are office bearers (elder and deacon). In the PCA, there are also assistants to deacons, determined by the elders. So many people in the PCA want these women assistants to be 'deaconesses'. This is where people want a title, when Scripture has not determined one. Confusion now begins. What then shall we call those men who are assistants? Deacons? Oh, there is no confusion there. Especially if you call the men assistants 'deacons' and the female 'deaconesses'. Why not just call them nothing? They are assistant to the deacons. They are helpers. They are servants. Let them be. Titles are given to those in authority by those who have authority. Assistants to deacons have no authority in Christ's Church, at least none given by God.


----------

