PCA Overture on Deaconesses

[Croghanite]

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

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

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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

Howdy Jeff,

The deaconesses in the New Tesament include the following:

Paul
Christ
The Civil Magistrate
Stephen
Phillip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

Absolutely.

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

I just won't be contributing.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wsw201]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stephen]

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

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

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

 

[Stephen]

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

 

[shackleton]

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

 

[TimV]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for straightening me out, brother.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

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

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

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

Thanks for straightening me out, brother.

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

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

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Deaconesses

 

[SRoper]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

 

[Gryphonette]

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

[glumly] This is depressing.

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

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

 

[Craig]

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

 

[calgal]

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

Thanks for straightening me out, brother.

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

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

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

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

 

[calgal]

i understand the issue for Baptists: they combine the office of Deacon and Elder.

Which Baptists do this?

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

 

[TimV]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

[glumly] This is depressing.

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

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

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

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

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

These are disturbing events.

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

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

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

 

[Craig]

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

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

Christusregnat also addressed this on page 1

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

Howdy Jeff,

The deaconesses in the New Tesament include the following:

Paul
Christ
The Civil Magistrate
Stephen
Phillip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

 

[calgal]

Which Baptists do this?

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

So I suppose you meant Arminian Baptists, then? Reformed Baptists (and there may be exceptions) definitely view a difference between the offices of Deacon and Elder. Elders are those who meet the qualifications for overseers as outlined by Paul in Timothy and Titus. They are to be able to teach, etc. So they rule, teach, preach, counsel, etc. Deacons do not perform these functions (although they may teach a class, etc. if asked by the Elders). They generally overwatch the finances of the Church, the needs of the Church, serving, etc.

Sorry RB's! I was thinking Arminians

 

[Gryphonette]

Bingo. ;^)

Those boundaries were not set by our all-wise God to imply inferiority, but to glorify Himself through demonstrating the necessity and benefit of order and structure, which would include both the excersize of, and the submission to, enumerated stations of authority.

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

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

These are disturbing events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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