Tennessee Valley Presbytery Overtures PCA GA to “Affirm Unordained Deaconesses”

[DavidinKnoxville]

Tennessee Valley Presbytery Overtures PCA GA to

Seriously guys? Seriously?

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

I suppose one shouldn't be surprised by what comes out of one's own presbytery now a days

 

[Scott1]

From a procedural standpoint, the Overture does not ask for anything discernible.

It does not cite any changes requested to Book of Church Order. It asks to affirm an RPCES practice of "appointing" 'deaconess- appointing unordained men and women to assist the deacons is already in the BCO. Anyway, when that denomination joined, they covenanted to follow the constitution and the polity they joined anyway.

 

[lynnie]

Two separate subjects within the whole mess:

1. The failure to lay hands and set men apart as deacons in another presbytery. The doctrine of the laying on of hands is a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith:

a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

This doctrine has been so severely neglected that many people have no concept of what the laying on of hands symbolizes. The BCO commands it because the bible commands it, because like the two main sacraments, it is an outward symbol of an inward reality at the very least, and in addition to the symbol there is a very real impartation. When a PCA church with high visibility refuses to lay hands on deacons and ordain them, you've got a real problem. Secondly, when a church calls women up front and lays hands on them and in every respect treats them just like the guys, except to change the word and say it is "commissioned" not "ordained", well, you've got a problem.

2. The other subject is nice ladies who are not set apart like the men ( who are ordained wth the laying on of hands and prayer) , and the ladies fill cups with grape juice and make lunches and clean up the mess after, and have no authority at all except over the sink full of dishes, and they are given a certain title that is confusing at best but nothing wrong is going on except a poor choice of terms......unless you are a Calvinist and realize that Calvin used the same term......

I don't think you should sweat this. The failure to ordain male deacons is far more serious in my opinion. If the PCA has to pick battles I'd start with the high profile churches that won't lay hands and ordain men.

 

[Scott1]

Two separate subjects within the whole mess:

1. The failure to lay hands and set men apart as deacons in another presbytery. The doctrine of the laying on of hands is a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith:

a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

This doctrine has been so severely neglected that many people have no concept of what the laying on of hands symbolizes. The BCO commands it because the bible commands it, because like the two main sacraments, it is an outward symbol of an inward reality at the very least, and in addition to the symbol there is a very real impartation. When a PCA church with high visibility refuses to lay hands on deacons and ordain them, you've got a real problem. Secondly, when a church calls women up front and lays hands on them and in every respect treats them just like the guys, except to change the word and say it is "commissioned" not "ordained", well, you've got a problem.

2. The other subject is nice ladies who are not set apart like the men ( who are ordained wth the laying on of hands and prayer) , and the ladies fill cups with grape juice and make lunches and clean up the mess after, and have no authority at all except over the sink full of dishes, and they are given a certain title that is confusing at best but nothing wrong is going on except a poor choice of terms......unless you are a Calvinist and realize that Calvin used the same term......

I don't think you should sweat this. The failure to ordain male deacons is far more serious in my opinion. If the PCA has to pick battles I'd start with the high profile churches that won't lay hands and ordain men.

Your analysis is good, doing the insightful thinking and evaluation that is needed to "cut through" the confusion being created.

The real issue here is not at women being involved in mercy or helps ministry... not at all.

It is about devaluing the high office of deacon as a basic part of governance of the particular church and all the things that go with it in the life of a covenant community-
1) male leadership,
2) ordination,
3) confirmation of God's appointment of authority,
4) qualification by good knowledge of the Bible and the doctrines confessed,
5) an exemplary life,
6) the sanctity of vows,
7) the relationships God has established in the church
8) a congregation receiving those whom God has appointed for them.

These are not merely incidental policy choices, they reflect all kinds of doctrine that we believe and confess is biblical- in a world of confusion and rebellion against every form of order and authority.

That's what this is all about.

 

[DavidinKnoxville]

Here is my problem with the overture

1. It is one thing to recognized this practice amongst the RPCES churches during the J&R but it is another thing for the PCA to affirm this practice as if it isn't out of accord with our BCO. It clearly is.
2. Our book of church order does not recognize deaconesses, unordained or otherwise. There is a recognition that "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 in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in distress or need." (BCO 9-7) - But this is not an office. This is just the deacons being over and including members of the church in caring for those in need as the situation warrants.
3. There is no more RPCES churches, there are just PCA churches. Some of these PCA churches are out of accord with our BCO. If they want the PCA to affirm unordained deaconesses then overture the BCO to be changed. I don't see the how circumventing the process by petitioning the GA to make a "statement" is helpful.

That will do for starters.

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 PM ----------

lynnie - Agree for the most part.

---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

A Profitable Word: PCA 38th General Assembly (2010): Overture From Tennessee Valley Presbytery - Just found this post on the subject.

 

[Kevin]

As a former deacon in TN Valley, and as someone that has worshipped many times at New City, I think that this is a wise compromise. I for one trust the good intentions of the session that brought this and the presbytery that passed it. I have actually cooked & served dinner to the presbyters of TN V "back in the day" as chair of the diaconate at a host church.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Just so everyone is aware, most if not all of the Korean PCA churches have deaconesses. In some cases they are the main de facto ruling body of the churches, as far as spiritual life of the church is concerned, and the elders' role is limited to financial and temporal matters.

If an attempt is made to stop prominent PCA churches from having unordained deaconesses, somebody is going to point out that consistent enforcement would cost the PCA several hundred churches and a half-dozen presbyteries.

Furthermore, a fair number of these Korean PCA deaconesses are fully ordained, regardless of what the BCO says.

Let's just say if the committees to review presbyterial and sessional records contained members who could read Korean, the entire General Assembly might get shut down by dealing with the chaos caused by realizing what goes on in the Korean PCA churches.

 

[Scott1]

As a former deacon in TN Valley, and as someone that has worshipped many times at New City, I think that this is a wise compromise. I for one trust the good intentions of the session that brought this and the presbytery that passed it. I have actually cooked & served dinner to the presbyters of TN V "back in the day" as chair of the diaconate at a host church.

Tennessee Valley Overture

Therefore, Tennessee Valley Presbytery requests that the 38th General Assembly adopt this statement: "The 38th General Assembly affirms that unordained deaconesses may serve the church, to the glory of God."

Yes, I trust also the good intentions of this Presbytery also. Also, that this is not intended to change our doctrine and polity.

But without any definition or reference, as an overture, this does not do anything.

Notice no amendments to the BCO are proposed.

The structural change that immediately begins to happen is that when a local church refuses to constitute its fully appointed local government (deacons and elders), women dominated groupings and lay groups will tend to fill the void. That's really out of necessity. Ordination and then authority tend to become technicalities. That's what needs to change at the few churches where this is going on, repentance to reform according to their vows. We need this in the life of our church, not accommodation of disobedience.

So the failure is of local leadership (deacons and elders) in letting that happen in churches under their care.


Unfortunately, a few high profile churches that are violating their constitution, vows and polity in this would not be happy with this at all- it will not settle anything by compromise.

The issue, going back to the Overture presented by Philadelphia Presbytery a couple years ago, is a few high profile churches are violating their constitution, vows, and our confessed by polity with practices like:

1) not ordaining deacons at all
2) not laying hands on for ordination but calling it 'ordination'
3) mixing deacons with 'deaconess' without distinction on the Board of Deacons
4) electing 'deaconess' like officers
5) nominating, qualifying, training 'deaconess' like officers
6) installing 'deaconess' with same or similar vows as deacons
7) not distinguishing unordained assistants from officers
8) failing to constitute a strong diaconate at all, part of governance of the local church
9) substituting an all or mostly female group for the deacons spiritual oversight role of:
a) property oversight
b) mercy ministry
c) developing the grace of liberality in the congregation

And, the Courts must speak on this.

If a few want to change our constitution and confessed polity, they must make the biblical case that the status quo presbyterianism is not biblical and in need of reforming, and go through with proposing the many constitutional amendments needed to accommodate their view. This must be done with great care, and clarity.

 

[reformedminister]

If they function as deaconesses, then they are deaconesses. What are we Catholics? So basically, the PCA allows for deaconesses but they just don't want to make it official.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I'm not a big fan of this overture, and agree that it really accomplishes nothing other than affirming current practice.

On the other hand, the real important aspect of this overture is underscoring the obvious lean in the PCA away from the Carolina overtures that would ban the utilization and terminology of deaconesses, toward a view that is more tolerant of unordained deaconesses. Now 5 presbyteries have rejected the Carolina overtures, not counting Metro NY and Philadelphia presbyteries. In June I think you'll see current practice continue with regard to deaconesses in the PCA. In my view that's a good thing.

 

[Scott1]

I'm not a big fan of this overture, and agree that it really accomplishes nothing other than affirming current practice.

Yes, that's right. As with many overtures, it isn't sufficiently stated to do what overtures are intended for. It is offered in good faith to remedy a problem of a name or title.

But the issue is not really that, it is about devaluing ordination, vows and the office of Deacon.

On the other hand, the real important aspect of this overture is underscoring the obvious lean in the PCA away from the Carolina overtures that would ban the utilization and terminology of deaconesses, toward a view that is more tolerant of unordained deaconesses.

There's no basis in this overture to believe that it seeks to qualify by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, nominate, elect, commission with same or similar vows, install in joint ceremony, or serve without distinction from the Board of Deacons- so on that basis, it is much closer to both of the Carolina Overtures than any other.


Now 5 presbyteries have rejected the Carolina overtures, not counting Metro NY and Philadelphia presbyteries.
Not sure how you are counting rejections here.

There are about 77 Presbyteries, with more on the way- not sure what to make of 5 if there indeed are 5.

In June I think you'll see current practice continue with regard to deaconesses in the PCA. In my view that's a good thing.

.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I'm not a big fan of this overture, and agree that it really accomplishes nothing other than affirming current practice.

Yes, that's right. As with many overtures, it isn't sufficiently stated to do what overtures are intended for. It is offered in good faith to remedy a problem of a name or title.

But the issue is not really that, it is about devaluing ordination, vows and the office of Deacon.

On the other hand, the real important aspect of this overture is underscoring the obvious lean in the PCA away from the Carolina overtures that would ban the utilization and terminology of deaconesses, toward a view that is more tolerant of unordained deaconesses.

There's no basis in this overture to believe that it seeks to qualify by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, nominate, elect, commission with same or similar vows, install in joint ceremony, or serve without distinction from the Board of Deacons- so on that basis, it is much closer to both of the Carolina Overtures than any other.


Now 5 presbyteries have rejected the Carolina overtures, not counting Metro NY and Philadelphia presbyteries.
Not sure how you are counting rejections here.

There are about 77 Presbyteries, with more on the way- not sure what to make of 5 if there indeed are 5.

In June I think you'll see current practice continue with regard to deaconesses in the PCA. In my view that's a good thing.

.

Evangel, Nor Cal, Providence, Tennessee Valley, Metro Atlanta is where I get 5. In itself 7/77 (counting Metro NY and Philadelphia) isn't a huge number (then again, only 2/77 oppose utilizing deaconesses), but the location and history are telling. Evangel, Providence, and Tenn Valley are conservative presbyteries (at very least right leaning). Their rejection gives a good indication of how the Carolina overtures will fare at the GA. I'm sure the Carolina overtures will have solid support and a number of people will vote for them, but given the presbyteries, churches, and people I've seen reject them, I would be very surprised if one succeeds in June.

 

[lynnie]

Mason, I know Keller is very influential, and deserves to be in many respects, but don't think the NY Metro Presbyterian is automatically anywhere on the same page with this. You have David Minor who brought that charge last year about the failure to ordain deacons, and my former PCA pastor is solidly anti deaconess. There are others in NYM too. Just sayin'.

Darrell......wow. I never would have guessed. I figured the Koreans were very patriarcial culturally. ( too much LOST ) Thanks for a very informative post.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Darrell......wow. I never would have guessed. I figured the Koreans were very patriarcial culturally. ( too much LOST ) Thanks for a very informative post.

Clarification: The arguments supporting women in the diaconate are very different from those supporting women elders. Nothing I wrote was intended to say Korean churches have a problem with male headship.

For example, when the second-largest congregation in the Christan Reformed Church, Los Angeles Korean CRC, seceded and took about 40 percent of the Korean CRC members with them because of women in office and (at that time) failure to discipline a nonpracticing homosexual minister, Rev. Jim Lucas, I attended the first synod of their new denomination. The Korean seceders were totally opposed to women's ordination as elders and ministers -- it was one of their reasons for leaving the CRC, after all -- but certainly had no problem with deaconesses.

I've had some private correspondence with a concerned PCA officebearer and I want to make crystal clear that nothing I wrote was intended to be an allegation of sinful behavior on the part of the Korean churches. Korean churches have had women deacons, elderly women serving as kwonsa, and seminary-trained women serving as chondosa for a century. As with the women deacons in the ARPs and RPCNA, this Korean practice long predates modern feminist issues and needs to be viewed in that light.

Considering the long history of OPC and Christian Reformed and PCUS (Southern Presbyterian) and now PCA missions in Korea dating back for almost a century, and earlier Presbyterian mission efforts dating back to the 1880s, I think it's fair to assume that people in an American denomination know or should have known what they are getting when they admit a Korean church to their denomination. Having women serve as deaconesses, kwonsa and chondosa is virtually universal within Korean Presbyterianism, even the most conservative denominations such as the Kosin Presbyterians who work with the OPC and the Canadian Reformed.

It's crossed my mind that someone may think I have some sort of problem with Korean deaconesses or other Korean church practices. I do not, but I respect those people who do believe as a matter of biblical principle or of church order that women should not serve as deacons, deaconesses, assistants to the deacons, or whatever else they're going to be called. I happen to support women deacons on biblical and historical grounds, but in the current ecclesiastical climate, women deacons have often become a bridge to ordaining women elders and pastors, so I think it is very unwise to push the issue of allowing women deacons where they are not already allowed since it's likely to lead places that we do not want to go.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Mason, I know Keller is very influential, and deserves to be in many respects, but don't think the NY Metro Presbyterian is automatically anywhere on the same page with this. You have David Minor who brought that charge last year about the failure to ordain deacons, and my former PCA pastor is solidly anti deaconess. There are others in NYM too. Just sayin'.

Darrell......wow. I never would have guessed. I figured the Koreans were very patriarcial culturally. ( too much LOST ) Thanks for a very informative post.

True, Lynnie, NYM Presbytery is not monolothic on this issue or any other major issue - I assume that's true for all presbyteries. However, they did pass a resolution last year that allowed for unordained deaconesses. Some may oppose deaconesses, but they are in the minority in this particular presbytery.

 

[lynnie]

However, they did pass a resolution last year that allowed for unordained deaconesses. Some may oppose deaconesses, but they are in the minority in this particular presbytery.

Oh....didn't know that.....but it's still one vote per attendee, right, no matter what your presbytery?

Whatever happened with the David Minor charge? Is this a long slow thing that maybe in a couple years Redeemer will have to lay hands on male deacons and set them apart? Is that still back in Presbytery or did it go higher?

Scott, should have said this before, but thanks for the helpful and clarifying posts.

Just curious...is all this just a PCA thing? Is the OPC going through this debate too?

 

[TimV]

Under those circumstances, if in the OPC constitution it said "all deacons must be ordained" it would be interpreted as "all deacons must be ordained". It's only the liberal evolutionist/feminist branch of the PCA where "all deacons must be ordained" is interpreted "no deacons must be ordained".

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

However, they did pass a resolution last year that allowed for unordained deaconesses. Some may oppose deaconesses, but they are in the minority in this particular presbytery.

Oh....didn't know that.....but it's still one vote per attendee, right, no matter what your presbytery?

Whatever happened with the David Minor charge? Is this a long slow thing that maybe in a couple years Redeemer will have to lay hands on male deacons and set them apart? Is that still back in Presbytery or did it go higher?

Scott, should have said this before, but thanks for the helpful and clarifying posts.

Just curious...is all this just a PCA thing? Is the OPC going through this debate too?

David Miner did not file a complaint with the SJC. He accepted the presbytery's response. Only one RE and one TE filed the complaint, and it has been rejected twice by the SJC panel. I thought the full SJC was going to rule in March, but I haven't heard anything else.

And yes, it's still one vote per attendee, but given that a variety of presbyteries have rejected the Carolina overtures, it seems unlikely that it would pass at the GA.

Scott knows a great deal about the PCA and the BCO, but he misunderstands the role of deacons in the church and doesn't fully grasp the BCO or Scripture on the matter. He also misunderstands the intent of the overtures on both sides as well as the core issues at stake. I've learned a lot from Scott on a variety of topics, but I disagree with most of what he says on this issue.

 

[lynnie]

Whoa. Minor is a very well respected conservative elderly man, but you say he "accepted the presbytery response" ? Meaning the NYM Presbytery voted that deacons do not need to be ordained by the laying on of hands according to the bible (oops, make that BCO).? Is that what you mean? I don't believe in a million years he would accept that...so what you mean is that he accepted the process and the vote, even if he does not agree with it, right?

(This must be God's way of dealing with the people I knew who said to trust the Presbyterian process. I wanted to wave a little flag in their face that said " Machen-GA" but I kept my mouth shut. The NYM conservative Presbyterians must be learning a painful lesson.)

This is entirely different than non ordained women being given the label of deaconess. Two different things.

Mason, you are in leadership at Redeemer. I have a stack of Keller tapes and I love his preaching. But tell me, going back to what Hebrews 6 lists as the foundations, I am sure you've heard something at Redeemer over the years about baptism, repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. Have you ever heard about the doctrine of the laying on of hands? Is this taught? If not, why don't you consider looking into it a bit and maybe bringing the subject up sometime at a leader's meeting? It is bigger than just ordination.

Tim.....if you think the PCA has a monopoly on theistic evolutionists, think again. It may be more liberal but I don't think that's a unique characteristic.

 

[TimV]

Tim.....if you think the PCA has a monopoly on theistic evolutionists, think again. It may be more liberal but I don't think that's a unique characteristic

Oh, no, I don't think that. Look at what's happening in the ARP with what they thought was their college.
It's just that in the OPC the constitution is taken more seriously, so outrages like what Keller is doing aren't as common and are more easily addressed. And the longer you keep the barn door open the harder it is to get the cows back.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Whoa. Minor is a very well respected conservative elderly man, but you say he "accepted the presbytery response" ? Meaning the NYM Presbytery voted that deacons do not need to be ordained by the laying on of hands according to the bible (oops, make that BCO).? Is that what you mean? I don't believe in a million years he would accept that...so what you mean is that he accepted the process and the vote, even if he does not agree with it, right?

(This must be God's way of dealing with the people I knew who said to trust the Presbyterian process. I wanted to wave a little flag in their face that said " Machen-GA" but I kept my mouth shut. The NYM conservative Presbyterians must be learning a painful lesson.)

This is entirely different than non ordained women being given the label of deaconess. Two different things.

Mason, you are in leadership at Redeemer. I have a stack of Keller tapes and I love his preaching. But tell me, going back to what Hebrews 6 lists as the foundations, I am sure you've heard something at Redeemer over the years about baptism, repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. Have you ever heard about the doctrine of the laying on of hands? Is this taught? If not, why don't you consider looking into it a bit and maybe bringing the subject up sometime at a leader's meeting? It is bigger than just ordination.

Tim.....if you think the PCA has a monopoly on theistic evolutionists, think again. It may be more liberal but I don't think that's a unique characteristic.

Lynnie - Pastor Miner filed a complaint (along with 6 others, I think) against the original resolution that allowed non-ordained deaconesses. I think his specific beef was with the part of the resolution that sanctioned not ordaining male deacons. The presbytery repealed the resolution in response to his complaint, pending further study. Most of the signatories on the original complaint (including Miner) dropped it after this action, but 1 RE and 1 TE appealed to the SJC to stop the practices of individual churches. Pastor Miner was not a part of this complaint to the SJC. I think it's safe to say he opposes deaconesses but was satisfied with the presbytery's willingness to re-evaulate their stance on the issue.

 

[Wayne]

Lynnie:
You said,

...Minor is a very well respected conservative elderly man,...

And I contend that when you get to be 66, as he will be this June 20th, you won't see that as "elderly".

Praise God that anymore, "elderly" really is somewhere off in one's 80s. At least that's the view of someone pushing 61.

 

[Curt]

Lynnie:
You said,

...Minor is a very well respected conservative elderly man,...

And I contend that when you get to be 66, as he will be this June 20th, you won't see that as "elderly".

Praise God that anymore, "elderly" really is somewhere off in one's 80s. At least that's the view of someone pushing 61.

Can I get an "amen"?

 

[lynnie]

Mason..thanks for the clarification. I think his specific beef was with the part of the resolution that sanctioned not ordaining male deacons. The presbytery repealed the resolution in response to his complaint Yes, I understood that he and others were trying hard to see that deacons are ordained. I didn't know about the repeal.

Wayne.....hum...what is elderly? 66 or 80? I best defer to greater theologians on this one.

Minor came to our church when we particularized. I was impressed ( we all were).

 

[Scott1]

ColdSilverMoon


Scott knows a great deal about the PCA and the BCO, but he misunderstands the role of deacons in the church and doesn't fully grasp the BCO or Scripture on the matter. He also misunderstands the intent of the overtures on both sides as well as the core issues at stake. I've learned a lot from Scott on a variety of topics, but I disagree with most of what he says on this issue.

Actually, Mason, the doctrinal basis for and role of deacon is defined in the BCO- that's why we have it as part of the constitution.

It's not a matter of knowing the role of Deacon outside of what the constitution (BCO) says about it as a governing office in the PCA.

While I can understand on a theoretical level your assertion that you better understand the role of Deacon in the local church...

And without trying to aggrandize myself at all, please remember I am a Deacon and live out this polity daily.

Again, not to call attention to myself, but very early this morning I arose and went out before work on a Deacon project that involves property stewardship, mercy, and developing the grace of liberality- in a leadership capacity, the very charters given in our BCO for this office. These are leadership responsibilities that God gifts men with ability to do whom he calls to this office.

Presbyterianism has tapped into a very powerful witness and power to bind covenant community together through this office (as with elder).

The only overture presented that would make major change to our constitution and polity is that of N. California.

None of the others would condone the unconstitutional practices of a very few churches, e.g.

1) not laying hands on deacons for ordination
2) representing the head of the Diaconate as a woman
3) installing Deacons with 'deaconess' at the same ceremony with the same vows
4) refusing to ordain and install Deacons at all but having only a lay group, "equal partners in diaconal ministry"
5) failing to teach the doctrines of ordination and vocation

There are many more.

Remember what we are talking about here-

Our Book of Church Order defines the high office of Deacon as a basic part of the governance of the local church. That reflects doctrine, and historic presbyterian polity. The BCO says this "according to Scripture."

We are not free to disregard that, or our vows to uphold it, nor to misrepresent our polity.