As someone who, Lord willing, will mark 30 years as an ordained Elder in the PCA this coming July, I've often wondered what I would have done had I been ordained in the P.C.U.S. in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

It appears that this year's General Assembly will provide me the opportunity to stop wondering. At the very least, the Overture from Central Georgia Presbytery will have my full support. I hope that it will not be necessary to do what the PCA's founding fathers did in 1973.
By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone,
Steve Shuman

As one who was originally ordained in the PCUSA, I have seen firsthand the effects of such theological thinking. All I can say is, "Amen, Brother."

Whoa!! As a PCA Ruling Elder for some
30 years, Seems I've been down this road in the 70's. The BCO does allow for the use of Women as 'aids' to the Deacons with appointment by the Session.
This year Deaconesses, next year Elders... After that TE's... Gentlemen, Lest we forget!! With moves such as this, we will be able to merge with the USA denomination. PCA founding Fathers
need to be heard from again!!!

There is something else that needs to addressed. The idea of Deaconesses is being taught in the seminaries that are training our pastors, men are being accepted by presbyteries with this view and churches ARE ordaining Deaconesses. This needs to be addressed at the seminary and presbytery levels.

Why not study the issue? It's not enough to call attention to what has happened in the PCUSA (and other denominations) but let's also look again at what Scripture says so that "not only the learned, but the unlearned...may attain unto a sufficient understanding" WCF 1.7

Women can, and ought, to serve Christ and His church in their homes, families, local churches, communities, and workplaces using the capacity He gives them and the opportunities He presents them. Women do NOT need to be ordained or commissioned, or to have an office or a title, to do so. More importantly, God's word is clear. Those who choose to deny or ignore it do so at their peril. Hooray for the Central Georgia Presbytery's courage and vision.

The "issue" should not be the subject of a study committee because there is no issue. The scripture and the history of the Church are clear. Only men may serve as deacons and elders. What is needed is a commitment to defend our Standards and enforce the BCO.

There is often a temptation for churches to impose moral restrictions on people that are stricter than what the Bible requires. Usually this is done out of a sincere desire to keep people from sin. They do not want people to fall into the sin of drunkenness so they make it a rule that no one can drink. They do not want people to commit the sin of lust so they outlaw going to the movies or impose a specific dress code on the church. It was very refreshing for me, upon embracing a Reformed theological perspective and joining the PCA, to be part of a church that refused to do this ... that refused to bind the liberty of believers beyond what is clearly commanded in Scripture.

Unfortunately, some of the comments posted on this site seem to follow this line of reasoning in discussing the issue of deaconesses. “We do not want the church to commit the sin of ordaining women elders, so let’s outlaw women deacons to make sure that never happens.” However, many people who agree that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women elders have raised arguments from Scripture that this restriction does not apply to the position of deacon. Their arguments need to be answered based on their scriptural merit, not rejected merely because of a fear of where all this might lead.

A good example of conservative, reformed scholarship that allows for women deacons can be seen in the “Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church” of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, 1976, found in the archives of www.pcahistory.org

Hurrah for Central Georgia Presbytery! I'm thankful to hear that these officers are upholding our Standards. I hope that the G.A. will heed this sensible plea. I agree that there is no discussion necessary.

I agree with Central Georgia Presbytery. Both the Scriptures, WCF and BCO are clear enough.

I am grateful that the Central Geogia Presbytery submitted this overture.
I hope we will be wise enough to follow their recommendations.

The CGP claims as the basis for its overture that there is "no legitimate theological dispute" about the issue of whether women can be deacons. Hmmm. I wonder what that means, exactly?

Of course there is a dispute, and obviously it is theological in nature. So that leaves "legitimate." What would constitute a "legitimate" dispute in the eyes of the CGP? Why is it not even legitimate to have the discussion?

This overture is disrespectful to those who disagree with the CGP on the issue of women deacons. It would be harmful and counter-productive to allow the CGP to bully the General Assembly into compliance.

The overture raises more than one interesting question, though: what ARE the essential elements of our faith about which we do not tolerate debate? Is it possible that the Westminster Confession is (gasp!) wrong in some areas? And if not, are we suggesting that it is on a par with Scripture? And doesn't that kind of thinking take us right back to the basis of the Reformation itself?

Eve asks why this is not a legitimate theological dispute. For the same reason our debating anything else which we believe is plainly spelled out in Scripture is illegitimate. Some things have been settled for a long time, and they do not need to continue to occupy our time every generation so more battles can be fought all over again.

I say, good for CGP. And I say that if there are those who think other denominations are better or more progressive or whatever because they are studying the issue, or because they have adopted deaconesses, then why would they want to stay with the PCA?

Come on. Can we not simply preach the Gospel once delivered and quit thinking that we have to take on every issue all over again just because someone thinks it's a good idea? Especially when we have recent history (not to mention Biblical teaching) to ilustrate for us why it is such a rotten idea?

Have those who have gone before really missed that much in their forumlations? Is the rising generation reaally that much more in tune with Scriptural teaching?

While I think the argument is very interesting, I think it is also confusing. A question I have is this: What advantage does a woman have if she is serving the church from an "ordained office" as opposed to a woman who is serving in the same way in a non-ordained capacity. Is one's service more valid or meaningful? Is one more respected than the other? In any given church there may be many men who are leading or serving from a non-ordained position. In what way are they to view their ministry? Every one of us wants to have our gifts and abilites validated by others, but does that make the ordiantion of women necessary? Must a denomination ordain women in order to thrive or be relevant? I suppose we could go round and around on the "scriptural" interpretation, but as long as the "scholars" don't agree, maybe we can consider what might be best for maintianing the peace and order of the church.

Several things:

First, the PCA has had non-ordained, but commissioned deaconesses who serve alongside the male deacons since at least the RPCES was received into the PCA in 1982. If Central Georgia Presbytery wishes to reject that practice, that's their prerogative. But that is not the practice of the wider denomination and, if turned into policy, would overturn more than a quarter century of PCA practice and even more years of RPCES practice.

Second, we should keep in mind that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that some denominations with women in the diaconate have moved in a liberal direction that the one necessarily leads to the other. After all, the RPCNA has ordained women to the diaconate since the 19th century and the ARP since at least the 1970s - and both denominations are NAPARC members with whom the PCA maintains fraternal relations. Obviously, neither of these denominations has gone liberal.

Third, the New Testament simply isn't as clear on these issues as some might think, as should be clear from the history of interpretation. After all, in the early centuries of the church women were set apart as deaconesses through the laying on of hands, appealing to the example of Phoebe and, implicitly, Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy. The 8th century Euchologion and 6th century Apostolic Constitutions preserves for us prayers the early church used to set these women apart to service. What are we to make of that witness to the post-apostolic church's understanding of the New Testament. It would from that sort of evidence that the issue was settled centuries before the PCA even existed.

Robert suggests that debating women deacons is illegitimate "for the same reason our debating anything else which we believe is plainly spelled out in Scripture is illegitimate." This is not really a valid argument, because it assumes that a) "we" are all in agreement about what issues are plainly spelled out in Scripture--which obviously, we are not; and b) that the women as deacons issue is one of those plainly spelled-out issues. That's why I asked the question: what are the critical issues that we can't tolerate debate on? Is the issue of the role of women really one of them? Really? We are so sure of ourselves on this issue that we cannot even tolerate civil debate?

It sounds like Robert is suggesting that those of us who think it's worth having a discussion on this issue should just get up and leave the PCA, so as not to make the rest of the club uncomfortable. Is this really the best way for us to resolve our disagreements in the church?

Robert also minimizes the issue by suggesting that the only reason it's even on the agenda is because "someone" thought it was a good idea. That's not why it is a point of discussion, Robert. It's on the agenda because more than one someone thinks we could be more biblical in the way we see women and their role in the church.

It's not because those who have gone before have missed so much, or because the newcomers are so much more in tune with Scriptural teaching. Again, this is disrespectful and dismissive, assuming that the motives of people who disagree with you are arrogant and self-serving.

Shelly: the point of appointing women as deacons is not to validate them; nor would it be valid to not have the discussion in order to maintain peace. The goal should be for us to look at the Word and look at our own sinful hearts, and to do our best to understand what God wants the church to look like.

I think this process will be going on until Christ returns.

It would really be nice if for just one generation a biblically founded denomination could resist the temptation to ape the culture's priorties and stick to the mission. You don't see these kinds of overtures going in the other direction, such requesting more rigorous officer examinations. It's almost always in the direction the culture is trying to pull the church. The culture will not take 'no' for an answer and, if we let it, it will guile us into re-examining the same issues time and time again until we just give up. GA time could be much better used on other things.

Couple of things:

I have a lot of respect for the men and women who went through the liberal / conservative controversies in the last century. But it's inadequate to view this (and every) debate within the church through that lens. i.e. calling this a slippery slope does not make it one.

Why would we think it illegitimate that social and cultural shifts cause us to re-examine our understanding and application of Scripture? This is exactly what white Reformed churches had to do in S. Africa when apartheid was called into question. It is what churches in the American south did (are doing?) as views on race changed culturally. At one level it's what the church did in Acts 15. I think regular and fresh reflection upon Scripture is what we are supposed to do. Unsettling? Scary, even? Sure, but what is scarier than being in a body that refuses to debate the debatable?

Finally, can we come to terms with the fact that not everything in Scripture is is of equal clarity or equal importance? I have had the wonderful experience over the years of rubbing shoulders (and doing ministry) with Christians of varying backgrounds. And man (woman!), nothing puts our intramural debates into perspective like getting to know the wider body of Christ better.

Thank you to Joel for pointing that in many PCA churches there are women deacons, under one form or another. The CGP may not like it, but many churches around the world that are deeply evangelical have women deacons. And by the way, Eve, the Westminster Confession does not mention anything about women (nor men) elders and deacons. That was not for the Divines a confessional point of faith but a matter of church organization.
Shelly is asking why women would need to be ordained to serve as deacons,but I would say: why shouldn't they if they are gifted for the ministry? It is a matter of being coherent in the way we recognize spiritual gifts.
Bravo Alex for mentioning Romans 16:1. Some try to dismiss Phobe being called "diakonos" as not being the ministry, as in other texts, but as being a mere servant. However, treating Phoebe as a mere “servant” instead of a deacon with an official church ministry is I think ignoring the biblical context here. Phoebe is cited first in a long list of men and women collaborators of Paul. Consider who Phoebe is mentioned in front of: Prisicilla and Aquilas, who “risked their necks” for Paul, and are leading a house church. Epainetus “ premices of Asia” and a hard working Mary. A man and a woman apostles: Andronicus and Junia, and so on. In addition, the Romans are requested to provide Phoebe “all necessary help”. Hardly something you would ask toward a mere factotum. In addition, Phoebe is mentioned as having helped many. The noun is “prostatis”, which my Greek dictionary defines as follows:
προστάτις (prostatis 4368)
succourer
feminine of προστάτης (prostatēs) (a presider, prefect, magistrate) (lxx. 2Ch 8:10) a curator, guardian, patron; hence, the feminine, a patroness, helper, succourer.
Again, not the idea of a mere helpmaid. Finally, some historical knowledge is important. Beside the archeological evidence of many women deacons in the early church, it is often admitted that Phoebe must have been the person carrying Paul’s letter to the Romans. Given that texts were written without spaces and punctuation, the texts were usually read to the assembly after careful rehearsal by the bearer. In that case, that would have been Phoebe, one more supporting argument, although more speculative, to the fact that she was an ordained deacon.

With tongue in cheek, I would ask Jim P. of Baltimore whether it would be "illegitimate" for the PCA to consider including the pseudepigrapha "Gospel of Thomas" into the canon of Holy Scripture, since our society and culture seem to enamored with what is not in the Holy Scriptures. Does he think we must re-examine our understanding of Scripture at every turn or are there not truths that are true for every generation and every culture? On July 16, 1978, I took a vow, and continue to take that vow annually in our Presbytery, which speaks to the issue of Church Polity. Why is it that any one who opposes the ordination of women as deacons is labled as following some 'manmade' idea(see Alex Diaz comments above.)

Why don't people read the Book of Church Order before joining the PCA?! If there are things you don't agree with, then join a church with views similar to your own. That's right! Step out, take advantage of the freedom of religion that we (at present) have!
There's a church on every corner with different persuasions...that's what they're there for!
I also have different views than the PCA on some things, i.e. the Apostolic Age. I personally believe that the "gifts of the Spirit" are for today. But I joined the PCA, 3 years ago, knowing this, and I have no agenda or intent to change anything nor would I even approve of starting an exploratory committee on the subject.
You must understand, THE PCA IS A UNIQUE MINORITY OF MINORITIES. If you want to change something why not join those who already have instead of creating new divisions?

When Paul and Peter address the structure of the family, and as that structure is confirmed elsewhere in scripture, is it not true that, under God, it is the husband who is held responsible for the spiritual well being of his family, and is this not the underlying
principle upon which men and not women are to hold office in the church?

Many of us have wives more spiritual, more theologically sound, more sensitive to the needs of others, and more efficient at getting a job done than we do as their husbands. Not only that, but it is a fact of our male nature that when we as husbands fail to meet our responsibilities and when our wives fill the void, we are more than happy to back a way and let them take over our responsibility.

Let a wife assume responsibility for the spiritual well being of the children and her husband by nature will take a back seat. Let a wife be an officer in the church and her husband by nature will take a back seat.

The distressing thing about this “deaconess” issue is that it comes at a time when, instead of looking for loopholes to avoid a basic Biblical principle, our emphasis should be on exhorting husbands to be the spiritual head of their household and, when called upon, to serve as an officer of the church.

Michael,
Your comment seems astoundingly New Age to me. In other words, "just pick and select the church that matches your theological truth of the moment and change if not happy. Just let me live with my truth and I will let you live with your truth". Have we so much forgotten Paul's admonition to the Corinthians? This looks so much like American consumerism. Say all you want about the poor health of European churches, they at least avoid the multiple splittings American churches are known for. If we are serious about being One body of Christ, then we need to keep dialoguing and stuying our bibles and strive to solve our divergences, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, until we understand the Truth. Even if the full understanding will wait until the Last Day. Even if it keeps us out of our comfort zone and settled ruts.

there is now therefore no male nor female in Christ Jesus. That says it all.

I am tempted to ask MLB, "Then, does this mean I may be a girl?" But being the respectful person that I am, I won't. I will simply point out that this is a misuse of that text. As the note in the New Geneva Study Bible says, "Indeed, no human distinctions avail as advantages in the matter of salvation. Paul does not obliterate these distinctions, such as those between the sexes, but indicates they give no preferential status in terms of our union with Christ."

Seriously, if we are going to keep debating the same old stuff generation after generation, are we ever going to be able to say, "Thus saith the Lord?" Or are we forever consigned to say, "At present, the consensus seems to be that...?"

Having served as a TE in four Presbyterian denominations (PCUS, PCUSA, EPC, PCA) and now serving as a RE in a PCA congregation, I've heard this issue debated from numerous perspectives. The only perspective that should concern us in the PCA is the perspective of Scripture.

Both sides of this issue need to keep in mind that it is possible to compromise Scripture for the sake of tradition, and it is possible to compromise Scripture for the sake of culture.

I tend to side with the "no women as deacons" camp. However, it disturbs me that some others in this camp are so quick to dismiss the possibility that their view has been shaped more by tradition and less by Scripture. We should always be willing to have our views challenged by those who attempt to make a biblical argument. If in the end we are not convinced that their argument holds merit biblically, then we can and should reject it. Even then, we should do so respectfully and without impugning the motives of those who disagree with us.

I have a GENUINE question, gentlemen, seriously! What does ordination signify? I mean is it merely symbolic in nature or is it substantive also?

What I mean is this: if a deaconess is allowed to do the same things, having the same authorities and responsibilities as an ordained male deacon except that the former does not have the title of being ordained, it would seem to me that ordination is merely a symbolic act—to symbolize male headship--but not substantive. If this is allowed, then by the same token, can we not also argue that a woman may also "rule" and "teach" and "preach" as long as she is not ordained?

But if ordination does have more substance to it, then isn't "commissioned but not ordained deaconess" in violation of the very principle of ordination for church officers?

Also, can we look that this issue from this following perspective: when men are ordained to become church officers, they need to go through a serious and solemn process of pre-ordination training---well, at least it is the case in our denomination and in most NAPARC churches, I believe. Ordination, in this regard, is necessary for "quality control", so to speak. If a male church officer holds a certain unconventional theological view and takes exceptions to our Confession, there is at least a mechanism to find out. But what about those who are unordained or non-ordinable but are allowed to serve in the same capacity and manner as the ordained ones? They do not need to or have the opportunity to go through the "quality control" procedure? What mechanism is there in the church to ensure that these unordained women are qualified to serve then?

Furthermore, we FORMALLY train men before accepting them to the diaconate. This is to say we regard diaconate as a holy office. It is not just any job that whoever is willing or has the time and capabilities for go for. The workers need to be trained first. It therefore seems problematic to me if some take on the duties by having to go through formal training, while others can just learn to do the job by way of osmosis?

But one argues that the same TRAINING process can also be given to the women, minus only the ORDINATION part, then, it goes back to my first question--would it not mean that being ordained is nothing but an empty title?

Leaving the exegesis issue aside and arguing purely from the perspective of practical consistency, it would seem that if we want women to serve as deaconess, we should ordain them also; if we do not ordain women to diaconate, we should not allow them to serve in the capacity of the deacons either. The middle ground might solve some problems but it seems to me that it creates a lot of other more serious problems.

Michael, The issue of how the church views women did indeed cause me to hesitate when I was considering joining a PCA church. In the end, I knew I would never find a denomination that I agreed with 100 percent, short of creating my own denomination.

Your suggestion that we leave the PCA and find a different denomination that we agree with is not helpful. It's not biblical to tell those who have questions and concerns to just get up and leave the rest of you alone.

None of us has a perfect understanding of Scripture, and a perfect interpretation. That's why we should keep the dialogue open, frank, and respectful.

I second what Mr. Swain said.

Our Presbytery (Western Canada) don’t all think the PCA should have women deacons, nor did we even have a formal discussion of the idea. A brother simply asked us to support Philadelphia Presbytery’s overture, and with some dissent the overture was adopted, because it asked for study of Scripture.

For my part, I disagree with women in the office of deacon or deaconess on two Scriptural bases, besides other concerns.

First, Rom. 16:1 – Out of over 60 uses in the NT of the word and its cognates referring to a huge variety of people and situations, Rom. 16:1 is the only one where the word “diakonos” refers to a female. The others refer to Christ, the Holy Spirit, angels, a servant, Paul, Onesiphorus, Philemon, believers, OT prophets, Barnabas, the law, Archippus, Timothy, civil authorities, Apollos, Tychichus, Epaphrus, and Satan’s servants. These clearly do not all hold the office of deacon in Christ’s church. On the basis of interpreting less clear references by clearer references, such as 1 Tim. 3:12 requiring deacons to be men (“andres”, male gender) of one wife, it is precarious to insist that the one instance in Rom. 16:1 must refer to an officer.

Second, Acts 6:3-6 – In this formative passage on which we base the office of deacon, we might have thought of women as suitable, or even of women exclusively, due to the presenting issue of how the church cared for her widows. Yet even though the new representatives and administrators of the Lord’s mercy through his church were chosen to help women facing poverty and racial discrimination, the Holy Spirit twice uses the same specific word “andres”, male gender, vss 3 and 5. This is consistent with the authority the deacons would have to exercise in distinguishing the genuine from the phony, and in making decisions affecting the lives and work of individuals and families.

If a Session feels the need for more members of the congregaton to help the deacons in their ministry, perhaps they would do well to adopt the rather overlooked provision of our constitution (BOCO 9:7). This gives the Session of a church the latitude to appoint godly men and women to assist the deacons in caring for those in need, if Session deems it expedient.

A traditional translation of 1 Timothy 3:11 reads, "Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things".

Unfortunately, it is an interpretation, not a translation.

In the first place, the word "their" does not exist in the original. It is inserted because the translators did not think women could be deacons.

Secondly, the word translated "wives" is much broader; actually it means "women". Again, the translators applied their theological views, rather than leaving the Bible to speak for itself.

In the middle of his discussion of who should be deacons, Paul wrote: "Likewise the women must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things". On the face of it, he allows that women may be deacons. It certainly requires theological argument to limit that to deacon's wives.

Given that they even referred to that text, the claim of Central Georgia Presbytery that "there is no legitimate theological dispute concerning who may be ordained as a deacon" comes across to me as an...unjustified attack on those who disagree with them. I for one find it ...offensive.

For what it's worth, personally I didn't "join" the PCA as just one offering on the American ecclesiastical smörgåsbord. I was baptized as an infant nearly 40 years ago in the RPCES, which subsequently joined and was received into the PCA.

The 1976 Majority Report on the Role of Women in the RPCES recommended in favor of the ordination of women to the diaconate, though the RPCES already had allowed women to serve in a non-ordained, commissioned diaconal role for many years. While a substantial number of pastors and elders voted in favor of the recommended change in polity, it fell short of the majority needed to pass in General Synod - though ordination of women to the diaconate was the majority view in at least a couple Presbyteries.

What that means practically is that when the PCA received the RPCES in 1982, it received the RPCES as a body including a large minority who disagreed with PCA polity on women and the diaconate (perhaps even a majority of the RPCES, if the non-ordained deaconess position is deemed out of accord with the PCA BCO). So, in my experience in the RPCES and PCA, such dissent has always been among the usual exceptions taken to PCA polity, even if church officers agree to abide by the letter of the BCO for the sake of submission and peace, until practice can perhaps be changed through the established means available.

So, given the history, I'm astonished that it is a surprise to anyone in the PCA that the issue of women in the diaconate has come to the surface afresh. The issue, after all, has always been a live one for many folks in the PCA.

And now, especially for those ministering in certain contexts, the issue is more urgent since what many believe to be unbiblical and unhistorical strictures on women's service have become for them barriers to gospel ministry. So I can understand easily why the issue would arise in a more pressing way now that the PCA is growing and thriving, especially in urban, educated contexts, when biblical justification for PCA practice perhaps seems untenable to those find themselves in the position of defending it.

I do think some degree of patience and flexibility is necessary on all sides for the PCA to actually wrestle through this issue on scriptural grounds - rather than simply clinging to the default position in a sort of cultural conservatism or rushing headlong into whatever suits the wider cultural moment (neither of which extreme may draw the clear and necessary line between biblical teaching and human tradition).

If, at the end of a process, differences prove intractable, then perhaps some kind of separation of churches (or even presbyteries) may have to occur. But as someone raised in the PCA and with a lot of history in it and affection for it, I don't see any reason to rush to that finish line.

Hey, Eve, even if you created your own denomination, you might have trouble. Consider the following:

A presbyterian was stranded on a desert island. One of the first things he did was to build a church. Several years later, a ship came and rescued the man. The ship's captain, viewing the "village," noticed two churches, one new-ish and the other run-down. The captain asked the man about the run-down church. The presbyterian replied, "Oh, that's the church I used to go to."

Mike J.--HAHAHAHAHA! Good one. A Presbyterian with a sense of humor. You are a rare jewel.

Also: doesn't our denomination say somewhere that confessions and councils are not infallible, and make provision for discussion and revision?

And back to Mike in Chicago: we go to the same church, brother. I'll see you on Sunday, and we can take it outside.

I am totally going to have to blog about this. http://greenroomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Just an observation, but I have been in several different PCA churches and have seen some pretty big differences in the role of the deacons. In some churches the deacons' duties don't go beyond mowing the lawn in the summer, shoveling the walk in the winter, collecting and counting the offering, and changing the light bulbs when they get burned out: Hardly roles that represent spiritual authority in any way. In other churches I have seen deacons who really serve as undershepherds in collaboration with the elders. They are spiritual men helping to set the vision of the church as the session consults with them, particularly on issues pertaining to the physical needs of the congregation. Deacons lead home groups, they provide leadership to the missions committee, they help direct outreach efforts (hmm, deacons doing evangelism, sounds almost like Phillip and Stephen). Which is not to say they are the junior elders (or the JV squad!). Though there is no doubt an overlap in the gifting and callings of both groups, I believe there should be a difference in the types of men called to each office. In some ways, the elders are called to represent Christ’s mind and words, while the deacons are called to represent His hands and heart (though all these aspects are never truly separated).

Another observation: I am disturbed by the lack of graciousness displayed by many on this board who are against a study committee. “If you don’t like it, leave”?! One of the questions I was asked during ordination was, “Why is the BCO in a three-ring binder?” The answer is because it is not a monolithic dissertation on how things were, are, and ever more shall be. The Bible doesn’t change. BCO is designed to.

And for those saying that debating women’s ordination as deacons is akin to a debate over adding the Gospel of Thomas into the cannon, I would suggest this is the same argument as those who say there is no way to distinguish a Playboy from Michelangelo’s David. Sometimes it is hard to define precisely, but there is a difference, and it is an insult to our faithful brethren who have diligently searched the scriptures and come to this conclusion. We are not talking about egalitarianism (as someone unhelpfully suggested in quoting from Galatians 3:28), but biblically faithful complementarianism.

Personally, I am against changing our current practices in this regard, but I am not yet sure how I will vote on the question of forming a study committee. Ignoring the fact that the debate already exists will not solve anything. And I am not eager to come down on the side of those saying we don’t need to study the Bible anymore to know what all the answers are.

What do you have when you have 2 Scots? A Presbyterian Church. What do you have when you have 3 Scots? 2 Presbyterian Churches.

Just wondering how many of you in favor of women in the diaconate would also pursue women in the pastorate.
Also, believe it or not, there are going to be believers from other denominations in heaven!
How pompous and arrogant to think that the PCAers have it the most correct.
My pastor remarked how in America, a denomination lasts about 30 years before there is a split. There is obviously one on the horizon between the liberals in the metropolitan areas and the [more rural] conservatives.

I am in agreement with Central Georgia Presbytery that this issue not be studied. I believe the question has already been settled in Scripture and the Confession is correct. This may just be an effort to get the Camel's nose under the tent. Caution!!!!!!

I spoke against my good friends and brothers and voted in the minority on the overture from our presbytery. What does the Bible teach us? History, tradition and culture all push on us and impact our thinking but as believers and as leaders in the church the question is always, "What does the Bible teach us." There are a lot of good reasons to ask this question about this issue now. We can trust the Holy Spirit to guide a process where the leaders of the church, who desire the honor of the Savior, make a fair and informed inquiry into the central question. There is no need to hurry but there is no fear in truly being a church that rests faith and practice on the Bible.

As a Presbyterian of what must be a more liberal theological mindset, and having been raised under the banner of 'the priethood of all believers' (paraphrased from Martin Luther), the idea that women in some Presbyterian Churches would not be permitted to be deacons (or elders or pastors) seems like an idea out of distant past. I don't believe that 'all believers' somehow casts women believers to be the lesser of male believers.

Christ called us all to serve and we should accept and encourage all who are qualified to serve to the best of their abilities. Let all who have the calling and the ability to be deacons and elders and pastors come forth and serve their church and Christ to the fullest extant that they can, whether they be male or female.

The following is an attempt at providing a few answers to some of the reasons that are being put forward in support of erecting a "study committee" to examine whether the PCA should begin formally ordaining or commissioning female deacons.

Q. Isn't it about time the PCA examined whether we should ordain women to the diaconate?

A. Actually, the PCA examined the issue of deaconesses when they were initially formed. You see the denomination they came out of, the PCUS, decided to begin ordaining women to that office in 1964 and amended their own Book of Church order to reflect that. Nine years later, when the PCA was formed, much of their book of church order was taken verbatim from the PCUS book of church order, so at that point the PCA could have simply adopted the existing practice of the PCUS and continued to elect and ordain women deacons. This practice, however, was rejected.

Additionally, in 1982 when the PCA joined and received the RPCES they merged with a denomination that already had an office of "non-ordained" deaconesses, and yet the understanding was that the RPCES would conform to the PCA BCO on this point, and not vice versa.

In 1973 the PCA determined that sessions could select and appoint godly women of the congregation to assist the Deacons in their work, and in this a clear avenue was created for women who wish to formally serve the church to minister to the needs of others. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the PCA is preventing women from serving the church, even in regards to diaconal care. Historically though, the controversy is not about having opportunities to serve, it is about whether women may hold ordained office in the church.

Q. What harm could possibly come from erecting a study committee to examine the issue?

A. Rightly understood, study committee's are erected in order to analyze and report from a biblical and constitutional point of view regarding an issue that is now before the church and about which there is confusion. So, for instance, when society goes through a change and begins to do things that it had not done before, or when the advent of new technology, particularly in the field of medicine creates new ethical dilemmas, it is right for us to appoint study committees to help determine the teaching of the bible on these issues and thus the course of the church. The issue of women deacons, however, is not a new issue before the church, it has been before us for almost two thousand years, and the relevant scriptures have been examined again and again. In fact, one of our sister NAPARC denominations, the OPC, examined this issue from 1984 to 1988 finally ruling that the biblical data indicates that "women are not to be ordained as deacons."

Additionally, the very wording of the overture does not indicate that the emphasis is on objectively finding out what scripture teaches regarding this subject, but specifically requests that the members of the study committee would be "representative of various positions within the PCA with respect to women’s involvement in Diaconal ministry." In this the drafters indicate that what they foresee is that a group of men with their minds already made up on this issue would be assembled and then presumably defend their positions in print and produce at the very least a minority report supporting their positions. Given this approach, it would be better simply to call for an up or down vote on the assembly floor and forgo the time and cost of study committee erected simply to frame position papers.

This request of the drafters actually throws light on the real heart of the matter; historically requests for study committees to examine the issue of women's ordination have not been motivated by any genuine uncertainty regarding the issue, but rather because an egalitarian bloc has formed within the church that feels that it is unfair to continue to bar women from ordained ministry. This bloc knows that time is on their side and that if enough requests to form a study committee on the issue are made, they will eventually succeed in their quest. So, for instance, in the PCUS repeated attempts to "study" the issue were put forward and repeatedly declined by the assembly, but despite these losses the egalitarians eventually prevailed.

It would also seem to be highly odd for us to begin examining this question when we voted decisively to eject the CRC from NAPARC over the issue of women's ordination and have refused to admit the EPC on the same grounds.

Q. But haven't other Presbyterian denominations had deaconesses?

A. Yes, but in most cases the denomination in question voted to do so at a time when they were going through a period of theological declension and the vote was usually provoked by a desire to follow the lead of the culture and not scripture, this was true of the PCUS, PCUSA, and UPCNA. Many denominations, such as the RPCNA that have subsequently reversed their theological decline and returned to a more orthodox footing are now taking serious steps towards eliminating the office of deaconess from their polity.

Q. But what if someone is really convinced that scripture teaches that we should ordain Deaconesses?

A. Then I would ask you to seriously consider whether a bare handful of verses whose meaning is subject to debate, and the strongest of which is the greeting in Romans 16:1, really are enough to convince anyone strongly one way or another rather than merely providing tenuous support for what they would prefer. In any event, there are several reformed denominations that already allow for the ordination of women and that moving to join them would not be difficult. Certainly this would seem to be a more equitable solution than forcing those Presbyters who are convinced that scripture does not teach or allow the ordination of women to accept a radical change in our polity that goes directly against our conscience.

Q. Didn't B.B. Warfield support the ordination of Deaconesses?

A. It is true that Warfield wrote in support of the ordination of women to the diaconate, but we should remember that even great theologians make mistakes. Warfield, for instance, also believed in the theory of theistic evolution. One would hope that this doesn't indicate the need for a study committee to examine theistic evolution. Additionally, it is worth noting that while Warfield argued for the ordination of women only to the office of Deaconess, which his denomination, the PCUSA approved of in 1922, they also voted to ordain them to the office of Elder a scant 8 years afterwards. As noted above, history teaches us that with few exceptions, once women's ordination to the office of deacon is approved of, a vote to ordain women to the office of elder inevitably follows and is usually a sign that the denomination in question is declining into liberalism.

Finally, it is easy to produce any number of Reformed theologians who have opposed the ordination of women to the office of Deacon, which should be further evidence that this is not an issue that needs "further study". The study has already been done time and again, and new verses are not appearing in scripture that need to be reviewed. The issue is over whether the majority of presbyters still oppose women's ordination as they did in years past or whether the majority now support women's ordination.

Mr. Webb
I noticed that Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney was quoted with admiration by someone who left a comment on byFaith a couple of years back. Another person answered the comment by pointing out that Dabney was a proponent of slavery. I went to my church library to check it out for myself. There I found a thick volume of Dabney's work, and reading it, confirmation that he did indeed favor slavery. As I continued to browse the volume, a member of my church, a gentleman, inquired about why I was consulting Dabney. When I told him, I added, "I'm sure Dabney was blinded by his time in history, and that we can still appreciate his work and teaching apart from his error." But, the gentleman in the library would have none of it! He informed me "There's no doubt the bible supports slavery." When I later told one of our ministry team about the incident in the library, he assured me that the PCA has recognized that slavery is wrong. This came as a great relief to me, but I still wonder how many people there are, in the PCA closet, who quietly continue to sympathize with Dabney's pro-slavery view. Intelligent people with a high regard for scripture can skillfully make a case for slavery, or for the divine right of kings, or any number of other views. While I deplore much of what our culture celebrates, I think our culture is right to reject slavery, the divine right of kings, and discrimination against women. I don't care how many Reformed theologians you can find who oppose the ordination of women to the office of deacon. As you pointed out, Mr. Webb, "even great theologians make mistakes".

The PCA denomination recognizes slavery is wrong.

What has that to do with the ordaining or commissioning of deaconesses?

What has the divine right of kings to do with recognizing deaconesses?

If we do enter "dialogue" or study the matter let's not go to the straw man arguments of slavery, divine right of kings, discrimination, etc.

How about a transgendered person, changed from woman to man? Deacon ready candidate?

The issue is the BCO and how THIS denomination interpretes Scripture.

I doubt that any candidate for deacon in this denomination that has or had slaves would have been considered in 1973.

As far as discrimination. Yes, Scripture discriminates as to who should hold an office in the church.

The disobediance to these instructions leads to cultural Christianity and watered down doctrine. I submit as evidence: Episcopal, Methodists, PCUS, Luthren, UniversalChurch of Christ, the Progressive Christianity movement as notable denominations and organizations to explore.

Google up the wesites or better still the blogs that subscribe to these humanistic ideals. Then go back to the statements of faith that exsisted when the denominations were founded....interesting comparison of doctrine.

Peace.

Mr. Webb said,

"Additionally, the very wording of the overture does not indicate that the emphasis is on objectively finding out what scripture teaches regarding this subject, but specifically requests that the members of the study committee would be "representative of various positions within the PCA with respect to women’s involvement in Diaconal ministry." In this the drafters indicate that what they foresee is that a group of men with their minds already made up on this issue would be assembled and then presumably defend their positions in print and produce at the very least a minority report supporting their positions. Given this approach, it would be better simply to call for an up or down vote on the assembly floor and forgo the time and cost of study committee erected simply to frame position papers."

Mr. Webb--Some people on both sides--or, more accurately, all sides, because there are more than two--have made up their minds. Do you think that people generally inclined to be opposed to women deacons are more likely to be open-minded in their study of Scripture than those generally inclined to be in favor of it? Why?

Not to open old wounds, but it brings to my mind the recent committee to examine the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. It was a one-sided committee, and a one-sided process, with a foregone conclusion. (I don't have enough information to have formulated an opinion on that topic--but I do recognize a flawed process when I see one.)

Why is "process" a dirty word? Why is cost an issue? Or time, for that matter?