Mr. Greco is correct, the BCO is clear that the offices of the church are for ordained men, but we know that councils do err.

Perhaps the General Assembly did err in refusing to appoint a committee to study the
inerrant Word.

We are very disappointed.

If we refuse to define the role of women in regard to the diaconate, the we may be under utilizing an untapped wealth of spiritual gifts in the church. I believe that it is a bit unreasonable to not at least entertain the idea of a study committee on this issue.

This is indeed very sad. Men who are trusted to lead, trusted to shepherd - are led more by their fear than by faith. They cling to the Book of Church Order with a Pharisee's zeal, and quench the working of the Spirit of God. This is the hallmark of a dying denomination.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus enable all Christians to be more capable of honestly discussing difficult issues without rancor, for God's glory!

I'm afraid the "rising generation of PCA leaders" all following in the footsteps of the former PCA City Church of San Francisco. The WCOF has been unambiguous for several centuries. Good theology doesn't change just because the culture does. I thank God that the GA affirmed our constitution - this time.

I am saddened that the General Assembly voted against the overture. Sister denominations, such as the ARP, already ordain women as Deacons. We should be willing to consider their understandings of Scripture and their practices. I agree that the issue needs to be discussed in an honest, dispassionate way that is focused on the teachings of Scripture, but we also need to approach the Scriptures with the best exegetical tools that we have at our disposal and with minds that are aware of traditional interpretations, but ready to listen to and prayerfully weigh new suggestions for applications of the Scriptures to our present time. The church always needs to be open to new insights, new arguments from the Scriptures with humility, remembering that each one of us is blinded to some degree because of our remaining sinfulness.

I agree it's time for an amendment for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I fear that the feminist movement has gotten us confused about gender roles not only in the church, but in our families and society as well. Similarly to the body analogy in 1 Corinthians, just because my hand cannot become my mouth, it doesn't mean it is without importance in my body. There are certain things women cannot (or should not) do in the church, but women are still important in the church. The same can be said of men in certain contexts as well.

I'm very glad the GA upheld Scripture, and the secondary standards.

I totally agree with Deborah. The GA did the right thing--to the Glory of God.

Determining that the BCO has already addressed this issue is not rejecting Scripture. The BCO is based on Scripture. Just because feminist movements declare that the issue should be studied again doesn't mean we have to do it. Thank God for men who are brave enough to say that the studying has been done. Women do serve and can continue to serve and they don't have to be deaconesses to do it. As a woman, I am happy with GA's decision.

I ask this question out of an honest need for understanding, as I do not know enough about the issue to have an opinion regarding deaconesses. I am wondering if someone could briefly explain what women will NOT be allowed to do without holding the actual office of deaconess.

I agree with Brandon Meeks' comment above that we are ALL the body of Christ but we cannot and should not be the SAME parts. Being ordained as a deacon in the PCUSA church as a teen in 1974 - even then and especially now, I felt as though I was selected BECAUSE I was a female and a teenager. Women play major roles in my church and we are very loved, appreciated and respected! I am thankful the GA did not accept the overture.

I agree that the issue is rightly settled in the WCOF and BCO however I don't feel that this means that we cannot review and reflect upon it when there is a group who question it. Much like the Federal Vision issue i feel that healthy debate and discussion can only clarify and help those that are undecided to find clarity. Those that are already decided may become more strident but we should not fear that. Perhaps they will either change or move on. Healthy vines are encouraged through pruning.

I respectfully disagree with my brothers who squelched this discussion though I appreciate their motives.

The issue for us now is the correct appropriation of Heb 13:17.

The assembly vote to not even allow this issue to be worked through scripturally by very capable men just boggles the mind. A study committee would at least allow denomination-wide study on how the PCA can better include women in diaconal ministry. Those who believe ordination to the office of deacon is out of question for a woman are so hung up on that issue that they fail to see the need for the PCA to finally realize just how badly it is failing our women. By just choking off discussion--and solution--on how the PCA can better use the incredible gifts our women have to offer in mercy ministries, along side our deacons, we just perpetuate the chasm that exists. Too bad for us.

1 Timothy 3:12 clearly states,"Let deacons be the husband of one wife, ..." So, if someone will show how a woman can be the husband of one wife, then we will change our mind.

I believe that this issue was looked at and studied thoroughly when the PCA split from the PCUSA in 1973. This is not an issue of loving or not loving women in the church. This is an issue of Scripture. I agree with the GA's decision.

Some brothers need to consider carefully what they are saying in terms of long term implications. One writes: "I agree it's time for an amendment for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." So then, does that mean women should also be ordained as ruling elders? as teaching elders? The same apostle who wrote that also gave us the requirements for elder (and deacon), making it clear that despite our spiritual unity in Christ, there remains a functional difference: only males can be ordained to office (1 Tim 3).

It seems that we have forgotten that the Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. It appears what is expedient is what is right!

I'm pleased that the committee of commissioners rejected the overture and that the GA agreed. What bothers me is that the vote was so close as the issue is clearly not something that is ambiguous. Women can already serve in very important ways in the church. Creating "ordained" positions for them is not necessary and in no way diminishes their work.

Rom. 16:1 -- "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a 'deaconess' of the church at Cenchreae...."

Exegetically, I favor deaconesses, but I don't think we should "install" (rather than ordain) them as some have done in what seems to me to rather clearly violate the spirit of the BCO.

Instead, I'd recommend what my diaconate has tried to do: involve as many non-ordained men and women as possible in "diaconal work," viz. sympathy and service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people (BCO 7-2; 9-1). I think all parties in the deaconess debate would agree that all congregants should be involved in caring for and serving others, so there's some common ground. Here's a summary of what we tried to do to make that a reality.

Our diaconate was spread over many service areas. We were caring for people in our church who needed assistance due to illness, new babies, etc.; caring for the poor and homeless in our area via a telephone helpline and a weekly breakfast in a park; and holding worship services at a nearby nursing home and assisted living facility. We were also serving the congregation by caring for the church property (fixing doors and toilets, organizing work-days and maintaining and improving the grounds beyond what our lawn care service does, etc.); serving in essential capacities such as parking, ushering, optimal setup of sanctuary chairs, etc. And then there's the finances, which at the time, was under the session by their choice, but which has since been passed to the our deacons along with the team the elders had established to run it.

In short, we had a lot going, not a lot of deacons (8-10ish), a lot of fatigue, and not much success in recruiting for obvious reasons.

To ease the burden without stifling the good work that God was doing through us, we worked to recruit people to teams that handled each of these service areas (some of the teams were already in existence ad hoc). The teams came up with their own structure and guidelines, which, along with its leaders, were approved by the diaconate. Each team had its own budget, which were line-items in the total diaconal budget but which the team leaders alone were responsible to manage. We also added a mandatory sabbatical program -- officers serve for a three year term, then can serve for another three year term at their option, but then must take a year of sabbatical before returning to service. (I'm currently on sabbatical myself.)

On the whole this was an effective strategy for us. Best of all, it accomplished the goal of getting more people -- men and women, and even kids -- involved in what is commonly considered diaconal work. The essential element of being a deacon, we realized, is not personally fulfilling our responsibilities, but rather being responsible for seeing that these things get done so that the session can focus on shepherding and the like. This insight allowed us to empower non-ordained people (importantly for this discussion, men and women) to exercise their gifts in serving others.

This, I think, is a non-controversial way to address this problem. I would still like to see women be ordained as deaconesses someday because I think the BCO is mistaken in its restriction on that count. But in the meanwhile, we can (and should!) make it easy for all congregants to be active in serving their neighbors by doing "diaconal work."

I am a woman who is intimately involved in mercy ministries at my church. I do not see not being ordained as a deacon to be a hindrance to ministry. As women we have ample opportunities to minister to one another under the authority that is set forth in the church. In my experience most deacons and elders welcome women coming alomgside them to help with mercy matters, especially those involving women. We (women) are so blessed to have the opportunity (and mandate) to minister to the next generation of women in our churches and this, in my opinion, is where our focus ought to be. Praise be to God that we are a body with each member having different functions yet one goal- the Glory of God and the good of our neighbor.

Tary Medberry requested above that "someone ... briefly explain what women will NOT be allowed to do without holding the actual office of deaconess."

In the PCA, the office of deacon is one of sympathy and service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people (BCO 7-2; 9-1). The Book of Church Order identifies several areas of responsibility (9-2):

1. To minister to those who are in need, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress (e.g., widows, orphans, prisoners, the sick, etc.).

2. To develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these gifts among the objects to which they are contributed.

3. To care for the property of the congregation and to keep in proper repair the buildings belonging to the congregation.

4. Deacons may be appointed trustees of the funds of the entire church (BCO 9-5), though they are not always.

The essence of deaconing is being responsible for making sure these tasks are accomplished in a godly manner in order to offload the work from the session. Being a deacon does not mean that the deacons themselves must personally do all of these things. For instance, a church might employ a handy church member, a lawn service, or a salaried custodian to help keep the property in good repair. Likewise, they might utilize various means for accomplishing the other tasks.

If they have accomplished their assigned tasks in a godly manner, then they have offloaded these tasks so that the session needn't worry about them. If the tasks are not suitably accomplished, the blame lands at the feet of the deacons since they were their assigned responsibility. Those who are not ordained (including women) can bear such responsibility only indirectly. Indeed, the deacons themselves have only been delegated responsibility in these matters by the session, and in the absence of deacons, the responsibility would devolve back onto the session itself.

It's analogous to a corporate situation where a manager or executive is responsible for things getting done by his subordinates. If the subordinates fail, the manager/executive bears the blame. To press the analogy, women are prevented from being both executives (elders) and middle management (deacons) by the corporate bylaws (the BCO). In my opinion, only the former is justified biblically, but that is a different question.

Simply citing 1 Tim 3 is misleading. Since it was only men who could have more than one wife and not the other way around, the marital requirement for men simply doesn't address the issue of women serving as deaconesses. On the other hand, a number of women are identified in scripture as holding this office. Further discussion and study by our denominaton is in order.

Thank you, men of the GA, for standing firm in upholding God's Word. The rewards for obedience are great.

Indeed it is good to discuss these things, but always in light of God's Word. We ladies already have plenty to do in the church, and in some regards can be considered 'deaconesses', although the roll is significantly different from that of our men and not an elected position. I find it liberating to be in a submissive roll to the elders and deacons. The decision of GA was appropriate.

If exegesis and reasoned study were to help us understand and submit to Scripture, we would long ago have set aside our guns in this debate. Obviously study papers can't answer the real issues. What GA can address but has not is the latitude noncompliant churches ought to have. Ignoring practices only increases tension in Presbyteries and congregations. We need courageous, unwaffling counsel one way or the other. Pastorally, GA also needs to positively address the roles of women. Most current denominational resources are dated or inadequate. Women, especially young women, hear so much about this one negative and those nasty male leaders in domination that they are poisoned and miss the vital leadership roles we need them to fill.

I agree with the GA's decision and believe that women in the church can serve and their gifts be used without ordination. We are called to serve and to do so to the Glory of God, with or without title, amle or female. I pray we do not let feminism cause more confusion than it already has.

Arleen Blackstone quotes 1 Tim 3:12 and asks how a woman can be the husband of but one wife. That is an interesting observation, but it fails to look at the whole passage. Paul continues on to list the qualifications of a "deacons wife". The phrase is also able to be translated as deaconess. Note that in discussing the qualifications of an elder that an elders wife is not referred to. Surely the wife of an elder would have to have some qualifications? It is more likely that Paul is addressing deaconesses, not the wife of a deacon.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there are some VALID scriptural arguments on each side and in this case the GA has erred by choosing to avoid the issue.
Also, refer to the writings of Pliny the younger and you will see that unambiguously the early church ordained deaconesses. That is within a couple of years (years not decades) of the death of the last apostle, we know for certain that deaconesses were ordained.

As a RE Commissioner at the 36th GA it would have been good to have had this study committee discussion at this level of the PCA, as there are pastors and churches in the PCA that are or feel strongly on this matter. In our church we follow the BCO,but this does not inhibit women from doing ministry in situations that supports the Deacons such as Comfort & Care Ministry, Stephen's Ministry, and jointly in the Mercy & Needs Ministry of a minority church in Raleigh on Saturdays. Both men and women not in church leadership voluntarily can carry out the Lord's Work using their abilities and interests to the Glory of our God as Jesus did 2000 years ago.

It has become increasingly a disappointment to me that recommendations to look at issues of the role of Women in the Church becomes so polarized that to support and promote discussion identifies you as a Femminist and to hold fast to BCO marks you as an unbending Pharisee.
I do think that our denomination is largely influenced by the Victorian values of the 19th century and not necessarily the scriptural view of Male and Female. While I would have been happy to see the overture supported, we can and will to continue to train Godly men to exposit the scriptures and teach the true Love of God for both Men and Women. The truth will lessen the fear that seems to permeate these discussions. In Christ, we do not need to fear questions.

Notice what has become of the PCUSA. It is what it is because the PCUSA turns its back on the authority of scripture so that even now Jesus as the only way to salvation is open for question. Please do not walk down this road. Once the authority of scripture is in doubt where will it lead? Observe the PCUSA and learn from it.

What action was taken on Overture 19?

Most of the English-speaking PCA churches in the NYC area already have "deaconesses," and I doubt that will change unless the GA does something to prohibit them expressly. Also, the NY-area PCA churches are growing very rapidly (for reasons unrelated to the role of women), so if the PCA does not take action to reaffirm the prohibition on deaconesses, the pro-deaconess position may become the majority in a few years. Just saying "the existing BCO is clear" might not be enough.

I have never met a ruling or teaching elder who does not agree that the WCF is subordinate to the Scripture, but in practice it seems to be the other way around.

It seems to me this decision essentially says that, in practice, BCO and the Westminster Standards are considered by the majority of General Assembly as being on the same level as Scripture.

My concern is the push for women to be recognized as leaders in the church. That is our sinful desire to lead men. Many women glorified God in a lesser role yet did mighty works. We should take their examples and not try to elevate ourselves .

In every church and plant of which I have been a part, this question has been asked sincerely by women and men who want to know how God has designed us to serve as redeemed men and women under His Lordship. Giving these people, whether new believers or more seasoned saints an answer that conveys, "your questions have all been dealt with already, go read BCO" conveys "I don't want to enter into the process with you under Scripture" and does not build trust or confidence in a position taken. Moreover it misses an opportunity for rich biblical reflection in a way that teaches volumes and does in fact build trust in the leader...and in Scripture. The way we have "resolved" this request cannot help but feel to many women as though they have been patted on the shoulder and told not to trouble themselves with this. It must feel to some as though their sincere desire for understanding has been dismissed. It may also feel discouraging to numbers of women and men who hunger for this kind of leadership and for living examples of how we work through our commitment to Scripture together. With respect for the labors of the brothers in the Overture committee we have missed an opportunity, at least at the GA level, to engage in a loving, pastoral process.

I would argue that the handling of the Federal Vision perspective instead of being a pattern to follow is a tragedy to avoid repeating. Auburn Ave. church has now left the denomination and, according to their website, they believe that they were not represented on the study committee or even listened to.

TE Chapell is correct that we need to be willing to discuss difficult issues. We also need to be able and the politically calculating egos at the top may not be the ones to do it. The majority recommendation to have these discussions from the local level up are sound.
Women at my church are not restricted from deaconal ministry even though they are not ordained. Instead they are valued leaders and appreciated ministers (or deacons in the greek :-) ).

There are highly regarded complementarian scholars like Edmund Clowney, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, and Andreas Köstenberger who view Phoebe's role in Romans 16:1 to be more likely "deacon," not "servant." All four also understand gunaikas in 1 Timothy 3:11 as "women deacons," not "wives of deacons." Of course, we shouldn't blindly follow the lead of scholars but perhaps . . . just perhaps this issue isn't as clear cut as many suppose and further dialogue is merited. That it's not going to happen is sad to me.

It is apparent through reading these responses that one issue at stake here is increased division in the church. As a TE in the PCA we call all our members to remember the vows we take... to seek the peace and purity of the church. We seem to be so good at slicing one another up with short comments on the web that we neglect to have any real communication with one another regarding this issue.

For those who didn't hear the discussion on the floor, the tone of competing viewpoints were communicated with great humility and little rancor. We who read these short articles were not able to sit in the hours of discussion of the committee who reviewed and debated this overture.

My Brothers and Sisters do not let the issue of one overture cause divisions among you! One issue is clear, we are all called to continue this discussion with Bible in hand asking the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom to understand and discern what He would have us do in all humility and grace to one another, especially those who disagree with us.

This issue is worth our study, though not currently in a study committee, but surely as the overture says, discussion will continue in our churches and presbyteries. As we ask God to give us wisdom as to how we include women in our ministries of mercy and justice to our cities and towns.

People on both sides of the issue (for and against deaconesses) were part of the minority and majority. Their debate was not whether we study this issue but how we discuss this issue: either through a study committee or pursue study at the local and presbytery level. Not whether we should study this issue!

Pray that God will bring His truth to bear. And more importantly that our application of scripture would promote the peace and purity of the church as we learn to walk alongside each other men and women seeking to see the gospel change us and those around us.

Having signed the minority report, I hope that I can be trusted (somewhat?) to have a perspective that many who were not on the committee studying the issue do not have regarding the health of the PCA. Some of the comments so far suggest hurt feelings because their position did not prevail. To be sure, I was disappointed with the final decision but, other than a handful of less than ideal comments, the elders in that room were respectful and hopeful that God can and will take us through this issue in a manner that best honors Him. The defeat of the overture (or its amended version in the minority position), was NOT a categorical defeat of further discussion on the matter, though some will see it that way. I urge us all to maintain the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace, and pray to that end, to the Glory of our great God!

I resent the infusion of identity politics into the discussion. I am a young ordained man in the PCA and I was opposed to the study committee. Study committees are made up of the who's who in the denomination. By directing the discussion to the presbyteries we all get a say. And there the helpful view of ruling elders is more easily heard. This was a victory for godly prudence, no matter what your opinion of deaconesses is.

I ponder the intention of the Philidelphia Presbytery in bringing this to the GA. Is it women seeking power over men, as was part of the Genesis curse, or is it men cowering from their mandate to lead the church?

As stated by many others earlier, there are plenty of opportunities to serve. Our church is filled with women's willing hands doing the work of the Lord in love. Would a title increase this work? Doubtful. The work may even decrease. It is a matter of the heart. Who are we seeking to glorify? Our answer must remain: God alone.

What’s the bottom line here on changing diaconal roles? Yours may be different but here’s mine. I do not wish to see any debate of this doctrinal issue.

We need to focus on that which is loving and is the best focus of our denominational energies. Engaging this question by our denomination is neither.

The GA had the right outcome. As it may not be a “once and for all” outcome, we truly need to reflect more on the wisdom of having debate at all. Moving forward, we should not.

Didn’t our denomination come from a history that was based, in part, on an interpretation of scripture resulting in our current doctrine and practice? We know scripture can be reinterpreted to a different outcome and the examples are legion.

The canon of scripture is closed so revisiting a question that has been churned again and again can not be reasonably expected to bring new revelation leading to a new consensus.

There is no reason to divide over this when other choices are available. If a local church moves to a different view, there are other denominations that can provide them a fitting denominational home.

If some would say this is “only a study” – let’s not be naive. While I accept all good faith and intentions, a study opens “the question” to the notion that there is “a question” over an issue that has been settled in the past. That’s unnecessarily divisive and can lead to a great deal of pain down the road.

Have the churches and presbyteries that have raised this question really considered, lovingly, the impact for the entire denomination? Will others considering bringing some form of this question forward again, do so in love for the entire denomination?

I pray that would be so.

I am encouraged at the number of insightful comments made here.

What has not been pointed out is that there already is a plethora of materials available on this topic. It is not as if a denomination level committee is necessary in order to clarify previously undiscussed aspects of this subject. So, then what is the underlying reason for only accepting a committee's investigation? Might it be that clarification is not the issue but a desire to begin the process of changing our practice? To me, this seems to be why anything less than a GA initiated study is unacceptable to those already inclined to the change, not because there is a lack of clarity of views.

Phoebe was a "servant" but not necessarily a "deaconess/Servant". One should not argue by assertion without exegetically proving the point.

Geoffrey Parker says above, "The canon of scripture is closed so revisiting a question that has been churned again and again can not be reasonably expected to bring new revelation leading to a new consensus."

He also suggests that churches that come to a conviction that deaconesses are permissible might consider switching denominations rather than pressing for change, which cause division in the PCA.

This seems to me to be in violation of our oath to seek the church's purity and peace. In the first place, he omits the role of the Spirit in illuminating and convicting. The men who wrote the BCO were surely godly, but by their own admission, they were not infallible. They, like us, have blind spots and misunderstandings. Hence, our standards need to be open to correction by the Word. (Consider the acceptable views on creation as an example.)

Ecclesia semper reformata et reformanda est -- the church must be reformed and always reforming (it's "and" not "either/or"). There's a delicate balance here between paper popes and being tossed about by every wind, but if we are to be like the Bereans, we must pursue the difficult path of wise reconsideration. We cannot simply shut down all discussion because a matter was decided long ago. Of course, the more certain a doctrine is (i.e., the higher in one's cone of certainty, as Richard Pratt might put it), the less debate there should be. But deaconesses is an issue where like-minded, godly people disagree exegetically, and that fact alone should make us -- regardless of one's position -- more open to discussion.

That being said, I agree that the study committee would not likely come to any new conclusions, though it may produce a better contextualized expression for each side. The ultimate purpose here seems to be asking the current generation if the BCO should be altered or amended on this count because it goes beyond the Bible. That's not all bad, as we should be open to conforming our practice to the Word, and no matter the answer of that question, all parties should submit to the result for the peace of the church. (That includes not "installing" deaconesses if the answer is to stick with the status quo.)

Moreover, this is not a doctrine on which anyone should split or separate. The church does not stand or fall on deaconesses, and to split here would be to elevate purity above peace, for divisions in the Body are inherently unpeaceful and should only be undertaken for matters of high importance and certitude.

What seem's to be missing in this debate is a comment on the implications of commissioning men and women to do the work of deacons (in lieu of having a board of deacons as defined in the BCO). The Committee on Review of Presbytery Minutes included these words to one of our presbyteries:

"In addition this practice, coupled with the minister's expressed view that he intends not to ordain deacons "until the BCO is amended," denies qualified men their constitutional and biblical right to be considered for office."

What's really at stake is not so much the role of women but whether churches will honor the Scriptures with regard to the office of deacon. Unfortunately some of our congregations are viewing it as optional.

I'd rather wait on a study committee until this practice gets sorted out.

I believe we must be careful about making comments such as "What's really at stake ...[is] whether churches will honor the Scriptures". No one who is asking us to look into this says we should ignore the scriptures. The question is has our interpretation of the Scriptures been correct. As has already been stated many fine New Testament scholars, who are very conservative and evangelical (Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, and Andreas Köstenberger) have argued for women deacons from the scriptures. One of our greatest teachers and preachers, Dr. Ed Clowney himself made the case for women deacons in his excellent book The Church. We may disagree but I think that it is disingenuous to the discussion to say at the beginning "Those who are against women deacons uphold the Scriptures and those in favor of women deacons are against the Scriptures.

Lee,

Thanks for your cautionary statement. I realize that I left myself open to criticism.

When I said, "What's really at stake ...[is] whether churches will honor the Scriptures" I did not intend to impugn anyone who is arguing for deaconesses or for the study committee. I was trying to point out the biblical error of denying the office of deacon to men.

If the PCA has it wrong with regard to deaconesses is the solution to deny the office of deacon to men? Do two wrongs make a right? That's the point I was trying to make, nothing more.