General Assembly Rejects Deaconess Study Committee
On Wednesday, the PCA’s General Assembly voted to reject an overture that recommended forming a study committee to discuss the issue of women deacons. 
“This is not a new area of study,” said Fred Greco (pictured left), who served as the chair of the Overtures Committee, which recommended that the General Assembly dismiss the deaconess overture. “There is plenty of existing material on the subject, and our Book of Church Order is clear [that ordained church officers are to be men].”
Greco also expressed concern that further study of this issue would polarize advocates on either side—causing deepening division in the church.
Bryan Chapell, who presented the minority report on this issue, disagreed.
“We have to listen to one another,” said Chapell, who serves as president of Covenant Theological Seminary. “We have to be willing to talk about difficult things without fear of demoralizing the church. We must get people together in the same room to talk about [difficult issues] in an atmosphere that’s not highly charged.”
The minority report recommended that a committee comprised of theologians on both sides of the issue—including Tim Keller, Phil Ryken, Ligon Duncan, and Jimmy Agan—meet together over the coming year to come to a Scriptural understanding of deaconesses. After an hour of debate and multiple motions from the floor, the minority report was eventually defeated.
Fred Greco urged continued discussion about this issue, but at the local level. “We recommend that the church address these issues constitutionally, through presbyteries working in a local context and raising up amendments for General Assembly. There are venues for this discussion to take place in a less confrontational, more grassroots way.”
Affirming the Minority
During the debate on the floor, a number of commissioners spoke to those in the minority, especially the rising generation of PCA leaders.
“We need to celebrate the young men who want to dive into the PCA and study these issues,” said Mike Khandijan of Chapelgate Presbyterian in Maryland.
“It’s not the issue before us, but how we deal with the issue before us,” said Joe Novenson, of Lookout Mountain Presbyterian in Tennessee. “That’s part of the Reformed tradition, and how we have addressed issues in the past.”
And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”
In the end, a majority of the Assembly voted to follow the recommendation of the Overtures Committee, comprised of 80 ruling and teaching elders, who debated the overture for five and a half hours on Tuesday before making their recommendation to answer Overture 9 in the negative.
(Overture 9, submitted by the Philadelphia Presbytery, recommended that the General Assembly “erect a study committee on deaconesses” to determine whether the election of women to the office of deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order, and to determine more clearly the role of women in diaconal ministry.)
Affirming the Minority
During the debate on the floor, a number of commissioners spoke to those in the minority, especially the rising generation of PCA leaders.
“We need to celebrate the young men who want to dive into the PCA and study these issues,” said Mike Khandijan of Chapelgate Presbyterian in Maryland.
“It’s not the issue before us, but how we deal with the issue before us,” said Joe Novenson, of Lookout Mountain Presbyterian in Tennessee. “That’s part of the Reformed tradition, and how we have addressed issues in the past.”
And another pastor spoke directly to women. “There’s much we need to do—we’re failing to love fully half of the body of Christ,” said Jonathan Inman, pastor of Grace and Peace PCA in Asheville, N.C. “I’m sorry for the ways the church has offended women and often been unaware of it.”
In the end, a majority of the Assembly voted to follow the recommendation of the Overtures Committee, comprised of 80 ruling and teaching elders, who debated the overture for five and a half hours on Tuesday before making their recommendation to answer Overture 9 in the negative.
(Overture 9, submitted by the Philadelphia Presbytery, recommended that the General Assembly “erect a study committee on deaconesses” to determine whether the election of women to the office of deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order, and to determine more clearly the role of women in diaconal ministry.)
Comments
All Fields Are Required:
Carter Johnson
Dayton, TN
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.
Perhaps the General Assembly did err in refusing to appoint a committee to study the
inerrant Word.
All Fields Are Required:
V. Herbert
Chicago, IL
We are very disappointed.
All Fields Are Required:
Michelle Carter
Highlands PCA, LaFayette, GA
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Lesley Hazen
Westfield, NY
Using our spiritual gifts does not require ordination into church offices. We should be the hands and feet of Christ regardless of the position we hold in the church.
All Fields Are Required:
KRL
Chattanooga
Those gifts can still be used. Women use them each day. I think it is worth looking into, but seriously, we are given a platform to use our gifts each day.
All Fields Are Required:
Dr. Christopher Faria
Colorado Springs, CO
I was at GA and listened to the debate. Michelle wrote..."
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. "
The BCO reflects what the church has defined from Scripture the role of women on the issue of the diaconate. IF there is new study (always a possibility) or new understanding (always a possibility) then the committee and GA made it very clear- there are ways to approach this subject from the Presbytery level. And to disagree with Shelly (below) I do not believe I'm led more by fear than by faith. You cannot see into the hearts of men to discern their motivation- only Christ can. I for one would not want to turn around and say that all the females writing on this site are led by a lust for power rather than a hunger for Christ- that would be judgmental and an assumption that we can see into your hearts. Doesn't it benefit the church, rather, to err on the side of grace and say...those who hold that women ought to fulfill the role of deaconess biblically ought to use the tools at their disposal within the Presbyteries, in decency and in order?
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. "
The BCO reflects what the church has defined from Scripture the role of women on the issue of the diaconate. IF there is new study (always a possibility) or new understanding (always a possibility) then the committee and GA made it very clear- there are ways to approach this subject from the Presbytery level. And to disagree with Shelly (below) I do not believe I'm led more by fear than by faith. You cannot see into the hearts of men to discern their motivation- only Christ can. I for one would not want to turn around and say that all the females writing on this site are led by a lust for power rather than a hunger for Christ- that would be judgmental and an assumption that we can see into your hearts. Doesn't it benefit the church, rather, to err on the side of grace and say...those who hold that women ought to fulfill the role of deaconess biblically ought to use the tools at their disposal within the Presbyteries, in decency and in order?
All Fields Are Required:
Joel Linton
Evangel Presbytery (Missionary to Taiwan)
We cannot make arguments from human wisdom about pragmatism. We must submit ourselves to God's Word. Women do not need to be ordained deacons to help the deacons -- look at the list of widows doing that very thing in 1 Timothy 5.
http://www.taiwanchurch.org/~linton/expa.html
http://www.taiwanchurch.org/~linton/expa.html
All Fields Are Required:
Shelly Timbol
Jacksonville, Florida
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Clay Baldwin
Madison, MS
Simply because someone believes the current policy is the biblical model for our church does not mean they base their decision not to change that policy on fear. The hallmark of a dying denomination is one where leaders in the church believe we should attempt to conform God's inerrant biblical instructions to an ever changing social landscape. Women whose working spirit is quenched because they cannot be called ordained according to scripture are failing to see where God has called them to serve in so many important ways. I would expect the leaders of my denomination to not only understand that personally, but be able to communicate it to their congregations. The comments would unfortunately be the same if there had been a year-long committee discussion that ended in affirming the Book of Church Order on this matter as the biblical standard.
All Fields Are Required:
Jack's Pipe
Columbus, OH
Actually the hallmark of a dying denomination is one that denies the clear teaching of Scripture -- what the church has always believed until modern times -- for worldly pottage. And in this era, that worldly pottage is feminism and sodomy. Little clears out a church faster. Claiming it's about "fear" is a common tactic used by the homosexual and feminist political movements. The real issue is Scriptural authority, which is what the BCO was built on.
All Fields Are Required:
Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
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!
All Fields Are Required:
Ron Swafford
Retired - North Georgia Presbytery
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.
All Fields Are Required:
RE Arthur Mosher
South Dayton Presbyterian Church, Centerville, OH
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Mark S. Lange
New Song Community Church - Baltimore
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Brandon Meeks
Douglas, GA
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.
All Fields Are Required:
OlaLaws
Tifton Ga.
Thank God for men like you Brandon, who have read their Bible and has an understanding of the word and who fear God and not men speak the truth of God word who love truth and speak truth, not go about ticking the ears of man but are bold as we have hear other there stand up and speak fearing not man but God .Praise God for these men who will stand upon the walls of zion and cry aloud and spare not as God has given them to speak . At time such as these that we are living in now we surly need truth not fluff God forbid speak the truth or sit down and pray for understanding and wisdom to proclaim these blessed truths. Hold on Ga speak what the Bible tell you of no more no less as our forefathers d did. Lets all Pray for peace and understanding.
All Fields Are Required:
Deborah Fields
Crofton, MD
I'm very glad the GA upheld Scripture, and the secondary standards.
All Fields Are Required:
Colene Hoffer
Beaver Falls, PA
I totally agree with Deborah. The GA did the right thing--to the Glory of God.
All Fields Are Required:
K Roberts
TX
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Tary Medberry
Rochester, MN
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Karen Broome
York SC
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.
All Fields Are Required:
RE Allen Baldwin
Carriage Lane PCS, Peachtree City, GA
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.
I respectfully disagree with my brothers who squelched this discussion though I appreciate their motives.
All Fields Are Required:
B McCollough
Prattville, AL
The issue for us now is the correct appropriation of Heb 13:17.
All Fields Are Required:
William (Bud) Leonard
Orlando, FL
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Arleen Blackstone
Fort Walton Beach, FL
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Rebecca Haney
Kansas City, MO
Thank you for posting the only truth. It really is as clear as clear can be.
All Fields Are Required:
Alex Smith
St Louis, MO
Hello Arleen
The argument from a "women deacons" position would be the following (from Edmund Clowney's "The Church", page 233):
"Further, the requirements listed for the women in 3:11 are remarkably parallel to the requirements for deacons in general (3:8-10). Paul seems to point out that these requirements apply to women deacons as well as men, before going on to describe the further requirements for men, and then concluding with a statement of the reward of faithful diaconal ministry."
Note: under this interpretation the phrase "their wives" in v. 11 should simply be "women." The ESV recognizes this as a legitimate possibility in the footnotes.
The point is that 1 Tim. 3:12 does not have to been seen as prohibiting women from the office of deacon.
The argument from a "women deacons" position would be the following (from Edmund Clowney's "The Church", page 233):
"Further, the requirements listed for the women in 3:11 are remarkably parallel to the requirements for deacons in general (3:8-10). Paul seems to point out that these requirements apply to women deacons as well as men, before going on to describe the further requirements for men, and then concluding with a statement of the reward of faithful diaconal ministry."
Note: under this interpretation the phrase "their wives" in v. 11 should simply be "women." The ESV recognizes this as a legitimate possibility in the footnotes.
The point is that 1 Tim. 3:12 does not have to been seen as prohibiting women from the office of deacon.
All Fields Are Required:
Dana Boney
Mauldin, SC
Amen. The PCA was founded for the purpose of the Word of God being our guide . The BCO is only following what is in God's Word. So with that , isn't this Deconness issue adding to scriptures what is not there? The women have so many ways of minstering that is so important in building God's Kingdom; so why was this being brought up in the first place.
All Fields Are Required:
Virginia Yip
Waco TX
Arleen,
On the interpretation of this verse, I have heard another explanation. You see, immediately before this verse---verse 11---it reads "In the same way (i.e., the way of being a deacon), women (or "wives", note in the original Greek text, the pronoun "their" is not there) are to be worthy...." But why didn't Paul impose the same requirement on women---i.e., a woman ought bto be of one husband?
One suggested explanation is that at Paul's time, it was the men who had the problem of having multiple wives. Women did not have multiple husbands. So that was why the one-sided emphases. Paul felt the need to further clarify for the men what he expected from them as deacons for God's family and his own family.
So, to regard this verse as simply implying that the office of deacon is only open to men seems to be a misuse of the verse.
Now, I am not sure at this point if the passage does allow room for deaconess, and if it does, if these deaconesss should also be ordained. I am just trying to point out that your reading of this verse makes it sound like this issue to too clear to contest by the simple application of liguistic device, but in reality, it could be more complex than that.
We must admit, on this deaconess issue, scripture is less clear than on the issue of elders.
On the interpretation of this verse, I have heard another explanation. You see, immediately before this verse---verse 11---it reads "In the same way (i.e., the way of being a deacon), women (or "wives", note in the original Greek text, the pronoun "their" is not there) are to be worthy...." But why didn't Paul impose the same requirement on women---i.e., a woman ought bto be of one husband?
One suggested explanation is that at Paul's time, it was the men who had the problem of having multiple wives. Women did not have multiple husbands. So that was why the one-sided emphases. Paul felt the need to further clarify for the men what he expected from them as deacons for God's family and his own family.
So, to regard this verse as simply implying that the office of deacon is only open to men seems to be a misuse of the verse.
Now, I am not sure at this point if the passage does allow room for deaconess, and if it does, if these deaconesss should also be ordained. I am just trying to point out that your reading of this verse makes it sound like this issue to too clear to contest by the simple application of liguistic device, but in reality, it could be more complex than that.
We must admit, on this deaconess issue, scripture is less clear than on the issue of elders.
All Fields Are Required:
Jennifer Wells
Buford, GA
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Karen Allen
Greenville, SC
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).
All Fields Are Required:
Lee Lovett
Winder, GA
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!
All Fields Are Required:
RE David Forslund
Los Alamos, NM
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.
All Fields Are Required:
David Miller
St. Louis, MO
Rom. 16:1 -- "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a 'deaconess' of the church at Cenchreae...."
All Fields Are Required:
MT Limber
Orlando, FL
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."
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."
All Fields Are Required:
CB Campano
Lakeland, FL
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.
All Fields Are Required:
M. T. Limber
Orlando, FL
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Scott Hinzman
New York City
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Reddit Andrews, III
Elk Grove, CA
It would seem to me that it is debatable as to whether any women can be proved to have occupied that office. Certainly the lack of developed criteria for women in 1Tim 3 and the fact that no women are listed in Acts where the office was established would tend to favor the more general idea of 'servant.' Note that the term is also employed relative to the civil magistrate in Rom. 13.
Moreover, I think that, at the end of the day, we have a clear position stated in both the WCF and the BCO and are dealing with judgments relative to exegesis of individual passages and the implications. This is something that applies to many other issues in Scripture for which we do not appoint study commissions.
At the end of the day, I think the real issue is that some actually have problems with the WCF and the BCO. Those individuals should simply admit that, offer credible exegesis supporting their 'new view' and take the appropriate steps to have the WCF and the BCO amended or opt to go somewhere else where they can take vows they are able to honor.
Moreover, I think that, at the end of the day, we have a clear position stated in both the WCF and the BCO and are dealing with judgments relative to exegesis of individual passages and the implications. This is something that applies to many other issues in Scripture for which we do not appoint study commissions.
At the end of the day, I think the real issue is that some actually have problems with the WCF and the BCO. Those individuals should simply admit that, offer credible exegesis supporting their 'new view' and take the appropriate steps to have the WCF and the BCO amended or opt to go somewhere else where they can take vows they are able to honor.
All Fields Are Required:
Mary Dunn
Morganton, NC
Thank you, men of the GA, for standing firm in upholding God's Word. The rewards for obedience are great.
All Fields Are Required:
June W. Bare
Boone, NC
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Paul Ingram
Grand Rapids, Michigan
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Lori Purcell
Tifton, GA
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Dan Perkins
Muncie, IN
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Stewart West
Apex, NC
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Sandra Oster
Rochester
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Steven Grant
Fort Myers
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.
All Fields Are Required:
John
NY
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Roland
Savannah River
If the language of the BCO is clear and that is not enough then we have greater problems to resolve than addressing this issue. When I was ordained I knew exactly what the PCA stand was on women in office and I was explicitly examined on these issues. Have we not all taken vows to be in submission to one another?
All Fields Are Required:
Sam Mateer
Santiago, Chile
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Guenther ("Gene") Haas
Hamilton, Ontario
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Anne Hamlin
Oakbrook Community Church PCA Summerville,SC
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 .
All Fields Are Required:
Stephen Baldwin
Concord, NC
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Julie Courtney
Philadelphia, PA
Thank you Stephen, for articulating what I've been thinking and feeling since the decision to deny the study committee.
All Fields Are Required:
Steve Schulz
Lititz, PA
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 :-) ).
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 :-) ).
All Fields Are Required:
Brian Park
Wheeling, IL
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.
All Fields Are Required:
B Eades
Newnan GA
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
David Keithley
Normal, IL
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!
All Fields Are Required:
Tom Mirabella
Wauchula, Florida
David - How can they still call that place "Normal" with you living there? All kidding aside, thanks for your comment and your work on the committee. My sense is that the committee's discussion was free of some of the hyperbole that broke out on the floor and is the speciality of the "blogosphere." I look forward to good discussions concerning the role of deacons in general, the places we can affirm women's ministry within a complimentarian framework, and the lines we will draw as we define the "vitals of our system of religion."
All Fields Are Required:
K H Acton
Heidelberg, Mississippi
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Susan Allen, WIC President
Mt. Juliet, TN
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Virginia Yip
Waco TX
The issue was raised when a candidate was received by another Presbytery despite his explicit mentioning of his view in support of deaconess ordination. Philadelphia Presbytery challenged the decision but realized that there is a wide range of views on this issue and they thus decided to seek help from the GA.
Now, with the GA decided not to entertain their request, I am not sure what they will do with the matter in hand.
Now, with the GA decided not to entertain their request, I am not sure what they will do with the matter in hand.
All Fields Are Required:
Amy B
St. Louis, MO
Susan,
Why does it have to be either power-hungry women or weak-leading men? Maybe it is just an honest desire to examine an unclear issue with the intention of better understanding how to fully integrate women into the life of the church.
Why does it have to be either power-hungry women or weak-leading men? Maybe it is just an honest desire to examine an unclear issue with the intention of better understanding how to fully integrate women into the life of the church.
All Fields Are Required:
Reddit Andrews
Elk Grove
But the precise question centers on whether the BCO lacks clarity. I'd humbly submit that it doesn't. What may be needed is for indivual Session's to study its implimentation in their own context or appropriate measures to have the BCO amended to a more agreeable reading. What is not needed on this particular issue is a denominational level study committee.
All Fields Are Required:
Geoffrey Parker
Dunkirk, Maryland
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
John Hendrickson
Middletown, NJ
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
TE Joel Hugh Linton
Evangel Presbytery (Missionary to Taiwan)
Phoebe was a "servant" but not necessarily a "deaconess/Servant". One should not argue by assertion without exegetically proving the point.
All Fields Are Required:
MT Limber
Orlando, FL
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
TE Dave Sarafolean
Midland, Michigan
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.
"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.
All Fields Are Required:
Lee Ferguson
Murfreesboro,TN
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.
All Fields Are Required:
TE Dave Sarafolean
Midland, Michigan
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.
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.
All Fields Are Required:
Reddit Andrews
Elk Grove, CA
I think the real issue is that they do not like the current PCA position. Which, if so the proper thing to do is to abide by the vows they've taken, offer compelling exegesis (which if they can not they should be ashamed cf. 2Tim. 2:15), and take the appropriate channels to have the Confession and BCO amended.
What they should not do is ask the entire denomination to appoint a study commission to consider a supposed lack of clarity that really isn't the issue.