I do appreciate Kevin Allen bringing this up. In my opinion, women leading men is a slippery slope to more and more liberal ideas.

Women have many needed duties. I`ll say keep the WIC. Deacons, Elders, or Ministers...NO

I believe women can serve very vital roles in the church, including non-ordained leadership roles. Our church has women in leadership roles within Stephen Ministry, a Director of Children's Ministry, an Assistant to the Director of Hispanic Ministries, leaders of support groups, book studies, and study fellowships. We always cover them with an elder or deacon oversight as well. The roles of deacon and elder remain consistent with the language of the scripture, also used in the BCO. Women can lead, many do in their vocations outside of the church, in school and college settings. So let's not assume that women can't lead, that's never the question. The issue is our denominational perspective of ordination. I believe that our denomination assumes a biblical perspective on ordination.

So how does this jive with the fact that there were most definitely women deacons in the first church?

There seems to be a current need for us to review and clarify our position on the ordination of women. I'm all for that, as long as we commit ourselves to be continually reformed & reforming as a denomination in the light of Scripture -- I think we can safely assume that all our doctrinal viewpoints are not perfect in the PCA! And we should be concerned that we are not asking about the roles and limits of un-ordained men in the PCA, as we are of women. Sounds a bit sexist to me. Frankly, over more than 25 years of pastoral ministry, I've seen as many thorny issues and inappropriate activities (if not more) with un-ordained men in the church as with women. We would do well to affirm that spiritual gifts are not "gender-based" but "Jesus-given", so that we are encouraging all our un-ordained men and women to use all their gifts fully for the glory of God and the good of His church. I believe un-ordained women are called to do the same things in the church as un-ordained men, in accordance with their spiritual gifts, ministry needs, cultural context, and Biblical truth.

We are all called to minister to one another. Only some are called to Pastor.

This is partly a semantics issue. No one seem's to have a problem with a woman being called "Director of _______ Ministries". Would it have been a problem if the CO woman was called "Director of Congregational Ministries"?

On the other hand, if women are allowed to be Deacons,or Elders, for that matter, many of the men would not be as involved. It's hard enough to get them to serve now.

I see many young husbands sharing responsibilities for care of the children, cooking, housekeeping. As they move into leadership positions in the church they are not as likely to get hung up over titles or division of labor along gender lines.

Please, please let us not be swayed by the thinking and rhetoric of the pagan culture around us! Women have been given various gifts just as men have and should be encouraged to use them within the church - but I believe that there are clear biblical guidelines concerning mens' and womens' roles in leadership. Women should not serve as ordained leaders in the church, but this does not prohibit us from exercising our gifts as God directs.

amazing that woman are prefectly capable of leading men until they reach the workforce. We trust our women to raise children, both male and female, but the moment they break 18 ... what change?

If we're worried about being Biblical (as we should be), there's no getting around the fact that Phoebe is described as a deacon in Romans 16:1. The greek translation is literally "Diakonos."

The Greek word diakonos is the general word for "servant," and is used of Phoebe, but also of Jesus, Paul and the Roman Government in Romans 13. It is rarely used to describe an officer of the Church, as it is in I Timothy 3:8. Most Bible translations correctly translate Phoebe as a "servant" of the church, not an office holder.

What makes you believe that this is so certain?

A.D. Bauer from Abbott Mem. Pres. Church in Baltimore, MD wrote a book called "The Beginning: A Second Look at the First Sin." In the final chapter of that book he addresses women’s roles based on the events in the Genesis account. His interpretation is not derivative from any of the primary contemporary views but instead offers more of a middle way approach. See http://www.squarehalobooks.com/begin.htm

I am certain that in only three out of thirty New Testament uses of diakonos is the official sense clearly warranted (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12). The other references mean simply "servant." The only reason to think of Phoebe as holding an official office of "deacon" is because we want it to be true. It is not demanded by the text.

Treating Phoebe as a mere “servant” instead of a deacon with an official church ministry is I think ignoring the biblical context here. Phoebe is cited first in a long list of men and women collaborators of Paul. Consider who Phoebe is mentioned in front of: Prisicilla and Aquilas, who “risked their necks” for Paul, and are leading a house church. Epainetus “ premices of Asia” and a hard working Mary. A man and a woman apostles: Andronicus and Junia, and so on. In addition, the Romans are requested to provide Phoebe “all necessary help”. Hardly something you would ask toward a mere factotum. In addition, Phoebe is mentioned as having helped many. The noun is “prostatis”, which my Greek dictionary defines as follows:
προστάτις (prostatis 4368)
succourer
feminine of προστάτης (prostatēs) (a presider, prefect, magistrate) (lxx. 2Ch 8:10) a curator, guardian, patron; hence, the feminine, a patroness, helper, succourer.
Again, not the idea of a mere helpmaid. Finally, some historical knowledge is important. Beside the archeological evidence of many women deacons in the early church, it is usually admitted that Phoebe must have been the person carrying Paul’s letter to the Romans. Given that texts were written without spaces and punctuation, the texts were usually read to the assembly after careful rehearsal by the bearer. In that case, that would have been Phoebe, one more supporting argument, although more speculative, to the fact that she was an ordained deacon.

As an ex Epicopalian, I observed how those who wish to do "a new thing" seem to go ahead and do it in violation of the cannons, or in PCA, the BCO, or Scripture....then ask for a study on their "agenda" issue.
Another thing that was reveled was that once their is an ordination, or a commissioning, there is NO going back, period. The denomination ends up allowing a powerful church to "get by" with spitting in the face of BCO or their brothers and sisters in the denomination and there is no resoning with the offenders.
The use of any funds to study issues that were settled when the PCA denomination was formed is a mis use of funds. It is a slap in the face of the courageous men and women that stood firm for Scripture as interpreted for this denomination.
I left The Episcopal Church. If you wish to experience the fruit of the feminization of a minstry take a look at the state of that denomination today and the decline over the last 38 years.
I do have a question...what will we do with those PCA churches that already have deaconesses serving?
Peace

Maybe I'm really missiong the point, but aren't deacons "servants"? What leadership role do they provide? They are not elders, they are merely acting as servants, carrying out the roles of caring for physical needs, such as taking care of the widows and orphans and whoever else in the church needs help, so that the elders can take care of the spiritual needs. And I thought "ordain" meant "to set aside" for certain tasks. Does ordination confer a leadership role, or just show that the church recognizes the specific role that is being confered?

John from KC made a great point, "deacons are servants" and we are all servants of Christ, just like the Apostle Paul. But in the same respect, we are not glorfied janitors either. What a deacon does by calling, is what we all should be doing as servants of Christ. Paul's instructions to the churches were not solely for the church leaders, but the whole church. And as previously stated, many women had prominent roles within the church body. To me, the question is not the duty, but the ordination, is that biblical?