ByFaithOnline Reaction to PCA GA

[ColdSilverMoon]

Someone said:

Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?

I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

 

[fredtgreco]

Someone said:

Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?

I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Someone said:

Can you please show me specifically where anyone in favor of the study committee is in favor of opposing/not following the Confession or the BCO?

I would say that by implication anyone in favor of the ordination of women is in violation of Scripture which the Confession upholds as the final authority. Furthermore, simple logic shows that the ordination of women has never been the Reformed position until the revisionists came along in the 20th century. The WCF does not endorse the ordination of women. So the question is turned on its head. How does the WCF support the proposed study?

Charlie

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.

That's undoubtedly true, Pastor Greco, but is there a significant number of PCA pastors pushing for actual ordination? There may be, but I don't know of any...

 

[brianeschen]

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

Your experiential knowledge is limited, Mason.

That's undoubtedly true, Pastor Greco, but is there a significant number of PCA pastors pushing for actual ordination? There may be, but I don't know of any...

Actually it is the not ordaining that is a bigger issue right now in regards to deacon (which is contrary to the BCO). The issue for many is the making the PCA into a 1 office church by destroying the biblical office of deacon.

I have pointed this out before . . . I think that this issue is merely symptomatic of the more serious problem of rebellion. The fact that pastors disagree with our constitution is not as much a problem as their unwillingness to fulfill their ordination vows in submitting to that constitution. Study committees are not the prescribed means for changing the order of a denomination (at least not the PCA).

 

[Edward]

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

1 OVERTURE 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery (to CCB and OC)
2 “Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”
3
4 Whereas, Crossroads Community Church Presbyterian Church in America, a member
5 church, filed a complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the Philadelphia
6 Presbytery in accord with BCO 43-2 against the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery
7 approving a candidate for licensure who took exception, with respect to the office of
8 deacon, to the provision of BCO 7-2 that states “In accord with Scripture, these
9 offices are open to men only”; and
10
11 Whereas, the 35th General Assembly's review of presbytery records cited an exception of
12 substance (attached hereto as Exhibit B) for the Philadelphia Presbytery for liberti
13 Church as follows “Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned
14 contrary to BCO 9-3 ”;
15
16 Whereas, liberti Church responded to the General Assembly’s citation by submitting to the
17 Philadelphia Presbytery an Overture (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the General
18 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America asking for a change to the BCO to
19 allow the election of women to the office of deacon equal with men and the freedom
20 to either ordain both or commission both men and women called to that office; and...


http://www.pcaac.org/GeneralAssembly/Overtures/Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery.pdf
Note bolded text.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

The problem with this statement is that I know of NO ONE in the pro-deaconess camp who is in favor of ordaining women to any office in the PCA, including that of deacon. Deaconess proponents advocate a formal role within the church, but not ordination. An important and often ignored distinction.

1 OVERTURE 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery (to CCB and OC)
2 “Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”
3
4 Whereas, Crossroads Community Church Presbyterian Church in America, a member
5 church, filed a complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the Philadelphia
6 Presbytery in accord with BCO 43-2 against the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery
7 approving a candidate for licensure who took exception, with respect to the office of
8 deacon, to the provision of BCO 7-2 that states “In accord with Scripture, these
9 offices are open to men only”; and
10
11 Whereas, the 35th General Assembly's review of presbytery records cited an exception of
12 substance (attached hereto as Exhibit B) for the Philadelphia Presbytery for liberti
13 Church as follows “Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned
14 contrary to BCO 9-3 ”;
15
16 Whereas, liberti Church responded to the General Assembly’s citation by submitting to the
17 Philadelphia Presbytery an Overture (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to the General
18 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America asking for a change to the BCO to
19 allow the election of women to the office of deacon equal with men and the freedom
20 to either ordain both or commission both men and women called to that office; and...


http://www.pcaac.org/GeneralAssembly/Overtures/Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery.pdf
Note bolded text.

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

 

[Christusregnat]

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

Perhaps it is right now. Give the agitators some time, and they will push for it to be the norm. Then on to their next conquest: eldership. It's the same song that's been sung before. No need to pretend we haven't heard it before.

First, is the request for toleration;
Second, the request for acceptance as normal;
Third, is the calling of the granting to the old stance a form of "toleration";
Fourth, the old form is called perverse.

This is the method in the Brave New World, and such philosophy is not absent from the PCA.

Cheers,

 

[Scott1]

This Lord's Day, I've been consumed with worship and Deacon service. I've never been so aware of the spiritual charge of this office which the PCA Book of Church Order gets right, biblically:

1) overseeing mercy ministry
2) overseeing property stewardship
3) developing a spirit of liberality amongst the congregation

The impact of men leading this as qualified by I Timothy 3, examined, elected, ordained and installed is immeasurable in the local church. As with the Pastors and Elders, this sets the tone for the church, and effects its whole.

The response of the church to the leaders whom God has appointed for them and they have confirmed is such blessing!

Seeing unordained men and women following in lead of being more merciful, more hospitable, more helpful, more generous more centered on God and neighbor, and not self, is a real blessing!

If we disgrace this office by devaluing or trivializing it for any reason, or the ordination upon which it rests, or the installation upon which it is received, we will be due God's chastisement and the withdrawing of his favorable countenance upon us.

These are spiritual ordinances, (examination, ordination, installation) and they need to be taught and modeled to God's people for the Honor and Glory of our Lord and the careful and proper governance of His Church.

 

[Edward]

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

 

[Cranmer1959]

There is no need for a study committee on this issue. The Scriptures have spoken so clearly even a child can understand them. Women are not to be ordained to any office in the church and opening the door even a crack in that direction is just an excuse to manipulate, revise, and devalue Scriptural teaching.

 

[lynnie]

To be fair to Tim Keller, I hope you realize that no truly egalitarian female in NYC would be satisfied with unordained deaconesses. They would want women elders and pastors. I am in that presbytery, near Princeton, and the mentality of feminism in this ultra liberal north east area would not be satisfied with what Redeemer is doing right now, any more than a ravenous wolf would be satisfied with a bone. Whatever the reason, it isn't to pacify feminists, there is no way this satisfies a true egalitarian.

 

[Scott1]

To be fair to Tim Keller, I hope you realize that no truly egalitarian female in NYC would be satisfied with unordained deaconesses. They would want women elders and pastors. I am in that presbytery, near Princeton, and the mentality of feminism in this ultra liberal north east area would not be satisfied with what Redeemer is doing right now, any more than a ravenous wolf would be satisfied with a bone. Whatever the reason, it isn't to pacify feminists, there is no way this satisfies a true egalitarian.

Like all compromise, it might seem at first like it would settle the issue. On one level it appeals to a notion like "finding a middle ground." The problem is, the principles are based on two very different grounds.

The underlying principles are distinctly different, that's why "finding a middle ground" will not satisfy either set of principles.

On one side is the difficult truth that church leaders have placed themselves under holy vows before God to obey and model a certain polity.

On the other is a belief that one may do what one individually wants to do, as long as they individually think it is best.

The problem is, fundamentally, this is not the way a confessional church operates.

The peace and purity of Christ's church is bigger than us all.

 

[Edward]

Like all compromise, it might seem at first like it would settle the issue. On one level it appeals to a notion like "finding a middle ground." The problem is, the principles are based on two very different grounds.

The underlying principles are distinctly different, that's why "finding a middle ground" will not satisfy either set of principles. One one side is the difficult truth that church leaders have placed themselves under holy vows before God to obey and model a certain polity.

On the other is a belief that one may do what one individually wants to do, as long as they individually think it is best.

The problem is, fundamentally, this is not the way a confessional church operates.

The peace and purity of Christ's church is bigger than us all.

Very well put. While reading your post, I thought back to just over 70 years ago, when Chamberlain found the 'middle ground' in Munich. Finding that 'middle ground' is rarely a good idea, even outside the Church.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

 

[Edward]

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Would you have them serve with ordained men?

 

[ChariotsofFire]

Fair enough - I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if ordaining women is the minority view?

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...

 

[Scott1]

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...

Another reason this leads to confusion is-

What do we call unordained men who assist in mercy ministry?

PCA polity (e.g. BCO 9-7) is that that unordained men AND women assist the deacons, more or less in parity with one another (parity between the unordained men and women), without special titles.

If we give title to the unordained women who assist, but not the men, we undermine that. The polity is both men and women serve in their capacities as laypeople in the congregation.

There is some flexibility in practice in PCA polity within this framework. It often works out in practice that these unordained men and women are organized under various ministry groups (e.g. Comfort and Care, Single Moms, Refugee Ministry, etc.) that are administratively overseen by the Diaconate, and ultimately by the Session.

This works well in practice and tends to create a more "grass roots" participation by the whole of the congregation. It also tends to overcome the distinctions of gender, age and other factors that so easily divide in the world.

It's not wise biblically to create a tone in the local church where there is a seeking after of titles. A notion only those who have titles really serve. This really is the opposite of biblical pattern, which is the priesthood of all believers, a culture of service as unto the Lord, and a subjection to the brethren (that includes the duly constituted governance of the church God has appointed- Deacons and Elders).

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Would you have them serve with ordained men?

Yes. Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do. Personally, I'm in favor of men being ordained to the office (which seems to be the Scriptural model), but having a group of men and women who perform diaconal work in a formal capacity - these people would be called deacons/deaconesses (also seems to be the Scriptural model).

I suspect that there are some who would settle for no ordination of men or women as long as the result is egalitarianism. Others see ordination as a key step toward women in the pulpit. And some probably are just concerned about the practical matter of filling as many pews as possible.

Another option you didn't mention are those (myself included) who believe women can serve as unordained deaconesses based on Scriptural understanding. Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

I am confused. If you don't ordain deaconesses, then are they considered to be in church office? If you aren't ordaining them to office, then how can they even have the title of an office (deaconess)? In that case, the current system which allows for women to assist men in office should be sufficient. Maybe someone can help me out here...

They don't have the title of an office - they have a title, but it is not the title of an office. They do fill the role outlined in the current system. So why use the term "deaconess" you ask? The better question would be why not use the term? It has been used from the New Testament onward throughout 2,000 years of church history, including for at least 25 of the PCA's 35 year history. It is only in the past few years that people have had a problem with it...

 

[TimV]

Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do

Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?

 

[Scott1]

I do believe that the pastor I was speaking to thinks that deacons do not have authority, as they are actually carrying out the will of the session, or serving on behalf of the session, maybe? I am not sure, and I don't want to misquote him, but I got that feeling, so women deaconesses wouldn't be an issue of authority. (I do not know whether all of this was devil's advocate or stemmed from personal opinion, as it came about in a discussion between us and not me interviewing him!)

Clearly, the doctrine of Scripture reflected by our Book of Church Order is that the church is governed by Deacons and Elders. Both are authoritative, leadership offices reflecting the explicit qualifications of Scripture that they be men (I Timothy 3, Titus 1).

Deacon is not merely a synonym word for servant. The same word for deacon (servant) sometimes describes Christ ministering. Hopefully, no one would dare represent Christ was only a servant, had no authority, no special title, etc.

The office of Deacon is a leadership one, reflecting not only the explicit qualification of Scripture, but the creation order. In the PCA, the spiritual charge, all leadership roles are:

1) oversee mercy ministry
2) oversee property stewardship
3) develop a spirit of liberality in the congregation

Off-and-on in church history there were "deaconesses" but they were patterned after I Timothy 5 (60 year old widow, vows to remain unmarried, destitute, and financially dependent on the church). There were times in church history the church deviated from those qualifications (e.g. lowered the age to 40) and got into all kinds of trouble. Younger women broke their vows to remain unmarried, left church service primarily, etc. So the practice fell into disuse. It was abandoned.

Only since about 1960, in all of church history, with the liberalism/modernism has it been promoted that I Timothy 3 was an interchangeable office men and women.

More-and-more, what is becoming clear that what is at stake is the office of deacon itself- a high office, qualified, elected, ordained and installed- a perpetual office with high spiritual reward.

By arguing it is only a substitute word for servant only we devalue it, misunderstand it, and trivialize it. When we "commission" but not ordain we devalue the holy ordinance of ordination. What's happening, it appears is that polity and the doctrines of ordinance and church governance are not being taught by some from the pulpit. That's part of their vows, but they are not doing it, and that is causing confusion.

One of the best research papers on the biblical issues and church history on this is Brian Schwerley's http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html

 

[Mushroom]

Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you do have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do

Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?

I think here the BCO is referring to the position of authority of the office of deacon. The BCO considers it a perpetual office of the church, so allowing for churches not to ordain deacons, that office falls on the Session.

Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you do have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?

Brad, as I said in an earlier post, the question could just as easily be flipped and I would ask you why not give them this title? It has biblical and historical roots, so why give deaconesses a title?

 

[ChariotsofFire]

Remember that functionally there is no difference between what an ordained Deacon can do and what an unordained deaconess can do

Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?

I think here the BCO is referring to the position of authority of the office of deacon. The BCO considers it a perpetual office of the church, so allowing for churches not to ordain deacons, that office falls on the Session.

Not all of us who favor deaconesses have an ulterior motive...

Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you do have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?

Brad, as I said in an earlier post, the question could just as easily be flipped and I would ask you why not give them this title? It has biblical and historical roots, so why give deaconesses a title?

There are a number of reasons not to give this title:

1. If Deaconesses are not ordained, the title is very deceptive. It gives the appearance of an office.
2. It gives a place of leadership to women in the church.
3. It gives women who help the deacons a special title, while leaving the men who help deacons without.
4. It will open the door for deaconesses being ordained, and then down the slippery slope we go.
5. I don't think the term is biblical.

 

[Romans922]

Yeah, this is something I am not understanding either (responding to #3 below). Some say that we should have 'deaconesses' who are not ordained be on the diaconate serving alongside (doing the same things as ordained deacons). Well, to be consistent then you'd have to either: have men serve alongside in the same capacity of 'deaconesses' and not ordained. So then you have Ordained deacon (men), unordained deacons, and unordained deaconesses.

OR you'd have to ordain deaconesses. To do otherwise, would be not consistent (if you must have women have the title 'deaconess' and/or be on the 'diaconate'.

At least that is the way it seems to me. Does anyone else think that?

Why then does the BCO say that if there are no male ordained deacons the duties which would normally fall on those deacons has to be done by elders?

I think here the BCO is referring to the position of authority of the office of deacon. The BCO considers it a perpetual office of the church, so allowing for churches not to ordain deacons, that office falls on the Session.

Maybe it would help if you would explain what motive you do have, ulterior or otherwise. Why would women need this title if they are performing the same duties as an unordained man who assisted in diaconal ministries?

Brad, as I said in an earlier post, the question could just as easily be flipped and I would ask you why not give them this title? It has biblical and historical roots, so why give deaconesses a title?

There are a number of reasons not to give this title:

1. If Deaconesses are not ordained, the title is very deceptive. It gives the appearance of an office.
2. It gives a place of leadership to women in the church.
3. It gives women who help the deacons a special title, while leaving the men who help deacons without.
4. It will open the door for deaconesses being ordained, and then down the slippery slope we go.
5. I don't think the term is biblical.