Christian Post: PCA to consider clearer restrictions re. deaconesses

[Kevin]

Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.

I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.

Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.

The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.

As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.

 

[Marrow Man]

1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.

Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.

 

[Edward]

This proposal is being brought forth from a fringe, ultra-conservative group within the PCA.

I always thought of Central Carolina as being middle of the road in the PCA.

Speaking of this issue. Wasn't Metro Atlanta supposed to take up an overture on the other side? Anyone know how that went?

 

[Mushroom]

Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.

I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.

Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.

The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.

As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.

Almost as intemporate as calling those who hold to the historic position 'fringe ultra-conservatives'?

 

[lynnie]

Mason, I don't agree but I think it is good you weighed in with a very thoughtful reply. And yes it is narrow but it is the same with baptism...Spurgeon or Piper could not be PCA elders. The PCA sticks to the books. Has its pluses and minuses, but what are essentials and non essentials is ultimately opinion. I have been a continuist in both of my PCA churches but I have to shut up about perpetuity of the gifts. If you can't take the BCO it is best to leave. I have a hard time with it myself sometimes, I mean, when we particularized I couldn't believe the rigamarole and rules and how slooooow it went, and plenty of others felt the same way. But I don't have the right to fight the BCO even if I think something is wrong.

Scott, your posting is so excellent and helpful, but I am a little confused.

If all those questions were asked and answered in 2008, and it sure looks they covered it from every angle, then what exactly is going on now? I mean, the questions and answers sound like it was decided already. So why did Webb do this? If the decision was stated clearly in 2008 (I had no idea by the way, so thanks for the history for us PCA dummies here), what is new about this? Is it that nobody had to pay attention to what was decided in 2008 and this is to force churches to comply now? From what you said in post #19, if there is a divided opinion then it doesn't settle anything. Was it divided in 2008? It must have been. So if it is divided again, will there be any changes?

Sorry if I am a bit clueless, but just look at me as representing 50% of the members in the PCA (us girls) who might be trying to figure this out. Thanks!

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.

I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.

Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.

The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.

As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.

Almost as intemporate as calling those who hold to the historic position 'fringe ultra-conservatives'?

Brad, you're right, and it was inappropriate of me to use that language, which certainly comes across harsher than intended. My point is that most in the PCA - even if they are opposed to unordained deaconesses - don't have a problem with churches utilizing them as they do now. I do think those who wish to stamp out the term entirely are a fringe group, certainly out of the mainstream of the PCA. "Ultra-conservative" was a poor choice of words and a stereotype on my part - I'm deleting it from my original post.

I think Kevin is right on in his post. All proponents of deaconesses I've encountered base their view on Scripture, not some deeper agenda to advance egalitarianism, and certainly not as a stepping stone to other things like ordaining female elders.

 

[Mushroom]

1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.

Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.

Those committed to this movement have a decided myopia concerning these inconvenient uses of the word διάκονος.

 

[Scott1]

Thanks, Kevin.

Some interaction with your thoughts here, as this may be helpful for those following this, particularly those looking in from outside the denomination.

Scott that is a very helpful sumation. However I disagree with "deaconess' governing the church" primarily because I disagree with deacons governing the church.

The office of Deacon is very much intended to be a governing one in the PCA.

Presbyterian Church in America

CHAPTER 3
The Nature and Extent of Church Power

3-1. The power which Christ has committed to His Church vests in the
whole body, the rulers and those ruled, constituting it a spiritual
commonwealth. This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the
choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.

3-2. Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is twofold. The
officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel,
administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and
comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order; and they exercise it
sometimes jointly in Church courts, after the form of judgment, which is the
power of jurisdiction.

....

The Particular Church

4-1. A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians,
with their children, associated together for divine worship and godly living,
agreeable to the Scriptures, and submitting to the lawful government of
Christ's kingdom.

4-2. Its officers are its teaching and ruling elders and its deacons.

I think this is biblical.

It defines our understanding of covenant community.

I was a deacon in TN Valley during the entire Cedar Springs fiasco. I was very strongly opposed to Deaconess' because that was a proxy issue for those that wanted to ordain women as elders & allow them to preach.

Since then I have spent several years in the ARP & I have learned that many presbyterians that believe in having deaconess' do so because they believe that the scripture teach it. Period. It is not a proxy for eldership, or anything else just a sincerly held belief. I am certain that *most* in the PCA deaconess camp are the same. That is they simply believe that the scripture teaches that women can be deaconess'. Nothing else.

I too, really don't believe most people who are advocating 'deaconess' intend it as a way to get to ordaining women elders.

Honestly, I think many people following this don't understand our polity or our constitution but have only a notion that women "ought to be doing mercy." In the process, they are using argumentation that devalues the office of Deacon, ordination, vows and the connectional nature of presbyterian polity.

God does not suffer fools who break vows lightly.

What's difficult for many of us to understand on that level of reasoning is that in the vast majority of PCA churches, the polity is being modeled well- governance of the local church through officers God has appointed, deacons and elders, with unordained men and women assisting them in many capacities.

Unordained and women are doing mercy ministry, under a general charge under authority of Session and Diaconate in our polity all the time. There may be problems at individual churches at particular points in time with regard to this, but that is what Session and Diaconate (a group of qualified, ordained men bound by vow) are there to address for the honor and glory of God.

It has been a shock to me, but a very, very few are now arguing the same for women elders in private with the same reasoning. There is no public surface of this in the denomination at all that I am aware of. But the reasoning that devalues these other things (office of deacon, ordination, connectional nature of polity, keeping vows, etc.) in the end can get us to that place. It sure did in the mainline denomination, in steps. (For them it began with women basically substituting for elders on "boards of directors", then worked down to options for deacons, then mandatory for deacons, options for ruling, then teaching elders toward a full fledged 'affirmative action' for female authoritarism. It's dismaying to see what blindness of mind, caused by sin leads to.)

I am concerned that regardless of intention, the result is the same- diminishing the role of deacon as a qualified (men only, husband of one wife) governing office of the church.

The intemperate response that calls all who disagree "egalitains" or claims that the scripture "clearly" supports their view, is (in my opinion) counter productive.

While I understand the concerns, and they are real, especially in light of the mainline denomination history (PCUSA), I don't think that is the immediate focus here, either.

It is extremely important that officers honor their vows, which is a polity of God appointing deacons and elders to govern in the particular church (PCA polity). It is not acceptable to vow that and then commission mixed groups of ordained and unordained to jointly take the authority of the office of Deacon.

As Scott pointed out it is a BCO issue. Let us deal with it in that way.

The overture in the original post is about our BCO, and is in the context of the polity practices of a very few, but high profile, churches in the denomination.

Those churches need to lead in exhibiting humility and subjection to their vows, our constitution, and the connectional and confessional nature of our denomination.

None of us want to see our dear brothers fall.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.

Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.

Pastor Phillips,

The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.

So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.

 

[TimV]

For me the issue is letting down the defences against liberalism built into the PCA constitution by ignoring the BCO. Mason, if I grant you that there is nothing wrong with unordained deaconesses, what do suggest is done with a PCA leader who says for example he won't follow the BCO rules for ordaining male deacons? Specifically refusing to the laying on of hands, which seems to any observer to be an attempt to minimise the difference between the ordained and non ordained? If I'm willing to come half way to meet you on this, how far are you willing to come?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

For me the issue is letting down the defences against liberalism built into the PCA constitution by ignoring the BCO. Mason, if I grant you that there is nothing wrong with unordained deaconesses, what do suggest is done with a PCA leader who says for example he won't follow the BCO rules for ordaining male deacons? Specifically refusing to the laying on of hands, which seems to any observer to be an attempt to minimise the difference between the ordained and non ordained? If I'm willing to come half way to meet you on this, how far are you willing to come?

Tim, I think you make a fair point. While I don't think the laying on of hands is an absolute requirement for ordination, I would like to see it done. Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA asked them to lay hands on their male deacons they would comply; I don't think it's a major issue. I've also said before that I would like to see Redeemer do a better job of distinguishing between ordaining and commissioning deacons, and I don't like their use of the term "officer" to refer to deaconess. It's done for simplicity more than anything, and most people at Redeemer understand the difference. Still, I think they could be more precise with their word choice.

So to answer your question, I think Redeemer could be more clear to avoid confusion among those who are looking at things from afar. Within the church this isn't an issue at all. But to those who only glean their information from internet rumors and random mistakes on YouTube videos I can why there is confusion about the church's practice.

 

[Marrow Man]

1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.

Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.

Pastor Phillips,

The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.

So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.

Mason, my point is that within the same letter (not jumping to another book of the NT where officers are being addressed and the word is being used in a different fashion, evident from the immediate context in those books), Paul refers to Nero (as well as Christ) as a servant using exactly the same Greek word. The point is that diakonos has a wide semantic range, and it would be a commitment of the fallacy of equivocation to suggest that simply because the word is used in conjunction with a woman, it must be a reference to a "female deacon." No one would dare read Romans 13 and conclude that we should install pagan governing authorities as officers (even unordained officers) within the church just because they are called "diakonia." The context of the latter chapters of the book of Romans simply does not warrant that conclusion.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.

Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.

Pastor Phillips,

The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.

So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.

Mason, my point is that within the same letter (not jumping to another book of the NT where officers are being addressed and the word is being used in a different fashion, evident from the immediate context in those books), Paul refers to Nero (as well as Christ) as a servant using exactly the same Greek word. The point is that diakonos has a wide semantic range, and it would be a commitment of the fallacy of equivocation to suggest that simply because the word is used in conjunction with a woman, it must be a reference to a "female deacon." No one would dare read Romans 13 and conclude that we should install pagan governing authorities as officers (even unordained officers) within the church just because they are called "diakonia." The context of the latter chapters of the book of Romans simply does not warrant that conclusion.

If it has a wide semantic range (and I agree it does) then why use it at all? Why just not call them the "Ordained Servants" or something similar? The point is we have chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both the ordained officers and the officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon). The distinction is made based on context. If the early church had no problem with such terminology, why should we today?

 

[lynnie]

Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA asked them to lay hands on their male deacons they would comply; I don't think it's a major issue.

That is good. I think it is God's goodness that this is being forced. The doctrine of the laying on of hands, and all that it signifies from OT to NT, is a doctrine that is so minimized and not grasped today that it doesn't even matter to people, such as in this example. But it does matter. It is foundational. I do hope the PCA stresses this foundational doctrine when they write up the decision.


the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. ( Hebrews 6)

 

[Marrow Man]

If it has a wide semantic range (and I agree it does) then why use it at all? Why just not call them the "Ordained Servants" or something similar? The point is we have chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both the ordained officers and the officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon). The distinction is made based on context. If the early church had no problem with such terminology, why should we today?

There are plenty of words in the NT which also have wide semantic ranges. Context is key, as you agree. We have a term, used elsewhere in the same letter, than cannot possibly be construed in any way as referring to a church office, ordained or unordained. The church in Rome would never have interpreted it that way, and neither should we.

 

[Scott1]

Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA asked them to lay hands on their male deacons they would comply; I don't think it's a major issue.

That is good. I think it is God's goodness that this is being forced. The doctrine of the laying on of hands, and all that it signifies from OT to NT, is a doctrine that is so minimized and not grasped today that it doesn't even matter to people, such as in this example. But it does matter. It is foundational. I do hope the PCA stresses this foundational doctrine when they write up the decision.


the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. ( Hebrews 6)

The constitution requires ordination by laying on of hands.

Church officers, deacons and elders, swear they receive and will uphold their constitution by oath.

Presbyterian Church In America
Book of Church Order

CHAPTER 17
Doctrine of Ordination

17-1. Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be
inducted by the ordination of a court.
17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an
office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of
hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.
17-3. As every ecclesiastical office, according to the Scriptures, is a
special charge, no man shall be ordained unless it be to the performance of a
definite work.
84


21-7. The people having answered these questions in the affirmative, by
holding up their right hands, the candidate shall kneel, and the presiding
minister shall, with prayer and the laying on of hands of the Presbytery,
according to the apostolic example, solemnly set him apart to the holy office
of the Gospel ministry. Prayer being ended, he shall rise from his knees; and
the minister who presides shall first, followed by all members of the
Presbytery, take him by the right hand, saying, in words to this effect:

24-6.
The members of the church having answered this question in the
affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the candidate shall then be set
apart, with prayer by the minister or any other Session member and the
laying on of the hands of the Session, to the office of ruling elder (or
deacon). Prayer being ended, the members of the Session (and the deacons,
if the case be that of a deacon) shall take the newly ordained officer by the hand,
saying in words to this effect:

 

[Scott1]

Having watched this topic (inserting 'deaconess' into polity) discussed for almost three years now, it would seem time has come to resolve this.

This is a matter of vows and constitution in a confessional, connectional denomination.

A good way forward is to reference General Assembly the 2008 Philadelphia Presbytery Overture questions:

(a) may churches choose not to ordain any male deacons?
(b) may churches choose to commission but not to ordain male deacons?
(c) may women be commissioned as deaconesses without ordaining them as deacons?
(d) may the same constitutional questions, or similar questions, used to ordain deacons be used to commission deacons or deaconesses who are not ordained?
(e) may Presbyteries license and ordain men who submit themselves to the BCO but who also believe that women should serve as ordained deacons?
(f) may churches elect ordained men and commissioned women to serve together in the diaconate?
(g) may churches use the title Deaconess for an elected position of ministry in the church or selected to serve according to BCO 9-7?


under a Book of Church Order provision our forefathers in the faith wisely designed for just such a situation. Let us seek God to overrule us:

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER

RULES OF DISCIPLINE 41-1
CHAPTER 41
References

41-1. A reference is a written representation and application made by a
lower court to a higher for advice or other action on a matter pending before
the lower court, and is ordinarily to be made to the next higher court.

41-2. Among proper subjects for reference are matters that are new,
delicate or difficult; or on which the members of the lower court are very
seriously divided; or which relate to questions involving the Constitution and
legal procedures respecting which the lower court feels the need of guidance.

41-3. In making a reference the lower court may ask for advice only, or for
final disposition of the matter referred; and in particular it may refer a
judicial case with request for its trial and decision by the higher court.

41-4. A reference may be presented to the higher court by one or more
representatives appointed by the lower court for this purpose. It should be
accompanied with so much of the record as shall be necessary for proper
understanding and consideration of the matter referred.

41-5. Although references are sometimes proper, in general it is better that
every court should discharge the duty assigned it under the law of the
Church.

A higher court is not required to accede to the request of the lower,
but it should ordinarily give advice when so requested.

41-6. When a court makes a reference, it ought to have all the testimony
and other documents duly prepared, produced and in perfect readiness, so
that the higher court may be able to fully consider and handle the case with
as little difficulty or delay as possible.

Let's pray this will happen this year, and that all will seek charity, fidelity to sacred oath, and the peace and purity of Christ's church, above all else.

 

[Romans922]

1. In fact, the Bible explicitly calls non-ordained women (at least I believe they are not ordained - a debatable point) "deacons" for their formal roles of service in the church. Most of us believe women should not be ordained, but that doesn't changed the fact that there are, without question, female deacons in the Bible.

Are you saying that the Bible applies the generic word for "servant" to women (or a woman, Phoebe, in Romans 16:1)? Certainly that's true, but that's not the same thing as calling a woman a deacon. Church offices are not being discussed in Romans 16, and the same letter by Paul also calls Nero a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 13 and Christ a "servant" (same Greek word) in Romans 15.

Pastor Phillips,

The point is the terminology used. I agree that Romans 16:1 does not indicate Phoebe was an ordained deacon. But it still refers to her using the same word used in Philippians 1 and other places that clearly refer to the church office of deacon. There seemed to be no "confusion" in the early church since Paul uses the same word to refer to both unordained deaconesses and ordained deacons. If Paul can use the same terminology for both, why can't we today? Apparently Calvin and a host of other Reformed leaders who utilize deaconesses agree and had unordained deaconesses.

So this overture goes against the example of the Bible and Reformed thought on this issue - it seeks to establish normative use of the word based on their narrow definition only. That's why it will likely fail, and why it should fail.

Mason, my point is that within the same letter (not jumping to another book of the NT where officers are being addressed and the word is being used in a different fashion, evident from the immediate context in those books), Paul refers to Nero (as well as Christ) as a servant using exactly the same Greek word. The point is that diakonos has a wide semantic range, and it would be a commitment of the fallacy of equivocation to suggest that simply because the word is used in conjunction with a woman, it must be a reference to a "female deacon." No one would dare read Romans 13 and conclude that we should install pagan governing authorities as officers (even unordained officers) within the church just because they are called "diakonia." The context of the latter chapters of the book of Romans simply does not warrant that conclusion.

If it has a wide semantic range (and I agree it does) then why use it at all? Why just not call them the "Ordained Servants" or something similar? The point is we have chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both the ordained officers and the officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon). The distinction is made based on context. If the early church had no problem with such terminology, why should we today?

For one they are already called 'servants' by the word diakonos. Ordained is shown in Acts 6 by the laying on of hands. WE have not chosen to use a biblical term that refers to both ordained officers and lay people. This has been instituted by our Lord. Furthermore, the term 'elder' is the same. Is each instance in Scripture, does 'elder' mean ordained elder? No. It sometimes means those who are older (elders). So does that mean we should change their name too? No, our Lord instituted them as 'Elders' and they are ordained. Besides, there are no 'officially recognized lay people in the church (deacon)'. There are members. And then there are office bearers (elder and deacon). In the PCA, there are also assistants to deacons, determined by the elders. So many people in the PCA want these women assistants to be 'deaconesses'. This is where people want a title, when Scripture has not determined one. Confusion now begins. What then shall we call those men who are assistants? Deacons? Oh, there is no confusion there. Especially if you call the men assistants 'deacons' and the female 'deaconesses'. Why not just call them nothing? They are assistant to the deacons. They are helpers. They are servants. Let them be. Titles are given to those in authority by those who have authority. Assistants to deacons have no authority in Christ's Church, at least none given by God.