Deaconess Overture - Central Carolina Presbytery

[brianeschen]

Proposed Overture on 'Deaconess' to the 38th PCA General Assembly

 

[Christusregnat]

Good for them!

 

[Augusta]

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

It will never pass - the wording is too vague and extra-biblical.

 

[Scott1]

The intentions here are in the right place.

Procedurally, though, it underscores the real problem we must face up to as a denomination- that a few churches are disobeying their constitution, their vows and our polity.

They are doing that by creating an office that is not part of our polity and in some case denigrating ordination and the office of deacon. I'm sure that is not the intent, many are seemingly blind to that though that is what they are doing. Some have gotten to such denial they are even arguing that the office of deacon is not perpetual!

We don't need an overture to obey the constitution.

We need discipline for those who are disobeying, for the peace and purity of Christ's church. That's what we need (though the intentions here are laudable and understandable).

It is sort of like passing an amendment to the US Constitution to allow states to regulate abortion- when it's already within the province of states to do so in the federal system it establishes. Only judicial activism tries to obscure that truth.

We are a confessional church, and officers are under vows to uphold their constitution and receive our polity (which is men leading as deacons and elders and unordained men and women helping them).

Upon reading through our Book of Church Order, its history, historical interpretations and watching it in practice- it is absolutely clear that women are not given to usurp the office of deacon. Nor is that high office to be devalued, nor the doctrine of ordination.

The particular church is governed by deacons and elders, qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 which are men, doctrinally tested and examined for exemplary life. The system works well in practice.

While I would not want to base polity on practicality, but on scripture, it has the beneficial effect of bringing out male leadership in a way which provides stability and balance and a "safe" environment for men, women and children. It works well.

For the sake of their vows and the peace and purity of the church they vow to represent, it is time for repentance and for discipline to preserve that.

 

[Edward]

It will never pass - the wording is too vague and extra-biblical.

I don't expect that we're ever going to agree on this subject.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

It will never pass - the wording is too vague and extra-biblical.

I don't expect that we're ever going to agree on this subject.

Edward -

We might never agree on the deaconess issue, but the failure of this resolution has nothing to do with being for or against deaconesses. It's the foolishness of banning the use of a word simply because it might cause confusion. Paul didn't shy away from the generic use of the word "apostle" because there was a chance people could confuse our general role as apostles with the God-ordained role of Apostles. What's next, banning all use of the term "shepherding" because it's too closely related to pastoring? Deaconess is a biblical and historically Reformed word used to describe non-ordained female servants within the church. Banning its use in that context is silly and petty.

 

[Edward]

It will never pass - the wording is too vague and extra-biblical.

I don't expect that we're ever going to agree on this subject.

Edward -

We might never agree on the deaconess issue, but the failure of this resolution has nothing to do with being for or against deaconesses. It's the foolishness of banning the use of a word simply because it might cause confusion. Paul didn't shy away from the generic use of the word "apostle" because there was a chance people could confuse our general role as apostles with the God-ordained role of Apostles. What's next, banning all use of the term "shepherding" because it's too closely related to pastoring? Deaconess is a biblical and historically Reformed word used to describe non-ordained female servants within the church. Banning its use in that context is silly and petty.

Banning the word in that context clarifies matters where there should be no ambiguity, but where, by clever argument, ambiguity has been created.

Officers of the church, are, by definition in the BCO, elders and deacons. (1-4, 7-2) . If a church doesn't have deacons, those duties fall on the elders (5-10). Deacons are elected in the same manner as elders ((5-10) . The office of deacon is only open to men. (7-2, 9-3).

In the face of these provisions, when a church invites members to nominate women to the diaconate, without action by presbytery, it appears that the terms do need additional definition.
Officer Nominations - redeemer.com

 

[Brian Withnell]

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:49:59 EST-----

...
We don't need an overture to obey the constitution.

We need discipline for those who are disobeying, for the peace and purity of Christ's church. That's what we need (though the intentions here are laudable and understandable).
...
We are a confessional church, and officers are under vows to uphold their constitution and receive our polity (which is men leading as deacons and elders and unordained men and women helping them).
...
For the sake of their vows and the peace and purity of the church they vow to represent, it is time for repentance and for discipline to preserve that.

While I agree in principle, I also know that the church in history has established much of the doctrine in response to heresy. This looks like the beginnings of the church (PCA) cleaning up her act in regard to what has been happening. While there are those that would not want this passed for very good reasons (such as you expressed) I would prefer it be passed. Not so much as it ought to be needed, but because the BOCO is not the scripture, and it ought be changed to confront the times to force those that would infiltrate and seek to change the institution to a more liberal bent even if they work slowly and over long periods of time.

The alternative is to do nothing, and hope the presbyteries individually act to reign in those sessions (and almost assuredly pastors) that encourage such deviation from the confession. In a very real sense, this is needed, not because it isn't already "law". It is needed because the law is being scoffed at by those that are in the pastorate (if it were not, they would bring their own session up on charges before presbytery!)

 

[lynnie]

I was just wondering...... I know PCA TEs can take exceptions when they are ordained and I know of one who took it about the sabbath (not sure of the details.) I also know that all elders have to vow that if at any time they change their thinking about the WCF ( and BCO too maybe?) they have to tell the session.

Now I know you can't change your mind and decide to be FV. But are they changing their mind about a male diaconate and "taking exceptions" and that is considered to be OK? Or are they just breaking vows and don't care? Or do they think they never vowed to uphold male diaconates?

I guess what I don't understand is breaking vows. I have read the position papers and it is one thing to think the bible teaches deaconesses are OK. But if you vowed something else, aren't you supposed to step down as an elder? We just installed some and the vows seemed to be a big deal.

 

[Brian Withnell]

I was just wondering...... I know PCA TEs can take exceptions when they are ordained and I know of one who took it about the sabbath (not sure of the details.) I also know that all elders have to vow that if at any time they change their thinking about the WCF ( and BCO too maybe?) they have to tell the session.

Now I know you can't change your mind and decide to be FV. But are they changing their mind about a male diaconate and "taking exceptions" and that is considered to be OK? Or are they just breaking vows and don't care? Or do they think they never vowed to uphold male diaconates?

I guess what I don't understand is breaking vows. I have read the position papers and it is one thing to think the bible teaches deaconesses are OK. But if you vowed something else, aren't you supposed to step down as an elder? We just installed some and the vows seemed to be a big deal.

Sadly, vows today are not generally considered a big deal by many. How many churches would tell a man that he may not get married if he was divorced without scriptural warrant? How many would tell a woman that she must not disregard the decisions her husband makes? When two are married, they enter into the union with vows before God. How many Christians are divorced? Remarriage ought not occur in the church without the person(s) involved either having been an innocent party to a divorce (as judged by a court of the church) or having honorably completed the original vows. (Marriage is "until death us do part" so that when one or the other dies, the marriage no longer exists, but has been successfully completed by both parties if they have been faithful to those vows.)

You would think that vows would mean something, but look at the vows of our public officials, and how lax they are in fulfilling them. It isn't that the officials are more corrupt than the people, the officials reflect the corruption of the people! If the people were outraged at lack of vow keeping, there would have been such an uproar over Clinton that he would have been shamed out of office by his own party. If keeping vows were important, the supreme court would uphold and defend the constitution, instead of legislate from the bench. If vows were important, marriages would normally last until death, and to be divorced would be the ruin of a man or woman that was divorced for cause.

Can the church uphold purity when the people are corrupt? Pray that God will send his Spirit upon the land to turn the hearts of the people to God so our world will be blessed and our children not under suffering of general judgment (as the 7000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal). There is a remnant yet, but we need to plead that God would show mercy to the people called by his name that they would turn back to him, even those in liberal denominations.

 

[Scott1]

Good questions, lynnie.

As Brian has put in context, it is about vows.

I was just wondering...... I know PCA TEs can take exceptions when they are ordained
I understand what you are meaning, but "exceptions" are only requested, they must be put on record, evaluated and granted by a "spiritual jury of peers."

They are not automatic, nor a mere formality. They are a "big deal" in our system, and rightfully so because we view our confession very highly. It's not infallible, and we're not infallible- that's why we have a system for differences to be (carefully) evaluated.

This goes not only for teaching elders, but also ruling elders and deacons. (see in this the tandem, that all three are authoritative offices in the PCA. That's another reason women cannot be deacons, or pretend upon that office in our system).

and I know of one who took it about the sabbath (not sure of the details.)
I have seen "exception" granted for recreation, or certain light recreation on the Lord's Day, which is to be abstained from based on the Westminster standards' summary of the doctrine of Scripture.

I know of one case where a teaching elder candidate held the sabbath does not apply to new testament believers- he was denied ordination. (Incidentally, I know this man- and he is faithful and "orthodox" on every other point best I know, but this blind spot cost him his ordination- I really believe he will one day see his wrongness on this! Christians can (and do) change because of Christ working in their lives.

I also know that all elders have to vow that if at any time they change their thinking about the WCF ( and BCO too maybe?) they have to tell the session.

Yes, in the PCA, part of their vow is to inform their session of any change in their belief. This is an "escape hatch." It is a violation of a sacred oath to have misrepresented one's ordination vow to receive the polity and doctrine (e.g. Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order). But graciously, and correctly, I think, it allows for changes in belief. But it is the responsibility of the one who took the vow to also come forward and not labor under false witness (or his distressed conscience).

Now I know you can't change your mind and decide to be FV.
Remember, that a change of mind on vowed doctrine or polity requires by ordination vow that the person notify their session.

By their vows, its not really the responsibility of the session to "figure out" if an elder has changed his beliefs, but it is incumbent, before God for the officer to "come forward," and without undue delay.

Their difference would have to be evaluated and would either result in an approved "exception" or resignation or removal from office.

Several of the vows teaching elders take vow on this point.

It is very clear they are swearing before God, with witnesses (and asking God himself to hold them to account) to a system of government which is by deacons and elders governing the local church, men appointed by God to serve them, examined and tested and confirmed by those they would rule over.

This is a rare, an amazing and beautiful system which I believe is the most biblical anyone has come up with. (I say "most biblical" because admittedly, there are many specifics not given in Scripture, and some office titles are subject, in good faith, to different meanings.)

Presbyterian Church in America

21-5

2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and
the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further
promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with
any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you
will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery
the change which has taken place in your views since the
assumption of this ordination vow?

3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of
the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the
general principles of Biblical polity?

4. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?

5. Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart,
to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a
sincere desire to promote His glory in the Gospel of His Son?

6. Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the
truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of
the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise
unto you on that account?

But are they changing their mind about a male diaconate and "taking exceptions" and that is considered to be OK? Or are they just breaking vows and don't care?
Charitably, the very few churches that are so flagrantly violating our constitution (and their vows to receive and uphold it) are not clearly seeing the doctrine reflected nor the specific provisions of our BCO.

This blindness comes from sin.

Whether from pride, fear of persons (the world), sloth, I do not know... but God knows. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

A Pastor once told me our BCO is "a document that you learn by using it."

An officer candidate is not required to know every "proposition or statement" in it like quite like they are the Westminster Standards. But they must receive its doctrine implicitly, and specifically receive its polity and system of governance (which is why the deacon issue is so important).

Or do they think they never vowed to uphold male diaconates?

I guess what I don't understand is breaking vows. I have read the position papers and it is one thing to think the bible teaches deaconesses are OK. But if you vowed something else, aren't you supposed to step down as an elder? We just installed some and the vows seemed to be a big deal.

Vows are the biggest possible deal.

Ecclesiastes 5

4When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

5Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay

One does not want to be in the shoes of one who violates them. Particularly one who has been given authority and influence in Christ's Church.

Christians need to learn this and be conscience of fear of God's chastisement for violating them.

I am optimistic on this because Christians can and do realize sin and repent (confess, forsake, make restitution/reconciliation inasmuch as it is in their power) all the time. It is within their power, because of Christ. Officer leaders above all must know and model this.

I find this passage of Scripture encouraging and illustrative of what God requires of us, and particularly of leaders to try, by God's grace to emulate. No one ever "gets away" with violating public vows. I have more fear for those who are publicly "commissioning" deaconesses, refusing to ordain deacons, changing the wording of the vows, and misrepresenting our polity by word and practice than anything else.

Galatians 6

5For every man shall bear his own burden.

6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

This passage is both an exhortation and warning to those who take vows.

While there are other issues, that is the heart of this issue.

(Sorry to go so long on this, but since these are questions many are asking and genuinely seeking to understand, thought this biblical context would be helpful, and glorify our Lord.)

 

[lynnie]

Thank you so much Scott, that was extremely helpful. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it all. Thank you also Brian.

Not to open a can of worms here, but is this going on in all the Reformed denominations ( FV, deaconesses) ? Or just mainly the PCA? And if not, why exactly would it mainly be in one denomination?

 

[Scott1]

Thank you so much Scott, that was extremely helpful. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it all. Thank you also Brian.

Not to open a can of worms here, but is this going on in all the Reformed denominations ( FV, deaconesses) ? Or just mainly the PCA? And if not, why exactly would it mainly be in one denomination?

To paraphrase a politician, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

This is not new.

I could be wrong, but don't think federal vision is advancing in the "reformed world." It has burned too many of its bridges. Not to say it is not a threat in some localized contexts, nor that it doesn't have to be dealt with like any other serious error or confusion of biblical truth.

Probably the greater threat is liberalism- it's always "at the door" because man wants to usurp God.

Idolatry is probably the most basic human sin and in our fallen selves, it seems right to us that man decides God, it's all about what man thinks. Such reasoning leads to men thinking, they, not God call, appoint and ordain people to serve as officers, that vows aren't sacred promises that God supervises.

The fact that sin continually works out before us ought not surprise us- the fact that God still redeems us and situations for His Honor and His glory ought surprise us.

And God will always have a people, and he has many, many of them in the reformed communions- and many in our denomination.

Our part is to pray for our leaders, engage, and repent ourselves as a lifestyle and trust God for the results.

Because it is God, I have a lot of faith in that.