Not Ordaining Deacons

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brandon1

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi everyone!

I was wondering what those in the PCA think of not ordaining deacons.

I know there was an overture from the South Carolina Presbytery which opposed the practice but what are reasons that you may object to it? I'm thinking more along the lines of objections from the BCO more than anything else, but a well thought out rejection based upon Scripture would be welcomed too.

This is a secondary (though very important) question. What is ordination, and what is conferred upon someone who is ordained? The BCO is very ambigious in my opinion and I'm wondering what the diaconate would lose if it was not ordained. Given the BCO definition, the only thing they may potentially be out of is the right hand of fellowship...

Thanks for your consideration!
 
Well, for one, some would use that practice (and do use that practice) to blur the distinction between the biblical office of Deacon and those in a supportive role underneath the Deaconate (such as "deaconesses").
 
Eric, you are right. Though, of course, they would not see it as blurring the biblical office of deacon but recovering it. But this is not the issue I'm trying to pursue. It is a more focused issue on the constitionality of this practice. The reasons for using it are immaterial to the specifics of the question. Not meant as a rebuke, but simply to make sure any responses remain on topic.
 
Hebrews 6
1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again 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. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

Brandon, the doctrine of the laying on of hands is a foundational Christian doctrine yet almost lost in many churches today. I could say a lot about what I believe is at stake here, but it might be good if you yourself get a concordance and see what the bible says about the laying on of hands, in the NT mainly but also in the old. Gifts are imparted, and the hand denotes authority.

I have been around Presbyterians who are terribly sick, I am sorry for them but ask them if they have gone to the elders for prayer with the laying on of hands according to James 5, and I swear to you some of them don't know what I am talking about, and they have been in church for years. Now my two PCA churches had elders who most gracious prayed for me when I asked, and I had healings follow, and that passage says for the sick to seek out the elders. But just saying that a foundational doctrine like this, listed right next to faith itself and baptism, etc, in the passage above, is for some reason neglected and ignored. And yeah it matters for ordination and a whole lot else. Look it up, you will be amazed.
 
I'm not sure what you're looking for. You seem to have decided that the BCO does not require an ordained diaconate, when it clearly does unless a congregation is in such circumstances as make it impossible (i.e. not sufficient mature men to take on the office). Such congregations are to then perform diaconal tasks through the elders. The Bible prescribes two offices - deacon and elder (whether there are teaching/ruling or merely 'elders' is a matter of interpretation and both sides have good argument for their cause) - and the BCO is down-the-line consistent with this Biblical principle. Churches are, as a matter of course, expected to have both ruling elders and deacons. They CAN function without ordained deacons, for a time - I can imagine a very new particular church who has just particularized but not yet able to fill both ruling elder and deacon offices, for instance. A mature church, however, has NO business skirting the BCO and NOT ordaining deacons - ESPECIALLY if all they do is replace the ordained office with an un-ordained equivalent that is open to men and women alike. The BCO is, it seems to me, crystal clear on what is to be the SOP.

Despite what is sometimes argued, the provision which says "when it is impossible for any reason to ordain deacons" does NOT allow for a session to say "hey, we don't want to ordain deacons, but we want men and women alike to serve in identical roles and call them deacons and deaconesses". This position is very much like (in its lack of logic and respect for the foundational document) the argument made in favor of abortion rights based on the 14th amendment.

Besides this, which is the crux of the matter for me and an open-and-shut case in terms of who are in the right and who are in the wrong, there is often argued further that these unordained deacons and deaconnesses are filling the roles of the "diaconal assistants" that the BCO allows for in section 9-7. However, there is a major problem here. First, the BCO calls for them to be diaconal assistants TO THE DEACONS. If there are no deacons, then how are these commissioned deaconnesses anywhere close to what 9-7 calls for? I think diaconal assistants are GREAT - but they are to be ASSISTANTS, and not in the identical role to ordained deacons - if they exist. If ordained deacons do NOT exist, then these women cannot be BCO 9-7 "diaconal assistants".

Second, the BCO calls for the SESSION to APPOINT them. If a church elects these deaconesses just as they elect deacons and elders, and then they take vows similar to if not exactly the same as the ordination vows of deacons, how does this fit the bill? How do we distinguish these putative diaconal assistants from ordained deaconesses in such a case?

The BCO is absolutely NOT ambiguous on these points. These assistants are to be appointed, period, and are to assist the ordained male deacons that every church is to have unless providentially hindered (and not just because "we don't want to ordain deacons because it's sexist and keeps women from exercising their gifts").
 
Isn't that sweet. A pastoral intern in the PCA wants us to ignore the main reason certain constituencies in the PCA want to engage in a practice and only discuss the constitutionality of the practice. What a sad state of affairs for this denomination. How jaded and machiavellan.

There is always the EPC, Brandon, and they pay almost as well as the PCA. Why not infiltrate them instead?
 
You seem to have decided that the BCO does not require an ordained diaconate, when it clearly does unless a congregation is in such circumstances as make it impossible (i.e. not sufficient mature men to take on the office).
Click to expand...

The BCO says Deacons have to be ordained. It says there have to be Deacons unless it's impossible. Todd is correct in what the BCO means by impossible. Some supporters of liberal PCA teachers say impossible means that if it bothers the conscience of people it's impossible. The problem with that is that the BCO says that if it's impossible then the Elders have to do the work of Deacons, and they naturally just ignore that.
 
Sigh......

I'm strictly discussing the constiutionaltity of the issue. The SJC just determined that this practice is permissable. And the BCO does not require that a church have a Diaconate. Should they? That is an entirely different question (though not unimportant).

I guess I need to ask more specifically. I'm looking primarily for those ministers in the PCA who are opposed to the SJC's decision in Case 2009-26, Complaint of the Session of Grace Church, Pleasanton vs. N. California Presbytery. Specifically their perspective on the NORD (Nobody Ordained) view. This may include biblical arguments, but I want the focus to be on the constitutional nature of this decision. Thanks!
 
Pleasanton is one of only three churches in the biggest (geographically speaking) PCA presbytery that has even heard of the BCO. Do you have a link to the ruling?
 
Only have a hardcopy, I will look for a link

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

I'm having trouble finding a link to any rulings from the SJC. Perhaps if someone knew where they may be accessed it would be helpful.

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

Johannes Weslianus: Northern California Presbytery Involved in Case Before the SJC on Deaconesses For background on the case itself you can see it here. The decision was just made at GA though so I'm not sure if the decision has even been disseminated yet I guess.
 
Brandon1 said:
Only have a hardcopy, I will look for a link

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

I'm having trouble finding a link to any rulings from the SJC. Perhaps if someone knew where they may be accessed it would be helpful.

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

http://johannesweslianus.blogspot.com/2010/06/northern-california-presbytery-involved.html]Johannes Weslianus: Northern California Presbytery Involved in Case Before the SJC on Deaconesses[/url] For background on the case itself you can see it here. The decision was just made at GA though so I'm not sure if the decision has even been disseminated yet I guess.
Click to expand...
You can't find a link to the SJC decision because there is no SJC decision.

All that has been done is a proposed decision by a Judicial Panel has been put forward. The SJC will not take up the case until October.
 
Last edited:
Rev. Greco

Thanks for that important clarification. I do have the proposal though and it affirms the NORD view in the following ways.

It is constitutionally permissible for a congregation to chose to have only one Deacon, then they are constitutionally permitted to choose to have no Deacons.

This is rooted in the fact that individual congregations have a right to decide certain things about their make-up (like whether or not to incorporate or to have by-laws)

Furthermore, even where the BCO assumes on practice as standard, a congregation or Session may choose a different practice, so long as it is not explicitly prohibited. (The Report goes on to list numerous examples including settings term limits for ruling elders, receiving parents into membership who don't baptize their children, etc.)

Furthermore, a Diaconate is not necessary for a Church to be particularized and therefore it cannot be required that a Church have a Diaconate to remain a particular church. That responsibility is left up to the congregation.

There is more in the proposal but I'd be interested to see what people thought about it. Thanks for your time.
 
I don't follow the logic of "if ONE deacon is constitutionally permitted, then NONE are." Such logic is impossible for me to fathom.

For the benefit of those of us who can't access the hard copy of this report you have, can you further outline the statements made in the report? What of post #13 are your words, and what are those used in the report? For instance - does the report actually argue that "if one is allowed, then zero are allowed", or is that you? Does the report actually equate the having or not having of ordained deacons incorporation or other adiaphora?

If anyone else actually has the text (I can't find the text on Wes White's blog) of the SJC proposed ruling, please post.
 
The entirety of the arguments is not here obviously, but everything that I wrote is from the report, not from me.

One of the points I omitted is that in their ruling they recognize that the BCO does not stipulate anything about the formation of the Diaconate. For the Session however there is a stipulated number for a quorum. Because the BCO is silent on HOW the Diaconate is formed, the decision devolves to the congregation and if they want one, two, or even no deacons, that is their right.

Hopefully that clarifies a little bit but it may not persuade you :)
 
Woah -- A younger brother asking for clarification is a very good thing. Do we really want to be in the habit of telling people: do as I say or go elsewhere?
 
Brandon1 said:
The entirety of the arguments is not here obviously, but everything that I wrote is from the report, not from me.

One of the points I omitted is that in their ruling they recognize that the BCO does not stipulate anything about the formation of the Diaconate.
Click to expand...

Formation of? If by this is meant how deacons come to be, I would with all due respect to the panel argue that they've erred significantly. The BCO very clearly spells out what is expected in terms of the election of offers, both elders and deacons. Surely this is not what you meant, however.

I assume by "formation of" you meant "makeup" or "composition of". I can't agree here, either, since the Diaconate clearly is intended to be "the deacons". The term "Deacon" is clearly defined in BCO chapter 9, as is the "Board of Deacons": these are the elected and ordained male officers whose role is spelled out in particular in section 9-2. To argue that somehow "diaconate" in the BCO is an ill-defined term is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Brandon1 said:
For the Session however there is a stipulated number for a quorum. Because the BCO is silent on HOW the Diaconate is formed, the decision devolves to the congregation and if they want one, two, or even no deacons, that is their right.
Click to expand...

Again, I cannot in any sense understand how you (or the panel of the SJC) draw this conclusion from the BCO. Deacons are to be elected officers of the congregation, men only, and ordained with the laying on of hands, to whom the congregation makes particular vows of obedience and acceptance of them as officers of the congregation.
 
Brandon1 said:
Rev. Greco

Thanks for that important clarification. I do have the proposal though and it affirms the NORD view in the following ways.

It is constitutionally permissible for a congregation to chose to have only one Deacon, then they are constitutionally permitted to choose to have no Deacons.

This is rooted in the fact that individual congregations have a right to decide certain things about their make-up (like whether or not to incorporate or to have by-laws)

Furthermore, even where the BCO assumes on practice as standard, a congregation or Session may choose a different practice, so long as it is not explicitly prohibited. (The Report goes on to list numerous examples including settings term limits for ruling elders, receiving parents into membership who don't baptize their children, etc.)

Furthermore, a Diaconate is not necessary for a Church to be particularized and therefore it cannot be required that a Church have a Diaconate to remain a particular church. That responsibility is left up to the congregation.

There is more in the proposal but I'd be interested to see what people thought about it. Thanks for your time.
Click to expand...

Brandon,

Your perspective stated above is something like what the church chooses to do. That's something like the viewpoint Arminian influence uses to describe salvation (e.g. what man chooses to do- rather than what God chose [in eternity past] to do).

But your confessed polity, upheld by vow, is that God appoints officers to the covenant community- it's more of the church trying to discern what God has done and recognize the officers (deacons and elders) that God is calling out as authority for them.

So the church is actually encouraging men with those gifts (e.g. for the office of deacon and elder) to bring out their calling- not restrict it.

The ordinary course for the particular church, reflected in the Book of Church order, is governance by a plurality of elders and deacons, constituted as a board.

It's an abnormal, temporary situation to not have both- cause for prayer by the congregation that God will send and call out men to serve them and constitute their governance.:)
 
Todd,

Before I clarify, I want people to understand I'm not trying argue the position. I'm just trying to present the position as clearly as possible so as to form a critical opinion.

Obviously, if you had the report you could read all the language for yourself. Since this is just a proposal (which I was unaware of until Rev. Greco pointed it out) I'm not sure that its appropriate for me to pass it on and I'm certainly not going to type out all 16 pages of the Report. I understand it can be tough to read between the lines, especially if someone feels I'm attempting to push a certain perspective. But I think I am fairly representing the document.

So to clarify what the SJC is saying, the BCO DOES NOT speak to the specifics of the Diaconate, it only refers that the deacons should be formed in a board. But there is nothing prescribed about the specific formation of the Diaconate in regards to number, frequency of elections, ballot limitations, and many other things. And because Deacons are not an explicitly necessary office according to the BCO, it is up to individual congregations on whether or not to ordain elders.

Your statement here, "To argue that somehow "diaconate" in the BCO is an ill-defined term is beyond my ability to comprehend," is true, but not to the issue. The Deacons are clearly defined in the BCO, but the specifications of how this board functions is left up to the Church. This is why the number of deacons is not prescribed.

And finally, while it is true that the BCO appears to assume of plurality of deacons, the SJC proposal labels the NORD view as being a Non-Standard Practice (NSP). This means that while the BCO assumes one practice as standard, a congregation or session may choose a practice, so long as it is not explicitly prohibited. As I've noted, there are a number of examples (16 in all) that demonstrate that this is how the PCA functions. As a result, just because the BCO operates under the assumption that there will be a plurality of elders, it nowhere requires it. And furthermore, its existence is not seen as necessary (though it be preferred) in the Church. The Proposal reads directly regarding BCO 9-3 "(Granted, it says 'impossible' not 'undesirable'. Nonetheless it demonstrates the lack of necessity)"
 
Brandon,
I don't want to distract from your specific interaction here, but some of what you are saying about the BCO is not at all correct, and does not leave an accurate characterization of it or our polity.

Also, I'm not familiar with the proposal discussing, and so will not address that part.

Brandon1 said:
....

So to clarify what the SJC is saying, the BCO DOES NOT speak to the specifics of the Diaconate, it only refers that the deacons should be formed in a board.
Oh no.

The constitution says a lot more than that!

Deacons and ruling elders are qualifed, examined, ordained and installed by the same processes throughout the Book of Church Order, reflecting them as the means by which God governs the particular church.

But there is nothing prescribed about the specific formation of the Diaconate in regards to number, frequency of elections, ballot limitations, and many other things.

Be careful, e.g.

9-4. The deacons of a particular church shall be organized as a Board, of
which the pastor shall be an advisory member. The Board shall elect a
chairman and a secretary from their number and a treasurer to whom shall be
entrusted the funds for the current expenses of the church. It shall meet
separately at least once a quarter, and whenever requested by the Session.
The Board of each church shall determine the number necessary for a
quorum.
The Board shall keep a record of its proceedings, and of all funds
and their distribution, and shall submit its minutes to the Session regularly,
and at other times upon request of the Session.
It is desirable that the Session and the Board of Deacons meet in
joint session once a quarter to confer on matters of common interest.
Click to expand...



And because Deacons are not an explicitly necessary office according to the BCO,
Not sure where you are getting this from.

3-6. The exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether joint or several, has the
divine sanction when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the
Lawgiver, and when put forth by courts or by officers appointed thereunto in
His Word.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

it is up to individual congregations on whether or not to ordain elders.

Surely you don't mean this-
The BCO does not permit a church without elders- not in presbyterianism!

Your statement here, "To argue that somehow "diaconate" in the BCO is an ill-defined term is beyond my ability to comprehend," is true, but not to the issue. The Deacons are clearly defined in the BCO, but the specifications of how this board functions is left up to the Church.
As 9-4 says above, it is specific in general charges and operation. "How" the Board functions, with a Treasurer and Pastor as an Advisory member is pretty specific.

The charges for Diaconate are, basically:

1) oversight of mercy ministry
2) care and use of real and personal property of the congregation
3) development of the "grace of liberality" in the congregation

These are very big, ongoing, and essential tasks in every congregation. In the rare instances where God has not called Deacons, such as a start-up church in a destitute region, all the responsibilities fall back on the Elders until Deacons can be confirmed.


This is why the number of deacons is not prescribed.

Though minimums are set for elders to particularize a church, in general there is no number of elders set- similar to Deacons.

It's really dependent on God calling and appointing, and He doesn't have an exact formula. We only know its ordinarily a plurality.

And finally, while it is true that the BCO appears to assume of plurality of deacons, the SJC proposal labels the NORD view as being a Non-Standard Practice (NSP). This means that while the BCO assumes one practice as standard, a congregation or session may choose a practice, so long as it is not explicitly prohibited.

Things are true both by being stated explicitly and implicitly.

Because the BCO explicitly constitutes the local church with elders and deacons, it implicitly excludes governance by bishops.

We wouldn't say because the BCO doesn't specifically say a church can't have bishops that a local church could govern by bishopric.

As I've noted, there are a number of examples (16 in all) that demonstrate that this is how the PCA functions. As a result, just because the BCO operates under the assumption that there will be a plurality of elders, it nowhere requires it. And furthermore, its existence is not seen as necessary (though it be preferred) in the Church. The Proposal reads directly regarding BCO 9-3 "(Granted, it says 'impossible' not 'undesirable'. Nonetheless it demonstrates the lack of necessity)"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I apologize, let me clarify.

The BCO does speak to the formation of the deacons. In regards to the NORD view though, the BCO does not clearly stipulate that deacons must be installed. This is what I mean when I say the BCO doesn't speak to the specifics. It does say who should be on the Diaconate and how often this Diaconate should meet for example. What it does not say however is how often elections should take place, how many men are required in the diaconate, or if a church should be disciplined if they do not have a Diaconate. That may have been confusing and unclear. Sorry about that.

If it needs further clarification let me know! But this is why I'm here, to try to figure out what people think and work through the issues myself. Thanks for your help.
 
Again, I'm not familiar with the document referred to, so I'll not respond to that.

Brandon1 said:
I apologize, let me clarify.

The BCO does speak to the formation of the deacons. In regards to the NORD view though, the BCO does not clearly stipulate that deacons must be installed.
Ordination and installation are two separate ordinances of worship that ordinarily go hand-in-hand.

As a more technical point, ordination is perpetual (for deacons and elders), but installation is a public ceremony, sealed by vows by both the officer and the congregation. So, while one is an officer for life, one is installed for "active" service for terms.

The length of terms is not specified, for example, so that is left to local practice. Many churches use three year terms, but that is not required. Many also incorporate the principle of sabbatical and allow officers (deacons and elders) to serve two three year terms, then take a minimum one year sabbatical.
In practice, of course "inactive" deacons and elders are routinely called for service.

This is what I mean when I say the BCO doesn't speak to the specifics.

It is specific about general charges and the polity of the offices- both deacon and elder are qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, nominated, examined, elected, ordained and installed. This is throughout the Book of Church Order, explicitly and implicitly.

It is our confessed polity, received by oath by the congregation, and by the officer, who agrees to uphold it.

BCO is very clear about all of this.

It does say who should be on the Diaconate and how often this Diaconate should meet for example.

Actually, it does.

9-4. The deacons of a particular church shall be organized as a Board, of
which the pastor shall be an advisory member. The Board shall elect a
chairman and a secretary from their number and a treasurer to whom shall be
entrusted the funds for the current expenses of the church. It shall meet
separately at least once a quarter, and whenever requested by the Session.
Click to expand...

The BCO even gives guidance on how often Diaconate ought have joint meetings with Session.

It is desirable that the Session and the Board of Deacons meet in
joint session once a quarter to confer on matters of common interest.
Click to expand...

What it does not say however is how often elections should take place, how many men are required in the diaconate, or if a church should be disciplined if they do not have a Diaconate.
Yes, it does.


16-2. The government of the Church is by officers gifted to represent
Christ, and the right of God’s people to recognize by election to office those
so gifted is inalienable. Therefore no man can be placed over a church in any
office without the election, or at least the consent of that church.
Click to expand...

Election
24-1. Every church shall elect persons to the offices of ruling elder and
deacon in the following manner:
....
Click to expand...


That may have been confusing and unclear. Sorry about that.

If it needs further clarification let me know! But this is why I'm here, to try to figure out what people think and work through the issues myself. Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...

It's inconceivable that a presbyterian church would deny men who are called to the office of deacon or ruling elder their calling, or the congregation of the benefits of God's appointment for them.

It is a violation of Scripture, the oath of office, the oath of the congregation, our constitution, and a misrepresentation of our confessed polity.

These doctrines are to be routinely taught as part of officer training (deacons and elders), and by ordinance of worship to the congregation in every PCA church. Every officer must know them to serve, as part of qualification to serve.

It the responsibility of every session to make sure they are taught and modeled.
 
Last edited:
Scott,

I'll just say this about the last thing you quoted BCO 16-2 does not require that churches ordain deacons. The proposal answers this objection by pointing out that the Session is not required to elect anyone who the congregation has not called.
 
Brandon1 said:
Scott,

I'll just say this about the last thing you quoted BCO 16-2 does not require that churches ordain deacons. The proposal answers this objection by pointing out that the Session is not required to elect anyone who the congregation has not called.
Click to expand...

Yes it does,
It says no particular church has a right to deny men called by God, and qualified, the office to which God has called them. See also the doctrine of ordination (Chapter 17), the doctrine of vocation (Chapter 16). It's also implicit in the Preliminary Principles to the Book of Church Order, and in other places.
 
Scott,

Show me where it says any particular church must have a Diaconate. You are taking statements made about churches with Diaconates and making them normative for all churches. But not all particular churches do have diaconates for various reasons (being a mission for example). In Chapter 9 it clearly indicates that the Diaconate is not necessary for churches. So if all these things are true according to the BCO, then your arguments against this practice are actually against the BCO's understanding of the Diaconate. Of course, I don't think this is what you want to do, but I think it's the result of the way you are arguing your position.
 
Brandon,

Re-read the many sections posted above.

They should be teaching this in officer's training. It's basic. :)
 
Brandon1 said:
Scott,

Show me where it says any particular church must have a Diaconate. You are taking statements made about churches with Diaconates and making them normative for all churches. But not all particular churches do have diaconates for various reasons (being a mission for example).
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be hearing what's said, Brandon. The ONLY (and I repeat, ONLY) qualification that makes it possible according to the BCO for a church to be without ordained, installed, male deacons is IMPOSSIBILITY.

Otherwise, it should be clear to anyone who reads the BCO that the stipulation is that churches have ordained deacons. If a church does not have a diaconate, there MUST be provable a barrier that makes it (for now) impossible to ordain deacons. Ordained deacons as officers of the church are a requirement unless the church is providentially hindered. Reasons such as:

1) the church is a mission work. Clearly needn't have deacons yet.
2) the church is recently particularized and has not yet been able to train deacons
under the church's session.
3) the church is very small and has too few mature men to be able to supply a diaconate

Other than these kind of situations, wherein it could legitimately be deemed "impossible" to have ordained
deacons, it seems quite plain that the BCO requires an ordained board of deacons. Mere preference to have
women as officers of the church (as Redeemer and others do) is simply NOT something the BCO countenances in
its language of "impossibility". This is laughably clear.
 
Scott,

Not to be trite, but I'm reiterating the arguments of the SJC and I think you are missing the point. You have yet to demonstrate that churches are required to ordain deacons. Why can a church become a particular church without having deacons? The way you have presented your case they are out of bounds. But the BCO clearly states that deacons are not necessary for a church to be particularized.

Furthermore, you are misunderstanding how the SJC is reading the BCO. It is not at all clear when a church is required to ordain deacons. The BCO is simply silent, and this is the issue, hence the proposal. Do you understand what I am saying? There are guidelines for WHAT to do with deacons WHEN you have them. But there is no guideline saying when you MUST have them. This issue is left up to the particular church to decide. I'm not sure if I can present the case any more clearly, perhaps someone else could help me out?

What you are saying is truly in the BCO. But it is not pertinent for this discussion because we are not talking about what to do with deacons when they are elected and ordained. We are talking about when a church is required to ordain deacons, and this issue is not addressed in the BCO. Therefore, the ruling of the committee that individual churches can decide if it is fitting for their congregations to ordain deacon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top