Redeemer NYC: Officer Nominations --> Deaconesses!!!

[Romans922]

Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.

Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.

For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:

Complaint

TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery

.....

5. Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in the diaconal ministry.

6. Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon” or “deaconess” though no one is ordained to this ministry.

Scott,

There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing. How can Redeemer possibly be faulted for 1. Ordaining male deacons, and 2. Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?

I know you don't like the practice, and that's fine - I understand and respect your reasoning. But you cannot say Redeemer is willfully violating the BCO when it is plainly obvious the church is not out of line with the BCO.

There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.

Deacons (male) of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. Why is there an option (again, if I am correct)? If one is a deacon than they are a deacon, they are to be ordained. There are no options.

BCO 9-7 referring to those who assist the deacons, it clearly says that such people are selected by the Session, not nominated, trained, examined, and elected by the congregation. That is only for ordained elders/deacons. This whole thing is messed up.



Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.

 

[Archlute]

Mason, several times in this thread you have made the assertion that Redeemer is merely following Scriptural and Reformed precedent, but if it were undoubtedly supported by Scripture and previous Reformed practice it would not even be up for debate.

The case from Scripture is quite weak, it's really not even noteworthy apart from the fact that it has become such a big issue among the modern day church, which tends to cave to pressure on this issue. Saying that "Phoebe was a deaconess" is a bit facile, since the meaning of the term (whether official deacon, or just one noticed for her service to the church in an unofficial capacity) is not very clear, and the discussion of what are almost assuredly the wives of the deacons in 1 Timothy has to employ agonizingly convoluted exegetical arguments to make it say something other than what Paul is clearly saying in the overall context of the pastoral epistles.

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.

Deacons of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. And to continue to back a church which continues to rebel against Scripture/Standards/BCO is to continue to serve the Devil himself, it is to not follow God's own command (openly and unrepentantly) of the 5th Commandment (as well as others).


Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.

So, Pastor Barnes, all those churches (perhaps your included?) that commission VBS leaders, missionaries (long and short-term), and a variety of other church roles are doing so to find loopholes and in so doing "serve the Devil himself?" I don't think you would agree with that! The truth is PCA churches commission people all the time to various roles and I don't think you would call them rebellious against Scripture and the BCO.

The bottom line is you don't agree with deaconesses being utilized, and that's fine - I understand completely. But if you disagree with them being commissioned then you must disagree with ALL commissioning in every single PCA church. If you do, then you are in the vast minority of PCA pastors. If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.

Unordained deaconesses are not contrary to Scripture. In fact, a strong case can be made that they are promoted and established in Scripture. Calvin even utilized unordained deaconesses in his church - was Calvin rebellious against Scripture and a servant of the devil? The Westminster Standards are silent on the role of deacons and deaconesses - so how is Redeemer rebellious against them? As discussed above the BCO does not prohibit commissioning groups of people within the congregation, so Redeemer is not rebelling against the BCO.

I respect your role as a TE, Pastor Barnes, and your desire to maintain the purity of the Church and the PCA. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments - on this issue you are dead wrong.

 

[kvanlaan]

Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?

Can I have an example of this commissioning from Scripture?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

 

[jwithnell]

I was challenged a bit on another forum, so I looked up the Redeemer website -- http://download.redeemer.com/pdf/NominationForm.pdf

 

[Michael Doyle]

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

I am sorry my friend Mason, observing this post from afar, while I do admire your diligence in defending what I am sure you believe to be true, and I do disagree vehemently, the reformed precedence you confirm is a real stretch. If that is the best you have, I think your position is terribly weak.

Peace Brother

 

[lynnie]

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:


Quote:
Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.


Very interesting. Excellent debate point!

Mason, do you think that in light of the struggle with egalitarianism and rejection of male leadership in the home and the church, it might be getting to the point of causing brethren to stumble to use this terminology (deaconesses)? I mean, might it not be better to call them "diaconal assistants" or " The Women's ministry team" or something else? They can be honored and set apart without such loaded language. In a culture struggling to throw off all gender differences, it seems to be unwise for the church to do something so confusing, especially a place like Redeemer in the heart of NYC. You can see from just this thread of educated posters that many assume it is an authoritative role.

Like I said my deaconess friends are humble, gentle, feminine, non pushy women. They are not authoritative in their roles in any way. And somebody needs to break up the crackers and fill the little cups before communion, and somebody needs to get the tables ready for the fellowship dinners, and plan meals and clean up after. And older women need to help younger ones in many ways. It is wonderful to see Redeemer encourage women to serve. But at this point, doesn't it seem like maybe the terms should be changed? Do you think it may lead to compromise with feminist egalitarianism? I don't know, I am just asking. I wonder if it can cause brethren to stumble.

Brad, you are really begging for a mod to step in again, aren't you..........

 

[WarrenInSC]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

Hello Pastor Greco,

1) There may be more than one uninformed 'lay' person on here, like myself, who would appreciate a concise definition, applied to this situation, if it's not violating any confidentiality, about being 'judically out of order' versus being 'administratively out of order".

2) For what it's worth, the sooner an SJC panel deals with this clearly divisive situation, the better. Our PCA needs resolution on this. The blatant disregard our constitution involved is going to snowball in all sorts of areas if not addressed soon, In my humble opinion.

3) Many thanks for your deep and devoted service to our church.

 

[fredtgreco]

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

Hello Pastor Greco,

1) There may be more than one uninformed 'lay' person on here, like myself, who would appreciate a concise definition, applied to this situation, if it's not violating any confidentiality, about being 'judically out of order' versus being 'administratively out of order".

Warren,

A case is administratively out of order because it is defective in form. In other words it asks for relief the ecclesiastical court cannot grant ("make the U.S. Congress pass a law about gay marriage") or it is filed untimely (e.g. beyond the period required for a complaint), or some such.

A case is judicially out of order if it is rejected on substantive grounds.

 

[Scott1]

ColdSilverMoon
There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing.

Again, it is understandable you would want to defend the good name of your Pastor.

However, we must faithfully represent our polity, governance and Book of Church Order to those not familiar with it.



Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) deaconess as an office in the church (the church email calls it an office, that's what started this thread)


Notice in the video “Deb” is given the oath of office for deacons or elders (about 2/3 through the video).

Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) giving the oath of office to deaconess




(For reference, here is the oath of office, the one "Deb" takes in the video for deacons and elders in the PCA):

Presbyterian Church in America

Ordination and Installation

24-6.

The day having arrived, and the Session being convened in the
presence of the congregation, a sermon shall be preached after which the
presiding minister shall state in a concise manner the warrant and nature of
the office of ruling elder, or deacon, together with the character proper to be
sustained and the duties to be fulfilled. Having done this, he shall propose to
the candidate, in the presence of the church, the following questions, namely:

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as
originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only
infallible rule of faith and practice?

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 Session 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 accept the office of ruling elder (or deacon, as the case
may be) in this church, and promise faithfully to perform all the
duties thereof, and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the
profession of the Gospel in your life, and to set a worthy example
before the Church of which God has made you an officer?
5. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?

6. Do you promise to strive for the purity, peace, unity and
edification of the Church?

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 04:47:33 EST-----

ColdSilverMoon
In addition, laying on of hands is not a requirement for ordination.

Mason,

In order to defend this blatantly unconstitutional behavior and violation of vows by officers to receive the governance and polity of their denomination, do you really want to say we do not lay hands on for ordination in the PCA?

Really?

Acts 6

1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

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

 

[William Price]

I am a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian, but have many friends who are, and this includes on this board. But, I have to ask, with all sincerity, even outside the BCO, why would one have a position of leadership created when the scriptures declare that a woman is not to teach nor usurp authority over the man? Since when does one need to circumvent scripture in order to 'make a position'?

And, please understand I ask this with utmost respect for my friends here and elsewhere.

 

[Scott1]

I am a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian, but have many friends who are, and this includes on this board. But, I have to ask, with all sincerity, even outside the BCO, why would one have a position of leadership created when the scriptures declare that a woman is not to teach nor usurp authority over the man? Since when does one need to circumvent scripture in order to 'make a position'?

And, please understand I ask this with utmost respect for my friends here and elsewhere.

Within our denomination, those who are arguing for 'deaconess' are a very small, but high profile minority. Remember, very very few churches are doing the violations shown in the video.

And remember also the esteemed Pastor from New York City is right on many, many things and we do not want to see him harden and fall- that's why this so painful!

In recent past, they have been arguing one of two ways:

1) deaconess is not an office (and therefore there is no authority)

or

2) deaconess is an office, but does not have the kind of authority of which you speak (teaching or usurping over men)

The problem is, as you can see in the video, in case#1, they are doing all the accoutrements of office: nominating, examining, taking exceptions, electing, installing, etc. even copying word-for-word the ordination vows (except changing them to the word 'woman')

It's as if they are saying- it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and enjoys being in the presence of other ducks, but... somehow it is not a duck.

In case#2 they are not understanding the spiritual charge of the I Timothy 3 office of deacon. Granted, there is not a lot explicit about the exact duties of deacons in Scripture. Mostly, we have analogy, but principles can be discerned and applied.

That's what we do.

In the PCA, that is understood and chartered in our Book of Church Order as overseeing property stewardship, mercy ministry and the development of a "spirit of liberality" in the congregation.

In presbyterianism generally, governance of the local church (often referred to as the "particular" church) is by and through deacons and elders.

Unordained men and women assist them in many ways, but under their oversight. We have many ministries, including mercy ministries that men and women coordinate and run, but under governing authority and one layer of accountability of deacons.

The systems works well in practice, and from what I've observed, unordained men and woman and children have a "safe" biblical framework within which to use their God given talents and abilities without usurping authority or operating under pretense of name recognition by office.
No question deacon is an office with a higher level of authority too. As a Deacon myself, I can tell you we exercise authority all the time. It's not the same sphere as the Elders, but our Book of Church Order clearly assumes it- both implicitly and explicitly- and our people understand it (and are grateful for it).

 

[Edward]

Within our denomination, those who are arguing for 'deaconess' are a very small, but high profile minority. Remember, very very few churches are doing the violations shown in the video.

An open question, not particularly directed at you:

Does anyone have a rough count as to how many churches have Deaconesses, or how many Presbyteries tolerate this?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

Is "Deb" and all the other "deaconesses" over 60 and widows?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

ColdSilverMoon
There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing.

Again, it is understandable you would want to defend the good name of your Pastor.

However, we must faithfully represent our polity, governance and Book of Church Order to those not familiar with it.



Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) deaconess as an office in the church (the church email calls it an office, that's what started this thread)


Notice in the video “Deb” is given the oath of office for deacons or elders (about 2/3 through the video).

Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) giving the oath of office to deaconess

Scott, as I've said before, I don't like the term "office" applied to deaconesses because it can cause confusion with ordained offices. I'm sure it's done for simplicity and brevity, but I'll admit it can cause confusion. Same with the simultaneous ordination of the officers and commissioning of deaconesses: it's easier to have a uniform, blanket installation.

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

[/QUOTE]

The laying on of hands is not considered a requirement for ordination. At their discussion at the GA, Ligon Duncan agreed that he considered the deacons at Redeemer to be ordained without laying of hands.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 07:46:22 EST-----

Mason, do you think that in light of the struggle with egalitarianism and rejection of male leadership in the home and the church, it might be getting to the point of causing brethren to stumble to use this terminology (deaconesses)? I mean, might it not be better to call them "diaconal assistants" or " The Women's ministry team" or something else? They can be honored and set apart without such loaded language. In a culture struggling to throw off all gender differences, it seems to be unwise for the church to do something so confusing, especially a place like Redeemer in the heart of NYC. You can see from just this thread of educated posters that many assume it is an authoritative role.

Like I said my deaconess friends are humble, gentle, feminine, non pushy women. They are not authoritative in their roles in any way. And somebody needs to break up the crackers and fill the little cups before communion, and somebody needs to get the tables ready for the fellowship dinners, and plan meals and clean up after. And older women need to help younger ones in many ways. It is wonderful to see Redeemer encourage women to serve. But at this point, doesn't it seem like maybe the terms should be changed? Do you think it may lead to compromise with feminist egalitarianism? I don't know, I am just asking. I wonder if it can cause brethren to stumble.

Lynnie, you raise two excellent points:

1. Deaconess is used because it is the most accurate description of their role. Besides, deaconess is less nebulous and much easier to say and write than diaconal assistant. As I've stated on here multiple times, deaconess - whether or not a formal role in the church - has Scriptural and Reformed precedent.

2. I know you're anti-deaconess, but I think those of us who are experienced with their role realize they do not overstep the role of women in the church and the home as outlined in the Bible. No one is arguing that deaconesses are in positions of authority or headship within the church. You know deaconesses firsthand, so like me you know that they are not after some egalitarian ideal the way many on here and other inflammatory blogs would have us believe. They are godly women who want to serve the church and the community with the gifts God has given them.

I think part of the hubbub about this is basic fear of the unknown. People in conservative places who might not be familiar with deaconesses are concerned that they are somehow overtaking the biblically defined sexual roles within the church. They fear that the next step from deaconesses is ordained elders and pastors, despite the fact that there is no real reason to believe that will happen. Those of us familiar with the situation know the practical utilization of deaconesses, at least in the PCA, is completely in line with biblical teaching for men and women. I would guess that most of the anti-deaconess crowd would have many of their fears allayed if they spent a few months at Redeemer an saw the practical function of the diaconal ministry...

 

[lynnie]

Thanks Mason.

I see both sides.

Yes, my experience with PCA deaconesses is such that I know they are godly non authoritative women in churches led by "real men", not wimps.

But it may be that some or much of the fear is well founded. We once were in a supposedly Calvinistic baptist church in our past that had some real hard driving women deaconesses in it who had an attitude that the elders ruled the church but stayed OUT of women's ministry. Women deaconesses can turn into controlling witches, believe me I've seen it. Give them a title and they become the Mom bossing the house.

So it goes back to what the bible says, and even if I disagree, Keller/Ryken have a reasonable position. But when you go back to the BCO and their vows, even if the BCO is wrong, they do seem to be highly questionable based on the replies here.

I wish they could go back to ordaining men and calling women the assistants. As somebody in their 50s watching younger girls in their 20s wrestle with the role of women and mothers and careers, I tend to think that they need all the help we can give to create a church culture that upholds complementarianism. They won't get it in the world. Every tiny bit of help is a plus.


I love Tim Keller's teaching. Let's all keep him in prayer as he influences so many younger folks today.

 

[Blue Dog]

Thank You Jason D.

 

[Romans922]

There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.

Deacons of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. And to continue to back a church which continues to rebel against Scripture/Standards/BCO is to continue to serve the Devil himself, it is to not follow God's own command (openly and unrepentantly) of the 5th Commandment (as well as others).


Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.

So, Pastor Barnes, all those churches (perhaps your included?) that commission VBS leaders, missionaries (long and short-term), and a variety of other church roles are doing so to find loopholes and in so doing "serve the Devil himself?" I don't think you would agree with that! The truth is PCA churches commission people all the time to various roles and I don't think you would call them rebellious against Scripture and the BCO.

The bottom line is you don't agree with deaconesses being utilized, and that's fine - I understand completely. But if you disagree with them being commissioned then you must disagree with ALL commissioning in every single PCA church. If you do, then you are in the vast minority of PCA pastors. If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.

Unordained deaconesses are not contrary to Scripture. In fact, a strong case can be made that they are promoted and established in Scripture. Calvin even utilized unordained deaconesses in his church - was Calvin rebellious against Scripture and a servant of the devil? The Westminster Standards are silent on the role of deacons and deaconesses - so how is Redeemer rebellious against them? As discussed above the BCO does not prohibit commissioning groups of people within the congregation, so Redeemer is not rebelling against the BCO.

I respect your role as a TE, Pastor Barnes, and your desire to maintain the purity of the Church and the PCA. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments - on this issue you are dead wrong.

I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.


The commissioning of VBS leaders, missionaries, etc. is found where in Scripture/Standards/BCO? Pray for such people --> ABSOLUTELY, but why are we commissioning? What does this even mean? And yes I would call them rebellious, there is nothing that would suggest that they need to do it.

I would agree that I am in the VAST minority in the PCA. For one, I am on the PB, that right there makes me in the minority!

Unordained deacons/deaconesses (if you would use that name, I wonder what the word in French/Latin is). Unordained servants as Calvin refers to them are the one's being referred to in BCO 9-7. And they are APPOINTED by the Session. Not nominated, trained, examined, elected (and then take vows for ordination and then not ordained).

The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.

Reductio ad absurdum: The BCO doesn't reject dogs in worship, that means we can do it: http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/my-former-pastors-church-plant-50422/

 

[Edward]

Reductio ad absurdum: The BCO doesn't reject dogs in worship, that means we can do it: http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/my-former-pastors-church-plant-50422/

[/quote]

Carrying that thought to the next level. Perhaps Redeemer should find a seeing eye dog, whose work is somewhat diaconal in nature, and commission it as a deacon or deaconess.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.

I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.

commissioning of VBS leaders, missionaries, etc. is found where in Scripture/Standards/BCO? Pray for such people --> ABSOLUTELY, but why are we commissioning? What does this even mean? And yes I would call them rebellious, there is nothing that would suggest that they need to do it.

I would agree that I am in the VAST minority in the PCA. For one, I am on the PB, that right there makes me in the minority!

If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?

Unordained deacons/deaconesses (if you would use that name, I wonder what the word in French/Latin is). Unordained servants as Calvin refers to them are the one's being referred to in BCO 9-7. And they are APPOINTED by the Session. Not nominated, trained, examined, elected (and then take vows for ordination and then not ordained).

The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.

The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.

Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.

 

[Romans922]

I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.

I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.

commissioning of VBS leaders, missionaries, etc. is found where in Scripture/Standards/BCO? Pray for such people --> ABSOLUTELY, but why are we commissioning? What does this even mean? And yes I would call them rebellious, there is nothing that would suggest that they need to do it.

I would agree that I am in the VAST minority in the PCA. For one, I am on the PB, that right there makes me in the minority!

If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?

Unordained deacons/deaconesses (if you would use that name, I wonder what the word in French/Latin is). Unordained servants as Calvin refers to them are the one's being referred to in BCO 9-7. And they are APPOINTED by the Session. Not nominated, trained, examined, elected (and then take vows for ordination and then not ordained).

The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.

The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.

Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.

I know of none who commission anyone in my own presbytery.

 

[Prufrock]

[Moderator]
Let's drop the Sproul topic. Nobody was bringing false witnesses against anyone.
[/Moderator]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderator ruling: The moderators will do the moderating. Stick to the topic of the thread. If anyone wants to discuss Sproul's views contra the standards, start a new thread.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I removed my comment of 'serving the devil'. But if you must go on about it, one who sins serves the devil himself.

I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.




If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?



The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.

The point here is not that it doesn't command against it. The point is that it is not brought up. Why? Because it isn't to be done. Deacons and Elders are to be ordained, all of them no matter what. And Ligon Duncan can be wrong by the way, ordination does require the laying on of hands, Scripture shows in multiple places for elders and deacons that the leaders of the Church laid hands on them. The BCO requires it too.

Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.

I know of none who commission anyone in my own presbytery.

Simply do a Google search for "commissioning" and "Mississippi Valley Presbytery." Or you can search for each church by individual name. You'll find plenty: commissioning school kids, camps, missionaries, VBS leaders, etc.

I only bring it up to point out the (apparent) inconsistencies in belief and practice not only of you, Pastor Barnes, but of a great number of people on here and elsewhere. People get in an uproar over commissioning deaconesses, but don't mind commissioning kids or camps or anything else that isn't so "scary." I don't have a problem with any of it: commissioning is simply a way of formalizing a role within the church. Yet if you're going to take Redeemer to task for commissioning deaconesses, you have a looooong list of PCA churches who in effect do the same thing...

 

[Romans922]

I wasn't offended by this comment at all - I just think it's absurd.




If you disagree with commissioning and view it as rebellious, then you need to focus in your own back yard of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It's not hard to find that churches in your own presbytery commission all sorts of people for all sorts of things on a regular basis. If that's an act of rebellion, and you are so determined to stamp it out, why not confront your fellow pastors? Why not file formal complaints with your own presbytery? I know its much easier to post things on a message board about a church 1,200 miles away with a big name pastor, but if you are sincere wouldn't you work against the same problem at home as well?



The Session at Redeemer has chosen to appoint its deaconesses using the above methodology. They still have ultimate oversight.



Redeemer does ordain all of its Elders and Deacons.

I know of none who commission anyone in my own presbytery.

Simply do a Google search for "commissioning" and "Mississippi Valley Presbytery." Or you can search for each church by individual name. You'll find plenty: commissioning school kids, camps, missionaries, VBS leaders, etc.

I only bring it up to point out the (apparent) inconsistencies in belief and practice not only of you, Pastor Barnes, but of a great number of people on here and elsewhere. People get in an uproar over commissioning deaconesses, but don't mind commissioning kids or camps or anything else that isn't so "scary." I don't have a problem with any of it: commissioning is simply a way of formalizing a role within the church. Yet if you're going to take Redeemer to task for commissioning deaconesses, you have a looooong list of PCA churches who in effect do the same thing...

Again, I would ask you to at least point out some actual instances. I searched myself and only found 'commissionings' that had to do with 10th Pres in Philadelphia, and 'commissions' which are those groups of presbyters which are like committees but have the power to make decisions and act on them. Most of which had to do with the SJC and FV, and others commissioned by the presbytery to ordain TE's.

Do you actually know of some or are you just assuming?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Again, I would ask you to at least point out some actual instances. I searched myself and only found 'commissionings' that had to do with 10th Pres in Philadelphia, and 'commissions' which are those groups of presbyters which are like committees but have the power to make decisions and act on them. Most of which had to do with the SJC and FV, and others commissioned by the presbytery to ordain TE's.

Do you actually know of some or are you just assuming?

Just a quick example from First Presbyterian of Jackson (Ligon Duncan's blog):

The summer is officially underway at First Presbyterian, and as usual, we are not gearing down, but gearing up! Vacation Bible School is only a week away now, and this Sunday we will also have the commissioning of the Twin Lakes Summer Staff. Do greet them, their friends and families at the 11:00 o’clock service on Sunday morning. And pray for our VBS leadership and all the wonderful volunteers who make VBS happen.

 

[Mushroom]

Such subtlety and artifice ought to cause one to blush. Sadly, we are often too jaded for that.

 

[Romans922]

As you see above, I don't agree with everything Ligon does...

Noticed a few things from the video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEDyL-h9M3o"]YouTube - Redeemer NYC Deaconess Ordination/Installation[/ame]

Male and female deacons are all being installed together (0:03); Deb, elected to be a female deacon is being used as the exemplar to represent the other 17 being installed later that morning; The Pastor states: "Deb is assuming the Diaconal Role this morning." (0:13); Nominated (0:20) by members of Redeemer as a Candidate just as the other elders and deacons; Extensive Training Process (0:28); Interviewed by other officers of the Church (0:35); Elected by vote of congregation (0:41); Deaconess for Deb is an extraordinary calling (1:17); She is charged (1:34); Six Ordination Questions are asked to the woman (4:26); The Pastor clearly uses the word ordination in regard to what is going on (5:09); The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her. (6:02).

 

[Archlute]

The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her. (6:02).

I haven't taken the time to watch this clip yet, but if this is true then would it be appropriate to say - yikes?!?