The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses TIM KELLER

[he beholds]

I recently read this article on commissioning (not ordaining) deaconesses. It answered some questions that I had concerning the practice, especially in regards to our conversations here on the PB during GA.

I mostly wanted to post this article because after reading it I felt guilty for making judgments against those that commissioned deaconesses, without really looking for their defenses of the practice. I have been, and still am, unconvinced on whether deaconesses are biblical, but I was certain (haha) before that it seemed shady or even dishonest to "commission" deaconesses within the PCA. I had thought that the churches that did this were attempting to find loopholes in the BCO or were just plain ignoring it. I don't think I should have formed any opinion at all about it without going on more than just our conversation here. Anyway, hopefully that's a lesson learned for me.

Some points made in the article:

• When the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES) joined with the PCA, their 155th Synod stated, "they are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconesses and set them apart by prayer…. We affirm the right of a local church to have separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses."
• The PCA did not consider their Synods to be binding on us, BUT they were to be treated with respect.
• When 10th Pres and others came over from the RPCES, with their Deaconesses, they were accepted into the PCA presbyteries because of this respect.
• "The understanding in these presbyteries was that, under Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-7, godly women could be appointed to assist the deacons in their work, and this was a valid way for sessions to do so."
• Once Redeemer was established with a diaconate that included unordained deaconesses, "Our practice was debated but upheld by our Northeast Presbytery in 1994. It was deemed the right of local sessions to determine how the women mentioned in BCO 9-7 were to be commissioned and identified."
• "BCO 9 never refers to the diaconate as exercising ruling authority—indeed it is clear that it always acts under the rule of the session, and cannot act without prior permission of the session or in some cases the whole congregation (9-2)."
  (He then adds this "However, in 24-5 the BCO requires that members take a vow of obedience to the deacons. This seems to indicate that BCO conceives ordination as always entailing some kind of ruling authority. That would preclude women.")

He also lays out biblical reasons for deaconesses, but what I remember being in question here on the PB, and especially for me, was whether the PCA allows for deaconesses.
It was a short, interesting article that I thought might help others see that churches with Deaconesses are not simply ignoring the PCA, but have been upheld by presbyteries and possibly is supported/allowed by the BCO.
Perhaps everyone else already knew this, but it didn't seem to dawn on me that this wasn't some rogue group trying to undermine the BCO but that it was working within the bounds of our church.

Is this news to any of you? Does this make the debate different?

 

[Scott1]

I have great respect for the gifts God has given this brother, and acknowledge and respect his office.

In this instance, all the rationalizations of doing wrong by the vows taken can be easily challenged. See the complementary article by Mr. Duncan for some of that.

Unfortunately, much of the argumentation takes place in a vacuum.

In a confessional denomination, doctrine and practice is upheld by vow. We are not free to disregard that.

 

[he beholds]

In a confessional denomination, doctrine and practice is upheld by vow. We are not free to disregard that.

I don't know what the vows say. What about commissioning deaconesses breaks the vows?

 

[Scott1]

# When the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES) joined with the PCA, their 155th Synod stated, "they are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconesses and set them apart by prayer…. We affirm the right of a local church to have separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses."

The "Joining and Receiving" requires conforming to the doctrine and practice of the denomination being joined.

# The PCA did not consider their Synods to be binding on us, BUT they were to be treated with respect.

Not sure what is meant by this- if it suggests a grouping of churches can have separate doctrine and practice it is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of a confessional denomination.

If you carefully review the history, the RPCES majority was very similar to that of the PCA, and they had soundly rejected the intermixing of deacon and 'deaconess' as the esteemed Pastor now advocates and practices. This was simply NOT the case with the former denomination, even were that relevant to what happens when one joins a constitution in a confessional denomination.

# When 10th Pres and others came over from the RPCES, with their Deaconesses, they were accepted into the PCA presbyteries because of this respect.
Another red herring from otherwise very logical teacher.

By the way, the church mentioned does *not* mix deacons and deaconess without distinction as the esteemed Pastor advocates.

# "The understanding in these presbyteries was that, under Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-7, godly women could be appointed to assist the deacons in their work, and this was a valid way for sessions to do so."
The section says godly MEN and WOMEN, in an obvious parity, not a special class of one specially invested with all the accouterments of office.


# Once Redeemer was established with a diaconate that included unordained deaconesses, "Our practice was debated but upheld by our Northeast Presbytery in 1994. It was deemed the right of local sessions to determine how the women mentioned in BCO 9-7 were to be commissioned and identified."
The practice of nominating, electing, commissioning, swearing in and installing women in substantially the same process and serving without distinction from the office of Deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order.
It is contrary to the vows of office.
It is contrary to the confessed doctrine of the denomination.
It degrades the office of Deacon.
It misrepresents the nature of office generally.

# "BCO 9 never refers to the diaconate as exercising ruling authority—indeed it is clear that it always acts under the rule of the session, and cannot act without prior permission of the session or in some cases the whole congregation (9-2)."
(He then adds this "However, in 24-5 the BCO requires that members take a vow of obedience to the deacons. This seems to indicate that BCO conceives ordination as always entailing some kind of ruling authority. That would preclude women.")
Absolutely wrong, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the BCO, and the nature of ecclesiastical authority, and the office of Deacon.

This is serious misrepresentation, and the polity needs to be taught, is required to be taught and modeled to all members.

.

 

[he beholds]

Thanks for posting that analysis, though to me it just sounds like your opinion and is not proving to me. Could you explain why it goes against the BCO and "The practice of nominating, electing, commissioning, swearing in and installing women in substantially the same process and serving without distinction from the office of Deacon is contrary to the Book of Church Order.
It is contrary to the vows of office.
It is contrary to the confessed doctrine of the denomination.
It degrades the office of Deacon.
It misrepresents the nature of office generally."

Etcetera.

I'm not saying that your understanding is incorrect, but it does not seem binding, but rather opinion. Perhaps your opinion comes from very specific facts, but those ones aren't listed. Thanks!

 

[Edward]

When you see a camel trying to stick its nose under the edge of the tent, you need to kick it in the nose, even if it is a 'nice' camel. And I'm not convinced that all of the camels are nice.

 

[jjraby]

When you see a camel trying to stick its nose under the edge of the tent, you need to kick it in the nose, even if it is a 'nice' camel. And I'm not convinced that all of the camels are nice.

who's the camel?

 

[he beholds]

So are you both saying that even reading this article and Keller's defense of commissioning deaconesses, he is disregarding the church and his vows? Or do you think he is in bounds to do so, as his presbytery deemed, but you don't personally find deaconesses as biblical? My prior issue was with the feeling that he was doing something "illegal" in our denom. But I find his article compelling that he is fully allowed to do what he's doing. I think the rest is just our opinions on the practice. But please explain to me where I am wrong if he is not really allowed to do this. And not just Keller, obviously. He's just the most well-known. And I love his sermons and what little I've read of him, so I am actually glad to find that he's not sneaking by and not playing semantics.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?

If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.

 

[he beholds]

It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?

If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.

I definitely agree with you, but I think that if a BCO prohibits something and someone vows to work within the bounds of that BCO, then they have agreed to that prohibition. The BCO of course doesn't really trump the Bible, ever, but the vow has been made. For instance, I know of an elder in the RPCNA who took vows when the consumption of alcohol was forbidden for officers in that church. They've since abolished that requirement, but this elder is convicted that since he made the vow, he has to stand by it, even now. Their constitution didn't really nullify the Bible and didn't make alcohol biblically acceptable or unacceptable, but for their elders it still was an authority over them.

I think the ultimate goal is to see what is scriptural and form/reform the BCO to that, but not disobey it (unless it is actually causing you to sin--but then you've got HUMONGOUS problems if that were the case). Semper Reformanda, right?

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

Oh, and this is why the article pleased me, because I respected Keller as a preacher--tremendously--but I felt that he was disobeying the BCO. Now I feel that I was wrong, after reading his defense and showing where the Presbytery has granted that it is allowable (which is the authority over his church, nay?) and by showing that the BCO allows for men and women to be specifically appointed to assist the deacons.

 

[Jack K]

Good post, Jessica. By reading that article you've made an effort to understand the "other side," not just assume you know what's going on with them.

I've been closely involved with pastors on both sides of the deaconess debate in the PCA. I'm convinced they largely fail to understand each other.


The no-deaconesses side often accuses the others of putting cultural concerns ahead of Scripture and confessional adherence. In my experience this is simply not true. The PCA pastors I've known who support deaconesses are very strongly interested in being biblical, which is why they push the issue. And while it's true they may not be as interested in strict confessionalism, their reasons have more to do with conforming to Scripture than with conforming to culture. It also does not mean they have no regard for the confessions. In most cases they still revere the confessions deeply.

We may say their interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. I myself am unconvinced that the Bible allows for deaconesses as practiced by most of these churches. But if we claim they're capitulating to culture, or don't like the confessions, we show we really haven't taken the time to know them very well.

And when it comes to Dr. Keller in particular, the charge that he has no respect for the PCA is just laughable. He was there at its founding. He's ministered at the denominational level. He knows the PCA from the inside out and clearly cares for it. Young idealists who try to lecture him on what the PCA is all about need to rethink their strategy.


On the other hand, the pro-deaconesses side often accuses the others of placing tradition and blind confessionalism ahead of Scripture. This too is is untrue. I've yet to meet a deaconess opponent who didn't have a very high regard for Scripture. And concern for being true to confessional vows is a good thing, not a bad thing. By and large, they've thought through this issue carefully, not blindly followed tradition.

Again, some may claim this side is wrong. But none should say it's just because they're knee-jerk traditionalists. That's unfair and shows a lack of understanding too.


I believe Duncan and Keller have done a superb job of showing us how to have this discussion with understanding, and without using accusations of culture-capitulation or stick-in-the-mud-traditionalism that are so easy to throw around but are unhelpful and usually untrue.

 

[ChristianTrader]

It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?

If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.

Being Presbyterian means that you do not just take it on yourself to disregard what the BoCO says in order to follow your view of what you believe Scripture teaches. There is an order to the situation and it is that you take it to the proper authorities to get the BoCO changed. If you are not willing to submit to the BoCO then one should leave the denomination in the same way that you are not willing to submit to the Elders of the church, you should find another church.

CT

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

Jessica,
Have you read the Ligon Duncan response found here: byFaith Magazine - In the Church - The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons

 

[Edward]

It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?

If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.

But here we have a case where neither the BCO nor scripture allowed the practice of having a non-ordained deaconesses instead of ordained male deacons. BCO: "9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need."

---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

who's the camel?

Look at the history of the northern church from 1920 to 1968, or the southern church from the 1950s to the merger. Then apply that to the PCA from the J&R to the present.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

It would seem to me that one would want to support their actions from Scripture. Since when would any reformed denomination's BoCO trump the Scriptures?

If the BoCO allows what Scripture forbids then the BoCO needs to be fixed. If Scripture teaches a thing should be done and the BoCO does not address it then the BoCO needs to be fixed. Seems like a simple matter to me. The entire decision should be based on what Scripture says, not the BoCO.

Being Presbyterian means that you do not just take it on yourself to disregard what the BoCO says in order to follow your view of what you believe Scripture teaches. There is an order to the situation and it is that you take it to the proper authorities to get the BoCO changed. If you are not willing to submit to the BoCO then one should leave the denomination in the same way that you are not willing to submit to the Elders of the church, you should find another church.

CT

Hermonta,

The only point I'm trying to make is this, why is it that this matter seems to be discussed only in terms of how it relates to the BoCO? We and the documents that we govern ourselves by must in all points bow to Scripture. We cannot take refuge behind a clause or statement of the BoCO that permits anything that is contra-Scripture and think we are justified in our belief or action because the "rule book" allows for it. That's what the Pharisees were doing in Matthew 15; using their traditions to trump the Word of God. And that's how I see this line of argumentation.

___________________________


I shall remove myself from this discussion now. I haven't really got a dog in this fight anyway and further participation on my part can only serve to derail the thread.

Blessings to all,

 

[he beholds]

Jessica,
Have you read the Ligon Duncan response found here: byFaith Magazine - In the Church - The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons

I have it but skipped right to Keller's side, since that was the view that I didn't agree with. I'll read it, though.

But here we have a case where neither the BCO nor scripture allowed the practice of having a non-ordained deaconesses instead of ordained male deacons. BCO: "9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need."

If you took away the "instead of" your post would seem to support Keller.

 

[Scott1]

Jessi,

The shortest answer to how this violates the vows of PCA officers is that the Book of Church Order establishes, reflecting its doctrine, a system of governance of the local church by officers, deacon and elder.

This doctrine (polity) must be taught and followed, as a responsibility of office.

Officers vow to receive and uphold it, members vow to submit to it.

There have been many previous threads on this topic, and quick search will reveal those.

The most helpful way to answer this is to look for threads that argue from the specific language of the BCO, rather than a generalized discussion, because the former is where vows tie in.

 

[sdesocio]

Edward ,
Im not sure who you are talking about either. Who is the Camel?

 

[Edward]

If you took away the "instead of" your post would seem to support Keller.

The BCO permits non-ordained women and men to be appointed by the session to assist the ordained deacons. While I don't like the term 'deaconess' since it is open to abuse (and I suppose the proper counterpart to such deaconesses would be 'male deaconesses), the BCO violations come from not having an ordained male diaconate to be assisted, electing the deaconesses and male deaconesses instead of having the session appoint them, not from having the the females assist. So the 'instead of' is a key element of the violation in many of the 'deaconess' PCA churches.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

Im not sure who you are talking about either. Who is the Camel?

I sometimes collect points here when I'm clear in my communication. So I try to be circumspect in my language these days.

 

[Jack K]

the BCO violations come from not having an ordained male diaconate

Really? You know PCA churches that don't ordain deacons at all? The only ones I know of with deaconesses ordain male deacons and then commission/install/appoint/whatever the women.

 

[Scott1]

Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order

CHAPTER 1
The Doctrine of Church Government.

1-1. The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or
presbyterian, is comprehended under five heads: a. The Church; b. Its
members; c. Its officers; d. Its courts; e. Its orders.

....

1-4. The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered,
are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.

There is no class of "unordained officers" as the esteemed Pastor argues.

The authority of office, the BCO confesses, comes directly from Christ (that is deacons and elders).

7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders
and deacons. …. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.

The confessed doctrine is deacons and elders are qualified by Scripture, among the qualifications is that men are appointed to that authority in His church.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

So are you both saying that even reading this article and Keller's defense of commissioning deaconesses, he is disregarding the church and his vows?
There is substantial evidence to suggest that this view is contrary to the constitution of the denomination, and the vows to uphold it, and to teach the doctrine reflected by it.

Or do you think he is in bounds to do so, as his presbytery deemed, but you don't personally find deaconesses as biblical?
I'm not sure what is being referred to specifically. The practices are clearly contrary to the constitution and the vows to uphold it.

In a confessional church, one is not free to disobey one's vows to uphold the constitution, nor to misrepresent what it says.

I Timothy 5 qualifies widow servants, quite different than what the esteemed Pastor is advocating.



My prior issue was with the feeling that he was doing something "illegal" in our denom. But I find his article compelling that he is fully allowed to do what he's doing.
This is why this is so difficult, it is disruptive of the peace and purity of the church.

I think the rest is just our opinions on the practice.
Presbyterians, above all, are specific on their practice of governance.

But please explain to me where I am wrong if he is not really allowed to do this. And not just Keller, obviously. He's just the most well-known. And I love his sermons and what little I've read of him, so I am actually glad to find that he's not sneaking by and not playing semantics.

One of the greatest aspects of presbyterian governance, the esteemed Pastor has said, is the accountability it affords.

 

[he beholds]

I don't know how there can simply be "substantial evidence" that the view is against the constitution of the denom, yet still exist, very, very publicly. I think the view is either against the const. or not--not that there's this collection of evidences for us to sort through.
I understand where you are coming from, truly, for I really disliked the practice before, thinking it was semantics; but reading his argument in defense of the practice, it seems clear cut to me that the issue is not with the BCO or the vows. What do we make of Keller's Presbytery upholding the practice? Isn't it un-Presbyterian of us, if anyone, to disregard the ruling of a church authority, which is what Presbytery is, right? I'm not advocating "The Church said it, I believe it," as regards to the theology of the matter, but the church has OK'd the practice. As good presbyterians () we should probably not make up our own individual cases and verdicts regarding the standing of a pastor or groups of pastors.

The Bible is definitely not clear cut on the issue. (Well, of course it is, but our ability to understand it is not!) Keller says this in the argument, but I've already thought this and probably said it when discussing it here: The RPCNA ordains deaconesses. I know, they are not the standard for biblical orthodoxy that we seek to meet, but it is a fellow Reformed church who cannot be faulted as liberal or camels or guilty of some major liberal slide, ie:

Look at the history of the northern church from 1920 to 1968, or the southern church from the 1950s to the merger. Then apply that to the PCA from the J&R to the present.

 

[Scott1]

I don't know how there can simply be "substantial evidence" that the view is against the constitution of the denom, yet still exist, very, very publicly.
"Substantial evidence to suggest" is a polite way of saying that something is being misrepresented. We actually use this term in official PCA discourse in order to further humility and charity.

Yes, there are some things that exist publicly that are very disturbing- their existence doesn't make them right, however.

(Look at what happened to an entire presbytery with the federal vision teaching, and be encouraged there was repentance, and restoration).

I think the view is either against the const. or not--not that there's this collection of evidences for us to sort through.
I understand where you are coming from, truly, for I really disliked the practice before, thinking it was semantics; but reading his argument in defense of the practice, it seems clear cut to me that the issue is not with the BCO or the vows.
There is substantial evidence to suggest it most certainly IS with the constitution (BCO) and the vows.

Take time to look at the BCO- it clearly does not present the view of church governance being promoted by the esteemed Pastor.

What do we make of Keller's Presbytery upholding the practice? Isn't it un-Presbyterian of us, if anyone, to disregard the ruling of a church authority, which is what Presbytery is, right? I'm not advocating "The Church said it, I believe it," as regards to the theology of the matter, but the church has OK'd the practice.
No, it has not.

In fact, General Assembly specifically ruled against it two years ago.
http://theaquilareport.com/index.ph...pca-ga-deaconesses-cannot-serve-on-diaconates

As good presbyterians () we should probably not make up our own individual cases and verdicts regarding the standing of a pastor or groups of pastors.

The Bible is definitely not clear cut on the issue.
The case for women as I Timothy 3 deacons is at best, unclear. Viewing it as favorably as possible to a contrary view, it is unclear. For that reason alone it ought not be done.

Were the esteemed Pastor arguing a biblical case for changing the BCO to accommodate a different doctrine, based on sixty year old servant widows who take a vow a celebacy, and are clearly under authority of the church officers- deacons and elders, this might be different.

But that is not at all what is being done.

What is being done is a mixing without distinction of women into the authoritative governing role of Diaconate, and making ordination a mere technicality.

(Actually the esteemed Pastor is also arguing that the BCO does not require officers be ordained, and that it does not require laying on of hands for ordination, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as "unordained officers," that officers must be ordained, and that laying on of hands is required for ordination in the denomination...)

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.

(Well, of course it is, but our ability to understand it is not!) Keller says this in the argument, but I've already thought this and probably said it when discussing it here: The RPCNA ordains deaconesses. I know, they are not the standard for biblical orthodoxy that we seek to meet, but it is a fellow Reformed church who cannot be faulted as liberal or camels or guilty of some major liberal slide, ie:

Look at the history of the northern church from 1920 to 1968, or the southern church from the 1950s to the merger. Then apply that to the PCA from the J&R to the present.

The "joining and receiving" is based on a common, confessed doctrine- the local church is governed by deacons and elders. Qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elected, ordained and installed, with membership receiving their authority by vow.

You might also find helpful a complaint filed regarding permitting these practice in the presbytery. I'm not sure of the present status, and would not presuppose result, but you can see the concern about this.
http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/06/co...al-assemblys-standing-judicial-commissio.html

Hopefully, the denomination's confessed polity is being taught and modeled in your congregation as it is in the vast majority- that makes it easy to spot a counterfeit.

 

[Edward]

You know PCA churches that don't ordain deacons at all?

Yes, some of the smallest ones don't have a separate diaconate - diaconal duties are carried out by the session in those churches. And that isn't a problem when it is impossible to seat a board of deacons (see BCO 9-2). That provision, of course, doesn't apply to megachurches. The problem is having folks commissioned to assist a body that doesn't exist.

The only ones I know of with deaconesses ordain male deacons and then commission/install/appoint/whatever the women.

Didn't we have this discussion last summer? or was that someone else?

From the Redeemer website:

Diaconate

The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ's command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves. Leaders - redeemer.com

 

[Jack K]

You know PCA churches that don't ordain deacons at all?

Yes, some of the smallest ones don't have a separate diaconate - diaconal duties are carried out by the session in those churches. And that isn't a problem when it is impossible to seat a board of deacons (see BCO 9-2). That provision, of course, doesn't apply to megachurches. The problem is having folks commissioned to assist a body that doesn't exist.

The only ones I know of with deaconesses ordain male deacons and then commission/install/appoint/whatever the women.

Didn't we have this discussion last summer? or was that someone else?

From the Redeemer website:

Diaconate

The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ's command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves. Leaders - redeemer.com

I should have been more clear. I meant "Are there really PCA churches that have deacons (male) but don't consider them ordained?"

As for Redeemer NYC... I'm not personally familiar with their practices, but the article linked in the OP would suggest the men (but not the women) are ordained. I'm not sure how the paragraph you cited leads you to the conclusion that the men are not ordained. The other issues you mentioned—electing the women and having them serve in practice as equals with the men rather than as assistants—are typical in PCA churches I've observed that have deaconesses.

 

[lynnie]

Scott- good post #22.

Jesse, I used to be in Keller's presbytery, and the big stink was not about having deaconesses. It was about not ordaining deacons. Basically, both groups were set in place the same way.

Now I know you are probably thinking what's the big deal. Well, the big deal is Hebr. 6:1-2 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

It means something to lay hands on people. It is a foundational doctrine. Remember the reference to Timothy being ordained and the laying on of hands by the presbytery? In the OT, God's hand denoted authority. In James 5, elders lay hands on the sick and the sick will be healed and their sins forgiven them. Elders and deacons are set apart to church office by the laying on hands.

You can't treat men and women in a diaconate the same way. You can't lay hands on the women and ordain them the way you do men, and you can't take vows as a PCA minister and then refuse to lay hands and ordain your male deacons.

Yes, Keller is a wonderful preacher and been enormously used of God. But if Redeemer still refuses to set apart the deacons by the laying on of hands, and treats the men and women exactly the same, they are just plain wrong. It isn't whether commissioning women is right or wrong, it is that not ordaining men deacons is wrong.

 

[he beholds]

Scott, I really am trying to understand the whole thing, so I thank you so much for responding so thoroughly! I am still conflicted, but I will check out the links you offered.
Lynnie, I hear what you are saying. Do we know (Where's Mason?) whether they lay hands on the deacons?

(I'm thinking spinoff, why do our elders not lay hands on the sick?)

 

[Scott1]

Scott, I really am trying to understand the whole thing, so I thank you so much for responding so thoroughly! I am still conflicted, but I will check out the links you offered.
Lynnie, I hear what you are saying. Do we know (Where's Mason?) whether they lay hands on the deacons?

(I'm thinking spinoff, why do our elders not lay hands on the sick?)

You're welcome.

One thing that may be helpful in understanding all this is that there are different ways we can look at this issue.

The first way is in terms of the constitution of the denomination, what that says.

We're not free to disobey that, nor free to misrepresent what it says.

In the PCA, someone who disagrees with her polity, at minimum cannot practice something different (because they vow to receive and uphold it). They cannot misrepresent what it says to others either. For example, if one believed in bishops as means of governance, they cannot install them at their local church (even though they personally believe in bishops, and even though there is a case for bishops in church history). Nor can they say that the denomination polity allows them to govern by bishops.

The officer vows that he receives the polity as in accordance with the Word of God, that he vows that freely and as matter of conscience. In the PCA, if his view were to change, it is required he come out and make his change of view known since his ordination.

It's not a matter of arguing from within that he governs by bishops because there are bishops in the Bible. That's contrary to his vows.

Think of it this way, let's say someone after ordination becomes convinced of certain points of Arminianism. They don't believe the limited atonement or unconditional election but somehow manage to believe the other three points of Calvinism. In a confessional church, they can't start arguing "from the Bible" that our Lord died "for all men" (rather than specifically for all His people, the elect), without running counter to their vows.

I'm afraid that's what happened with Deacon polity in a few instances.

This is serious stuff for an officer. Vows are serious things. God holds officers to a higher standard.

Many times the discussion goes to the biblical grounds for I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 women deacons (very weak, virtually nonexistent in the witness of church history- a modern invention) by avoiding those texts, and the priority of creation, and the normative examples of Christ choosing men for office (the synoptic gospels, Acts 6, etc.) and tries to "shoe horn" references to woman servants of the church into the governing offices, which is just not there.

But the front line issue with the esteemed Pastor from New York is that he is leading a polity that historic presbyterianism (which we embrace, including in our BCO), would not recognize.

In the process, the argumentation goes into nonsensical propositions about the BCO such as we can have "non ordained" officers, and they can do everything an officer can do except they are not technically ordained.

Or, they argue that Deacon is merely a substitute word for "Deacon," implying (ridiculously) that the BCO says it is not a highly qualified office (by Scripture), chosen by election as leaders are chosen, ordained, installed.

Then, the argument blindly takes the male and female assistants (which are appointed by session) and twists that to say that means they are to be elected by the congregation, just like the officers, and that only women get a special title for this role.

The BCO gives Deacons, constituted as a Board (not mixed with assistants) oversight responsibilities of property, mercy ministry, and developing the grace of liberality in the congregation.

It's more than doing mercy only, important though that is.

In the very superficial discussions about our polity, this all often gets lost- and unfortunately (for the peace and purity of the church) unchallenged.

But it is so obvious the PCA does not confess the polity the esteemed Pastor advocates and apparently practices in defiance of his constitution, and the vows of officers to uphold and members to submit to it. Read Mr. Duncan's complement article to the one you referenced, and you will see our polity.

But they are not arguing on equal ground, really.

One is advocating something that "there is substantial evidence to suggest" is contrary to his constitution while the other is arguing what the constitution confesses. It is kind of like having a speed limit of 65mph and one side arguing from the standpoint that is in fact the "law," while the other asserts his right to drive 95mph as his own practice, without reference to the posted speed limit.

That's why the argument is quickly over when one looks at the PCA's polity as defined by the BCO.

It's very clear on the parameters of its polity- governance by deacons and elders, who are qualified by Scripture as men, leading in this capacity.

That doesn't mean it's infallible. But debating that your polity is not biblical once one has taken oath that it is biblical- that's a whole other issue.

 

[Edward]

I meant "Are there really PCA churches that have deacons (male) but don't consider them ordained?"

Yes.

Check out the minutes from the 35th and 36th GAs: (Usually comes up under review of Presbytery minutes - this should be from the 36th GA.

"Response to Northern California Presbytery:

Presbytery's response does not adequately address the specific issue identified by the 35th GA. The newly installed Session of the particularized church "commissioned" unordained men and women for a body which the Presbytery minutes called the "diaconate" "

"Response to Philadelphia Presbytery:

We agree with the Presbytery that BCO 9-3 would not directly apply to the commissioning of unordained women, if they are not considered to be members of the Diaconate. However, the record indicates that "four deaconesses and one deacon were commissioned," and the record of the particularization service refers to "Vows/Commissioning of Diaconate."

I know I've seen more, but this is what I can lay my hands on with a quick search.

As for Redeemer:

" Video of Redeemer Presbyterian (NYC) Deacons, Men and Women, no distinction

The following is posted as a joint 'commissioning' service for Deacons, men and women, without distinction at this church."

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/vi...n-nyc-deacons-men-women-no-distinction-51355/

(Update note to that thread - Mr. Keller has said that the use of the ordination language in that service by a long - time PCA preacher (who had intervening service at an EPC church) was a mistake, and I'll take him at his word on that. )

 

[he beholds]

Well, at least as it stands right now, the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right? I feel much more comfortable with the situation even with that. And I think that I personally agree with the allowance that the BCO gives--even if I am unconvinced either way regarding the matter (did the Bible have deaconesses). To me, the language does sound like assistants are allowed.

 

[Notthemama1984]

If I remember correctly though, Keller does not have them as assistant deacons. His head deacon is female. She is in charge of the entire diaconate.