The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses TIM KELLER

[TimV]

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.

But that disdain for an oath implicit in putting Scripture ahead of the confession is a product of modern culture. In other eras people could see that while the Scriptures trump the confession and while by definition the confession is fallible, one take an oath with the idea of swearing to one's own hurt and not changing.

 

[ericfromcowtown]

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.

Yes, the staff page on their website lists Jenny Chang as "Director of the Diaconate." So, unless we have a boy-named-Sue situation...

 

[lynnie]

This is not about conforming to scripture instead of strict confessionalism.

5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

You can read and logic at a second grade level and see that in scripture, the first deacons were set apart by the laying on of hands. Refusal to do so is not trying to put scripture ahead of confessions.

Jesse spinoff......my PCA churches laid hands on the sick. In my last one I had anointing with oil and prayer by the elders three times and God healed me w/o needing medicine (not that I am against medicine). My current church does it as well. It seems to be a neglected doctrine in some circles, or misunderstood, I am not sure. It should be foundational, that the laying on of hands is commanded. It is symbolic and a means of grace- it is God's "hand" that matters, not our hands or elders hands- but it matters.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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.

The pro-deaconess side has a sound and orderly method to get their views adopted by the entire PCA: Modify the appropriate sections of the church’s constitution. The process is well understood. It is the process by which ultimately the constitution conforms itself to Scripture.

Until such time churches should restrain themselves from acting in what appears to be a contra-constitutional way.

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

When 10th Pres and others came over from the RPCES, with their Deaconesses, they were accepted into the PCA presbyteries because of this respect.

I fail to see how this helps in Keller's situation.

 

[Scott1]

the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right?

General Assembly two years ago ruled the opposite,
http://theaquilareport.com/index.php...-on-diaconates

I'm not sure where this is in the process.

The highest court of the denomination affirms what is in the Book of Church Order- that Diaconate is composed of Deacons, qualified and examined by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, elected, ordained and installed as recognition of perpetual office- all doctrine in the Book of Church Order. Also in the solemn oath officers take to receive and uphold it.

Diaconate is not composed of Deacons and (female only) assistants of section 9-7, which includes both male and female assistants appointed by Session. In no way do they substitute for the office.

Yet, in practice and apparently in teaching, that is what is being proliferated under the authority of the esteemed Pastor.

 

[he beholds]

the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right?

General Assembly two years ago ruled the opposite, affirming what is obvious from the Book of Church Order- that Diaconate is composed of Deacons, examined by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, elected, ordained and installed as recognition of perpetual office- all doctrine in the Book of Church Order.

It is not composed of Deacons and (female only) assistants of 9-7, which includes both male and female assistants appointed by Session.

I'm not sure where this is in the process.

Did they rule this or pass it along to some committee or something like this?

 

[brianeschen]

the churches that have deaconesses are legal since the highest court that has ruled on it has approved it, right?

General Assembly two years ago ruled the opposite, affirming what is obvious from the Book of Church Order- that Diaconate is composed of Deacons, examined by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, elected, ordained and installed as recognition of perpetual office- all doctrine in the Book of Church Order.

It is not composed of Deacons and (female only) assistants of 9-7, which includes both male and female assistants appointed by Session.

I'm not sure where this is in the process.

Did they rule this or pass it along to some committee or something like this?

The GA has actually ruled on it. There should be no female deacons in the PCA. No female members of a diaconate. This is not a case of BCO against Scripture. The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture. If it is wrong there are ways to change it and that way is not to ignore it. When it is ignored you get disorder instead of order . . . division instead of unity.

 

[Scott1]

The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture. If it is wrong there are ways to change it and that way is not to ignore it. When it is ignored you get disorder instead of order . . . division instead of unity.

And violation of the oath of office.

The oath requires a Pastor to swear he approves of the polity of the denomination (system of government), which in the PCA is governance of the local church by deacons and elder (not deacons and female only assistants of the deacons)


Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order

FORM OF GOVERNMENT 21-1
CHAPTER 21
The Ordination and Installation of Ministers

Questions for Ordination
Then, addressing himself to the candidate, he shall propose to him
the following questions:

....

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?

And to submit to its practices, implying even if one does not always agree

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

And that such vow is freely done

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

And maintain its peace and purity (which is its doctrine, including polity)

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

And to model such before the believing and unbelieving world

7. Do you engage to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all
your duties as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, whether
personal or relational, private or public; and to endeavor by the
grace of God to adorn the profession of the Gospel in your
manner of life, and to walk with exemplary piety before the
flock of which God shall make you overseer?

....


Misrepresenting what the polity of the Book of Church Order is, that is another further issue.

 

[Scott1]

The polity of the PCA is clearly laid out throughout the Book of Church Order.

It is governance of the local church by deacons and elders who go through similar, often common process for their office. None of this applies to non-officers (e.g. male and female assistants, appointed to assist).

The doctrine of ecclesiastical power is clearly laid out as doctrine:

PREFACE TO
THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
I. THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH

Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine,
government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.

It's not merely opinion, one view being as good as the next.

It is the constitution, which every officer agrees to uphold by sacred oath.

III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church.

There are no "un-ordained" officers

PART I
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
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.

Those officers, by which the power is exercised are deacons and elders (not unordained assistants who serve with them without distinction, being called by the same title, going through the same installations service, mocking the ordination ceremony but only changing a couple of words)

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.

CHAPTER 4
The Particular Church

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

This doctrine and practice is to be taught, modeled in every congregation of the denomination, bound not by opinion, but by oath and obedience, unless and until the confessed doctrine is changed, and the constitution (e.g. Book of Church Order) is changed.

 

[Gage Browning]

[/QUOTE]This doctrine and practice is to be taught, modeled in every congregation of the denomination, bound not by opinion, but by oath and obedience, unless and until the confessed doctrine is changed, and the constitution (e.g. Book of Church Order) is changed.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

 

[Scott1]

In the PCA, qualifications for offices are taken from our confessed understanding of Scripture (same as the church historically), one of those being that they are to be men.

There are not women deacons in the PCA's confessed polity or practice because it does not believe that is biblical. (There are plenty of unordained men AND women called to help in mercy and other ministries, servants, but that is not the office of Deacon, nor are they, in any sense, the Diaconate).

7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders
and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders
and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual
oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are
specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching
elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to
the physical and spiritual needs of the people. In accord with Scripture, these
offices are open to men only.

In fact, the Constitution specifically says no one should usurp a title of office.

7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority
therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as
are employed in the Scriptures.

Confessing its doctrine, the BCO understands that Scripture requires the offices of deacon and elder are qualified to be men.

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.

To argue that the BCO and the vows allow one to have women deacons, a female "diaconate" is a clear violation of both.

 

[Gage Browning]

 

[Scott1]

In the PCA, the Deacons spiritual charge of office is multiple:

9-2. It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to
the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is their duty
also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise
effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these
gifts among the objects to which they are contributed. They shall have the
care of the property of the congregation, both real and personal, and shall
keep in proper repair the church edifice and other buildings belonging to the
congregation....

The BCO charges the office basically with:

1) property stewardship
2) oversight of mercy ministry
3) developing "the grace of liberality in the congregation"

Deacons, and by derivation "Diaconate" (the Board of Deacons) is not only charged with mercy ministry.

It is incomplete, a misrepresentation of the office, to say the office is only one of overseeing mercy ministry, or to argue that it is merely a substitute word for "helper."

Diaconate also stewards the money, physical property and has an exhortational role in bringing out the generosity of God's people.

Every one of these is part of the governance of the local church, it is part of leadership, and equipped and qualified by God.

All of this is doctrine confessed by the constitution, the Book of Church Order, in the PCA.

It is upheld by oath.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

Recognizing the authoritative nature of the office of Deacon, Diaconate meets with Session

9-2 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.

Members elect deacons and elders as officers in the same manner

CHAPTER 24
Election, Ordination and Installation of Ruling Elders and Deacons
Election

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

The officer (deacons and elders) takes oath to receive this polity

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?

The members take vows to receive the authority of the office of Deacon

The ruling elder or deacon elect having answered in the affirmative,
the minister shall address to the members of the church the following
question:
Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and
receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon), and do you
promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement and
obedience in the Lord to which his office, according to the Word
of God and the Constitution of this Church, entitles him?

To imply the following is a misrepresentation of the confessed, constitutional polity of the denomination:

(These arguments below are NOT the polity, confessed doctrine or constitution of the PCA, as other posts above have shown):

1) the office of Deacon is not one of vocation,
2) Deacons need not be ordained
3) Deacons are women
4) Deacons only do mercy
5) Deacons do not have authority
6) Deacons do not govern
7) Assistants can do the same thing as officers
8) Diaconate includes non Deacons
9) Deacons do not need to have hands laid on for ordination
10) Deacons are merely "helpers"
11) Congregations can choose their own polity because the BCO does not say anything about what unordained assistants can do
12) Special title can be given to female only assistants to Deacons
13) The RPCES had women who served without distinction from Deacons (they never did, and rejected that)
14) That "joining and receiving" in the PCA allows individual churches to choose their own separate polity
15) Officers (deacons and elders) do not have to contend for their confessed polity, constitution, and vows.

 

[sdesocio]

Edward,

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

If you need to be circumspect maybe it would be best to not say it at all...

 

[he beholds]

The GA has actually ruled on it. There should be no female deacons in the PCA. No female members of a diaconate. This is not a case of BCO against Scripture. The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture. If it is wrong there are ways to change it and that way is not to ignore it. When it is ignored you get disorder instead of order . . . division instead of unity.

I don't know, I'm still unconvinced that the churches who have deaconesses are breaking vows. I'd like to see the report from the GA which ruled against them (and then disciplined these guys?). Keller's argument (that churches are permitted to have female assistants to the deacons) seems solid, but if the court really did rule against him I'd like to see it. I know you are an elder, so word may have come to you in a way that hasn't reached the lay people, but maybe you could direct me to the ruling? (I obviously can ask my own elders/pastor and may, but I'm not trying to stir things up and get deaconesses in our church.) I just find it so hard to understand how the denom can say, "You may not do this!" Yet the people still do this, w/out punishment.

 

[Edward]

If you need to be circumspect maybe it would be best to not say it at all..

With a simple mouse click, you can ignore all of my posts. If you need some help on how to do that, let me know, and I'll pm you detailed instructions. That might make your experience here more enjoyable.

 

[sdesocio]

Edward, Im not looking to block you, just suggesting that maybe if a comments needs to ommit key items, like who said what, it might not be entirely beneficial for a conversation. I think I understand the "camel" reference, but Im not sure.

 

[kvanlaan]

The BCO is what the church has declared she believes to be a faithful application of Scripture.

I think this is a very foundational part of the discussion and is something that a group of very learned men sweated over for a long time. That times are changing, and some people have new ideas about it, is irrelevant. If it is unbiblical, that's another matter, but my guess is that whatever group (read: church) creates these documents, obviously feels that their exegesis is correct on it, as it is a peer review of sorts, being generated by a group of church leaders. If I don't agree with it, perhaps I should find another sandbox to play in, instead of generating conflict.

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

If you need to be circumspect maybe it would be best to not say it at all...

And then again, sometimes it is worth the points. Edward, if you do it so save a brother/sister/church pain or grief by enlightening them with information that you have seen in the past, then by all means, don't be backward about coming forward.

 

[Wayne]

Sorry to enter this so late. In the OP, one or two bits of correction that might save some confusion:

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 155th Synod of the RPCES was in 1977. The RPCES joined the PCA five years later, in 1982. I'm not sure where the first part of that quote ("they are free...") provided above in the OP comes from, but it would only be the adopted final action which had authority within the RPCES. The statement of final action at that 155th Synod of the RPCES reads in full:

We affirm in the absence of any compelling biblical evidence to support the ordination of women to the special office of deacon, that this office be limited to qualified men. At the same time acknowledging that the Scriptures contain many examples of women who serve, we affirm the right of a local church to have a separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses. (RPCES Minutes, p. 111)

Thus, except for providing the label of "deaconesses", their conclusion was not much different than was was found in the PCA's BCO. The RPCES studies, like the PCA's studies, do not have constitutional authority. They are instead "pious advice":

. . . In receiving these denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America recognizes the history of the respective denominations as part of her total history and receives their historical documents as valuable and significant material which will be used in the perfecting of the Church. (Minutes of 9th PCA GA, p. 305, & cited by Paul R. Gilchrist, Stated Clerk of the RPCES, in the Preface to Documents of Synod)

If anything, the PCA's 1974 inclusion of "men and" into BCO 9-7 might arguably have been a fit of egalitarianism and actually muddies the current discussion. I would vote for the removal of that 1974 addition to the text of BCO 9-7.

The background to the PCA's BCO 9-7 can be found here: Historical Development of the PCA Book of Church Order : Chapter 9, Paragraph 7

I still need to confirm these details, but I am given to understand that within the committee tasked with drafting the Southern Presbyterian BCO, there were two men who thought it Biblical to have deaconesses in the Church. Other committee members opposed them on this. A compromise statement was the result. The wording that was finally approved remains closely similar to what now appears in the PCA's BCO 9-7. (compare the 1867 text with what was finally adopted in 1879).

Beyond all that, a wide range of articles on the diaconate can be accessed here: PCA Historical Center: Additional Resources on the Office of Deacon

 

[Scott1]

Thanks much for the history, Wayne.

It's very clear that the adopted RPCES position was NOT what is being practiced, or advocated by the esteemed pastor from Manhatten- men and women serving without distinction as deacons.

Can you clarify regarding BCO 9-7?

If anything, the PCA's 1974 inclusion of "men and" into BCO 9-7 might arguably have been a fit of egalitarianism and actually muddies the current discussion. I would vote for the removal of that 1974 addition to the text of BCO 9-7.

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.

It would seem allowing Session to appoint (not congregation to elect as is the case for officers) both men and women to assist the Deacons was to establish a kind of parity between men and women serving in a kind of "ministry group" under Diaconate, not operating autonomously.

And very much not to create a special class for women only serving in that.

In any event, it doesn't seem there is anything even REMOTELY suggesting a parallel process for officers (deacons and elders) for any other class of persons in the BCO.

(As we are aware from public presentation, the esteemed Pastor is promoting women for qualifying by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, examining by those qualifications [ignoring the parts about them being for men], training them with officers, nominating them from the congregation like officers, having a "commission" just like an officer's ordination [without hands being laid on Deacons at all, apparently], installing them jointly, and, in at least one instance having the congregation take vows to submit to them, with apparently no one in the covenant community noticing to object. Somehow, saying they are not substituting for officers, and somehow saying this was RPCES practice when it clearly was not).

 

[Wayne]

Just to be clear, I make no comment about any contemporary application, only about the history of the matter.

After all, I'm just the archivist.

 

[Scott1]

If anything, the PCA's 1974 inclusion of "men and" into BCO 9-7 might arguably have been a fit of egalitarianism and actually muddies the current discussion. I would vote for the removal of that 1974 addition to the text of BCO 9-7.

And a valuable archivist, indeed.

Can you elaborate on this statement, as an archivist?

 

[Wayne]

I did say "arguably".

The inclusion of "men and" creates a dilemma. If you have non-ordained women, selected by the Session to assist the deacons, and you were to allow for calling them "deaconesses", then in that scenario, what do you call the non-ordained men who also assist the deacons?

 

[Edward]

what do you call the non-ordained men who also assist the deacons?

Male deaconesses seems like the best solution.

 

[Wayne]

That would pretty much put an end to the whole matter, wouldn't it?

 

[Scott1]

I did say "arguably".

The inclusion of "men and" creates a dilemma. If you have non-ordained women, selected by the Session to assist the deacons, and you were to allow for calling them "deaconesses", then in that scenario, what do you call the non-ordained men who also assist the deacons?

It seems section 9-7 is is clear- it is not creating titles, officers, whether male or female, for those who may be appointed to assist the deacons.

It's almost as illogical, and contrary to the BCO, as saying that men assistants could be titled "bishops" and then serve without distinction from elders on Session. "The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Bishops (to serve without distinction from elders on Session)."

 

[SRoper]

I remember thinking when this article first came out that Keller argues for a position that is actually more moderate than Redeemer's actual practice. It seems that the article is arguing for a recognized body of deaconesses that assist the deaconate, wheras the actual practice of Redeemer is to have men and women serve in the deaconate without distinction, even to the point of having a woman as head of the deaconate.

 

[Scott1]

I remember thinking when this article first came out that Keller argues for a position that is actually more moderate than Redeemer's actual practice. It seems that the article is arguing for a recognized body of deaconesses that assist the deaconate, wheras the actual practice of Redeemer is to have men and women serve in the deaconate without distinction, even to the point of having a woman as head of the deaconate.

Yes,
there is substantial evidence to suggest that this publicly argued position in this article, and at the General Assembly two man debate, are much less of a violation of polity and vows than actually what is being practiced.

While the article focuses on "commissioning," the actual practice is reducing ordination to mere technicality. And undermining all the doctrines that go with it. That includes the presbyterian doctrine of office, and of the office of Deacon particularly (by arguing it is only a substitute word for "helper," or only charged with doing mercy.

But the doctrine is deacons oversee mercy, property stewardship and developing the grace of liberality in the congregation and therefore, as officers with authority, meet regularly with Session. And, that it is a perpetual call upon a man, who is qualified by Scripture by I Timothy 3 and Titus I.

It is confusing the attributes of church office, nomination, qualification, election, ordination and installation and simply inserting women into all those functions. So the unordained serve together with officers "without distinction."

It appears, what is being practiced is that the Session is composed of men as officers there, though it also appears women are regularly meeting with them there (don't forget the BCO advises joint meeting between Diaconate and Session at least quarterly [BCO 9-4]). The practiced "diactonate" appears to be a woman dominated entity- with the leadership being women.

In that context, it is hard to say one is only arguing for "commissioning" (not ordaining) 'deaconess.'

Though the reasoning in the article would make inroads toward "de facto" women's ordination, it is a far cry from what appears to be the actual practice.

One wonders why the basis for the actual practice being participated in is not being argued for in the public discourse, e.g. that ordination does not require the laying on of hands, that chair of Diaconate is a woman, that technically unordained lay people are installed in the same or similar ceremony at the ordained, that they are chosen by election of the congregation, etc.

 

[brianeschen]

I don't know, I'm still unconvinced that the churches who have deaconesses are breaking vows. I'd like to see the report from the GA which ruled against them (and then disciplined these guys?). Keller's argument (that churches are permitted to have female assistants to the deacons) seems solid, but if the court really did rule against him I'd like to see it. I know you are an elder, so word may have come to you in a way that hasn't reached the lay people, but maybe you could direct me to the ruling? (I obviously can ask my own elders/pastor and may, but I'm not trying to stir things up and get deaconesses in our church.) I just find it so hard to understand how the denom can say, "You may not do this!" Yet the people still do this, w/out punishment.

That is a very good question. I will have to do some research on the ruling and get back to you on specifics. Our Presbytery was heavily involved in the women deacon issue so it is probably more on our radar than in other Presbyteries.

It is important to remember that just because men are not disciplined does not mean they are following the constitution. There is a difference between the constitution and the enforcement of the constitution. A very good analysis of the decline of Presbyterianism in America was done by Gary North in a book called "Crossed Fingers" in which he explains that the law is merely suggestions without accompanying sanctions for violation of the law. As an illustration of this point, it has been clearly demonstrated that Federal Vision teaching is outside the bounds of Reformed theology, but if no elder is willing to press charges against Federal Vision teachers, this heresy will continue unchecked in churches. However, just because it is unchecked does not make it right. It is my belief that the tools of discipline that were handed down to us in Scripture and explained in our standards have been too widely neglected in our day. There is a lot of pressure against using discipline in the church. It just isn't "nice." Unfortunately, the neglect of biblical discipline gives the impression to church members that certain unacceptable practices are actually acceptable. This is destructive to the peace and purity of the church.

After research . . .

1) From the GA Committee on Constitutional Business 2010

E. Overture 10 from Northern California Presbytery: “Amend BCO 1-4, 4-2, 5-10, 7-2, 9-2, 9-7, & Add BCO 9-8 to Appoint Unordained Men and Women to Carry Out Diaconal Ministry” In the opinion of the CCB, Overture 10 is in conflict with other parts of the Constitution on the following grounds:
1) The insertion of “ordained” to describe the office of elder and deacon in the proposed revision of BCO 7-2 implies that there is an unordained office, which conflicts with BCO 17-1.
2) The statement in the proposed revision of BCO 9-2, “In a church in which deacons
are not ordained,” could imply the existence of deacons who have not been ordained, which also conflicts with BCO 17-1.
3) In the proposed new BCO 9-8, there is reference to “a local church which does not have ordained deacons,” which could imply the existence of deacons who have not been ordained, which also conflicts BCO 17-1.
4) Regardless of what may be the intention of the Overture, the ambiguous wording of the proposed Amendments gives rise to various interpretations, at least one of which is in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. Adopted 8-0-0

VI. Advice to the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records
In the opinion of the CCB, the response of Northern California Presbytery to the 37th General Assembly regarding the exceptions taken to its Minutes by the 35th General Assembly is not satisfactory in that, as was the case in the Presbytery’s response to the 36th General Assembly, it failed to address the issues raised by the exceptions - namely, that a diaconate (synonymous with the expression “Board of Deacons” [see BCO19-15 and 24-10]) may only include men who are elected, ordained, and installed; and that the practice in question denies qualified men their constitutional and biblical right to be considered for this office. Adopted.8-0-0

In the opinion of the CCB, the response of the Philadelphia Presbytery to the 37th General Assembly regarding the exception taken to its Minutes by the 35th General Assembly is satisfactory in that it agrees with the judgment of the 36th General Assembly that it was erroneous to call the body in question a “diaconate.” Although the presbytery correctly notes that having ordained deacons is not a requirement of the Book of Order for the formal organization of a church, the argument that one deacon does not constitute an organized Board does not preclude the ordination of only one qualified man as a deacon. It would be constitutionally appropriate for a congregation to elect one deacon and for the session to select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist that deacon (BCO 9-7). Adopted. 8-0-0

2) From the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records (I cannot locate my copy at the moment, but will include this when I find it – it details the back and forth between NorCal and GA as well as Philadelphia and GA regarding the issue of women deacons on a diaconate. If anyone has their copy of this report, feel free to beat me to it.)

3) Finally, this article ( Women and the Office of Deacon in the PCA ) from Dominic Aquila is helpful for properly defining the office of deacon biblically/constitutionally.