Moving on in victory toward peace and harmony...

(David) Let's think for a moment about the meaning of presbyterial life.

If the essence of presbyterianism is elders willingly subjecting themselves to their brethren...

And if ordained elders should never willfully violate the PCA's standards without first submitting their teaching or course-of-action to presbytery for approval...

And if those who come to possess beliefs substantially opposed to settled portions of PCA standards should leave the PCA for a denomination sympathetic to their new convictions rather than mar PCA harmony by staying and fighting...

Then what, pray tell, are we to make of PCA churches actually laying hands upon women (and men) in services of "commissioning" to the diaconal office?

And what are we to make of this overture to the PCA's 2008 General Assembly from the Philadelphia Presbytery asking General Assembly to sanction retroactively the ordination of women to an office clearly forbidden them by PCA standards?

And finally, why has no one sought to discipline these churches and this presbytery?

The irony is so thick you could cut it.

(Thanks for the link, Andrew)

Comments

[James McDonald]

What I see happening from the outside in is making my head spin. I pray for you, and my other friends, in the PCA. May God strengthen you to stand for biblical truth, regardless of the cost.

[Fr. Bill]

As another outsider, I too have gotten dizzy watching what is, and what is not, happening within the PCA.

This tack of retroactively baptizing rebellion is drawn straight from the playbook of the pansexualist pagans within The Episcopal Church. In their case, there was a spate of ordinations back in the 1970s to the presbyterate (the PCA equivalent of teaching and ruling elder). This was followed by anguished, hand-wringing protestations of the blessings that flowed from such illegally ordained women. This was followed by a general assembly doing exactly as the Philadelphia presbytery has proposed: retroactively tidy everything up, calling legal and wholesome what formerly was called illegal and toxic.

Deja vu all over again.

But, not quite. The Episcopal Church, according to a Southern Hemisphere archbishop (Gregory Venables) has been on this road for about a century. His take: "There are two positions that have moved apart over the last century: the Bible-based orthodox Christianity that goes back to the early years of the Church and a post-modern Christianity that believes everybody can find their own truth. And those two things cannot work together."

On the other hand, the PCA website tells us that the PCA originally separated from the Presbyterian Church in the USA " in opposition to the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Additionally, the PCA held to the traditional position on the role of women in church offices. "

So, now one of the main reasons for the PCA's existence is now a proposed matter to repent from?

At least, the liberal Episcopals were consistent. Here, it is ostenibly conservative Presbyterians who appeal to their church to do a backflip. No wonder onlookers' heads are spinning.

David and Tim, I trust you know that my anxiety here is genuine. Your task to recover from this within your own church is an arduous one. In the past century, only two Protestant communions have succeeded in reversing this tide -- the Missouri Synod Lutherans back in the Seventies, and the Southern Baptists (and, their ranks still contain egalitarian agitators who aim to reverse all the Patterson achieved).

I join James in praying you will succeed in galvanizing shepherds within the PCA to act before they awaken to find not only PCA seminaries, but also its denominational machinery firmly in egalitarian hands.

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

What I do not understand about Philadelphia is why
not just move to the ARP who does have women deacons?

[Jack's Pipe]

The Mo. Synod has a pretty strong feminist movement, much stronger as I recall than that in the PCA. The confessionalists are a minority in that denom.

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

Missouri Synod Lutherans will ordain women in the next 5-10 years. Bank on it.

[pduggie]

"TE William Krispin, who recorded the minutes in question, shared that the intention of
liberti was not to create a Diaconate per se, but wanted to create a leadership body to
develop works of leadership, hence the term “commission” of the one man and four women."

If thats the case, and liberti's request was granted, I guess they would THEN ordain deaconesses. Its not clear to me this is asking for retroactive approval.

[David Bayly]

Pduggie,

If they're claiming they didn't ordain, they only commissioned, they're as accomplished at parsing as Bill Clinton when he said, "I didn't have sex with that woman."

The BCO contains no "commissioning" service--not even the hint of one. It does define ordination as consisting of the laying on of hands and prayer:

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."

It says of the ordination of a pastor:

21-7 "The people having answered these questions in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the candidate shall kneel, and the presiding minister shall, with prayer and the laying on of hands of the Presbytery, according to the apostolic example, solemnly set him apart to the holy office of the Gospel ministry. Prayer being ended, he shall rise from his knees; and the minister who presides shall first, followed by all members of the Presbytery, take him by the right hand, saying, in words to this effect: We give you the right hand of fellowship, to take part in this ministry with us."

It says specifically of the ordination of elders and deacons:

24-6 "...the candidate shall then be set apart, with prayer by the minister or any other Session member and the laying on of the hands of the Session, to the office of ruling elder (or deacon)."

Call it whatever they will, the act is one of ordination. That's the significance of the picture showing them kneeling, hands laid on them, prayer uttered over them....

If this isn't ordination then we're living in a looking glass world.

Your brother in Christ,

David Bayly

[Ron Gleason]

Even though this appears to be a question of merely taking an exception to one part of the PCA Book of Church Order, it actually touches virtually the entirety of being PCA.

[pduggie]

Being against ordained deaconesses is of the essence of the PCA?

[Ken Pierce]

May I point out the obvious here?

Both of the authors of this post are PCA ministers, and, if they felt strongly enough about this, could bring it through the legitimate procedures of the court.

Why isn't someone doing something about this, indeed?

No irony at all.

[Michael Foster]

Ken,

How long have you been reading this blog?

[Keith LaMothe]

Brothers Bayly,

Well, I wouldn't have put it the way Mr. Pierce did, but since you've brought the matter up publicly, I would like to ask what you're doing about it procedure-wise. Charges? Memorials? Something else?

If that's not for public consumption, that's fine, but I figured I'd ask.

Blessings,
Keith

[Ken Pierce]

I've been reading this blog for years, and have always lauded Tim and David for standing up for the truth particularly in the area of gender relationships.

But, there is blogging, and there is action.

Perhaps I came across stronger than I intended (it's happened before), but what irks me is the incipient jabs against those in the PCA who sense the soul danger promoted by the FV, as if the advancing egalitarian agenda somehow exempts us from having to deal with a crusading hyper-covenantalism.

Again, I think BOTH things are dangerous. I am not about to shoot arrows at Tim and David for being concerned about feminism. I don't think it's right for them, however, to shoot arrows at those of us who think the very gospel itself is at stake in the FV controversy.

[David Bayly]

Ken,

I just learned of the overture and first saw the picture yesterday. (By the way, when we sign a post it means just one of us is its author.)

Surely there are those among the anti-FV leadership who have closer ties to the Philadelphia presbytery and this situation than Tim or I. Are you suggesting that the entire PCA just woke up to this situation, that Liberti's particularization commissioners never realized what the laying on of hands means, that this whole thing, like Minerva, simply sprang into being a full-grown GA overture from the mind of the Philadelphia presbytery?

Trying to cast responsibility on me for the failure to deal with this flagrant violation of our standards is silly. You likely knew about this before me.

Again, I will say it as frequently and as fulsomely as the Lord permits: if those who vigorously pursued the prosecution of FV men fail to deal just as vigorously with this violation of PCA standards, they're not concerned about the purity of the Church, they're playing political games in the House of God.

David Bayly

[Ken Pierce]

David,

I don't buy it. You're passing the buck. If this is an issue about which you both are well versed and passionate (and it is), then are you absolutely sure that the Holy Spirit is not calling you to do something about it?

And, the FV battle is far from over. Why are you asking the men who are still dealing with this issue to take on another one, when obviously there are others who can (and I think should), do it.

Unfortunately, I think because you are passing judgment on the anti-FV folk, you would be surprised (and maybe convicted) at how many of the anti-FV brothers would support you in this.

YOur indictment of those who have labored against the FV is completely off base, as well. It is hard to see how men who would line up on the "right" of our denomination had anything politically to gain by lopping off those with whom they would link arms on a host of other issues.

I really think you guys are blinded to this because of personal fondness for the FV proponents. Remember Paul opposed Peter to his face for his actions that were anti-gospel.

Yes, there are faithful brethren in Philly. But, you know how things go in presbytery --sometimes political clout trumps proper procedure. That's a reality in every ecclesiastical setting, not just the PCA.

As to who should proceed in this matter: where did the charges against LAP originate?

[Ken Pierce]

Just to add and hopefully not to pile on:

I found out about this particular offense on your blog.

But, who knew about this one first is rather irrelevant, because, as you say above, it is not as if this is a new thing. Several churches (and some suprising ones) have had unordained deaconesses for a long time, which I would argue is a disingenuous distinction without a difference.

So, you may have just awakened to Liberti. But, Liberti is certainly not the first.

[pduggie]

I don't actually know the particulars of the liberti situation. I have a reflexive desire to assume Bill Krispin (who I have a known with from my teen years) is not a liar.

But I will say that I think one FVish issue plays into this, which is vast mushyness and ignorance in the PCA over liturgical and sacramental matters. Some PCA churches I know of practice intinction for communion, which is unbiblical and unreformed, and messed up. But somebody thought is was "cool" I suppose.

PCA churches "commission" short term missionaries (kids in their teens to 20s). I can see churches that do intinction because its cool laying hands on a 'leadership committee' because, well, laying hands seems like a 'religious' thing to do.

Maybe they were sick? :)

[David Bayly]

Dear Ken,

Yes, I understand. The fact that Tenth has done this is disturbing.

Brother, let me say that I have been quite critical of FV at key points. Yet I'm also sympathetic with them at some of the junctures where they depart from the traditions of modern Reformed/Evangelical thought. Ecclesiology is the key here, and the reason for my continued affection for certain FV men. It's my suspicion that an emphasis on a less baptistic ecclesiology has reverse-engineered certain likenesses to RCC soteriology into FV. Whether this is inevitable I'm not yet prepared to say. I've shared the ecclesiological concerns and thinking of FV men from before there was such a thing as "FV", yet I also realized the implications of where my ecclesiology seemed headed soteriologically and so I just stopped and backed off about seven years ago.

I'm not with those in the FV movement if FV really ends up soteriologically where I fear it may, but neither am I convinced that the jury is in on this. Perhaps my sympathy for their ecclesiology leads me toward charity at this point, but I also believe the orthodoxy and fruitfulness of Doug Wilson are unquestionable, and based in my firm trust in him I'm willing to withhold final judgment.

But, in the end, what happened at Liberti is simply a violation of the BCO, the Confession, the Catechism, and of Scripture. It's not a potentially bad thing. It's right there in the picture: ordination to office of women.

Surely this is--by a country mile--a more perspicuous and obvious violation of all we hold true than FV thought.

In Christ,

David

[Jeff Hutchinson]

David,

Your last comment nicely summarizes why there is an unfortunate impasse between us (not that I expect that impasse to be of disproportionate concern, given both of our much more immediate relationships and responsibilities).

You wrote, "Surely this [liberti's commissioning service of women deacons] is--by a country mile--a more perspicuous and obvious violation of all we hold true than FV thought." That may be a "sure thing" depending on how you are defining the "we." But if by "we" you mean confessional and believing Presbyterians than I couldn't disagree more strongly.

I was a member of Philadelphia Presbytery, and was well aware of Tenth and some other churches making use of unordained deaconesses. I was well aware of that because my own church was one of those churches! My church had had unordained deaconesses for decades when I arrived there as an Associate. While I was there, however, I and one of the RE's were able to persuade the Session, and ultimately the whole Church, to change its bylaws and elimate the pseudo-office of "deaconess." So, obviously I think that what Tenth and liberti and some other churches do in promoting "commissioned" deaconesses is unwise.

But at the end of the day, I see the question of women's ordination as a church HEALTH question (churches that allow for it will be sicker than they otherwise would be) rather than an ESSENCE OF THE GOSPEL question. I understand that you and Tim (and maybe even my friend Ken) would disagree very strongly.

But further, at the end of the day I (and a huge majority of the commissioners to last summer's GA) see some (though certainly not all) of the FV distinctives to be PRESENTLY gospel-denying, not merely "potentially so." Again, I understand that you and Tim would disagree very strongly. Hence the impasse. But I thought it worth our time to make this simple distinction.

Blessings to you both.

[Ken Pierce]

JEff,

Just for the record: I agree with you. There are issues of the esse of the church (like the clarity and simplicity of the gospel) and the bene esse (like who should be deacons and whether deaconesses exist).

[pduggie]

Can someone demonstrate that the 4 women and 1 man

1) have the duties of deacons?
2) were called deacons?
3) have any particular tasks to perform?

I can't find anything written about them other than the Krispin quote in the memorial.

I can't even find the name of the pastor on the liberti site, so who knows.

I just feel like I (any anyone else) don't have enough facts to evaluate this, other than to say something loosey-goosey happened, like laying hands on a teenager departing for a Haiti mission, or intinction, or ending a prayer to the Father "in your name, amen".

[pduggie]

I'll also mention that Tenth has the issue of "grandmothered" ordained hand-laied deaconessess from the era when Tenth was in the PCUSA.

These women still perform the same acts of godly service to women who need care.

[Sam Steinmann]

I have two questions:

In the orthodox Reformed world, how innovative are deaconesses? I ask because the Anabaptist tradition has provided for deaconesses from the beginning (the Dordrecht Confession from 1632 mentions them.)

Would you commission an unordained person (such as a missionary) in any circumstances? If so, why is this different?

[pduggie]

"Leadership and Service Opportunities for Women

By James M. Boice

The following statement expresses the position of the Session of Tenth Presbyterian Church regarding leadership and service opportunities for women at Tenth. It was adopted December 22, 1992.

Leadership and Service Opportunities for Women at Tenth Presbyterian Church

The Session of Tenth Presbyterian Church reaffirms that all positions of leadership and service at Tenth Presbyterian Church are open to women, except for the authoritative teaching and disciplinary role that the Bible, in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, reserves for men. In a Presbyterian system of government, that role is embodied solely in the Session, composed of ruling and teaching elders. Aside from that function, women are encouraged to seek out all avenues of leadership and service, including Bible teaching, leading small groups, serving on the various church boards and committees, assisting in diaconal work and by any other means fully exercising their gifts for the greater benefit of the body of Christ Jesus.
This statement is consistent with the position taken by Tenth Church when we left the United Presbyterian Church (USA) in part over this issue. At that time the old denomination had changed its book of order to require member churches to elect
women to all boards of the church, including the eldership, and that compelled our Session to reexamine its view of the Bible's teaching on the role of women in the church.

...
The second error tends to be the error of evangelicals or at least some of them, and that is the error of making the verses say more than they actually do, thereby excluding women from virtually any leadership or service roles. We believe that is also wrong if for no other reason than that women did serve admirably and in many ways even in the apostolic age. What the text does seem to forbid, in our judgment, is what we would today call the authoritative teaching or disciplinary role in the local church. This is not a passage talking about women as such but is part of a letter in which rules for the operation of the churches are being passed on to Timothy by Paul. Paul is answering the question “How should the local church be run?” not “What are women allowed (or not allowed) to do?”

This authoritative teaching and disciplinary role is assigned differently in churches depending on their form of government. In a Baptist church this role is filled by deacons. In an Episcopal church it is filled by the rector alone. In a Presbyterian church it is the Session. Apart from that single function, it seems to us that every other form of leadership or service in the church should be open to women. Therefore the Session encourages the women of Tenth Presbyterian Church
to seek out such roles in accordance with the gifts God has given, in response to developing needs and in obedience to any perceived call by God to serve."

[David Gray]

>But at the end of the day, I see the question of women's ordination as a church HEALTH question

I think Pastor Hutchinson demonstrates why the PCA is right on track to follow the PCUSA.

[Ross]

To David -

Years ago, in my Anglican days, we hired a young woman as a pastoral worker for children & young families; she also 'pastored' the young teenage women who weren't from Christian families, as well as the younger adult single women. As the vicar (rector) put it at the time, "Part of why we are doing this is because we have to be seen to be pure". Certainly such a role would be within the spirit of Titus 2, if not quite the letter.

Now, without calling the women involved deacons or even deaconesses, and without any suggestion that they should be leaders .... it's all very well to criticise the Presbytery for ordaining women as deacons, but your comments do beg the question as to how we should acknowledge women in ministries like these. We commission single women for mission work easily enough, or so I thought.

[Jeffrey M.]

The PCA has apparently been under the delusion that it can indeed take fire into its bosom and not get burned.
I know there are still many faithful PCA ministers who oppose the feminist onslaught and capitulation. It is now time to lance the boil. If there is not courage to lance the boil now, who will have the courage to amputate the entire arm later?

1 Kings 19: 18 "Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him."

[Tim Bayly]

Men, sorry I've not responded earlier. Things are tough this week and I'd appreciate your prayers.

>>Both of the authors of this post are PCA ministers, and, if they felt strongly enough about this, could bring it through the legitimate procedures of the court. Why isn't someone doing something about this, indeed?

Our presbytery has a church that follows a similar practice with women deacons and we voted last meeting to find them out of accord with the “Book of Church Order.” At that time we also appointed a committee to study the matter and I was appointed to that committee. Also, I served on General Assembly's AISCOWIM and was the primary author (with help from others including my brother, David) of its majority report now available with other PCA study committee papers here:

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/aiscwim.html.

Further, David and I have written about the feminist influences at a number of institutions, PCA and otherwise, including Covenant College, Covenant Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Westminster Theological Seminary. But in addition to writing, we've also served in a variety of private capacities in working for the reform of these institutions. Then too, we've served presbyteries, both privately and publicly. Both of us do more behind the scenes than we do in public, believing that brotherly affection and concern for the peace and unity of the church would be best served by private entreaty and exhortation, hoping not to have to move to public controversy. All of us want to be corrected gently and with kindness, don’t we?

But of course, due to its nature, such work is almost never made public.

So please, don’t judge us harshly on this matter. We have enough work out there for all to see that I can’t feel (did I use that word?) it fair (and that one?) for us to be accused of being armchair critics. Please remember that we are teachers, pastors, sons, fathers, and husbands as well as writers.

More later.

[Andrew Dionne]

Take a look at the overture made by Liberti Church included as an appendix to the final overture brought to the PCA's GA by the Philadelphia Presbytery. GA's Review of Presbytery Records took an exception to the records of the Organization Service of Liberti: "Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned contrary to BCO 9-3.” This received two responses: 1) The Philadelphia Presbytery responded with a request: "Please clarify how the commissioning of 4 unordained women as deaconesses is out of accord with BCO 9-3;" 2) the leadership of Liberti church drafted an overture for the Philadelphia Presbytery to consider. The overture’s goal: to allow congregations to have the freedom to ordain women to the office of deacon with equal status with men.

So, we have the leaders of Liberti Church in a service of particularization laying hands upon a kneeling group of not just women but a mixed group, 4 women and 1 man. Clearly they were designating their diaconate and not simply commissioning deaconesses (unless the poor man has issues we don’t know about). Following the report of the RPR Liberti Church and her pastors respond with an overture to allow them to ordain women deacons. The pastors of Liberti believe women are ordainable, are willing to promote this position before the entire PCA, and laid hands on women during the designation of their diaconate during the particularization of their church, and the Philadelphia Presbytery responds with “But it was a commissioning of unordained women as deaconesses.” And brothers here are incredulous about what was happening during that service. Come on.

[garver]

Sure, ordination involves setting apart through the laying on of hands and prayer. But only by a logical fallacy would this entail that all laying on of hands and prayer is an act of ordination, even when it is for the purpose of asking God's blessing upon a particular calling or function in the church. While the BCO prescribes that ordination be carried out by the laying on of hands and prayer, it does not reserve laying on of hand and prayer for the sole purpose of ordination.

Besides, to conflate "ordination" with simply "laying on of hands with prayer" is to pull ordination apart from its wider context of vocation and biblically mandated office.

After all, many of us, I would guess, have followed the example of Jesus and the disciples and laid hands on the sick and prayed for them, but without doing anything like ordaining them. And likewise missionaries and others entering into service to the church are commissioned in a similar way, even if only short term.

Or consider historical examples. When, in the early centuries of the church, bishops set people apart through prayer and the laying on of hands to roles such as lector, sub-deacon, acolyte, singer, and so forth, what were they doing? It wasn't "ordination" since that was reserved for the presbyterate and diaconate and involved a process of discernment, calling, and setting apart to particular functions, privileges, and responsibilities within the life of the church.

The fact is, a picture is not worth a thousand words. If I showed you a picture of a knife piercing abdominal flesh, you wouldn't know if it was a stabbing, an act of suicide, a freak accident, or life-saving surgery. What makes the difference is the larger context and the intent of the agent(s). Just so here as well. Without hearing the prayer that was prayed, how can we even begin to interpret?

I'll also add that we have deaconesses here in Philly and much of the North because we were once part of the RPCES which permitted this by the teaching of our General Synod: "churches...are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconnesses and set them apart by prayer." It was understood that when we J&Red with the PCA that this would continue to be permitted as part of what it meant for the PCA to "receive" us.

[Scott Killy]

Garver,

This is not someone from the RPCES,but rather a new church into the PCA. You are correct the prayer being made is unknown except to those who were present. However, I do not think I need to know the prayer. Despite liberti's desire to call this a commissioning service it appears to be very much the same as I would witness at an ordination service. In my estimation the overture appears to be an attempt to make it acceptable to ordain women to the office of deacon even if not approved now the hope is to move closer to this goal. It seems parallel in some ways as to the homosexual movement wanting to have approved unions with the same benefits of marriage until they can just be married.

[Ken Pierce]

Tim,

Thanks for your response. I don't mean to imply you are armchair critics. I know of some of your labors and have often expressed appreciation for them here and elsewhere.

I guess what bothers me is what has become a constant refrain that, if you think the FV brothers need to depart, you must be politically motivated, and doubly so if you don't bring charges in the case of the ordination of women.

Can you really say that about all of us who would share extreme alarm about the FV? Fred Greco, Jeff Hutchinson, Sean Lucas and others? It is hard for me to understand what the political motivation would even be.

So, if thou dost not want to be judged an armchair critic, perhaps refrain from adjudging others so.

[Douglas Wilson]

Jeff and Ken, the problem appears to be that this is an objective, photographable violation of the PCA's standards, while the FV stuff is not. FV would be such a violation if you said that that we are "justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law," and we said, "nuh uh." But if you say all that and we say "amen," now what?

It is as though Christ Church were accused of ordaining women deacons because of a report on the web, and we denied it, saying that Leslie and Loraine are both men's names, and sorry for the confusion. If the attack kept up after that, then I would suspect there were other factors and motives at work. Finding a place where I deny the essence of the gospel will be a lot harder than finding women in office in the PCA.

[Fred Greco]

Ok. I have seen now a connection between the Liberti defenders and the FV defenders (who happen to be the same persons, in several instances): when called on something clear, obfuscate. When found red-handed, deny.

Scott and Andrew, you are right on here.

Ken and Jeff, I would simply stand up for my brothers Tim and David (not that I am anything, but you know me better than you know them, and the same is true for their part). Tim and David have *done*, not just said, much in this area of denial of the Biblical teaching of male leadership in the Church. While I would agree with you that the issue of deaconesses is a matter of bene esse instead of esse in the abstract; and while I would agree that the issues of FV are an attack on the esse of the Church (and I have had numerous, helpful private conversations with David and Tim about this); I would also say that for David and Tim this is not just an issue about deaconesses.

It is an issue of rejecting the authority of God's Word. The cavalier attitude that has been taken by those embracing ordaining women is what causes me concern more than the act itself.

Blessings,

[Fred Greco]

Pastor Wilson,

You do realize that for your example to be true, it would have to have representatives from nearly every major Reformed seminary come out and talk with Leslie and Loraine, and declare that they are in fact women, even though they wear jeans and polo shirts. Followed by study by every NAPARC denomination (OPC, BPC, URCNA, PCA, etc.) and they come to the same conclusion, even showing that Leslie and Loraine have husbands and children.

You'll forgive us if we don't find the FV simply "misunderstood" at this date.

[Tim Bayly]

>>I guess what bothers me is what has become a constant refrain that, if you think the FV brothers need to depart, you must be politically motivated, and doubly so if you don't bring charges in the case of the ordination of women.

Dear Ken,

I haven't said this. And although David's words are somewhat closer to what you've written, I don't think you've done a good job of summarizing him, either.

First, I do believe it best that some within the F-V camp be corrected by their presbyteries (or higher if necessary), or that they depart from our fellowship.

Second, speaking (I think) for both of us: We have seen and heard things that cause us to believe that not everyone standing against F-V is motivated purely by love for God's Truth, but that some words and actions have been corrupted by malice towards one or more of F-V's principal proponents. Note the words "not everyone" and "some."

Further, we do not believe we are omniscient, and thus able to divine men's motives with complete accuracy. But we are convinced that motives are inextricably bound to actions in every church fight, and that we must all work to purify ourselves from the sins that corrupt our good work. For this reason we ourselves would quickly agree that our own work has, at times, been corrupted by bad motives in this very discussion. Who can write without pride, anger, selfishness, and a whole host of other sins?

I can't, and so I recognize the truth of God's Word, that where there are many words, sin is not absent. We're well over two million on this blog by now, and counting as I type.

Finally, many of those standing for and against F-V are, we believe, godly in their motivations and actions. And we thank God for those exposing F-V's errors on both sides (as indeed men on both sides have). We have spent a good bit of time working on this issue privately, seeking better conduct and doctrine on both sides of the issue. We would place ourselves mostly on the anti-F-V side, doctrinally.

So why does anyone go ballistic when we point out the obvious, that everything done on this issue within the PCA has not been lily black in its motivation and process? Seems to me the proper response should be, "Well, duh!"

As for the correlation between the work done by some opposing egalitarianism/feminism within the PCA and the work of others opposing the errors of the F-V, we recognize there are many faithful men who are working hard to purify and correct and expose false doctrine in both areas. And for this we are grateful.

But, it's clear to us that the PCA is very, very soft on sexuality. We'd be delighted to be proven wrong by the errors of prominent churches, pastors, and institutions being corrected, but we're not holding our breath.

[garver]

The RPCES point was that many of the Presbyteries of the PCA were essentially carried over from the RPCES and these Presbyteries have preserved the culture and understandings of their originating body and have passed that along to succeeding generations of pastors, elders, church planters, and so forth. While liberti is a newer church plant, it is also a church plant of the Philly Presbytery which, in turn, is one of three now-existing Presbyteries that came into the PCA from the RPCES as a single Presbytery. Deaconesses have, as Jeff Hutchinson notes, been part of our culture and tradition for many decades here.

Moreover, there have always been pastors and other church officers in our Presbytery (and elsewhere) who have held that Scripture permits ordination of women to the office of deacon, as was recommended by the majority report to the 1977 General Synod of the RPCES. While that recommendation was not adopted by Synod, it represented the views of a significant minority in the RPCES and, indeed, the majority view within several Presbyteries.

That liberti PCA and others would like to raise the issue afresh is thus no surprise, as it has long been a minority view and, as far as I know, the PCA has never given the issue focused study. Liberti, it seems to me, is to be commended for their abiding by the restrictions of the BCO to not ordain women to the diaconate, despite what appear to be their convictions to the contrary.

[Andrew Dionne]

I suppose posts on a blog from Liberti's current "Pastor of Church Planting," Steve Huber, which mention their ordination of elders, deacons, and deaconesses are open to interpretation...

http://libertinorthwest.blogspot.com/

[Tim Bayly]

>>Liberti, it seems to me, is to be commended for their abiding by the restrictions of the BCO to not ordain women to the diaconate, despite what appear to be their convictions to the contrary.

I was with you until this statement. Really, we're to commend Liberti for obedience and submission to our church Constitution? You can't possibly be serious.

It may turn out that Liberti is not doing what it appears they are doing, but if my son has been told not to eat any cookies before dinner and I catch his hand in the cookie jar, he's going to catch it. And more so if he protests that he didn't eat a cookie, and whines, "Why should I be punished just because I had my hand in the cookie jar?"

Submission is a posture, as is rebellion; and a father who disciplines the action but not the posture is foolish.

This is not to suggest that Liberti be brought up on charges without first ascertaining their motivation and actions. But to comment here that we should commend them for their submission precisely at the point where they appear to be rebelling against the Book of Church Order?

No, sir; absolutely not.

[pduggie]

"Ok. I have seen now a connection between the Liberti defenders and the FV defenders (who happen to be the same persons, in several instances): when called on something clear, obfuscate. When found red-handed, deny."

Well, thats as clear as mud.

You mean Garver and Duggan? or Garver and Duggan and Wilson? Please speak more plainly.

I don't see Wilson as a liberti defender.

I don't see myself as a liberti defender either.

I just don't have a transcription of what was said, and I DON'T PRESUME there is some "agenda" at work, so I'm willing to entertain possibly obscure defenses BECAUSE THERE IS PRECIOUS little data.

I'm in a church that says grape juice is a fine substitute for wine in communion. I'm not surprised such churches would have the lack of interest in physical attributes to not recognize that laying hands, and saying, "commission not ordain" looks hinky.

Also, liberti started as a church plant of the philly presbytery, which is, I'm guessing (can't be sure) dominated by RPCES churches, even though liberti wouldn't have been an original rpces church.

Many PCA churches have diaconates that have complete equality of function (meet at same time, vote together, etc). So the diaconate of liberti was commissioned, and 4 were commissioned, 1 was ordained. They did it in a way that includes laying hands on everybody, which I claim is dumb (like inctinction, grape juice, and saying "let us kneel before the Lord our maker" while remaining seated), but not malicious.

I don't see a smoking gun that liberti is stealthily ordaining women to an office of deacon, though they have no principled objection to it. That fact alone isn't a smoking gun.

"and the Philadelphia Presbytery responds with “But it was a commissioning of unordained women as deaconesses.” And brothers here are incredulous about what was happening during that service."

yes.

Clearly, the Prebystery has sinned for not giving liberti a strong presumption of guilt on the fact of GAs merely raising a question. :)

[pduggie]

Andrew:

That blog post is rather damning.

A charitable interpretation is that he's speaking his mind as to what he probably doesn't realize is contra the BCO (in his thinking, oridination, shmordination). But when it came down to it, he "commissioned", and didn't "ordain".

But he laid on hands, which was dumb.

[garver]

pduggie, it's possible the male deacon was commissioned too, along with the women. There are a number of PCA churches that, because of their convictions about the biblical permissibility of women in the diaconate, don't ordain either men or women to the office, but commission both as a matter of analogous treatment, until such time the PCA permits that both may be ordained.

[Tim Bayly]

>>And brothers here are incredulous about what was happening during that service.

Who? Where? When?

Not incredulous at all. This is boringly normal within the PCA, done and argued for with impunity by our best-paid pastors. Speaking only for myself, when I hear about it, I yawn.

Although some later regretted it, Memphis' Second Pres. chose the EPC partly because women deacons would be allowed there. Apparently, it was all for naught; they could as easily have come into the PCA.

[Dave Sarafolean]

I served on the RPR Committee at last year's General Assembly and was one of the reviewers of Philadelphia Presbytery's minutes. I commented on this matter on this blog several months ago.
While David and Tim Bayly might not have taken personal action on this matter (yet) I along with the PCA General Assembly have flagged this as an exception of substance requiring a response from our brethren in Philadephia.

For the record, the minutes included a report from the presbytery commission that organized liberti PCA. The presbytery commission installed the pastor, ordained and installed ruling elders, then stepped aside to allow the newly constituted Session to "commission" the deaconesses and deacon. In other words, this did not happen in a corner. The representatives of Philadelphia Presbytery knew full well ahead of time how this was going down and apparently did nothing to stop it. What's worse -- liberti PCA doing the commissioning or the presbytery turning a blind eye to the commissioning?

[Douglas Wilson]

I would simply urge this: when the time comes for the PCA to appoint a study committee on women deacons, they need to take special care to make sure that everyone on the committee has the same view going in. Minority reports are such a distraction. :)

[Fred Greco]

Actually, maybe we should ask Tim his opinion. I know he so enjoyed the attempt to make the Women in Military Committee "balanced" in such a way that nearly no other committee was.

That is why that Study Committee was one of only a couple to have minority reports. I'll leave Tim to say whether that was a blessing to the Church.

(I share his opinion on that one.)

[garver]

If one has the conviction that Scripture permits ordination of women to the diaconate and, moreover, if one believes that the church is called to recognize and support the gifts and service of all God's people, including those of women, then the PCA's exclusion of women from the ordained diaconate would seem to be a matter of injustice and a failure of the church to minister faithfully and biblically.

I know saying that sort of thing is likely to rub some folks the wrong way and sound like the worst sort of egalitarian claptrap, but it seems a natural conclusion given the premises.

Now, given such a perspective and given Scripture's emphasis on mercy and justice over human legislation (even legislation by well-meaning religious leaders), then any restraint on the part of churches with these sorts of convictions seems to me commendable.

Perhaps it's also because I've lived by whole life within the Philly Presbytery. I have trouble regarding the ministers and elders of our Presbytery with suspicion or seeing them as disingenuous.

[Jeff Hutchinson]

Joel Garver's concise summary of the history of the RPCES Presbytery coming in to the PCA is right on, and I'm definitely in agreement with him on this: I do not regard the pastors and elders of the Philadelphia Presbytery with suspicion or see them as disingenuous.

Though I do not agree with the decisions the liberti church or the Philadelphia Presbytery have made with regard to this, and hence am glad it was flagged as an exception of substance by the GA review committee, this is a church health matter, and not an essence of the gospel matter.

[David Gilleran]

Jeff, one of the reasons or being, if you like, for the PCA to come into existence was the ordination of women both to the eldership and the deaconate. It was not a matter of church health for those who started the PCA. It was believed to be part of the being of the church.

[David Gray]

>It was not a matter of church health for those who started the PCA. It was believed to be part of the being of the church.

Amen.

[Ron Gleason]

Doug,
Snarky comment. It's time to stop licking your wounds, especially on a matter that is outside the CREC. You have every right to disagree, but WCF 7.2 is rather "photographable" too. It seems to me that if the FV (and Norm Shepherd) proponents are as well educated as I believe they are, they ought to be able to articulate their positions in such a manner that leaves no doubt where they stand on crucial doctrines. To this point, there has been more equivocation than elucidation.

[Douglas Wilson]

Ron, sorry if it came off snarky -- trying to avoid that is why I put a little emoticon thingy in there :) which I almost never do. Didn't work, apparently. :(

If WCF 7.2 is photographable, then who is in the photograph? For example, do I hold to a covenant of works with Adam? Do I hold to it in substance, embracing the language? Do I keep the language and reject the substance? Or would I rather call it the covenant of life or creation, while keeping the substance of the doctrine? As I have made plain, it is this last option. So, am I in the photograph?

[Dave Sarafolean]

Garver,

In light of your statement...

"I'll also add that we have deaconesses here in Philly and much of the North because we were once part of the RPCES which permitted this by the teaching of our General Synod: "churches...are free to elect Spirit-filled women as deaconnesses and set them apart by prayer." It was understood that when we J&Red with the PCA that this would continue to be permitted as part of what it meant for the PCA to "receive" us."

I have no problem with this practice as long as deacons (male) are ordained and installed in accordance with BCO 24 and the deaconnesses serve under the direction and authority of the diaconate. The reason RPR flagged this matter was precisely because BCO 24 was not followed and a new practice invented in its place. That's what seems disingenuous and suspicious.

[pduggie]

"The presbytery commission installed the pastor, ordained and installed ruling elders, then stepped aside"

Which is what presbyteries do: they don't commission OR ordain deacons.

"to allow the newly constituted Session to "commission" the deaconesses and deacon."

Which is, with the exception of commissioning a 'deacon', what Tenth already does with deaconesses. Not new.

So the issue is really that a deacon was merely commissioned, not that a deaconess was commissioned?

While I understand gaver's justice argument, I also think that those making that argument have to understand that a great many people who oppose such things do so solely on the basis of feeling a text presents insurmountable obstacles to taking the opposite view. In which case claims of injustice get heard as accusations of immorality and bigotry on the part of those holding to the traditional standard, when those holding to those standards feel there is no other option available to them. It has the effect of making an issue more contentious than it should be.

[garver]

It was commented that the role of women in the diaconate "was not a matter of church health for those who started the PCA. It was believed to be part of the being of the church."

Are you serious? Wow. Growing up in the PCA, I never experienced that sort of perspective. It seems very, well, odd to me, to say the least.

This just reinforces my impression that within the PCA there are distinct subcultures separated by theology, practice, and geography.

[Tim Bayly]

>>Actually, maybe we should ask Tim his opinion. I know he so enjoyed the attempt to make the Women in Military Committee "balanced" in such a way that nearly no other committee was. That is why that Study Committee was one of only a couple to have minority reports. I'll leave Tim to say whether that was a blessing to the Church.

The experience was not good. Through it I came to believe even more than I already did in majority and minority reports (except in certain very limited cases). Why?

Well, the year before our final report was presented, our chairman did his best to get us to accept a unified report. So our penultimate year (Daryl has inspired my vocabulary), we presented one report agreed upon by both sides.

Being a grazed woodlot, it was neither good woodlot nor good grazing.

The next year, we separated and—finally!—were able to get to work saying what the Scriptures and church fathers said, rather than what compromised and compromising men were willing for us to say.

Consensus is vastly overrated.

Years back, I was working at First Presbyterian in Boulder, Colorado, and we had famous Pastor John Doe in as a Lenten speaker. It was our habit to go out to breakfast with our big name preachers the morning of their departure, and I remember the exchange we had with Pastor Doe, but more what our own wise senior pastor said after Pastor Doe left for the airport.

Pastor Doe had been waxing eloquent about the decisionmaking practice of his board of elders. He told us every decision they made was by consensus, and when someone at the table (there were about ten of us) asked what happened when the vote was split, he responded that they’d defer the vote until everyone agreed. Of course, the subtext was that they practiced mutual submission and unity in all their leadership.

Then Pastor Doe was off to the airport and, having some time before we all had to leave, we sat and talked for a few minutes. One person must have commented on the extraordinary method Pastor Doe had described, to which our Senior Pastor responded, “Yes, but you know what he meant when he said they waited until they had consensus on the matter, don’t you? He meant they never proceed until everyone’s figured out what Pastor Doe wants.”

This man was greatly loved because of his meekness and wisdom, and there was not an ounce of Little Man Syndrome in him. I don’t remember ever hearing a similar comment from him, but this one time he popped the hot air balloon decisively. And I’ve never forgotten it.

Now, if anyone apologizes to our session for speaking or voting against the majority, I tell that story and express to them our gratitude that they have honored us and the decision with their disagreement.

Back to the work of the Ad Interim Committee on Women in the Military: As I said, during the last year we were finally freed to work on a report that was in conformity with Scripture. And when it came time to vote, the majority of the committee signed on to that report, saying “No” to women as military combatants. But when we arrived at general assembly, our chairman called a meeting and asked us to approve a motion that would forbid him from identifying which of the two reports was the majority report, and which the minority.

The motion was made, seconded, and it carried. Only two of us spoke and voted against it. I argued that refusing to tell the assembly which was the majority and which the minority report, would send the assembly into parliamentary meltdown. I went on to say that if the chairman was so set on us presenting an irenic appearance in our presentation to the assembly, it would be much better to accomplish this by having the majority report become the minority report than to refuse to have either.

Sure enough, when our chairman presented our reports, the assembly was completely flummoxed by his refusal to identify which was the majority, and which the minority report. There was much consultation at the podium, but even the parliamentarian couldn’t figure out what was going on. Finally, in frustration, the moderator called a break for dinner and, as the assembly departed from the hall, five or six of us were up front looking for a way out of the mess. Two or three times the moderator asked our chairman to tell the assembly which was the majority, and which the minority report. Our chairman refused each time, saying the committee didn’t want any winners or losers.

I’ll never forget it. I knew you could have effeminate hand gestures, clothing, and even preaching. But I’d never dreamed a judicatory could have effeminate procedures.

So that’s why I’m a real believer in minority reports. They free up both sides to write what they believe Scripture teaches rather than compromising with the position they believe contrary to Scripture. And they can’t put anything in their report that hasn’t been presented to all the committee’s members. It’s an excellent process, really. It protects the full assembly from being given a report to act on that hasn’t hit its head against the best arguments of its opponents. It also guarantees that each report responds accurately to the best arguments of the other side, rather than simply trotting out straw men and hacking them to bits.

So if I were responsible for appointing a study committee, I would appoint the best men from both sides and encourage them to give it their best shot, but not until they’d had some good knock-down arguments of love. Yes, of love. That’s what the deliberative assemblies of Christian judicatories are supposed to do: Argue truth in a climate permeated with hard work, earnestness of conviction, zeal for truth, prayer, and love.

And before you reach for your guns, I'm not trying to smear the work of our own F-V study committee or those who appointed them. I know some will take my comments that way, but believe me when I say that it's my purpose simply to speak to the future--not to reignite a war over the past. So please, put your guns away, dear brothers.

[Jack's Pipe]

If we went back and looked at the history of these things in other denoms, would we find that Mr. "It's Not the Essence of the Gospel" (along with his friend, Mr. "Let's Stick Together") is what kept the 'conservative' side on the sidelines a little too long in every other church that has fallen into the hands of the egalitarians?

Arguments like "it's not in the ecumenical creeds" (which were formulated in response to specific errors) and "it's not the essence of gospel" are weak. If your church pastor glorified stealing or abortion, but approved the gospel in all particulars, would that be good enough? Shouldn't the shameless denial of Scriptural authority and kowtowing to the spirit of the age count for something too?

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

>>Although some later regretted it, Memphis' Second Pres. chose the EPC partly because women deacons would be allowed there. Apparently, it was all for naught; they could as easily have come into the PCA.

I wonder why 2nd Memphis did not just go ARP who does have Female Deacons but unanimously denies Female TE and RE's?

[Brad]

When the FV, or anyone associated with it is dismissed because of ALL the reports from all the denominations I am baffled!

I learned about the FV from the PCA report, and other negative comments. I even watched the GA online desperately hoping the PCA would prove it has the guts to act and isn't impotent (like the U.N., for example). I cheered when the FV/NPP report succeeded.

HOWEVER, in the next few days i read the some of the FV people for themselves, especially Doug Wilson. I was amazed to see that the report was so far from characterizing their positions. That report attacked straw-men in my opinion. I was shocked that as a college grad not even in seminary yet i could see that the report never acknowledged any of the distinctions in terms which would have clarified things (such as on the word "election") That report was sooo uncharitable we should be ashamed as a denomination.

With all that said, if the other reports are of the same caliber, that argument "everyone condemns FV" is a pretty poor one...

[David Gray]

>With all that said, if the other reports are of the same caliber, that argument "everyone condemns FV" is a pretty poor one...

But can be drawn like a gun...

[Ron Gleason]

Doug,
It's precisely that kind of equivocation that I'm talking about. I don't know if you're in the photograph, but that's not the point because you're not PCA. I think that anyone who has been to seminary and done studies after that understands the point. Why all the gymnastics. Either you believe it or you don't. Honestly, though I was rather surprised that some of the most vociferous proponents of the FV were deafeningly silent on the floor of GA.
I think we're getting off the point, however. The PCA has a decision to make regarding "non-ordained deacons and deaconesses." Many have been mooning the Book of Church Order, which is crystal clear on the matter. Some might not like what the BCO says, but there are church orderly ways to attempt to get it changed. It is improper and unethical to go on strike simply because you don't like something.

[Jeffrey M.]

Jack's Pipe, thank you brother. Its not complicated. Its not nuanced. It is rather crystalline and your brief post captured that well.

[David Gilleran]

garver, When the PCA was formed in 1973, the ordination of women was one of the reasons for separation. There was no distinction made between elders and deacons. The reason being is the fact that submission is vowed by church members to those who hold both offices.

In fairness even before J&R, there had been debate or discussion about changing the BCO to remove the vow of submission to deacons. It didn't get very far at that time.

[GLW Johnson]

For crying out loud DW- are you going to be harping on every issue that comes down the pike in the PCA in the merry hope that it will draw attention to your pet peeve on the way the FV was treated? Are you going to do this with the others denominations ,like the OPC, as well?

[pduggie]

I'm trying to figure out under what circumstances I'd need to think about submitting to a deacon.

An elder tells me (usually asks me, though) to go see X in the hospital, I do it. Do deacons have the right to tell me that?

Do the deacons tell me to tithe, and the elders don't?

So a woman has been raped, or is freaking out about menopause. A deaconess comes to her, and suggests that she pray, or come to a support meeting or something. Or she says something stupid, like "get over it!". The deaconess, since she doesn't have a 'vow of submission', can be ignored. But the health of the PCA is increased if a male deacon speaks to the troubled woman and says pray, attend a meeting, or get over it?

I don't get it. Is there a book I can read on this? Our parish council is reading a fine book on deaconing from the CRC background, but I'm unaware of any presby books on what great health results come from averring that male deacons are submitted to and female deacons offer mere lay advice.

[pduggie]

"for crying out loud" is a minced oath. Its in lieu of saying "for Christ's sake"

[GLW Johnson]

Pduggie
Where did you come up with that? The phrase has reference to publically complaining in such a way so as to draw attention to oneself.

[pduggie]

Thinking about it some more, the CRC book I'm referring to actually would make a sensible case for ordained male deaconal authority. Because in addition to mercy ministry aspects, the deacons role in there is explicitly a "levitical" model where the pastor/"prophet" preaches the word, the elder/"king" rules, but the deacon/"priest/levite" assists the worshiper in "offering the sacrifice" (encouraging tithing, pushing mercy ministries, etc).

If that were held as a consistently significant liturgical role, you could argue only male deacons would take up an offering (instead of any old volunteer).

The book also refers to the deacons task as focussing on mercy in the community as a whole and the political aspects of that. If business or government are impeding mercy or creating unjust situations, the deacon can lead in addressing such material conditions, while leaving pastors and elders to address "spiritual" concerns. One could make a case for an ordained male deacon there having authority to do such things, and his office would perhaps have greater weight in addressing heads of state or industry.

Food for thought

Ah... here's the book
"The Deacons Handbook - A Manual of Stewardship by Gerard Berghoef, Lester Dekoster, and Gerard Berghoer"

[pduggie]

My dad told me. He was very strict with minced oaths.

No darns, crying out louds, for goodness sakes, hecks, jimminy crickets, gollys, oh my goodnesses, or dangs

It starts with the same phonemes as "Christ". Hence it a minced oath.

By dad doesn't care for "shoot", or "squat" either. "Crud" was bad too.

[David Gilleran]

Pduggie-I am simply giving the historical background to the forming of the PCA. I understand different presbyterian bodies having different traditions.

[Bob]

This has been a most instructive thread. I wasn't there, but I doubt that the founding fathers of the PCA who accepted the RPCUS merger intended that the RPCUS position on women as deacons should be perpetuated in perpetuity. Usually grandfathering only refers to those currently in place. That's a major flaw in one argument here.

I haven't seen anyone address the relevant Scriptures behind the BCO. It seems to me that the qualifications for deacons laid out in 1 Tim 3:8 and 12 require that they be "the husband of one wife." 1 Tim 3:11 describes their wives conduct. I'm really curious to see how Phila Pres can make that work for women deacons!

It seems to me that one Greek word in Rom 16:1 that can be and is used in several different ways depending on context can really trump the clear teaching of 1 Tim 3.

Maybe I'm always the last to know, but this is the first that I've heard this was a controversy in the PCA.

Bob

[pduggie]

Ryken writes

"The strongest reason for thinking that these women were deaconesses is the way they are introduced. Both verse 8 and verse 11 contain the word likewise (hosautos), which sounds like it introduces a new office. Then these women are to be worthy of respect (v. 11), which is the same phrase used to describe deacons (v. 8). Moreover, both of these verses are grammatically dependent on the main verb verse 2, which strengthens the connection between them. Taken together, these parallels make it sound as if the women fulfill a separate but equal office in the church. Furthermore, if the Bible meant “wives,” we might expect it to say “their wives” so as to eliminate any possibility of confusion. "

and

"We are left with a puzzle. By itself, 1 Timothy 3:11 is not sufficient prove that women should serve as deaconesses. Donald Guthrie gives a careful summary: The reference is too general to postulate with certainty a distinct order of deaconesses, but some feminine ministration was necessary in visitation. . . For such work certain moral qualities would be essential whether for deacons’ wives or for deaconesses in their own right.

Since the meaning is not certain, perhaps it is best to translate the word gunaikas as “women helpers.” Indeed, it is possible to argue that these women were neither deacon’s wives, nor deaconesses, but women who assisted the deacons.
If deaconesses are not established in 1 Timothy 3—and they may be—they are present elsewhere in the Bible. New Testament women frequently carry out diaconal ministry, in the broad sense of the word.

Consider Dorcas, who was always doing good and helping the poor (Acts 9:36). Or Lydia, who clothed the Philippians in purple (16:11-15). Or Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord (Rom. 16:12). Or especially Phoebe, who was a great help to many people and is identified as a deaconess of the church
in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1-2).

To summarize: New Testament women carried out diaconal ministry. One, at least, was called a
“deaconess.” The obvious conclusion is that, whatever title they are given, women must be active in the mercy ministries of the church."

and

"Closer to our own times, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) was a strong proponent of
women deacons. Warfield taught at Princeton and was among the leading conservative evangelicals at
the turn of the century. He based his argument for deaconesses partly on the example of Phoebe, and
partly on a letter from the Roman governor Pliny to the Emperor Trajan. The letter, which was written around A. D. 112, referred to women as holding a servant office in the church. Warfield’s conclusion was that these women “constituted a female diaconate similar to and of like standing with the board of deacons which, in the New Testament, we find in every church.”

The church of Warfield’s day did not allow women to serve as deaconesses. But Warfield himself
recognized the need for putting the gifts of women into service. He believed that returning women to
the ministry of deaconess would restore order in the church: If the people of a particular church would simply elect women as well as men to the office of deacon, making one board or two separate boards, at their pleasure, of course ordained with the same vows and responsible to the same authority . . . the order is restored.

The practice of the Presbyterian Church in America may come close to what the Bible teaches. Only
men are ordained to the office of deacon. The elders are encouraged to “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.”

The church permits congregations to commission women to the ministry of deaconess. At places like Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, deaconesses carry out service identical to that of the deacons. Apart from ordination, the
only difference between them is that some diaconal needs call for uniquely masculine or feminine
ministry.

If women are to serve, they must be qualified. Therefore, they should display the characteristics
described in 1 Timothy 3. The proverb says, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” In this case, what is good for the deacon is good for the deaconess.

www.tenth.org/fileadmin/files_for_download/Pdf_articles/Qualifications_of_Deacons.pdf

[pduggie]

What I want to know is where in the PCA do we have the Pauline "List" of widows who swear not to remarry and devote themselves to service?

[Ron Gleason]

Pduggie,
Having be a minister in the Dutch vrijgemaakt churches as well as the "wound-up-tighter-than-a-drum" Canadian Reformed Churches, it is a stretch to postulate that the CRC & DeKoster would have been in favor of female deacons. They weren't. The CRC might be now, but that is a totally different story. I am not aware of any female deacons in the CRC until recently.
But the discussion here is not about the CRC, but rather the PCA. There will be, no doubt, interesting discussions in the next while and at GA about this matter. It definitely does need to get settled.
My main problem is that those who are citing unordained female deacons are militating against the PCA Book of Church Order. Moreover, one can only wonder what charge, if any, is given to the congregation for a non-ordained position. Does the congregation need to submit to their authority? Does a deacon ever function in the congregation in an authoritative manner? The BCO indicates that he does otherwise it would have been foolish to give the same charge for deacon and elder.
BCO 9-3 is pretty gender specific. "To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment." Some might disagree or not like it, but this is what we signed on as Presbos to do and to be.

[Dave Sarafolean]

pduggie,

With regard to the presbytery stepping aside...

BCO 5-10, 24-5 & 25-6 indicate that the commission to organize a church has the authority to ordain and install teaching elders, ruling elders and deacons. I see no provision in the BCO allowing the organizing commission to delegate its powers to a Session.

[garver]

First, a matter of clarification. The RPCES did not have "female deacons" - it had "deaconesses." Deaconesses were the non-ordained counterpart and assistants to the male ordained deacons. Nonetheless, they were installed and commissioned using questions analogous to those asked of deacons and set apart by prayer.

There was, however, a significant minority in the RPCES (whose views were affirmed by a majority report to Synod in 1977) who held to the biblical propriety of ordination of women to the diaconate. That Synod rejected any modification of then current practice didn't necessarily mean that the minority views disappeared, especially since the RPCES was an explicitly "good faith subscription" denomination.

Second, what would grandfathering "for those only in place" mean when we are talking not merely about individuals, but also church structures and practices? What would that mean on the presbytery level?

Consider a congregation that has had deaconesses for 25 years within the RPCES (note "ES" - Evangelical Synod - not "US") and then comes into the PCA in 1982 as part of J&R. So what does being "grandfathered in" mean here?

Does it mean that when all current deaconesses retire, that they are never replaced? Does it mean that a congregation with the structure of deaconesses can keep that structure, but no new congregations may have them? Even if those congregations are outgrowths or plants of existing congregations with deaconesses? Even if the presbytery that, as whole came into the PCA and has always permitted deaconesses, is the body overseeing those congregations and church plants?

I just don't understand what this supposed "grandfathering" is supposed to look like.

The congregational vow, by the way, with regard to the office of elder and/or deacon is not straight up "subjection." Rather, the vow is to "acknowledge and receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon)" and to "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?"

Now, I can't recall this being used in the commissioning of deaconesses, or if it is, the "obedience" bit may be omitted. But even so, if the deaconess is some kind of function within the life of the church (even if only as assistants to the male deacons), then what would be wrong with such a vow? After all "honor" and "encouragement" should be extended to all who serve God's people. And the "obedience" in question is limited by the vow itself to what obedience that role is due in accordance with Scripture.

[pduggie]

Ron Gleason:

I don't think what I wrote said I was postulating the CRC was in favor of female deacons. I was stating that the vigorous and sacrifical/liturgical role specified in DeKoster's book would *better* support the idea that only men may truly be deacons.

If you have deacons that don't do too much, then making the case they can only be men suffers logically.

Sarafolean:

Well, ok. But sessions ALSO have power to install deacons. Once the session is installed, what prevents the session from immediately using its sessional power? The BCO doesn't say the session can't or that the committee alone may organize deacons. Does it?

"Does a deacon ever function in the congregation in an authoritative manner?"

I don't know. At Tenth they have to deal physically with intruders sometimes, and I think Tenth only has the men do that duty. I suppose someone asking for money would come under their authority, and they'd make requirements that the person get financial counseling contingent on the money or something. You've piqued my curiosity. Does anyone have any anecdotes of deaconal authority in the PCA?

[Bob]

garver,

The RPCES did not have "female deacons" - it had "deaconesses." Deaconesses were the non-ordained counterpart and assistants to the male ordained deacons. Nonetheless, they were installed and commissioned using questions analogous to those asked of deacons and set apart by prayer.

Uh, OK. A rose by any other name comes to mind. That practice splits the hairs pretty thin, eh?

Second, what would grandfathering "for those only in place" mean when we are talking not merely about individuals, but also church structures and practices? What would that mean on the presbytery level?

It means that the practice comes to a grinding halt when the current people serving in said position move on. That's standard for corporate and government structural mergers and rule changes. You don't merge if you are unwilling to live by the resultant BCO.

And the "obedience" in question is limited by the vow itself to what obedience that role is due in accordance with Scripture.

Clever. What about 1 Tim 2:11? Or is there a nifty spin for that as well?

I'm reminded by a comment that Dr. R.C. Sproul made some years ago about the Scripture not being a "wax nose" that one can mold whichever way suits one's fancy.

BTW, I'll apologize in advance if the html codes I used here don't work. I have no idea what the limitations of this particular blog software are.

Bob

[garver]

Well, I don't think that was the nature of the "grandfathering" with regard to J&R, if "grandfathering" is even the proper term here. Given your explanation of "grandfathering" I suspect it is the wrong term.

Rather, the RPCES was given the assurance that their practice with regard to deaconesses was permissible under the provision of BCO 9-7. The idea that RPCES churches would be forced to disband their traditions and practices was not countenanced. After all, J&R was 25 years and it's never generally been an issue in my experience.

[Bob]

pduggie,

I'll answer the 10th Pres Qualifications for Deacons excerpt on my blog. This blog's comment format is not conducive to serious formatting. I'll just say here that I'm very surprised the Dr. Ryken would handle those Scriptures in such a way. I wonder if someone else wrote it under his name.

[pduggie]

"I wonder if someone else wrote it under his name."

O_o

[Bob]

pduggie,

I just read the source document for your excerpt above. I think that your excerpts imply more than perhaps Ryken intended, but I'm not saying that you necessarily skewed them intentionally. That section runs several pages and it would be difficult to do it justice in a blog comment. I appreciate you pointing out the source document.

I still find Ryken's assertion that "The church [PCA] permits congregations to commission women to the ministry of deaconess" to be incorrect and incompatible with the BCO. The BCO neither discusses nor permits any such thing. Maybe I've been sheltered, but I've never been in a PCA church that had deaconesses or would even permit such a thing. That Dr. Ryken and apparently a majority of the commissioners in Phila Presbytery do is most troubling. It might explain a few other things that have been bothering me for a while, though...

I'm going to cogitate on this a while and post something tonight.

[garver]

I think you have indeed been sheltered - and I have been too.

My entire experience of the RPCES and PCA growing up in Philly and elsewhere in the Northeast has included deaconesses. And that's nearing 40 years. Before that, my Dad was ordained in the Philly Presbytery of the RPCES in the eary 1960s.

I only found out a few years ago - and very much to my surprise - that there are large swaths of the PCA where there are no deaconesses at all. It was like someone telling me that some PCA churches didn't sing during worship or some other similar weird omission.

As I said above, within the PCA there are distinct subcultures separated by theology, practice, and geography.

And I must say, I just cannot see any incompatibility with the BCO here with regard to Ryken's remarks, especially in light of BCO 9-7.

[Tim Bayly]

Because others have linked to this post and comments, please note the continuation of this discussion under a later post on our blog's main page, "Women deacons for the PCA: the nub of the issue, along with a proposal...."

Here's the link: http://www.baylyblog.com/