(Tim) Here is the full text of one of the two complaints that have been filed against the recent action of Northern California Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America--the action by which Northern California Presbytery approved not ordaining male deacons and having female deacons serve alongside those unordained male deacons, without sexual distinction.
If you find any error where I have not reproduced the complaint accurately, please send me an e-mail at tbbayly at gmail dot com. Thanks...
* * *
Complaint
To TE Andy Lee, Clerk of the Northern California Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America.
And now, this 26th day of March, in the year of our Lord 2009, comes the Session of Grace Church of Pleasanton and complains against the action of The Northern California Presbytery in connection with the adoption of the motion presented by the special Procedural Committee to draft a proposal to the Northern California Presbytery regarding women in diaconal ministry which reads, “BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MINISTERS OR SESSIONS MAY HOLD AND PRACTICE THE VARIOUS VIEWS REFLECTED ABOVE WHILE BEING ‘IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL POLITY’ (3RD ORDINATION VOW, BCO 21-5 AND 24-6),” and in support of said complaint sets forth the following reasons:
1. The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America (BCO) is clear and precise in the language regarding the office of Deacon.
2. The BCO teaches
b) that each church should elect men only to the office of deacon, unless prevented from doing so, in which case the duties devolve to the ruling elders (BCO 5-10; 7-2; 9-3; 24-1),
c) that men and women may be selected and appointed by the Session to assist the deacons, but such assistants are not considered deacons (9-7), and
d) that the men elected to serve as deacons must be ordained (BCO 16-3; 17-1; 24-6)
3. The “various views reflected above” in the adopted resolution in question includes the following views as acceptable for a church officer in the Northern California Presbytery to hold and practice:
b) Only men are ordained as deacons, yet Sessions select and appoint others - men and/or women - to assist the deacons in their work.
c) Only men are ordained as deacons and women are selected and appointed by the Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
d) Only men are ordained as deacons, yet the congregation elects women, with the approval of the Session, to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
e) Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry.
f) Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as ‘deacon’ or ‘deaconess’ though no one is ordained to this ministry.
4. According to the BCO, the first two views (a and b) fall within the bounds of acceptable practice regarding the office of deacon (see paragraph 2 above).
5. The last four views (c through f) are contrary to the BCO and therefore should not be permitted to be practiced and/or taught by any member congregation or presbytery in the PCA.
6. The third view (c) creates an office of an unordained female deacon. According to the BCO deacons must be male and ordained (see references in paragraph 2 above). There are no female deacons (deaconesses) allowed. This view is therefore in violation of the BCO.
7. The fourth view (d), like the previous view creates an office of unordained female deacons which is prohibited by the BCO as shown before (paragraph 2 above). The only addition in this view from the previous view is the applying of the same method of selection as used in the selection of deacons; namely by a congregational election (BCO 24). This view violates the BCO in allowing for women deacons and in changing the method by which women are selected to assist the deacons. This view is therefore in violation of the BCO.
8. The fifth view (e) gives women deacons the same authority as the male deacons. This view is clearer in the establishment of the office of female deacon in that it explicitly includes woman deacons on the diaconate instead of just calling them deacons. Furthermore, in this view a woman deacon could hold the position of the chairman of the diaconate as she is considered an “equal partner” with the deacons. This view allows for female deacons and changes the method by which women are selected to assist the deacons (see paragraph 2 above). This view is therefore in violation of the BCO.
9. The sixth view (f) includes both men and women, as equal partners, on an unordained diaconate. This view violates the BCO in allowing for women deacons and in withholding ordination from male deacons (see paragraph 2 above). Ordination is required by the BCO for deacons as previously cited. This view is therefore in violation of the BCO.
10. Furthermore, the 36th General Assembly (GA) found the responses offered by the Northern California Presbytery and the Philadelphia Presbytery to be “unsatisfactory” in regards to granting exceptions which allowed for women serving as deacons or deaconesses serving on diaconates and for unordained deacons. To the Northern California Presbytery the GA adopted the following response:
Presbytery's response does not adequately address the specific issue identified by the 35th GA. The newly installed Session of the particularized church "commissioned" unordained men and women for a body which the Presbytery minutes called the "diaconate" (BCO 9, 19-15, 24-10). However, BCO 9 is clear that only ordained and elected men can be members of a "diaconate." The appeal to BCO 9-7 is flawed because 9-7 addresses people appointed by the Session, not members of a diaconate (Board of Deacons, 9-4). According to BCO 9-3 and 9-4, a diaconate may only include men that are elected, ordained and installed. Therefore, the body referenced in the exception must not be called a diaconate. In addition, this practice, coupled with the minister's expressed view that he intends not to ordain deacons "until the BCO is amended," denies qualified men their constitutional and biblical right to be considered for this office.
To the Philadelphia Presbytery the GA adopted the following response:
We agree with the Presbytery that BCO 9-3 would not directly apply to the commissioning of unordained women, if they are not considered to be members of the Diaconate. However, the record indicates that "four deaconesses and one deacon were commissioned, "and the record of the particularization service refers to "Vows/Commissioning of Diaconate." BCO 9-3 and 9-4 are clear that only ordained and elected men can be members of a "Diaconate."
Here it can be seen that the GA affirms that the BCO requires that the diaconate be limited to men and that deacons must be ordained and installed. Although it is recognized that these rulings are not judicial, it would seem prudent to take heed to the instruction of the GA on this matter. Judicial proceedings should be avoided wherever possible. To continue practicing a position that the GA believes to be out of accord with the BCO is to invite judicial charges and is not wise. In the same way a parent would want his child to submit to authority without a spanking, so to it is our desire for the Northern California Presbytery to submit without judicial action.
11. The BCO may not be set aside as a rule of practice by any session, presbytery or general assembly. If it is believed that the BCO is out of accord with Scripture in a particular area, there is no authority granted by the BCO to practice contrary. This can be inferred, not only by two sections in the BCO itself, but also by absurd consequences that would follow from this practice. Firstly, if the BCO was a book that could be taken as a rule for order merely in the sections with which one agreed, there would be no need to include Chapter 26 which lays out the process by which the BCO may be amended. Why would it need to be amended if it is not binding? Secondly, the 3rd General Assembly adopted a preface to Part III of the BCO stating that the Directory for Worship is a guide but does not have “the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts.” Note that an express statement from the General Assembly was needed to remove a part of the BCO as binding. The implication is the binding constitutional authority of the rest of the BCO. Lastly, if the laying aside of the BCO was widely practiced, absurd results would follow. Can a Session take exception to the quorum of a Session meeting? Could a Presbytery take exception to the standard for examining a minister? What if a Session decided the rules for prosecuting a trial were too cumbersome and tedious, could it take an exception to those rules and excommunicate without process? The result of such a practice is chaos as opposed to order.
12. It is clear, by the resolution in question, that the Northern California Presbytery will allow practices which go against the teaching of the BCO in regards to the office of deacon. This is a dangerous precedent which in practice destroys presbyterian polity by allowing congregations and presbyteries to “follow their conscience” over and against the order of the PCA as laid out in the BCO. While it is recognized in the PCA that no court can bind the conscience of any of its members (Section 2 point 7 in the preface to the BCO) it is also recognized that every “association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and . . . the whole system of its internal government which Christ has appointed” (Section 2 point 2 in the preface to the BCO). The BCO is the system of internal government that the PCA has adopted. Furthermore ministers in the PCA have taken a vow approving of the form of government and discipline of the PCA as being in conformity with the principles of Biblical polity (BCO 21-5 question 3). To disregard the BCO in favor of a personal belief (or even a general belief subscribed to by an entire presbytery) is a violation of this vow. The proper way to deal with a section of the BCO that is believed to be contrary to Scripture is by way of amendment (BCO Chapter 26). When faced with an overture to erect a study committee on the role of women in the diaconate, the 36th General Assembly urged that presbyteries take up this matter by proposing amendments to the Book of Church Order. In other words, the 36th General Assembly pointed presbyteries to the proper means of changing the constitution of our church, which is by way of amendment. The deacon issue cannot merely be ignored by those who disagree with the BCO. In order to maintain the order and peace of the PCA it is incumbent upon sessions, presbyteries and general assemblies to submit to the form of government adopted by its governing bodies. To do otherwise is to be a lawless body where each one does what is right in his own eyes. The Scriptures call this rebellion. As opposed to disregarding the BCO until it is amended to suit a peculiar view, it should be obeyed, even in the areas of disagreement, until amended. That is presbyterianism and must be guarded for the sake of Christ and His bride.
Session of Grace Church of Pleasanton, Complainant
______________________________________, Complainant
RE Brian Eschen, Clerk of Session
______________________________________, Complainant
TE Thomas B. Brown, Moderator of Session
Date: 26 March, 2009
