You may or may not know that the PCA will be considering an overture from the Philadelphia Presbytery that a study committee be set up on the subject of women as deaconesses. You can read the overture here. The Central Georgia Presbytery has overtured GA to NOT erect a study committee. Here is their overture.
There are several posts on this blog on the subject here and here for example. My views are no secret. The offices of elder and deacon are reserved for men. That is the current and historic position of the PCA. I agree with the Central Georgia Presbytery that we don’t need a committee to tell us what we already know.
But actually I think the committee would not uphold the biblical and the position of our church standards. And, I believe that the appointment of the study committee and their conclusions may be THE issue which finally fractures the PCA.
Rev. David Cassidy seems to think so too. Check out his two posts Fault Lines and the Approaching Ecclesiastical Earthquake part 1 and part 2.
If you want to read up on it all, check out the Bayly Brothers post. Also take a look at Gage Browning’s post.
Last you might want to look at Wayside Church’s site centralizing many sources. Last, pray that our fathers and brothers at GA stick with the biblical position on this issue and not head us down a slippery slope to cultural relevance and ecclesiastical irrelevance.
May 15, 2008 at 5:17 pm
My view is the same as yours, Les. I pray that the PCA elders will hold to the current PCA position that deacons should be men. I also pray that this issue does not cause any “earthquakes” or divisions in our Church. I hope that the General Assembly will not even entertain the idea of a study on the subject, though it seems to be doing that now. I’ll be there in June to watch and pray that the elders will uphold the biblical standards on which the PCA was founded. This is the 35th anniversary of the PCA and I pray that it will be a year marked by the faithfulness and steadfastness of it’s elders. Hang in there, fearless Shepherds, for the sake of us sheep.
May 16, 2008 at 8:16 am
Thanks for the link to our central info page on the female deacon situation. It seems new overtures have been coming in regularly.
Pastor Marshall St. John
http://www.waysidechurch.org/femdeacs/femdeacs.htm
May 16, 2008 at 8:51 am
Pastor St. John, thanks for centralizing the issue. Yours is a great resource.
Les
May 16, 2008 at 9:04 am
How severe do you think the risk of fracture is? Also, I read the Bayly article, and very much agree with their conclusions as to what should have been done in CO, however, I’m not sure what church discipline would look like in that situation, what are your thoughts?
May 16, 2008 at 10:56 am
Rob, et al:
Here is the pertinent past of the BCO (9-7):
“It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and
appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in
caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who
may be in any distress or need.”
I would note the word “appoint” is used, not commission.
To Randy’s point, why the focus on “deaconess?” Why not just stick with the BCO here and continue the practice of having the session, when needed, “appoint” women AND men for tasks?
Why not just call such men and women “deacon helpers” or “diaconal assistants?”
May 16, 2008 at 4:46 pm
TG, I certainly am no prophet. But I do see this issue as potentially volatile. My hunch is that the study committee will be formed and come back a year later with a majority and minority report. The majority will propose some sort of middle of the road (sigh) approach that will leave the deconess proponents pleased enough but will further distance the opponents from their brethren. For that reason I think it can be very fractious and injurious.
As to the CO situation, as in the other places where the BCO is being ignored, presbyteries just need to push the issue back and employ the BCO to do so.
May 16, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I’m thinking that the fracturing is about to begin on the presbytery level no matter what. The fairly wide-spread practice of allowing new TEs to take an exception to the Book of Church Order with regard to male only deacons, as long as they promise not to teach their view, is about to come under fire. GA may be happy to set up a study committee, but locally, where the real “vetting” is done for potential teaching elders, it is going to heat up. I believe we will soon see overtures to presbyteries from sessions requesting a moratorium on receiving such TEs, until after hearing back from the study committee. This is going to go over like a lead balloon, and there will be some pretty angry presbyters around the country. Just my opinion.
May 31, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The original Overture, 9, is clear that a study of Scripture would be made on this topic and that any changes that would be recommended would be based on Scripture. This is “semper reformanda” in action.
It is conceivable a study committee could recommend changes that actually make more clear the valuation of the ordained, authoritative, elected office of Deacon, for men only, worthy of honor. It could recommend making more explicit the role of the Board of Deacons in overseeing mercy ministries in the church, that is, actually elevating the priority of mercy ministry under the oversight of a Board of Deacons which involves both men and women in mercy (diaconal) work. That is, women being more involved in “diaconal” work under oversight of Deacons.
It is quite possible we could end up with a greater valuation of the office of Deacon, ordination, male leadership in church office, and the involvement of both men and women in mercy ministry.
Maybe even a biblical office of servant widow, in strict accordance with I Timothy 5 (e.g. age 60, widowed, good reputation, etc) could be established for those congregations that wish to try it.
Also, remember any proposed changes to our Book of Church Order would go through the deliberative process of consideration- 2/3 of presbyteries would need to agree. The report would have to be approved by the General Assembly to even be received in the first place.
I think that ruling on a set of divergent practices is needed now for the peace and purity of our church. Many presbyteries and sessions are genuinely calling out for guidance on these practices. This is one of the benefits of being in a “connectional” system. We can be thankful we have the processes that we do have (e.g. Study Committees) to clarity these matters.
While there is always a risk we could go “off” (e.g. leave Scripture and go our own way), there is a greater risk in leaving the practices that are occuring in place without guidance.
We need to be charitable toward our bretheren in all this, I really don’t believe most are trying to violate our constitution or cause strife. They are “calling out for help,” before some of these practices continue on their own trajectories and create further confusion and disunity.
As long as any Study is based on Scripture and any changes recommended are based on Scripture alone (semper reformanda), we will be faithful and God will be pleased.
May 31, 2008 at 5:42 pm
From what I understand, besides the Deacons, there are already many men and women who are in service ministries. They care for the sick, widows, and the needy. What I want to know is, why do these men and women think that they need a “Title” to be God’s servants. We are all called to serve God and our Church. I can see the Deacons as those who would lead in this ministry, but I don’t think that everyone who wants to be a servant needs a title to do so.