The 2008 PCA General Assembly effectively stopped an effort to open up the offices of the church to women. The overture to study the issue of women and the office of deacon was seen by some as a way to clarify and even strengthen the PCA current position (which currently limits the office of elder AND deacon to men). Some, though, saw this as an opportunity to codify their position that women should be able to serve in the office of deacon.
A study committee was a bad idea. This issue is already settled in the PCA and has already been studied. The churches who are “commissioning” deaconesses and such are just flat out violating our standards. It is up to the presbyteries to deal with these matters and let the judicial chips fall where they may. And, if someone wants to propose changes to the BCO, have at it!
Lane Keister of Green Baggins has written a short refutation of those wanting to use Phoebe as a model for having female deacons. He deals with the Romans 16:1 passage very well. Click here to see Lane’s analysis.
“The 2008 PCA General Assembly effectively stopped an effort to open up the offices of the church to women.”
I wouldn’t say so. Rather the GA has sent it back to the Presbyteries for Overtures to amend the BCO. There will be a lot of wrangling over women deacons and deaconesses going on this year in our presbyteries, and probably some Overtures on the subject to deal with in Orlando in 2009.
Marshall, I don’t disagree with you. My point is that it was stopped for now. I wasn’t clear on that point. I have said elswhere that if this was answered in the negative, which it was, that it would be back in subsequent years.
I agree that presbyteries will be wrangling with this issue–and they should. Let it be adjudicated and let those who desire deaconesses attempt their changes through proposed changes to the BCO–where I believe they will ultimately fail.
Thanks for your comments.
What’s the difference between “commission” and “select and appoint” as indicated here in section 9.7 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 agree with the BCO here, that it is expedient (and beneficial!) to appoint (or commission, or whatever words you want to use) women to assist the deacons.
Wes, I don’t think anyone of my pursuasion has any problem at all in “selecting and appointing” men and women to assist the deacons. Commission? The wording of the BCO seems quite adequate as far as I am concerned, select and appoint. But obviously, I think, some want to “elevate” this selecting and appointment of servants in the church and “commission” them in a de facto ordination without calling it ordination–except the Liberti church which just ordained them. I really believe that a large part of the impetus on this is an end around the BCO which ordains women without using that word.
Why does commissioning or appointing have to be a de-facto ordination?
I did not say it is a defacto ordination. What I said was, “I think, some want to “elevate” this selecting and appointment of servants in the church and “commission” them in a de facto ordination without calling it ordination.”
I mean this… some want to make it such. Why not just let the BCO wording stand on its own and have the session select and appoint–w/o any kind of special service of “commissioning” or such? We don’t do that for the people who serve faithfully ushering, preparing communion elements, etc.
Ya think?
Guys, in ministry staff yesterday, we talked about this very issue. We talked about how men AND women are already serving alongside deacons, and that they both should be recognized, “selected and appointed” based on their gifts and their passions. Be careful not to be too quick to throw stones.
Whoa. Who is throwing stones?
Sorry…just using an idiom. What I meant is “don’t be too quick to make accusations.” Wanting women to be selected, appointed, recognized, or commissioned is not necessarily a sign of feminism. What is troublesome to me is that whenever there is a discussion of women’s roles or wanting women to be recognized or expanded in their roles in the church…the flag of feminism is usually raised on this blog. Rather that being feminism, it could simply be that this is one of our weaknesses and blind spots and an area that needs to be strengthened.
Yes, some denominations and churches have taken the feminist agenda and run with it. But I think our denomination and church has a long way to go in correcting some of our weaknesses and blind spots before we are close to bordering on feminism.
The focus is on women because we have not done a good job of recognizing their gifts and encouraging them to use them in service to the body of Christ. If we do not see this, I think we are blind.
In the words of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes, “there is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the sun.” There is a time focus particularly on the gifts and roles of women when we haven’t done a good job of recognizing them. Actually, I don’t think many churches do a sufficient job of recognizing gifts and fitting people into the life of the church in general. So, of course, it is also true the there is a time to focus particularly on the gifts and roles of men when we haven’t done a good job of recognizing them.
There is also a time to blog and a time to study, and I really have to crack down on some study!
I don’t mean to be provocative, I would suggest that many, if not most, PCA churches are woman-driven; they are the ones doing the majority of ministry and service because the men have abdicated their leadership responsibilities. When Sessions do make decisions these are too often made out of fear of how the women will respond.
That is a generalization, to be sure–but I have seen it all too many times.
Hmm, I believe I have been misread (or perhaps miss-read…ok, stupid pun, sorry). Les, I think you chopped the quote at an inconvenient place…I would/do agree with the statement that “this is surely the time to redress all the concerns of over-looked, semi-gratified, and under-utilized women.” I believe it is ALWAYS to time to do so, for women, children, races, etc. Really, why not?
I am not commenting on my own view as to whether a woman (even pheobe) should be a deacon or not. I AM saying that, as a believer who has not looked into the issue at an in-depth level, I would love to see some of my trusted brothers (and sisters?) examine the issue as it relates to the present situations. I have heard what seem to be good points on either side, and I have a hard time imagining any harm in searching the Bible in a unified manner to find/affirm truth. Since there are obviously many who would like to see this examined closer, again I say, why not? Surely fear of division is no reason to set aside a search for truth. Why shouldn’t today be the season?
also, regardless of one’s piety, it seems inappropriate to overlook (or even take for granted) a believers faithful service to God.
Thanks for the discussion!
Again, I intend no frustration or malice in my words here, I simply want to continue the dialog.
I think I could actually provide a pretty good list, but the point is not to see how many tasks we have given women (honestly, bulletin folding? Nice.) Rather, the point is to engage women in conversation about how we are or are not incorporating them into the life of the church in ways which maximize and empower their gifting.
So, before we assume that those who do voice their opinions are merely “semi-gratified”, perhaps we should give a little credence to their thoughts, ideas, and even feelings.
Brothers, if we are to love our women as Christ loves the Church, then we should always be seeking them out and searching for ways to empower them to better fulfill their God ordained gifts, callings, and abilities. Not that it is unimportant, but lets be honest; there is much more a person’s gifts than the ol’ fold and staple of a few bulletins. We are talking about relationships, not systematics. One cannot say “I have given you x number of roles, therefore you must be fulfilled.”
So again I ask, why isn’t today the season?
Rather than a bunch of men commenting about this on a blog, I would suggest a good way to explore this subject is to speak personally and patiently with some women who are, for example, have been trained at or teach at a theological Seminary. We have several women in our church who have received or are receiving training at Covenant Seminary right now, and I am sure they would really appreciate being approached and asked if they thought their training is or could be utilized by the church. I have seen this done at a ministry lunch at Covenant Seminary, and it was very fruitful! I would suggest more listening is necessary before making hard and fast conclusions about this is necessary. Listening does not mean you have to alter any opinions, and it certainly cannot hurt.
Wes, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. There is certainly nothing with listening to women, as well as men of the church. In fact in some 25 years in church life I have in fact talked with scores of women on this and related issues. Nothing said here by me has suggested that women who have sought training at a seminary should not be allowed to serve in the curch. I believe quite to the contrary. They should be allowed and encouraged to use their training and gifts as should men. That is not even in dispute in the deaconess discussion.
Now, if some women have sought training for use where the scriptures prohibit their service (areas reserved for men) then that is unfortunate. But there are still numerous places to minister (see Randy’s list for example).
So for y part, listening has been done. But at the end of the day, it is the men of our church who make these decisions based on God’s word and our subordinate adopted standards.
BTW, it should go without saying that just because we are in fact men does not preclude our making the decisions on matters of church polity.
Sorry. Should have read, “There is certainly nothing wrong with listening to women…”
Dear friends, again I would have to submit that though another list could be crafted, it would ultimitely be subversive to the intended goal. This discussion of the incorporation women is fundamentally a discussion of relationship and NOT a discussion of the quantity (or lack there of ) of jobs women can perform (or have been restricted from performing). It is unarguable that there is a large number of women in our denomination who feel as Randy’s “tongue in cheek” comment described. Otherwise, there would be no discussion.
As such, what I am proposing is that rather than simply commenting on the issue in merely an observational way over the impersonal internet, lets engage the issue face to face; as fellow members and servants within the same church, but also with the women who serve within it. At TOPC we have a very large population of well educated women who I imagine could help fill out a much more detailed image of the current degree of women’s involvement within TOPC (if not even the PCA). Also, being blessed with such close proximity to our own denomination’s seminary, it would be very easy to engage many of the women there as well (good call, Wes). “When one asserts past injustices to women in our denomination one needs to back that up.” You are 100% right brother, so LETS DO IT! And lets address whatever may come up.
As to the bulletin folding issue: the folding itself is an extremely important service to the church. However, to describe it as one of the primary ways in which a woman’s gifts should be utilized, uplifted, and empowered in the life of the church community is silly. All 16 of Randy’s points are undeniably important and good. The role he proposes they fill in a woman’s spiritual contribution to the body of Christ is in SOME (not all) areas limited, lacking, and potentially offensive. Again, I propose we continue this side of the conversation person to person as friends.
It is true that we are not the ones to carry this conversation for the entire denomination, but it seems that it could be nothing but beneficial to begin this conversation (in person) at our own church within the denomination.
I AM NOT saying that the positions that are held by TOPC and the PCA are necessarily wrong. What I AM saying is that since it seems to be a rather large issue on the minds of many, lets take the initiative to explore where we as a church may or may not need some reform.
Again, I must ask the question (that has yet to be addressed), Why is today not the season? (even if only at our own church).
The point is, just to finish, is that there are numerous roles for women in the church–God-honoring roles. But those reserved for men are not among them. We do a huge dis-service to the church and to women when they are put in roles where God did not fit them.
Still more later…
Drew, let me address your question, “Again, I must ask the question (that has yet to be addressed), Why is today not the season? (even if only at our own church).”
I will answer from both sides. Why is it not the season? Here is the quote that started the “season” discussion:
That statement states or at least implies that in general, our churches have not “done a good job of recognizing [women].” So I would say that the answer is that it is NOT the season to redress or correct the past wrongs unless and until someone, anyone, can show me that we have collectively done or not done things that need correcting. If someone says that women have not been given roles in the church (elder, deacon, teaching men) and this is the season to apologize for this and correct it, then the answer is still NO. It is NOT the season for apologizing for our following scripture.
On the other hand, surely it is the season for our church leaders to step up and teach the flock what biblical manhood and biblical womanhood really is. So YES, it is the season…for teaching the biblical view of sexuality and roles in the church. It is also the season for those churches which are in violation of our standards to repent and return to the biblical model.
So, I amd ready for the season, so long as the season of discussion is about a return to the biblical view of manhood and womanhood, But if the season for discussion is so that an unbiblical view may be codified in our denomination, then no. We should skip that season.
Having my tonsils out has allowed me some “extra time” to catch up on some blogging. I realize I am jumping in on the conversation a little late, but…
As a woman, I feel I can provide a few points of insight. For clarification, I do lack a seminary degree, so I do not fit into that category of “several women in our church who have received or are receiving training at Covenant Seminary right now, and I am sure they would really appreciate being approached and asked if they thought their training is or could be utilized by the church.”
There is a gaping hole in woman’s ministry in churches—I have seen it in St. Louis and other places, as well. I have engaged in countless discussions about it from young woman. It requires woman—those trained, perhaps, at Covenant Seminary and looking to be more utilized? to be actively involved in other woman’s lives in MENTORING! Woman want to be cared about, fed advice, taught Biblical wisdom, and called on the phone by other women. Every church seeks to do this through ministries (like our own Apples of Gold or Tuesday Bible Study), which is wonderful. However, the depth and longevity of relationships depends solely on the Mentor. I can immediately think of 5 women who desire to be mentored in some way or another and yet the problem—lack of woman mentors stepping up to lead the younger generation. There are many other reasons of why this is true(time, feeling incapable), but that’s not my point. This is a huge responsibility and an enormous way to engage in service in our church. I challenge any woman who feels un-utlized to first connect with another woman in a mentoring relationship.
Randy, thank you for the list of how woman can serve in the church! My opinion—please don’t add any more! As women, we have so many ways that we can serve in the chuch without becoming a deaconess. I would love for an older woman with Biblical training to mentor me—or someone who “just” loved the Lord for 40 years.
One last thing—I bet most of the people who have never been thanked for their service—men and women—are people who have never been seen in theeir service….like who fills up those communion cups and breaks the matzah for hours the night before?
A woman’s greatest mission field should be her own children and family. With each infant born into the family comes an injunction from God to take this child and bring it up for His glory. God sends children into Christian homes to be trained up in the way they should go through the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I have read that those who neglect the religious education of their children, whatever else they may impart, are more culpable than Herod. He slew the children of others, but those who neglect their children’s religious education slay their own. While Herod slew the body, Christian parent’s who refuse to train up their own children slay the soul, so to speak.
I have witnessed women who are extremely concerned with “teaching a Bible study,” or “serving others in the body” all to the neglect of their own family. What a travesty this is! Many times churches not only permit this type of behavior, but they actually promote it. We must call for men and women to return to their proper Biblical roles. We must pray that the Lord will change hearts and minds, causing our families to want to conform to His Word. We must continue to swim upstream against a culture who despises Biblical womanhood and all it encompasses. Through our submission to God’s Holy Word, our families will be blessed. Perhaps then, the Church can reclaim some of the influence that she once had on our country.
I’m very late… And there is probably no one checking back to this post but I had to check it out, I’ve missed so much!!!
Really? We’ve wronged women by not giving them enough to do? We’ve not empowered them? Or… have we just not given them the “glamorous” jobs? The ones that everyone else sees you doing and the ones that get your name in the bulletin?
Sounds to me like a heap of discontentment and a heavy dose of pride. I have enough of those brewing within me without adding to it public praise to puff me up! I’ve never seen ANYONE (male or female) “recognized” for their service. And unless I’ve misunderstood, becoming a deacon (or elder) has nothing to do with being educated (seminary or otherwise), spiritual achievement or reaching a level/amount of service.
I’m also confused about why the distinction was made about women who attend or have graduated from seminary… Are the more empower-able? I really have no idea what that has to do with anything. Not relevant at all.
I’ve actually been uncomfortable in situations where women have taken great liberties with their roles such as reading scripture in an authoritative manner, praying during worship, and speaking in a teaching/authoritative manner during corporate worship. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if it were only women in attendance, but I’ve seen this done over, and over with capable men standing by.
I second Natalie that we need to refocus on what the Bible clearly commands women to be doing in and out of the church setting. Let’s refocus on what is clearly commanded of woman rather than interpreting scripture through faulty “subjective” lenses.
Note to those seeking “recognition”: You can get your name in the bulletin two weeks in a row about every 2-3 months if you sign up for nursery duty. Wiping poopy butts is really “glamorous”!
Becky, you make some very valid points. It seems to me as I read the scriptures, the most noble and elevated place for a woman is as a help mate (if she is to be married) and a mother is blessed with children. Otherwise, she is to serve Christ in a myriad of ways.
Hey, I can testify to the glamor of the nuresry. It is such a blessing.