Deacons - Deaconesses

(Note from Tim Bayly: Often I get calls from pastors and elders asking if I can give them help working through the issue of what work is and is not appropriate for men and women in their congregation. Five years ago Church of the Good Shepherd adopted such a statement drafted for us by one of our pastors at the time, Rev. David Wegener (a fellow member of Ohio Valley Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America).

Such a call came again this morning from a fellow teaching elder of the PCA, so I'm taking this opportunity to post the statement here for the good of the church at large. If our good readers know of another church statement that would be useful, also, and that honors the unequivocal teaching of Scripture that is patriarchy, please feel free to post that statement, or a link to it, in the comments below. Thank you.)

Church of the Good Shepherd's Understanding of the Biblical Roles of Men and Woman in Congregational Life
Adopted by the Session (Board of Elders) of Church of the Good Shepherd November, 1999

1. All men and women are equally created in the image of God and therefore are equally worthy of our honor and respect...

In her article cited in an earlier post, Anne Graham Lotz is pandering to some of the more ungodly prejudices of our culture by attacking the church for not being biblical on the meaning and purpose of sexuality. What she really means, though, is not that the Church isn't biblical, but that it's not enlightened or progressive--it's not, as they say, "evolved."

Before the watching world, Ms. Lotz argues that those who maintain distinctions between the sexes (other than those irrepressible biological and physiological ones) are bound for extinction as her new age of feminist gender equity finally dawns among the slowpoke people of God.

One looks in vain for any recognition on Ms. Lotz's part that she's thrown the entire history of the Christian Church's doctrine of sexuality in the dumpster. Likely she'd deny this, pointing to her strong stand against sodomy or divorce as proof that, where the rubber meets the road, she's rock solid on sexuality.

Yet the order of God's creation prior to the Fall is as clear concerning the sinfulness of women exercising authority over men as it is concerning the sinfulness of men having sex with men, or as it is concerning divorce. The authoritative primacy of man over woman, the heterosexual limits of physical intimacy, and the evil of divorce are each equally and undeniably established by our Creator in the Garden of Eden, and the rest of Scripture only reinforces God's Edenic order.

Asked whether divorce is right or wrong, Jesus responded by going back to Eden, prior to the Fall, making it clear that God's order from the beginning was heterosexual, monogamous, and lifelong:

(Jesus) answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Asked whether it was proper for women to exercise authority over men, the Apostle Paul responded by going back to Eden, prior to the Fall, making it clear that God's order from the beginning was neither matriarchal nor egalitarian, but patriarchal:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:12, 13)

Do Ms. Lotz and other evangelical feminists really think they can pick and choose between the details of the sexual order God established in Eden which is reinforced repeatedly in the sacred words of Scripture?

"Let's see, I'll have some heterosexuality and monogamy, please. But no patriarchy today, thank you."

Well, any simpleton can see what's happened, and therefore what's coming.

What's happened? Well, for many years, now, evangelicals have lived in an increasingly egalitarian and feminist culture, and that culture has won us over--all that's left is the mop-up operation. Few of us would be willing to preach or listen to the sermons of past centuries our fathers in the faith preached concerning male authority or female deference and submission. And structurally, our practice bears no resemblance to the church's historical practice.

Denominationally, some of us are still forced to toe the line: we don't yet ordain women to the pastorate or eldership, but we've taken every other step we can. We have women leading our corporate worship, administering the Lord's Supper, preaching in our pulpits, teaching mixed-sex adult Sunday school classes, leading mixed-sex small groups, serving as commissioned deacons, serving on our national theological study committees, preaching at our conferences, serving as regional directors in our parachurch and mission organizations... Need I go on?

Yes, we have our Pharisaical righteousness in each place we're fiddling around the edge. Women preaching in our pulpits are the exception--not the rule--and they do so under the authority and review of the elders board. Our women deacons are not ordained--they're only commissioned. We've limited the Sunday school classes led by women to one quarter of our offerings each term. Women lead our call to worship and prayer of confession, but never our pastoral prayer. Women administer the Lord's Supper, but our senior pastor is a man and he's the one who hands the trays to the women before they go out into the congregation. The woman on the study committee has special expertise in the subject under review, and she's not a full voting member. Our conference isn't a church meeting, our speakers aren't really preaching, and we don't have any authority over those who attend. Our organization is parachurch--not church--so we have no need to submit to Scripture's prohibition of women exercising authority over men.

At this point, some readers are likely hung up on one or more of the particulars I've cited and are asking themselves, "Is it really wrong to have women deacons?" "Why shouldn't women lead in prayer during corporate worship?" "If women shouldn't be regional directors of mission agencies, should they be running for president?" Or, "If it's wrong for women to preach in morning worship, is it also wrong for them to serve as professors in Christian colleges and seminaries?"

Although these are important questions, such examples are only meant to be representative of the sea-change the evangelical church has embraced. We will differ over which of the above practices are within the proper boundaries of Scripture, but we must not differ in acknowledging that, taken as a whole, these practices are not a reformation returning us to the doctrine of Scripture, but rather a revolution leading us away from Scripture...

This comment was just added to the "What Is Feminism" post. I promote it here to the main page because it is a perfect example of the average evangelical's understanding of the Bible's teaching on sexuality as I've heard it through the years.

Assuming the sincerity of the writer, how would you respond in such a way as to lead her back to the doctrine of Scripture given us by the Holy Spirit?

My favorite definition of a feminist, derived from a book, is someone who believes women are people. Genesis 1:26 tells us that when God made male and female in His image, He gave them dominion over all the earth and the fowls of the air, but not over another human being. That is why slavery is so repugnant, despite being thousands of years old. Jesus came to set the spiritual captives free. The Curse is just that-a curse. God blessed the woman in Genesis 1:27. Jesus sent women to tell His male disciples of His resurrection. Yes, the 12 disciples were all men, but He was still ministering under the old covenant. At His death, the veil of the Temple that separated men and women from God was rent in two so that now male and female could enter boldly into His presence. Some think it was destroyed. On Resurrection Day, it was Out With The Old and In With The New. Jesus defeated Satan and took the keys of death and hell away from him. Paul commended Phoebe, a deacon (original), and Junia, an apostle. The women of I Corinthians 11 were instructed as to their dress and deportment when teaching men. The restrictions of ITimothy 2 are different and much less restrictive than is described in this blog. Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and the four daughters of Philip were blessed and honored by God for stepping out of the narrowly-defined "roles" given to them by their cultures in that day. There were men whom Paul wished would remain silent too. The apostles believed that we are to serve God by the spiritual gifts that are within us (ITimothy 4:14, IITimothy 1:6). Happy Easter everyone!

By Tim and David Bayly

Meet Sara Bartley "Minister of Church Life" at City Presbyterian Church (PCA) of Denver.

Read an apology for her work by the Rev. Sam Downing, Senior Pastor of City Presbyterian Church.

(Here's Pastor Downing's original document as a PDF.)

But first, a few words of explanation....

When TE David Kniseley of Rocky Mountain Presbytery discovered in mid-January 2007 that City Presbyterian Church of Denver had hired and appointed (not ordained and installed) a woman to be Minister of Congregational Care he called City Presbyterian senior pastor and fellow presbyter, Sam Downing, and requested that City Presbyterian forego the title “Minister” for a woman staff member. TE Downing declined the request.

Pastor Kniseley then overtured Rocky Mountain Presbytery to instruct City Presbyterian Church to conform to the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order in this matter by no longer using the title “Minister” for any non-ordained staff member.

Because Pastor Kniseley’s overture was submitted too late for normal inclusion on the January 2007 docket, the Standing Rules of Rocky Mountain Presbytery required a two-thirds vote for new business to be added. The vote failed. Pastor Kniseley’s overture was thus added to the April 2007 docket of Rocky Mountain Presbytery.

In February, 2007, Pastor Downing wrote the paper we critique below titled “The PCA and Gospel Ministry in an Urban, Egalitarian Environment: Toward a Theologically Accurate, Culturally Appropriate Apologetic,” circulating his paper as an explanation and defense of his church’s practice with regard to women in ministry. In March, 2007, Village Seven Presbyterian Church (Colorado Springs) sent an additional overture to Rocky Mountain Presbytery asking for it to be passed on to General Assembly. Their overture sought to amend the Book of Church Order so it would explicitly state the word ‘minister’ always refers to a teaching elder.

Both overtures (from Pastor Kniseley and Village Seven Presbyterian Church) were slated to come before Rocky Mountain Presbytery for action in April’s meeting.  TE Dominic Aquila, the 2006 Moderator of General Assembly, took both overtures and recast them into two motions—a main and a substitute motion.

Main motion: "That the Presbytery acknowledge that the title 'minister' as used in the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America is synonymous with 'pastor' and 'teaching elder,' and as such none of these titles may be used to refer to any but ordained teaching elders."

Substitute Motion: "That the Presbytery acknowledge that the title 'minister' as used in the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America is synonymous with 'pastor' and 'teaching elder,' however, that it also acknowledge that the title 'minister' has been used in a general or generic manner and in this general way can be used for unordained church staff members."

The Main Motion, if approved, would have required City Presbyterian Church (and other churches in Rocky Mountain Presbytery who have used this term for staff people) to remove that title, replacing it with some other word such as 'Director.' The Substitute Motion, if approved, would have permitted City Presbyterian Church to allow its female staff member to retain her title, "Minister of Congregational Care."

The substitute motion (agreeing with the logic of the following paper) was adopted by Rocky Mountain Presbytery on a 32 to 26 vote.

Now, with that background, click below to read Rev. Downing's paper with our critique interspersed within it...

For a number of years, I've thought we need a book for preachers called The Feminization of Discourse. The book would show how the feminine priorities that have taken over the Western world have turned the preaching of God's Word from authority to mutual exploration and discovery. One friend lamented the preaching he'd sat under for a number of years saying, "Along with the indicative, can't we please have the imperative?" Read anything about the differences between male and female conversation and it's no mystery why the worship and preaching of our--yes, PCA--churches feel like a tea party. Having a reformed form of godliness, we deny the power thereof.

Our preaching is so graceful--more graceful than the preaching of Jesus or the Apostles. Anyone read the book of Acts, recently? Notice how often those listening to the sermon are confronted with the statement, "You killed Jesus!" No wonder repentance was the entry point to faith and baptism back then. But today? We're compassionate Christians, kinder and gentler elders, and sensitive graceful preachers who want to be liked. Above all. Yes, insofar as we can be liked and still be obedient, that's fine. But a choice between the two is no contest; being liked wins.

Now of course, right here the feminization of discourse kicks in and many are ready to condemn me for being dogmatic, making generalizations, or demonstrating a harsh and judgmental spirit, right?

Well, meet my friend Cesar Millan and see if we preachers have anything to learn from him about our exercise of the authority God has delegated to us, particularly in  the pulpit...

Under the recent post, Feminist Influences in the Presbyterian Church in America, the following comment appeared:

…I disagree with the post’s saying that discipling, shepherding, and counselling requires authority. To guide someone along the right path requires only care by the guide and willingness by the straying person to listen and try to stay on the path. One Christian can do that for another without any authority. He can do that without any title, in fact, which goes back to the question of why the guides should be called Deacons instead of, say Guides, or Helpers.…

Yes, “one Christian can do (these things) for another without any authority.” But we must consider the context of the Kellers’ use of these words ‘discipling’, ‘shepherding’, and ‘counselling.’

The context for the Kellers’ paper and their congregation’s actions is twofold: first, the Manhattan cultural context in which feminism long has ceased being argued, and is simply understood—think Columbia University, Manhattan, Woody Allen, the New York Times, etc.; and second, a denomination whose identity and confession is inseparable from its polity which, among other things, is defined by authoritative church officers (yes, deacons exercise authority) who, submitting to the Word of God, are men only.

So yes, in another institution, place, or denomination we might talk about “guides” who come alongside fellow travelers and make astute observations (or even recommendations) that their companions are free to take or leave.

This is the typical understanding of church office in evangelical churches and denominations today, and is not an uncommon understanding of church office even within the Presbyterian Church in America. Yet Scripture and PCA constitutional documents make clear...

Why, look at us! Check it out! We have women deacons. Unordained, of course, but women they are and they do everything our male deacons do--disciple, teach, cast vision. Look at us! Check it out! We have women serving the elements at the Lord's Table. Women, mind you! Aren't we forward-looking and progressive? Can't you iPod joggers settle into this comfy chair? We've made it just for you. No fuddy-duddy patriarchs holding us down or setting us back. We've captured the center of the city because we're the only ones that can do it without making asses of ourselves. Look at us! Check us out! We do art. We write music. We have important people who are rich in our congregation. And they respect us because they know we can be trusted to think through the implications of Scripture for our time and culture without falling into the many errors of past centuries. You know, errors like fuddy-duddy thinking about women in leadership.

(Tim) For most of the first ten years of pastoral ministry, I served in a denomination whose polity required each church to elect female elders in proportion to the number of females in the congregation. Also, every pastoral search committee was required to sign an EEO-type contract promising they would give equal consideration to women for their pastoral position. So I’ve had experience working with women elders within the local congregation, as well as female pastors and elders at the presbytery (regional) and general assembly (national) levels. There were some wise and godly women elders within our congregations (I had a yoked parish of two churches), and still today my wife and I are close to several of these sisters in Christ.

And yet, wise and godly women placed in the position of elder are tenaciously focused on the protection of relationships within their congregation. It is both their strength and weakness that they want to deny or postpone any threat to relationships, even when the good of the larger household of faith would be put at risk by inaction or the postponement of discipline...

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. ‘My God,’ you will say, ‘if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?' Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament. -Soren Kierkegaard (with thanks to Stephen Baker)

One commenter writes: "Taken to its logical conclusion, [God's creation order] would effectively end property and business ownership for women, since property management and business activity require authority over others, including men. If that were the case, we get into a hairy mess of inheritance rights..."

Tim responds: Men, let's make this absolutely clear.

God created Adam first, and then Eve. Anyone want to argue with that? Well then, let’s move on.

The Holy Spirit said the significance of this order of creation is that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. Everyone still on board? Next.

All through the New Testament we see the application the Holy Spirit made of this creation order to the Church as it was founded. Also to the home. What we don't see is Him applying this creation order to the Roman Empire. But then, Scripture doesn’t tell us how to do much of anything when it comes to the civil authority, except to submit to his authority.

So today, the world is full of men who take this absence of New Testament application of the creation order to the secular world as license to cast off the  creation order in any place other than those explicitly addressed by the Holy Spirit.

But what on earth happened to the creation order?

Well, here’s what happened. Christians became sullen children, resentful of their Heavenly Father’s plan and the demands it makes of us in our post-feminist world...

(Tim) In the discussion of the common practice of women serving alongside men as deacons within the PCA, one man comments, “I’m trying to figure out under what circumstances I’d need to think about submitting to a deacon.”

This is the nub of the issue and the fact that it’s so rarely discussed indicates either ignorance concerning the teaching of Scripture about the order of creation of man and woman, or a deliberate clouding of the issue by those opposed to that order. No doubt both are present across our denomination.

Authority isn’t the heart of the office as it is with elders, but to say the office of deacon is not one of authority, but service, is not to say the sex of the one being promised submission is immaterial to congregational vows.

If those pushing women deacons in the PCA were simply to call them “deaconesses” and make it clear that the implementation of the calling would be hedged about with clear lines of demarcation between deaconesses and deacons--all centered on the issue of reserving to men only the exercise of substantive authority over men--many of us would make common cause with them. The fact that this is precisely not what’s being practiced or argued for is most telling. Is this clear?

(David) I happened across this post by Internet Monk (Michael Spencer) and found him ably hitting a theme Tim and I strongly agree with: contextualization is not only not wrong, it is essential in the work of the Gospel. We must not ignore context. To go to the uncircumcised without approaching as one uncircumcised, to go to those without the law without approaching as one who is lawless, to go to the weak without approaching as one who is weak is not only non-Pauline, it is unChristlike.

I suspect that my brother Tim does not mean to be critical of Redeemer Church and Tim Keller for seeking to accommodate, in general terms, the culture of NYC and Manhattan any more than he wishes the rest of us to criticize him and his church for, for example, worshipping to rock and roll in the specific context of a Big Ten-university village. But Paul adds this caveat to his statement that for those outside the law he became as one outside the law, "not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ," and it's this boundary on contextualization that seems increasingly at issue in these debates.

(Tim) Here's a response to this comment left by a reader: "It seems that many in the complementarian community spend almost all their energy on the negative side of the equation."

Feminism is toxic and its relentless attack on Scripture and the Church doesn't give faithful shepherds a lot of opportunity to take their preaching and teaching somewhere else, avoiding this breach. We must focus our defensive work where the good deposit is under attack. In response to people complaining of the frequency of his preaching against fornication, Spurgeon said once that he'd stop preaching against it when people stopped doing it.

Pastors today aren't preaching or teaching against this heresy. And when we do, we do it half-heartedly making it clear to our flock and other shepherds that we wish the need for battle would go away because we're men of peace and love and grace, and we really don't enjoy beating up on women.

Now I may not have captured our critic's sentiments, personally, but from many years experience I know I've hit the mainstream. So think where we'd be if Calvin or Luther or Knox of any of hundreds of other shepherds had tried the positive approach in the darkness of Rome's shadow across the Middle Ages? What if Calvin had written his Institutes without the central thrust of opposing and exposing Rome? Would anyone read them?

The real issue isn't that many within the complementarian camp spend almost all our energy on the negative side of this equation, but that we live in an evil day much like the day of the Apostle Paul and Athanasius and Peter Waldo and John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and John Newton and J. Gresham Machen and Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Francis Schaeffer, and that our work must follow theirs in being faithful with God's "yes" and His "no." And if our only "no" is said in opposing those who don't say "yes" often enough to suit our tastes, we're not really saying "no," are we?

NOTE: (Tim) The documents promised yesterday have now been added: One by Alan Foster of East Lanier PCA outside Atlanta, another by Sam Downing of City Church plant PCA in Denver (not yet changed to RCA), and the third by Tim Keller of Redeemer PCA (New York). Links to each document may be found near the end of this post's second page.

Some Personal History:
Fifteen years ago now, when our session was choosing a denomination to present to the congregation for its approval and affiliation as we left the Presbyterian Church (USA), we had narrowed the selection to three choices: the Christian Reformed Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America. The women of the church had served as elders for decades, but  recently had come to understand it was contrary to the order of creation and command of Scripture, and were now committed to not holding office again. Thus it was that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church was eventually ruled out of consideration. It seemed apparent that their constitutional ambivalence on women exercising authority over men, particularly as church officers, was incompatible with our repentance in this matter. We had come to see father-rule to be foundational for the spiritual and theological integrity of the church.

That left us with the CRC and the PCA. We had a number of Dutch families and some in our congregation had grown up in the CRC. Since our town adjoined the town of Friesland, we had fellowship with many friends and relatives from CRC churches and many of us had been watching their theological battles for years. One night, the elders decided the CRC was out. I distinctly remember one elder summarizing what all of us were thinking: "The CRC will be exactly where the PC(USA) is now in twenty years. Then where will we be?" We all nodded in agreement and moved on to the PCA.

So the choice of the PCA was as much a rejection of the feminist commitments of the EPC and CRC as it was trust in the PCA's submission to Scripture in the matter. Still, the PCA wasn't discussing women officers then, so we felt somewhat secure.

Now, fifteen years later...

(Tim) For the record, I'm disappointed Rocky Mountain Presbytery's City Church in Denver was allowed to take the PCA's ball and go home without being disciplined for her rejection of biblical sexuality and polity. A plant of the Presbyterian Church in America, she (and particularly her pastor) should have heard a clear "No" from her presbytery, somewhere or sometime. Instead, she saw her presbytery enmeshed in a bunch of split votes that demonstrated tepid leadership, at best; and trendy postmodern commitments to biblical sexuality, at worst.

What would a pastor or session have to do in order to receive a clear disciplinary "No" from a presbytery of the PCA today in this matter of sexuality?

I can hear some responding, "No one's ordained a woman elder or pastor, yet."

If we think it's possible to avoid declaring the boundaries of biblical sexuality at every point leading up to the eldership, but then to hold firm there, our problems are much deeper than the biblical doctrine of sexuality...

(Tim) Several years ago, I asked a stated clerk if there were any papers circulating within our denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, justifying the widespread practice of electing and installing woman deacons. He sent me this paper titled, "Women in Ministry at East Lanier Community Church: An Explanation and Defense of the Position of the Session Regarding the Role of Women in Ministry at East Lanier Community Church." It was the only thing he'd come across.

So then, in a recent post "Sexuality and the PCA...," I linked East Lanier's paper to similar ones written by Pastor Tim Keller of New York City and Pastor Sam Downing of Denver--both PCA pastors at the time. (Sam Downing since left the PCA for the RCA, taking City Church Denver with him. Rocky Mountain Presbytery blessed his departure at their last meeting. Here's a critique of Pastor Downing's paper done at the request of a member of Rocky Mountain Presbytery.)

These pastors and their papers are representative of a widespread movement in the PCA that practices women leading and exercising authority over men in the church in every position except ruling elder and pastor. Most of these churches have female deacons serving alongside male deacons, without distinction, and they commonly characterize the teaching of Scripture on sexuality in the church as "A woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do." In my own Ohio Valley Presbytery, the best representative of this position is Redeemer Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis which was recently found to be out of accord with the Book of Church Order in her practice of women deacons, and is currently in dialog with presbytery concerning how best to bring her practice into conformity with our PCA Constitution.

Then, this past week, the Session of East Lanier Community Church released a letter...

Women have already organized their own work in the church; and with a zeal and success which shame the prevailing apathy of Christian men, women have worked out for themselves a whole series of institutions which, while the church sleeps, may perchance grow fatally to overshadow its official and authorized agencies. To shut our eyes to the dangers inherent in these gigantic voluntary associations would be as silly as it might prove to be suicidal. Nor is it an adequate annulment of these dangers to plead that the loving loyalty of our women to our church system has shown itself to be as great as their loving zeal for God’s work. This is true, and deserves highest praise. But we must bear in mind... (that the) essential principle of every organization comes out sooner or later in its working; and independent and voluntary agencies show sooner or later that they have both independence and will of their own.

-B. B. Warfield in his essay reproduced below, "Presbyterian Deaconesses."

(Tim) Here's an essay by B. B. Warfield on the biblical warrant and historical practice of deaconesses serving the church. Taken from an 1889 issue of The Presbyterian Review, it's a long but essential read for those wanting to debate and vote carefully on the overtures related to this issue coming to our PCA General Assembly next week in Dallas.

Two things to note: First, whatever approach to this question Warfield has taken, it bears little resemblance to the unconstitutional practice of egalitarian feminist churches in the PCA who, for years now, have been promoting women to the office of deacon without ordaining them--women indistinct in title, work, or authority from the male deacons they serve beside (who also are elected but not ordained).

This leads to the second point: Read the last couple of paragraphs of Warfield's essay carefully. There he warns against adopting a policy or practice on this issue that is "bare right (but) does not vindicate wisdom." Warfield goes on to ask, "How may woman’s work be organized so as to make it part of the church work and not extra-ecclesiastical?" He concludes with the statement that whatever is done must not "transgress the limits placed by God himself in his word upon the proper functions of woman in a Christian society," but rather must be "shown to be a further application of principles involved in the institutions appointed by God for the church."

So what are the "limits placed by God Himself in His Word upon the proper function of woman in a Christian society?" And note well: Not a Christian home or Christian church, but "a Christian society."

These "limits" are that woman is barred from the exercise of authority over man...

(NOTE: About fifty deep in the comments under this post is one made by "PCA friend" that readers will find helpful in clarifying what happened at the assembly, as well as the actions' larger context in the intricacies of PCA polity. PCA friend also makes the valid point others also made; namely, that some supported the minority report--and thus a study committee--not out of a desire for change, but because they believed this would be the wisest course to take in supporting our church's present constitutional requirements.)

(Tim) Just now, I received a report on what is likely the most significant decision facing this year's General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. Several overtures to the assembly--most notably, one from Philadelphia Presbytery that came to the presbytery by recommendation of a presbytery committee including Tenth Presbyterian Church's senior minister, Rev. Dr. Philip Ryken--asked the assembly to appoint an ad interim study committee on women deacons. Others within the PCA (including Central Georgia Presbytery) opposed such a study committee, seeing it as a Trojan Horse for northern city churches moving the denomination in an egalitarian feminist direction.

Overtures to the assembly pass through the Bills and Overtures Committee which meets prior to the assembly and brings recommendations on each overture to the assembly floor. This year's Bills and Overtures Committee was chaired by Rev. Fred Greco who brought the committee's recommendation (its Majority Report) to the assembly floor. This Majority Report called for the overture requesting the appointment of a study committee on women deacons to be answered in the negative, in which case no such committee would be constituted.

The president of Covenant Seminary, Bryan Chapell...

(Tim) A reader asks: "(D)id I understand your introduction to say that you agreed with Warfield's approach inasmuch as 'deaconess' could be a valid office in the church as long as it did not entail the exercise of authority over men, and thus was not conflated with the male diaconate?"

I respond: Yes, but I think such an action on the part of the PCA right now would be unwise in the extreme, given the conflation of the biblical office of deacon and these various helps women performed at times in church history. Furthermore, as Warfield points out quite clearly, Scripture itself cannot be said to provide a biblical basis for woman deacons. Warfield's exactly right.

What we find is that at various times the church did precisely what our Book of Church Order (BCO) allows: namely, to create ad hoc or ancillary groups of women for service to the church--including helping those officers called "deacons." Those women might be called "deaconesses," but across church history they were never exercising authority over men.

And this is where the practice of so many churches of the uber-hip metro-sophisticate variety leave us in a position that we must oppose woman deacons...

(Tim: Given the importance of this correction, we'll leave this post at the top for a few days. Please check below for more recent posts. Thanks.)

Speaking of Bryan Chapell putting forward Phil Ryken for service on a study committee on woman deacons, I held off correcting some significant errors in Phil's commentary on 1Timothy 3:8-13 until I'd been able to notify him of those errors, giving him a chance to correct the text of the PDF available for download. A week and a half after we exchanged e-mails (Phil was quite cordial, by the way), it appears the text hasn't yet been corrected. The errors appear in Phil's commentary issued as part of P&R's Reformed Expository Commentary Series, and specifically his comments on 1Timothy 3:8-13 where the Apostle Paul enumerates qualifications for the office of deacon. In this text, Phil misquotes B. B. Warfield...

(Tim) Speaking of those championing a change in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America to allow for woman deacons, one commenter on this blog defended them, writing "No one who is asking us to look into this says we should ignore the scriptures."

Respectfully, I must disagree. If we look at PCA teaching elders who are championing woman deacons, it must be said that some of them fail to affirm, while others oppose the plain teaching of Scripture on sexuality: That since Adam was created first, and then Eve; and since Eve was the one deceived; woman is forbidden to teach or exercise authority over man.

They occasionally come up with scholars (usually modern) they can cite in support of woman deacons, but these scholars have not done any heavy lifting on this issue. Rather, their work amounts to the sort of incidental treatments of a subject that ought never to displace the witness of the Church across history. Thus, it can't be said often enough that the present practice of non-compliant churches within the PCA bears no resemblance to the practice of the Church of the past two thousand years.

For example, some have cited Drs. Doug Moo, Tom Schreiner, and Andreas Köstenberger, as well as the late Dr. Ed Clowney, in support of woman deacons. Several of these men I know and respect. Yet there are others who have given themselves to this subject on a systematic basis who are far better sources in this debate.

Take, for instance, the French historian, Aime Georges Martimort, author of Deaconesses: An Historical Study. (To purchase, click on the title.) Despite the title, Martimort's examination treats both Scripture and church history. Others have commented on Martimort’s work:

This book can be considered the last word on the subject of deaconesses. It deserves a wide readership since there is so much interest in the ordination of women. (Homiletic & Pastoral Review)

Martimort uses his refined skills to give us what should be the definitive work on the subject. (The Diaconate)

So Martimort is foundational to the debate over woman deacons in the PCA and other reformed denominations today. Knowing some will not have the time or inclination to read his work, here are some excerpts...

NOTE FROM TIM: I've just taken the liberty of changing a couple sentences and adding some quotes to clarify this piece. So if you already read this post in its first day on the blog, please read it again. Having two writers contributing to this piece allowed a couple things through we'd normally have caught. They've now been corrected.

(David and Tim, w/thanks to Dave) Search for "Langberg" on the Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) web site and fifty-seven links are returned offering products produced by Westminster Theological Seminary adjunct professor Diane Langberg. (Here and here are sample pages.)

Check out CBE's  directory for a recommended counselor in Pennsylvania and you will find Calvary Presbyterian Church (PCA) member Diane Langberg.

Several years ago, controversy erupted within the Presbyterian Church in America over whether or not a certain woman actually preached at Covenant Theological Seminary. The controversy came to a head at the 29th General Assembly when Covenant's president, Dr. Bryan Chapell, explained the chapel address had mostly not been preaching although some parts strayed into "sermonic (and) some applicatory material." Bryan Chapell explained to the Assembly:

That Diane Langberg had been told ahead of time what the standards were for her speaking during the chapel time;

That after she spoke at Covenant Seminary, Diane Langberg received a letter reminding her of the standards, and expressing concern that those standards had not been followed; and

That the administration of Covenant Seminary met with students to explain the situation and to assure the seminary community that what had happened was not according to the standards they were committed to upholding.

Note that the chapel message at the root of the controversy was given by Dr. Diane Langberg. Yet, despite her being at the center of this controversy...

Two years ago, the Christian education arm of the Presbyterian Church in America, Christian Education and Publications (CE&P), held its 2006 International Women in the Church Conference in Atlanta. The three women employed to teach the 4,000 assembled women of the PCA? Joni Eareckson Tada, Paige Benton Brown, and Dr. Diane Langberg.

Again, at Women in the Church's (WIC) 2007 Leadership Training Conference Dr. Diane Langberg was a plenary speaker.

Diane Langberg was principal speaker at Tenth Presbyterian (PCA) Church's 2008 TenthWomen Conference.

And this same Diane Langberg is featured speaker at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals' Princeton Regional Conference on Reformed Theology--together with Al Mohler and Don Carson.

(Tim) Over on byFaith's site, Tim Keller gave his rationale recently for Redeemer's practice related to woman deacons. This is the first in a series of posts critiquing Tim Keller's article. (Here are installments one, two, three, four, five, and six.)

What's interesting is not so much what Tim wrote, but what his readers commenting beneath his piece said and didn't say. Or what they considered and what they didn't consider in weighing his claims and arguments.

Tim Keller's article must be interpreted in the larger context of his ministry at Redeemer. Only then will it be understood properly. The operative rule at Redeemer with regard to all things sexual is, "A woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do." So the working out of Redeemer's theology of sexuality is that women at Redeemer are allowed to teach and exercise authority over men everywhere and always except from the pulpit Lord's Day morning and in any way reserved for the elders as they exercise something they call "teaching authority." But whatever this "teaching authority" is, it's not when women teach Scripture to men because that precise thing they explicitly allow.

When Tim Keller claims to hold firmly to Scripture's Creation Order of sexuality, those weighing his claim should know that the actual implementation of that Order in his church would be unrecognizable to any previous generation of Christians...

(Tim) Pastor Tim Keller recently did a piece promoting woman deacons. It ran in the Presbyterian Church in America's byFaith e-monthly. Section by section, from time to time, I'm critiquing parts of Pastor Keller's article. This is the third installment. (Here are installments one, two, three, four, five, and six.) Readers will note I've not cut any of Pastor Keller's text. His words are indented, mine are not.

The first note struck is misleading. Reading Pastor Keller's words, we're led to believe that Redeemer is living well within the bounds of PCA polity, making a clear distinction between the men and women who serve in diaconal ministry. This is, of course, the one thing necessary in order to submit to Scripture's doctrine of sexuality--that male and female be clearly delineated in anything approximating authoritative function or office. So, according to Pastor Keller's words, here, he's led his congregation to make a distinction between the men and women serving as deacons. The women are commissioned, the men ordained, right?

That's what I thought when I first read the above. Yet in the back of my mind, a little bell was ringing, causing me to wonder if there wasn't some confusion, here...

(Tim) Jake Mentzel bought Mark Driscoll's new booklet and reports Tim Keller has waved his magic wand and Mark's now walking around in a trance repeating Tim's mantra: "A woman can do anything an unordained man can do." I'm disappointed.

But really, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise. When they hang out with each other, either Mark's going to rub off on Tim or Tim's going to rub off on Mark. And ninety-nine out of a hundred times, I'd have my money on Tim.

(Tim) This is the sixth in a series of posts critiquing an article promoting woman deacons written by Tim Keller for byFaith magazine. (Here are installments one, two, three, four, five, and six.) If you've already read the fifth in the series titled, Critique of Pastor Keller's promotion of woman deacons, part 5: RPCES history in need of correction..., please note this significant statement has now been added to that post:

Researching this matter, I've spoken to one of the RPCES fathers added to the Committee and he's confirmed the record of the Minutes, saying he remembers no vote on women deacons at the 154th Synod, let alone a motion approving women deacons being "narrowly defeated." The matter was recommitted.

It was the motion to add women to denominational boards and committees that was "narrowly defeated."

This is additional corroboration of my contention that, in addition to Phil Ryken, Tim Keller also has been in error in his handling of the historical record as he gives himself to advocacy of woman deacons within the PCA...