(Tim) Here is the full complaint filed against the recent action
of Metropolitan New York Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in
America--the action by which Metro NY Presbytery approved not ordaining male deacons and having female deacons serve alongside those unordained male
deacons, without sexual distinction.
This complaint has been distributed
to Metro NY Presbytery's presbyters.
Note that the complaint deals with both substance and process. The lead complainant, the Rev. Dr. David Miner, is the Stated Clerk of Metro NY Presbytery.
* * *
[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: For the blog, I have not been able to retain the pagination. Otherwise, the
formatting should be precisely the same as the complaint itself. If you
find any error where I have not reproduced the complaint exactly as is,
please send me an e-mail at tbbayly at gmail dot com. Thanks.]
* * *
Complaint
TE David Miner, et al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery
And
now, this 10th day of April, 2009, come TE David Miner, RE Wade Speas,
RE James Macbeth, RE Walter Morris and TE Mark Robinson and complain
against the action of the Metropolitan New York Presbytery taken on
March 13, 2009 in adopting the resolutions contained in that certain
document entitled “A Proposal to the Metropolitan New York Presbytery
Regarding Women in Diaconal Ministry” and dated as of March 13, 2009.
Introduction
The
Metropolitan New York Presbytery (the “Presbytery”) erred in adopting a
March 13, 2009 resolution that affirmed as not in violation of the Book
of Church Order (the “BCO”) the current practices among churches within
the Presbytery of (i) abstaining from ordaining deacons while
permitting men and women described as deacons or deaconesses to “serve
as equal partners in diaconal ministry” and (ii) commissioning
deaconesses to serve alongside ordained male deacons as “equal partners
in diaconal ministry.” Despite conceding “certain tensions” between
these current practices and the BCO, the Presbytery nonetheless
approved them...
These practices, however, go beyond mere tension
with the BCO. In several respects, they violate the BCO. First, the
resolutions condone a form of church government that undermines the
form of government provided for in the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church in America (“PCA”). Second, though a session may appoint
others—men and women—to assist the deacons in their work of service,
those assistants should not be confused with or supplant the officers
themselves. Third, the practice of refusing to ordain anyone to the
office of deacon improperly disregards the office of deacon and
ordination thereto and thereby precludes men from being sealed and set
apart to an ordained office. Fourth, adoption of the resolution
bypassed the proper and legal procedures for amending the BCO, in
effect creating an unauthorized exception to the BCO for the
Presbytery. Finally, the adoption process itself was fundamentally
flawed in that the presbyters had insufficient time to consider and
weigh the merits of the proposal on such a controversial issue. These
reasons justify the requested amends.
Statement of Facts
1.
On November 7, 2008, the Metropolitan New York Presbytery held its 60th
stated meeting at the office of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in
Manhattan. (A true and accurate copy of the approved minutes to the
November 7, 2008 meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
2. At that November 7 meeting, the presbyters: were called to order; held a worship service; approved the docket; welcomed visitors; heard the Clerk’s Report, including four motions which were voted on; heard the Facilitating Team Report, including three motions which were voted on; heard the Shepherding Team Report, including two recommendations which were adopted and a motion which was voted on; heard the Leadership Development Team Report; examined a pastor requesting transfer from the Presbyterian Church of Myanmar and voted to approve his examination and the terms of his call; having been divided into three separate parts, listened to ordination sermons of three candidates; having rejoined and heard the reports from the other parts, voted on the examination, sermon, exceptions, theological and exegetical papers, knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek by reference to seminary transcripts, and terms of call for each of the three candidates; examined a candidate for transfer from the Southern New England Presbytery and voted to approve his examination, exceptions, and terms of his call; examined three candidates for Gospel Ministry and adopted recommendations that they be received as candidates; adopted two other recommendations; and heard the Mission’s Team Report, including three recommendations which were adopted.
3. After the presbyters performed the work
described above and approximately ten minutes before adjournment of the
meeting, TE Higgins requested the privilege of handing out a two-page
document titled: “A Proposal to the Metropolitan New York Presbytery
Regarding Women in the Diaconal Ministry” (hereinafter “November
Proposal”). (A true and accurate copy of the November Proposal1 is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.)
4. The November Proposal was not
an item of official business listed on the November 7 docket. (A true
and accurate copy of the relevant excerpts from the docket circulated
for the November 7, 2008 meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
5. The November Proposal was not e-mailed to the presbyters before the November 7 meeting.
6. By the time the two-page November Proposal was handed out, many, if not most, of the presbyters had left the meeting.
7. The November 7 Proposal comprised two main parts: [Footnote] (1)
a “Declaration of Current Practices” regarding women in diaconal
ministry, and (2) a request that the Presbytery take certain actions to
validate those practices, including overtures to the General Assembly
to acknowledge the “wide diversity of practice” and amend the BCO to
bring the BCO “within the PCA’s historic breadth of practice.”
8. Two of the six practices of churches within the Presbytery set forth in the November Proposal are:
•
In some churches, 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 the diaconal ministry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 1: The November Proposal is erroneously dated “November 2009.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
•
In some churches, both men and women serve as equal partners in
diaconal ministry and are given the title “deacon,” though no one is
ordained to this ministry.
(November Proposal, at 1 (footnote omitted).)
9.
Despite conceding “certain tensions” between those practices and the
BCO, the supporters of the November Proposal asked the Presbytery to
approve them at an upcoming meeting. (November Proposal, at 1.)
10.
The approved minutes of the November 7 meeting describe the
introduction and distribution of the November Proposal as follows: “TE
Higgins requested and was granted the privilege of distributing a paper
on the Deaconate for later discussion.” The meeting was adjourned
shortly after distribution and a brief description was given of the
November Proposal.
11. The next scheduled meeting of the
Presbytery was for January 10, 2009. No meeting, however, was held
that day because of a snowstorm forecast for the area and because of
what an e-mail circulated to the presbyters described as “an unusually
small docket.”
12. The docket circulated for the subsequently
cancelled January 10, 2009 meeting contained no item of official
business regarding the November Proposal. (A true and accurate copy of
the relevant excerpts from the docket circulated for the January 10,
2009 meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit D.) The only reference to
that proposal appeared on page 13 of the docket as one of three
Facilitating Team Recommendations: “Deaconate Proposal from November
7th Presbytery Meeting.”
13. The November Proposal was not e-mailed to the presbyters in advance of the scheduled January 10, 2009 meeting.
14. The Presbytery held its next meeting on March 13, 2009.
15.
At that meeting, a 22-page document titled “A Proposal to the
Metropolitan New York Presbytery Regarding Women in Diaconal Ministry”
(hereinafter “March Proposal”) was handed out to the presbyters. (A
true and accurate copy of the March Proposal is attached hereto as
Exhibit E.) The March Proposal was dated March 13, 2009.
16.
The March Proposal comprised six labeled sections: (I) “Declaration of
Current Practices”; (II) “Historical Background”; (III) “Various
Interpretations of the BCO”; (IV) “Conclusion”; (V) “Recommendations”;
and (VI) “Attached Documents.”
17. The documents attached to the March Proposal were identified as:
1. Dr. Roy Taylor’s paper “Women as Deacons or deaconesses in the PCA”
2. Dr. Roy Taylor’s paper “The Presbyterian Church in America Non- hierarchical Presbyterianism”
3. Dr. Roy Taylor’s paper “Similarities in Worship and Polity”
4. Dr. Roy Taylor’s comments to the AC report of October 2008
(March Proposal, at 7.)
18.
The March Proposal set forth six purported current “practices regarding
women in diaconal ministry,” the final two of which stated:
5.
In some churches, 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 the diaconal ministry.
6. In some churches, both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as [Footnote] [2] “deacon,” though no one is ordained to this ministry.
(March Proposal, at 1.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 2:
This phrasing differs from the November Proposal, which states that
women “are given the title ‘deacon’”—not merely described as deacons.
(November Proposal, at 1 (emphasis added).)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
19. The 22-page March Proposal was not e-mailed to the presbyters before the meeting.
20.
Nor was the March Proposal listed as an item of official business on
the March 13, 2009 docket. (A true and accurate copy of the docket
circulated for the March 13, 2009 meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit
F.)
21. There is a reference to the November Proposal on page
13 of the March 13, 2009 docket as one of the four Facilitating Team
Recommendations: “Diaconate Proposal from November 7th Presbytery
Meeting.”
22. In some respects, however, the March Proposal differed markedly from the November Proposal.
23.
First, absent from the March Proposal but contained in the November
Proposal was a request to overture the 2009 General Assembly [Footnote] 3 regarding the practices of women in diaconal ministry:
•
To recognize the wide diversity of practice within the PCA and to
acknowledge that this diversity has existed for much of our history;
and
• To appoint
a committee to determine if the amendments to the BCO are necessary to
bring the BCO into conformity with the PCA’s historic breadth of
practice, and, if so, to propose appropriate amendments.
(November Proposal, at 2.)
24.
TE Higgins, one of the two men who introduced the March Proposal,
explained that TE Bryan Chapell and TE Joseph Novenson suggested that
the Presbytery not overture the General Assembly. [Footnote] 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 3: TE
Timothy Keller, who was listed as supporter of the November Proposal,
dissented from the request to overture the General Assembly. (November
Proposal, at 2.)
[Footnote] 4: As of the date of this
complaint, the minutes of the March 13, 2009 meeting of the Presbytery
are not finalized and therefore are not attached hereto. The events
set forth herein relating to such meeting were observed by the
complainants who were in attendance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
25. Second, the March
Proposal contained an additional 20 pages of material, including, among
other things, a lengthy quotation from the Joint Statement on Joining
and Receiving to the Ninth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church;
purported interpretations of the BCO said to justify each of the
diverse practices of women in the diaconal ministry; remarks about “the
biblical-historical-theological development of the regulative principle
of worship”; and the three attached papers by Dr. Roy Taylor.
26. Section V of the March Proposal moved that the Presbytery approve the following resolutions:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Metropolitan New York Presbytery;
A)
Recognizes that the diversity of practices listed above do exist and
have for some time among churches of good standing in our Presbytery.
B)
Acknowledge that while certain tensions exist between this diversity of
practice and the Book of Church Order, these practices are within the
historic breadth allowed by this Presbytery.
C)
Acknowledge that ministers or sessions may hold and practice the
following views referred to in the committee’s report above while being
“in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity” (3rd
ordination vow, BCO 21-5 & 24-6).
1. Only men are ordained as deacons and they conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.
2.
Only men are ordained as deacons, yet Sessions select and appoint
others-men and/or women-to assist the deacons in their work.
3.
Only men are ordained as deacons and women are selected and appointed
by the Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
4.
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.
5. 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 the diaconal ministry.
6.
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.
(March Proposal, at 6-7.)
27.
TE Higgins explained that the March Proposal was essentially the same
as that recently approved by the Northern California Presbytery.
28. After TE Higgins finished his presentation on the March Proposal, the floor was opened for discussion.
29.
There was a motion to delay the vote to receive the March Proposal so
that the presbyters would have sufficient time to consider it. After
much discussion about how the proposal was brought to the Presbytery,
including failures to circulate it beforehand, the motion to delay was
defeated.
30. After limited discussion about the substantive merits of the March Proposal, a motion to receive the March Proposal carried.
Questions Presented
1.
Did the Metropolitan New York Presbytery err by adopting resolutions at
its March 13, 2009 meeting that, in violation of the PCA’s
Constitution, condone a form of church government that undermines the
form of government provided for in the PCA’s Constitution?
2.
Did the Presbytery err in adopting resolutions that, in violation of
the PCA’s Constitution, amount to an unauthorized amendment to the BCO?
3. Did the Presbytery err by adopting resolutions through a
process and in a manner that violates the PCA’s Constitution and
Scriptural principles?
4. Did the Presbytery err in adopting
resolutions that, in violation of the PCA’s Constitution, condone the
practice of churches within its jurisdiction of depriving men from
fulfilling their calling to the office of deacon and treating
ordination to such office as having little or no value?
5. Did
the Presbytery err in adopting resolutions that, in violation of the
PCA’s Constitution, condone the practice of churches within its
jurisdiction of improperly diminishing and/or effectively abolishing
the distinction between the office of deacon and those assisting in
diaconal work?
Reasoning
At its March 13, 2009
stated meeting, Metropolitan New York Presbytery adopted resolutions
(included in Exhibit E attached hereto) that officially recognized the
legitimacy of certain current practices among churches within its
jurisdiction. In particular, the resolutions affirmed as purportedly
not in violation of the Book of Church Order the practices of (i)
abstaining from ordaining deacons while permitting men and women
described as deacons or deaconesses to “serve as equal partners in
diaconal ministry” and (ii) commissioning deaconesses to serve
alongside ordained male deacons as “equal partners in diaconal
ministry.” The Presbytery impermissibly erred in adopting these
resolutions by affirming practices that are in opposition to the
explicit statements of, and the overall system of governance set forth
in, the BCO. Additionally, the Presbytery erred in adopting such
resolutions without the deliberative process called for by the BCO and
warranted by the seriousness of the issues presented.
The proponents of the March Proposal did not seriously and reasonably submit a doctrinal question for the Presbytery’s resolution when they introduced the March Proposal without circulating it well in advance. The March Proposal includes among other things, statements about the history of the PCA and the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES), arguments about the proper application of various BCO provisions related to the diaconate, arguments about the relative weight to be given to the BCO, remarks about “the biblical-theological-historical development of the regulative principle of worship,” a reference to the Great Ejection and Act of Conformity of 1662, a summary of minutes from the RPCES General Synod regarding a chronology of events from 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978, and distinctions between worship and polity. Given the limited time available for reviewing the March Proposal and the relatively brief time spent discussing its merits, it was impossible for each of the presbyters to have read the proposal thoroughly or fully grasped its meaning and implications. Presbyters were unable to come to a fully reasoned and faithful conclusion as to its validity.
It
is no defense to say that a similar proposal was distributed in
November. The November Proposal was materially different from the one
distributed at the March meeting. The November Proposal requested an
overture to the General Assembly regarding the diaconate. The November
Proposal was a two-page document versus 22 pages for the March
Proposal. Also, the November Proposal was not e-mailed beforehand and
was introduced at the end of the meeting after many, if not most, of
the presbyters had departed for the day. Nor was the November Proposal
circulated in connection with distribution of the docket of the January
meeting. (That meeting was cancelled the day before it was to have
taken place.)
The framers of the Constitution intended that the
full weight of each presbyter’s wisdom, experience, and reflection be
brought to bear on controversial issues, “Every court has the right to
resolve questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably
proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness,
condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to the injury of
the peace, purity, or progress of the Church.” BCO 11-4 (emphasis
added). The Presbytery avoided serious and reasonable deliberation
regarding the March Proposal, particularly as it related to the
constitutionality of the resolutions.
The Presbytery also
violated the Scriptural principle and Presbyterian standard of doing
things decently and in order. By allowing a motion to occur when
Presbyters had little time to read an extensive proposal, the
Presbytery violated 1 Corinthians 14:40, which stresses that
presentations in the context of church business be done properly, with
deference to all brothers, and not be done in such a manner as to cause
disquiet among brethren who may have felt misled and manipulated. Even
though BCO 47-6 refers to worship, it stresses “that all things must be
done decently and in order” so that God’s people may serve Him with
reverence and in the beauty of holiness.
By adopting the
resolutions in view, the Presbytery also erred by condoning a form of
government that undermines the essential form of government set forth
in the PCA’s Constitution. The BCO, together with the Westminster
Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechism, form the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America (“PCA”). BCO
Preface, III—The Constitution Defined. Part I of the BCO, under the
heading “Form of Government,” recognizes and provides for, among other
things, the offices of the church, and in particular the offices of
elder and deacon. The importance of these offices is seen in that,
according to the BCO, they are established by Scripture and all of the
powers of the Church are administered through them. BCO 1-4 (“The
officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are
administered, are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.”).
The
BCO does not explicitly state that each church is required to establish
a diaconate. In fact, the BCO acknowledges that a church may be unable
to constitute a diaconate and therefore provides that the duties of the
diaconate devolve upon the ruling elders in such a case. BCO 5-10;
9-2. However, far from supporting the view that the BCO permits an
unordained diaconal body, this direction in the BCO makes clear that
the duties incumbent on the office of deacon fall solely within the
province of an ordained body. Significantly, the BCO does not make a
concession in such cases for the service of the diaconate to devolve
upon, for example, other unordained members of the church. Far from
such hypotheticals is the present situation; the Presbytery is not
suffering from churches without qualified men willing to serve as
deacons. The BCO assumes that a church with members willing and
qualified to serve on the diaconate will ordain such members to the
diaconate. In the words of BCO 17-1, “[t]hose who have been called to
office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.”
To argue that the BCO condones the optional organization of an
unordained diaconate is to argue from silence. It is unnecessary for
the BCO explicitly to rule out such practice when a coherent and
integrated system of diaconal organization is fully provided for in the
BCO, with explicit provision made in BCO 9-7 for non-ordained persons
to assist the diaconate in its work. The question before the court is
not merely whether the BCO may be supplemented; the question rightly
put is whether a competing system of government will be recognized.
Those
who would seek to recast the matter as a debate over the extent of
Christian liberty overlook the fact that it is the Constitution of the
church that is in view. A constitution sets forth a system of
government and, accordingly, the proper question in constitutional
interpretation is whether a proposed action, where not explicitly
prohibited, is discordant with that system. The two-office system of
government goes to the heart of PCA polity. In the chapter titled
“Form of Government” the BCO states that “[t]he officers of the Church,
by whom all its powers are administered, are, according to the
Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and deacons.” BCO 1- 4.
Separate chapters in the BCO are given to the offices of elder and
deacon. BCO 8, 9. The office of deacon, not merely diaconal-related
service, is ordinary and perpetual in the Church. BCO 9-1. As
constituted, the system of government with respect to the diaconate
explicitly set forth in the BCO is complete enough to compel the
conclusion that no room is left for a presbytery to supplement or
contravene it by permitting a wholly unordained diaconate. For these
reasons, failure to ordain qualified men as deacons, where such men are
functionally serving as such in an unordained capacity, undermines the
letter and spirit of the BCO.
The session’s authority over the diaconate in no way diminishes the office of deacon. That the BCO rightly places the diaconate under the authority of the elders is undisputed. BCO 9-2. However,
deacons, though subject to the rule of elders, do not serve at the
pleasure of elders. The primacy of the elders’ authority does not
render the office of deacon unnecessary or subject to the prerogative
of the elders. To the contrary, the authority of office establishes
those offices under its influence. The entire Church is under the rule
of Christ, however, it does not follow from this proposition that the
offices of the Church are inconsequential. Additionally, as stated in
BCO 24-7, “[o]rdination to the offices of ruling elder or deacon is
perpetual; nor can such offices be laid aside at pleasure; nor can any
person be degraded from either office but by deposition after regular
trial.” As one who holds the office of deacon holds a perpetual
office, his office, though initially derived through a local church, is
not continued at the discretion of the elders. Therefore, the office
of deacon, as recognized by the Constitution, has a distinct existence
apart from the office of elder, together with which it forms the
coordinated system of government established by the BCO.
Creating
within a church an unordained body of men and women given the titles
“deacon” and “deaconess,” respectively, (or referring to both men and
women as “deacons”) while ordaining no one to the office of deacon, is
a de facto establishment of an unauthorized diaconate. Further, such a
practice vests ecclesiastical power in a class of persons—women— not
authorized to hold office or exercise ecclesiastical power. BCO 1-4
(“The officers of the Church, by whom all its powers are administered,
are, according to the Scriptures, teaching and ruling elders and
deacons.”); BCO 3-2 (“The officers exercise [ecclesiastical power]
sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel, administering the
Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and comforting the
afflicted, which is the power of order . . . .”); BCO 7-2 (“In accord
with Scripture, [the offices of elder and deacon] are open to men
only.”). Additionally, refusing the ordination of men to the office
of deacon nullifies one of the two offices Christ generously gave His
bride for the growth of His Kingdom. BCO 1-4; 3-5 (“The Church, with
its ordinances, officers and courts, is the agency which Christ has
ordained for the edification and government of His people, for the
propagation of the faith, and for the evangelization of the world.”).
Therefore, by adopting the resolutions in view, the Presbytery is
affirmatively condoning the practices described in such resolutions,
such practices functionally either abolishing the office of deacon or
seating women in the office of deacon. In either case, there is a
substantial and continuing violation of the Constitution of the PCA.
The
BCO, in diverse sections, unequivocally states that only men are
qualified to hold the office of deacon. BCO 7-2 (“In accord with
Scripture, [the offices of elder and deacon] are open to men only.”);
BCO 9-3 (“To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall
be chosen men of spiritual character . . . .”); BCO 24-1 (“[E]ach
prospective officer should be an active male member who meets the
qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.”). The provisions
of these sections, far from being advisory in nature, set forth a
particular organization of the diaconate which the BCO explicitly
states is based on Scripture. In BCO 7-2, the male-only restriction of
the office of deacon is said to be “[i]n accord with Scripture” and BCO
24-1 states such restriction alongside those qualifications set forth
in Scripture. As stated in BCO 29-1, the Constitution of the PCA, of
which the BCO is a part, is “accepted by the PCA as the standard
expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and
practice.” Within the PCA, the BCO is binding authority on this
issue solely because of the BCO’s constitutional nature. Additional
deference to the BCO’s authority is due, however, because the BCO
provisions relating to this matter are explicitly said to derive from
Scripture. Further, the BCO is based on a system of Biblical interpretation shared by the PCA’s ecclesiastical communion in
connection with which each presbyter submits to his brothers in accord
with his ordination vows. The merits of the Presbytery’s
actions must be evaluated, therefore, in accordance with the BCO’s
clarity and scriptural emphases in the areas of women officers and
nature of diaconal organization and in light of each presbyter’s
ordination vow.
In a similar manner, statements to the effect that men
ordained as deacons and women commissioned as deaconesses serve as
equal partners in diaconal ministry serve to blur the distinction
between the office of deacon and those assisting the diaconate and are
therefore improper. The phrase “equal partners” conveys that the
distinction between an officer of the church and those serving as
non-officers is purely formal and serves no substantive purpose. It
thereby undermines the office of deacon established by the BCO and
makes it of no import. What would be conveyed if it were said
that Bible study leaders and elders were “equal partners” in the
teaching ministry of the church? Notwithstanding the difference in
authority between the parties in this example, the effect of such a
statement would be to imply that there was substantially no difference
between the teaching of an elder and that of a Bible study leader. Similarly,
emphasizing that non-ordained persons serving the diaconate are “equal
partners” with the diaconate implies that there is no difference in the
service rendered by the diaconate from that offered by others assisting
in the diaconal work. This practice contravenes the BCO insofar as it
treats the office of deacon and ordination thereto as having little or
no value. The BCO, in contrast, states that “[t]he ordinances
established by Christ, the Head, in His Church [include] . . . the
ordination to sacred office.” BCO 4-4.
Additionally, failure
to ordain qualified men to the diaconate prevents those men from
exercising the calling and authority of their biblically-constituted
and BCO-defined office. According to the BCO, the office of
deacon is an office for which men are recognized as duly called and set
apart by the laying on of hands and prayer and by which men may be
recognized as holding the office of deacon by other churches within the
denomination.
The Constitution is binding on the churches within
the PCA. Though the Constitution is not Scripture, much of the
Constitution explicitly claims to derive from biblical teaching. Moreover,
the PCA has bound itself together by means of these documents
(including the BCO), believing that its Constitution represents “the
form of government founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God.” BCO
Preface—II. Preliminary Principles. Careful attention must therefore
be taken to avoid diminishing the BCO’s dependence on Scripture. In
the realm of judicial process, punctilious attention is often given to
single words of the BCO. If this degree of attention is paid to
sections of the BCO which are in many cases tangential to the
provisions of Scripture, no less attention is required of sections of
the BCO which are explicitly said to derive from Scripture itself. If
churches within the Presbytery believe that the BCO is overly
restrictive or not in accord with Scripture, the BCO itself provides
the remedy: an amendment to the Constitution. BCO 26-2. By adopting
the resolutions in view, the Presbytery has unilaterally effected its
own amendment to the BCO, thereby marginalizing those members of
Presbytery whose affiliation with the PCA is predicated, in part, on
the system of government agreed upon in the Constitution and depriving
the denomination of discussion on the matter for which very purpose the
amendment process is designed. The founders of the Constitution of the
PCA recognized and intended that the BCO, by its nature, would
establish parameters that would limit the practice of churches within
the PCA’s communion. In the Preface to the BCO the following is
observed:
[E]very Christian Church, or union or association of
particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into
its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as
well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ has
appointed. In the exercise of this right it may, notwithstanding, err
in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet even
in this case, it does not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of
others, but only makes an improper use of its own.
BCO, Preface—II. Preliminary Principles. Whether the PCA in adopting the current form of the BCO
errs by “mak[ing] an improper use of its own [liberty or rights]” is
for the denomination as a whole to decide. However, any church that
cannot agree to “the whole system of [ ] internal government”
established by the Constitution is under no compulsion to continue its
association with the PCA.
Amends
Wherefore, in
consideration of the foregoing, each complainant hereby requests the
following amends, such requests to be considered jointly and severally
(i.e. together and as separate remedies):
1. That the New York
Metropolitan Presbytery nullify, rescind, annul and/or retract the
resolutions concerning diaconal ministry passed at its March 13, 2009
meeting;
2. That the New York Metropolitan Presbytery
affirmatively adopt, by written resolution, a statement rejecting views
5 and 6 contained in such resolutions as contrary to the system of
government required by the Constitution of the PCA;
3. That
the New York Metropolitan Presbytery request each Session within its
jurisdiction to evaluate the functioning of its Diaconate with respect
to conformity to the Constitution of the PCA, particularly with respect
to violations exemplified in the current practice of views 5 and 6 in
the aforementioned resolutions; and
4. That the New York
Metropolitan Presbytery direct churches within its jurisdiction that
are in continuing violation of the Constitution through the practices
reflected in views 5 and 6 to move into full conformity with the
Constitution of the PCA in this matter by rejecting such practices and
that the New York Metropolitan Presbytery offer assistance to sessions
regarding the difficulties that may arise in the process of bringing
their diaconal practices into full conformity with the Constitution of
the PCA.
The undersigned complainants ask that this complaint be sustained.
TE David Miner
TE Mark Robinson
RE Wade Speas
RE James Macbeth
RE Walter Morris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit Index
Exhibit A: Minutes of the November 7, 2008 meeting of the Metropolitan New York Presbytery
Exhibit
B: Proposal distributed at the November 7, 2008 meeting of the
Metropolitan New York Presbytery entitled “A Proposal to the
Metropolitan New York Presbytery Regarding Women in the Diaconal
Ministry
Exhibit C: Docket circulated for the November 7, 2008 meeting of the Metropolitan New York Presbytery
Exhibit D: Docket circulated for the January 10, 2009 meeting of the Metropolitan New York Presbytery
Exhibit
E: Proposal distributed at the March 13, 2009 meeting of the
Metropolitan New York Presbytery entitled “A Proposal to the
Metropolitan New York Presbytery Regarding Women in Diaconal Ministry”
Exhibit F: Docket circulated for the March 13, 2009 meeting of the Metropolitan New York Presbytery
Exhibit A
The
Metropolitan New York Presbytery held its 60th Stated Meeting on
November 7, 2008, at the office of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in
Manhattan.
Opening
The moderator, TE Yenchko called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. with prayer.
Worship
Immediately a worship and communion service was conducted by TE Ellis. The Rev.
Aung Lai Matu preached from Romans 1: 16-17.
Attendance
Roll of Ministers (Total 82 Teaching Elders)
Vito Aiuto Organizing Pastor, Resurrection Mission, Williamsburg , NY Absent
Blake Altman Out of Bounds—Manna Christian Fellowship, Princeton, NJ Present
Samuel Andreades Pastor, The Village Church, NY Present
Elliel Assis Out of Bounds—Asst. Pastor, Com. Bible Ch., Sag Harbor, NY Present
Charles Baldini Out of Bounds—Immanuel Union Church, Staten Island Absent
Allen Barth Out of Bounds—Redeemer Church Planting Center Excused
Renato Bernardes Senior Pastor, Comunidade, Newark, NJ Excused
David Bisgrove Asst. Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Present
Glauber Borges Asst. Pastor, Comunidade CP, Newark, NJ Excused
Timothy Brinkerhoff Out of Bounds—Assoc. Pastor, Federated Church, Lafayette, NJ Excused
Matthew Brown Organizing Pastor, Park Slope Mission, Park Slope, NY Present
Matthew Buccheri Asst. Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Absent
Reyn Cabinte Organizing Pastor, Uptown CC, Manhattan, NY Present
Darcy Caires, Jr. Assoc. Pastor, Astoria Community Church, Astoria, NY Excused
Christian Castro Asst. Pastor, Comunidade Crista, Newark, NJ Present
Craig Chapman Assoc. Pastor, Trinity PC, Rye, NY Present
Wilson Cheng Pastor, Covenant Church, Elmhurst, NY Present
Abraham Cho Asst. Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Excused
Ron Choong Out of Bounds—Academy for Christian Thought Absent
Nelio da Silva Missionary—Brazil Excused
Charlie Drew Senior Pastor, Emmanuel PC, Manhattan, NY Present
David Ellis Senior Pastor, Astoria Community Church, Astoria, NY Present
Ederson Emerick Pastor, Redentor PC, South River, NJ Absent
Jamison Galt Asst. Pastor, Park Slope Mission, Park Slope, NY Present
Moura Goncalves Organizing Pastor, Hebron Mission, Newark, NJ Absent
Mark Gornik Presbytery Evangelist Absent
Andrew Graham Pastor, Knowlton PC, Columbia, NJ Present
Terry Gyger Out of Bounds—Director, Redeemer Church Planting Center Absent
Craig Higgins Senior Pastor, Trinity PC, Rye, NY Present
Chris Hildebrand Asst. Pastor, Resurrection Mission, Williamsburg, NY Present
Anthony Hinchliff Pastor, Redeemer Church of Hoboken, Hoboken, NJ Present
Claude Hubbard Without Call Absent
William Iverson Honorably Retired Retired
Paul Kalfa Pastor, New Hope Christian Church, Monsey, NY Absent
Timothy Keller Senior Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Present
David Kim Out-of-Bounds—Manna Christian Fellowship, Princeton, NJ Present
Dongsu Kim Out of Bounds—Teacher Nyack College and KAPC Excused
Michael Kytka Organizing Pastor, Ascension PC, Forest Hills, NY Present
Jason Kyle Out of Bounds—Redeemer Church Planting Center Excused
Andrew Lee Asst. Pastor, Covenant Church, Whitestone, NY Present
John Lee Pastor, Good News Church, Edison, NJ Present
Macky Lee Asst. Pastor, Covenant Church, Whitestone, Flushing, NY Present
Renan Lima Pastor, Comunidade CP, Mineola, NY Present
John Lin Asst. Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Excused
Timothy Locke Pastor, Grace Community Church, Bridgewater, NJ Present
Randy Lovelace Senior Pastor, Redeemer Church of Montclair, Montclair, NJ Excused
Thomas Mak Asst. Pastor, Covenant of Grace, Elmhurst, NY Present
Patrick Malone Without Call Absent
John Metallides Honorably Retired Retired
Mark Middlekauff Organizing Pastor, Grace PC, Southampton, NY Excused
David Miner Pastor, Covenant PC, Short Hills, NJ Present
Valter Moura Without Call—In Brazil Excused
Thomas Oates Senior Pastor, Grace Church, Greenwich, CT Present
John Olivo Organizing Pastor, I’m Forgiven Mission, Bronx, NY Excused
Gilson Quelhas Without Call—In Brazil Excused
William Reinmuth Asst. Pastor, Grace Redeemer Church, Teaneck, NJ Present
Mark Reynolds Out of Bounds—Redeemer Church Planting Center Present
Charles Brett Revlett Out of Bounds—Pastor, Ev. Fellowship Chapel, Liberty Corners Absent
Jeff Ridgway Asst. Pastor, Hope PC, Randolph, NJ Present
Stephen Ro Senior Pastor, Living Faith Community Church, Flushing, NY Present
Mark Robinson Asst. Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Present
Demetrio Rodriguez Presbytery Evangelist—In Puerto Rico Excused
Marc Rollman Without Call Absent
James Romaine Missionary—MTW Present
David Rowe Pastor, Hope Presbyterian Church, Lawrenceville, NJ Excused
Scott Sauls Asst. Pastor, Redeemer PC, Manhattan, NY Absent
Valdici Silva Without Call Excused
Hannibal Silver Without Call Absent
Harrison Skeele Organizing Pastor, Crossroads Mission, Bridgewater, NJ Excused
Kenneth Smith Senior Pastor, Princeton PC, Princeton, NJ Absent
Scott Strickman Assoc. Pastor, Emmanuel PC, Manhattan, NY Present
Erik Swanson Asst. Pastor, Redeemer Montclair, NJ Present
Mark Swanson Without Call Present
John Sweet Asst. Pastor, Park Slope Mission, Park Slope, NY Present
Wai C. Tan Out of Bounds—Asian American Community Church, Syosset, NY Excused
Mark Wellman Senior Pastor, Hope Presbyterian Church, Randolph, NJ Excused
Jeffrey White Organizing Pastor, New Song Mission, Harlem, NY Present
Peter Wang Senior Pastor, Grace Redeemer Church, Teaneck, NJ Present
David Wong Pastor, Covenant Church, Whitestone, NY Present
John Yenchko Pastor, North Shore CC, Oyster Bay, NY Present
Jacob Yohannan Organizing Pastor, Grace Village Mission, Bergen County, NJ Present
Roll of Churches (Total of 24 particular churches)
Astoria Community Church, Astoria, NY No Commissioner Present
Comunidade Crista Presbiteriana, Mineola, NY No Commissioner Present
Comunidade Crista Presbiteriana, Newark, NJ No Commissioner Present
Covenant Church, Whitestone, NY RE Phillip Mak
Covenant of Grace, Elmhurst, NY No Commissioner Present
Covenant Presbyterian Church, Short Hills, NJ No Commissioner Present
Emmanuel Presbyterian Church, Manhattan, NY No Commissioner Present
Good News Church, Edison, NJ No Commissioner Present
Grace Church, Greenwich, CT RE Mark Howard
Grace Community Church, Bridgewater, NJ No Commissioner Present
Grace Redeemer Church, Teaneck, NJ No Commissioner Present
Hope Presbyterian Church, Lawrenceville, NJ No Commissioner Present
Hope Presbyterian Church, Mt. Freedom, NJ No Commissioner Present
Knowlton Presbyterian Church, Columbia, NJ No Commissioner Present
Living Faith Community Church, Flushing, NY No Commissioner Present
New Hope Christian Church, Monsey, NY No Commissioner Present
North Shore Community Church, Oyster Bay, NY RE Donald Cameron
Princeton Presbyterian Church, Princeton, NJ No Commissioner Present
Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Manhattan, NY RE Bruce Terrill, RE
Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Hoboken, NJ No Commissioner Present
Redeemer Church of Montclair, Montclair, NJ No Commissioner Present
Redentor Presbiteriana, South River, NJ No Commissioner Present
Trinity Presbyterian Church, Rye, NY RE Phil Petronis
The Village Church, Manhattan, NY No Commissioner Present
Reconvening
Following
the break after the worship service, the Moderator, TE John Yenchko,
reconvened the assembly with prayer at 10: 15 a.m.
Docket Approval
The docket, which these minutes reflect, was approved by common consent.
Visitors Welcomed
Visitors were introduced and welcomed and the Moderator asked all present to give their names and place of ministry.
Clerk’s Report
[NOTE
FROM TIM BAYLY: Since these minutes are not essential to an
understanding and consideration of the complaint, I've not reproduced
them in their entirety, here, although they are reproduced in their
entirety in the text of the formal complaint as filed.]
TE Higgins requested and was granted the privilege of distributing a paper on the Deaconate for later discussion.
Adjournment
•
MSC to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. with the singing of
the doxology and prayer by the Moderator. The next stated meeting is
scheduled on January 10, 2009, in Newark, New Jersey.
David H. Miner, Stated Clerk
Exhibit B
A Proposal to the Metropolitan New Yark [sic] Presbytery Regarding Women in Diaconal Ministry
November 2009
Declaration of Current Practices
As
a Presbytery we recognize that there exists, within this Presbytery and
throughout the Presbyterian Church in America, a wide variety of
practices regarding women in diaconal ministry.
• In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons and they alone conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.
•
In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons, yet Sessions
appoint others-men and/or women-to assist the deacons in their work.
•
In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons and women are
appointed by the Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male
deacons.
• In
some churches, only men are ordained as deacons, yet the congregation
elects women to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
•
In some churches, 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. [Footnote] 1
•
In some churches, both men and women serve as equal partners in
diaconal ministry and are given the title "deacon," though no one is
ordained to this ministry.
First, we the undersigned, request the Presbytery
• To recognize this diversity of practice;
•
To acknowledge that while certain tensions exist between this diversity
of practice and the Book of Church Order, these practices are within
the historic breadth allowed by this Presbytery, and that this reflects
a breadth of practice that has existed in the PCA for most, in not all,
of this denomination's history; and
•
To acknowledge that those holding the various views reflected above all
are seeking to be "in conformity with the general principles of
Biblical polity" (3rd ordination vow, BCO 21-5 & 24-6).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 1
It should be noted that the Northeast Presbytery-a predecessor to this
Presbytery- explicitly acknowledged the right of a Session to appoint
men and women for diaconal ministry (BCO 9-7) by means of a
congregational election.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore (as a separate action), we request the Presbytery to overture the 2009 General Assembly as follows:
•
To recognize the wide diversity of practice within the PCA and to
acknowledge- that this diversity has existed for much of our history;
and
• To appoint
a committee to determine if amendments to the BCO are necessary in
order to bring the BCO into conformity with the PCA's historic breadth
of practice, and, if so, to propose the appropriate amendments.
Original presenters
The Rev. Matthew C. Brown
The Rev. Dr. Craig R. Higgins
Supporting
The Rev. Dr. Timothy J. Keller (dissenting from the request to overture GA)
The Rev. Dr. Mark Reynolds
The Rev. Stephen Ro
The Rev. Randy Lovelace
The Rev. Vito Aiuto
The Rev. Chris Hildebrand
The Rev. Jamison Galt
The Rev. John Sweet
The Rev. Craig Chapman
Adopted by the Session of Trinity Presbyterian Church, Rye, NY
Exhibit C
METROPOLITAN NEW YORK PRESBYTERY
60th STATED MEETING, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2008
Location: Redeemer Presbyterian Church
1359 Broadway, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10018 Directions on page 2
9:00 – 10:15 Call to Order & Worship
Preaching
10:30 – 10:45 Approve Docket
Visitors Welcomed
Clerk’s Report
10:45 - Facilitating Team Report
Campus Ministry Team Report
Shepherding Team Report
Leadership Development Team
12:00 - Lunch
Exhibit D
METROPOLITAN NEW YORK PRESBYTERY
61st STATED MEETING, JANUARY 10TH, 2009
Location: Comunidade Crista Presbiteriana
45 McWhorter Street
Newark, NJ 07105 Directions on page 2
9:00 – 10:15 Call to Order & Worship
Preaching
10:30 – 10:45 Approve Docket
Visitors Welcomed
Clerk’s Report
10:45 - Facilitating Team Report
Campus Ministry Team Report
Shepherding Team Report
Leadership Development Team
12:00 - Lunch
Facilitating Team Recommendations
1. Nominees for the GA agencies and committees
2. Deaconate Proposal from November 7th Presbytery Meeting
3. D&O Insurance
Leadership Development Team Recommendations
1. That Presbytery receive Mr. Brian Steadman as a candidate by transfer from
the Gulf Coast Presbytery, and accept him as an intern of Presbytery.
2. That Presbytery approve the completed internship of candidate Daniel Jang.
3. That Presbytery accept candidate David Plant as an intern of Presbytery.
Exhibit E
A Proposal to the Metropolitan New York Presbytery Regarding Women in Diaconal Ministry
March 13, 2009
I. Declaration of Current Practices
We recognize that there exists, within the Metropolitan New York Presbytery and throughout the
Presbyterian Church in America nationally, a wide variety of practices regarding women in
diaconal ministry.
1. In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons and they alone conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.
2.
In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons, yet Sessions
appoint others—men and/or women—to assist the deacons in their work.
3.
In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons and women are
appointed by the Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male
deacons.
4. In some churches, only
men are ordained as deacons, yet the congregation elects women to serve
as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
5. In some churches, 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.
6.
In some churches, both men and women serve as equal partners in
diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon,” though no one is
ordained to this ministry.
These various diaconal structures exist due both to historical reasons and various interpretations
of the BCO.
II. Historical Background
These various practices arise from a historical background. Our denomination was greatly
expanded
in 1982 by “joining and receiving” with the Reformed Presbyterian
Church Evangelical Synod (RPCES). With respect to this issue the RPCES
had commissioned a study committee on women in ministry in 1976
(http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/390.html) which
made the following concluding recommendation;
We
affirm in the absence of any compelling biblical evidence to support
the ordination of women to the special office of deacon, that this
office be limited to qualified men. At the same time acknowledging that
the Scriptures contain many examples of women who serve, we affirm the
right of a local church to have a separate body of unordained women who
may be called deaconesses.
Under the terms of the joining and receiving (http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-411.pdf%29"
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-411.pdf%29"), the PCA acknowledged the RPCES's view of
women in the diaconate. These differences in practice with regard to the diaconate were not
flagged as a significant roadblock to joining and receiving since they did not strike at the vitals
of our common faith. According to the Joint Statement on Joining and Receiving to the Ninth
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-
411.pdf" http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-411.pdf):
With
joy and thankfulness to the Lord of the Church we recognize that our
churches have a common and sincere commitment to the inerrant Word of
God and to the Westminster Standards as faithfully expressing the
system of truth taught in Holy Scripture. Further, we recognize that
our churches are Presbyterian in their order and practice. But above
all, we find clear evidence that each of our churches desires to be
faithful to our primary standard, the Bible, and to our secondary
standards as true to the Bible. We acknowledge our weaknesses and
failures, but we are one in our commitment to obey the Lord Jesus
Christ in His rule over us through His Word and Spirit.
We
recognize, however, that due in part to differences of historical
development, there are differences among us as to how our common
Presbyterian convictions are applied in practice. We have given careful
attention to those that have been referred to us, and have provided a
comparison of similarities and differences that we have discussed. No
doubt there are variations of practice that have little or no
theological significance, but would require mutual forbearance and
understanding during a period of adjustment in the augmented church. It
is also true that there are differences of emphasis among our churches
that are to be found within each of them, as well as between them; some
of these have their roots deep in the history of Presbyterianism. It is
apparent to us that, just as within our churches there has been a deep
and continuing desire to be constantly reforming ourselves in
conformity to the Word of God, so too in the augmented Presbyterian
Church in America this commitment would be not only continued, but
heightened by the reception of the other churches. These churches whose
ministry would be joined with that of the Presbyterian Church in
America would be called upon to follow the faith and order of the
church that they enter; the Presbyterian Church in America, on the
other hand, would further strengthen its life and witness by welcoming
the insights and experience represented by the entering churches and seeking to profit from differences in striving for a more perfect Biblical faith and practice.
In
receiving these denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America
recognizes the history and the respective denominations as part of her
total history and receives their historical documents as valuable and
significant material which will be used in the perfecting of the
Church. We, therefore, as committees of our churches, recognize that
unity
of faith and practice which our churches have through the grace of God.
This unity must draw us together as the body of Christ and enable us to
remove the barriers that would prevent us from full communion of life
and love in an undivided church. We also recognize our need for the
grace of the Spirit and the love of Christ as we seek to reconcile
differences and remove practical barriers. We, therefore, do severally
and jointly:
1.
Commend to our respective churches that we become one in organization
in accordance with the invitation of the Presbyterian Church in
America;
2. Urge
upon our respective churches the necessity of resolving in the thus-
augmented church the differences among us, and others that may arise,
in kindness and forthrightness begotten of love, with the determination
that by the grace of the Spirit of God through the teaching of His Word
we shall "all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the
Son of God unto ... the measure of the stature of the fullness of
Christ.” ‘(Eph. 4:13)
For further input on this see attached paper “Women as Deacons or Deaconesses in the PCA”
from Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the denomination (attached at the end of this document).
III. Various Interpretations of the BCO
1. In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons and they alone conduct the diaconal
ministries of the congregation. This practice rests upon BCO 9-3
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.
2. In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons, yet Sessions appoint others—men
and/or women—to assist the deacons in their work. This practice rests upon 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.
3. In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons and women are appointed by the
Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons. This practice also rests upon BCO 9-7.
4. In some churches, only men are ordained as deacons, yet the congregation elects women to
serve
as deaconesses who assist the male deacons. This practice rests upon
BCO 9-7 where the process of nomination and election as the means by
which the session “appoints” “godly men and women of the congregation
to assist the deacons.”
In some churches, 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. This practice rests upon an
interpretation of BCO 9-7 which understands it as a sessional right to
appoint men and women for diaconal ministry by means of a
congregational election.
6.
In some churches, both men and women serve as equal partners in
diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon,” though no one is
ordained to this ministry. This practice rests upon an understanding of
the diaconate as one of “sympathy and service” (BCO 9- 1), as
“spiritual in nature” (BCO 9-3), and not a court of the church (BCO
10-2). For these reasons and because the diaconate serves under the
direct authority of the session (BCO 9-2) the session has the final
authority in the organization of the work of the diaconate.
9-2.
It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to
the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is
their duty also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of
the church, to devise effective methods of collecting the gifts of the
people, and to distribute these gifts among the objects to which they
are contributed. They shall have the care of the property of the
congregation, both real and personal, and shall keep in proper repair
the church edifice and other buildings belonging to the congregation.
In matters of special importance affecting the property of the church,
they cannot take final action without the approval of the Session and
consent of the congregation.
In
the discharge of their duties the deacons are under the supervision and
authority of the Session. In a church in which it is impossible for any
reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon
the ruling elders.
This
Practice is the most controversial for those who hold to what they call
“the regulative principle of church government,” which they interpret
to mean, that churches may only do what is explicitly stated in the BCO
or that, unless a practice is specifically authorized in the BCO, it is
unconstitutional. However:
1.
The regulative principle of worship is more complex in the Westminster
Standards and prior Reformed doctrinal standards than it became after
the Great Ejection and Act of Conformity of 1662. (see “The
Presbyterian Church in America Non- hierarchal Presbyterianism” and
“Similarities in Worship and Polity Issues” by Roy Taylor attached at
the end of this document).
2.
The Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order are both parts
of the constitution, but the doctrinal standards are more highly
esteemed than polity. (See comments by Roy Taylor from October, 2008
report to the AC, regarding the relationship of theology and polity).
3.
The BCO does not use the term “regulative principle of polity.” To
take the position that there must be an explicit commandment in
Scripture to justify each and every practice
in worship or in polity is to over simplify the
biblical-theological-historical development of the regulative principle
of worship. And further, take the position that there must be an
explicit statement in the Book of Church Order to justify or allow each
and every practice in church government is not only simplistic; it is
over- reaching, particularly in a non-hierarchal polity of the PCA.
4. In the PCA
non-hierarchal, grass-roots polity “unconstitutional” does not mean
“not mentioned in the constitution” but “contrary to the constitution.”
5. The authority of
the diaconate is a delegated authority, delegated to them by the
session. The session is the final authority.
6. The statement that
the powers of church courts is limited by the provisions of the
constitution (BCO 11-2; 11-4) is to prevent the church courts from
abusing their authority over lower courts and over the consciences of
individual believers.
7. The five-year study
and decision-making process on this issue of the RPCES is integrated
into the life and history of the PCA and is instructive on this issue.
IV. Conclusion
The following factors foster an environment where various practices flourish regarding the
diaconate:
a. Various local session's interpretations of the BCO;
b. Our historical background as a broad Reformed denomination;
c. Differing, yet solid interpretations of Biblical evidence for diaconal ministry;
d. A “good faith” subscription commitment by our denomination;
e. Silence by the Westminster Standards on issues regarding ecclesiology in general and the diaconate especially in this case;
f. The fact that the
PCA maintains close fraternal relationships via NAPARC with other
Reformed denominations that have women serving on the diaconate;
Our committee seeks
the acknowledgement by the Metropolitan New York Presbytery that the
practices outlined above regarding various ways local sessions oversee
diaconates of their churches fall within the boundaries of acceptable
disagreement between Sessions attempting to faithfully embody a
biblical and historically Presbyterian and Reformed approach to
diaconal ministry.
The Stated Clerk of the PCA, Roy Taylor, spoke to this issue in a report to the Administrative
Committee in October of 2008 when he said;
"We
have recently had several overtures to the 36th General Assembly and
judicial cases arise to the SJC regarding women being involved in mercy
ministry or leading women's ministry. Addressing the issue of
deaconesses and the role of women in the Church is one of the instances
in which we have to do theological reflection within a Confessional
Church. Moreover, it is also an
Page 6 of 22
instance in which
using polity or the judicial process to resolve a theological issue is
quite alluring. It is not simply a theological-historical-logical
issue; it also has strong emotional elements. Some who want the issue
considered feel that a refusal to have a discussion on the matter which
has some exegetical and certain historical arguments is dismissive of
women and dismissive of presbyters who have what they believe to be
sound arguments (as evidenced by earlier discussions in the RPCES and
OPC). Some who want to prohibit sessions from commissioning (not
ordaining) women to assist in mercy ministry and to forbid the use of
the term "deaconess" for such such women feel that allowing churches to
have commissioned deaconesses is the first step on a slippery slope
that will inevitably lead to the ordination of women ruling elders and
ministers. The General Assembly has taken the position that we do not
ordain women (BCO 7- 2; 24-1). But the Assembly has left the matter of
exactly what women may or may not do within the ministry of a local church to the discretion of the respective sessions. This is in
keeping with PCA polity. The default setting for PCA polity is that
when the BCO is silent, the broadest discretion is left to the lower
courts to make decisions within the bounds of biblical principles and
constitutional parameters. So the ways in which we handle the women's
issue impinges not only on how we do theological reflection within a
confessional Church, it also touches on our unique polity. (see Mr.
Taylor's complete comments in the attached document)
V. Recommendations:
Our committee moves that the Metropolitan New York Presbytery adopt the following resolution:
Therefore, be it resolved that the Metropolitan New York Presbytery;
A)
Recognizes that the diversity of practices listed above do exist and
have for some time among churches of good standing in our Presbytery.
B)
Acknowledge that while certain tensions exist between this diversity of
practice and the Book of Church Order, these practices are within the
historic breadth allowed by this Presbytery.
C)
Acknowledge that ministers or sessions may hold and practice the
following views referred to in the committee’s report above while being
“in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity” (3rd
ordination vow, BCO 21-5 & 24-6).
1. Only men are ordained as deacons and they conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.
2. Only men are
ordained as deacons, yet Sessions select and appoint others—men and/or
women—to assist the deacons in their work.
3. Only men are
ordained as deacons and women are selected and appointed by the Session
to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
VI. Attached Documents:
1. Dr. Roy Taylor’s paper “Women as Deacons or Deaconesses in the PCA”
2. Dr. Roy Taylor’s paper “The Presbyterian Church in America Non-hierarchal Presbyterianism”
3. Dr. Roy Taylor’s paper “Similarities in Worship and Polity Issues”
4. Dr. Roy Taylor’s comments to the AC report of October 2008
Women as Deacons or Deaconesses in the PCA
Women
are not ordained as deacons in the PCA but some PCA churches select
(BCO 9- 7) and commission women to serve in mercy ministry (WCF I-6).
Some PCA churches hold
to Calvin’s view (see Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV,
Ch. III.9) that there are two types of “deacons” in the NT: 1) ordained
men who hold an official office, collecting and distributing alms and
administering the affairs of the poor (as the original seven in Acts
6), and 2) women (often widows as in I Tim. 5:9-10) who devote
themselves to the care of the poor and are personally involved in such
a ministry.
Some PCA churches that came from the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod
(RPCES) have preserved the tradition of commissioning (not ordaining) deaconesses which was
affirmed by two RPCES General Synods (1977, 1978).
The RPCES considered the issue of deaconesses through three means 1974-1978; first, via a
Study Committee on the Role of Women, second, via Study Committee on The Functions of
Deacons, third via a response to an overture in 1978 to reconsider the issue.
From
the Minutes of the General Synod (GS) of the RPCES there is the
following chronology of events relating to the deaconess issue.
• 1974, 152nd GS –
Appointed a Study Committee on the Role of Women in the Church,
(M152GS, p. 141] to report to the 153rd General Synod.
• 1975, 153rd GS –
o Appointed a study
committee at the 153rd General Synod [M153GS, p. 28] to study The
Functions of Deacons to report back to the 154th General Synod.
o The Study Committee
on the Role of Women made its first report and recommended that women
be ordained and installed as deacons [M153 GS, pp. 250-251]. The
action of the Synod was that the committee be reconstituted and report
to the 154th General Synod with exegetical support for its conclusions.
• 1976, 154th GS –
o The report to the
154th GS on the Functions of Deacon dealt mostly with the role of
deacons and their relationship to trustees but included the proposal
(never enacted) that “Women, as well as men, may be ordained to the
office of deacon” [M154thGS, p. 63-64, emphasis added. Full report pp.
59-65] a brief reference to that proposal was included at the 155th
General Synod (1977) and the 156th General Synod (1978).
o The Study Committee
on the Role of Women made its second report [M154thGS, pp. 65-112].
The committee recommended that women be ordained as deacons [M154thGS,
p. 110]. The Synod did not approve that recommendation. The Synod
continued and enlarged the committee, to have divergent viewpoints, and
directed that a minority report be prepared. The committee’s
recommendation that women serve as members of synod agency boards
failed by a vote of 65-67 [M154thGS, p.112].
• 1977, 155th GS –
o The Synod, in
response to an overture, advised Presbyteries to correct churches that
had ordained women as deacons or have elected women as trustees
[M155GS, pp.120-121]
o The Committee on the
Role of Women made its third report [M155GS, 73-111] with a majority
report and two minority reports. The majority report recommended the
ordination of women as deacons [M155GS, p. 110]. Minority report #1
recommended that women not be deacons, but may be appointed (ordained)
deaconesses in the sense of helpers to the deacons [M155GS, p. 91].
Minority report #2 dealt more extensively with the nature of
ordination.
o Synod adopted the
following affirmation as a final action on the committee report, “We
affirm in the absence of any compelling biblical evidence to support
the ordination of women to the special office of deacon, that this
office be limited to qualified men. At the same time acknowledging that
the Scriptures contain many examples of women who serve, we affirm the
right of a local church to
have a separate body of unordained
women who may be called deaconesses” [M155GS, p. 111, bold face type in
original]. Two negative votes were recorded.
• 1978, 156th GS – The
last action of the RPCES General Synod on the matter was in response to
an overture to reconsider the issue of women deacons and “to affirm the
prerogative of each particular church within the denomination to
determine whether its diaconate shall include women as well as men, and
whether they shall be ordained or unordained, and whether they shall be
called ‘deacons’ or deaconesses’” [M156GS, p. 134]. The synod answered
the overture by adopting the following resolution:
Resolved: that in
the light of the action of the 155th General Synod, we do not recommend
allowing each particular church within the denomination to determine
whether its diaconate shall include men as well as women, nor that they
be allowed to ordain a woman as a deacon. We also remind churches that
they are free to elect Spirit filled women as deaconesses and to set
them apart by prayer (156th General Synod Minutes of the RPCES, 1978,
pp. 133-134).
Part of the Joining and Receiving process when the RPCES joined and was received into the
PCA was that:
The Presbyterian
Church in America, on the other hand would further strengthen its life
and witness by welcoming the insights and experience represented by the
entering churches and seeking profit from differences in striving for a
more perfect Biblical faith and practice.
In receiving these
denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America recognizes the
history of the respective denominations as part of her total history
and receives their historical documents as valuable and significant
material which will be used in the perfecting of the Church (Minutes of
the Ninth General Assembly, PCA, 1981, p. 305).
So the studies
and actions of the RPCES are integrated into the life and history of
the PCA as valuable and significant material to be used in the
perfecting of the Church, and could be given due and serious
consideration by the PCA and its lower courts when deliberating matters
the RPCES had occasion to address.
In PCA churches, where
women are involved in such mercy ministry: 1) the women serve under the
leadership of the ordained male Diaconate (BCO 9-7), and 2) women, who
have this mercy ministry are not ordained, though some PCA churches do
call them “deaconesses.”
The practice of
“commissioning” persons through public prayer and admonition has been
practiced in the PCA for such functions as Vacation Bible School
workers, Sunday School teachers, deaconesses, mission trip
participants, short-term unordained missionaries, and long-term
unordained missionaries (WCF I-6).
Some denominations in
the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ordain
deaconesses (the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and the
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church). Women are not ordained as
deacons in the PCA, however.
The General Assembly of the PCA has not authorized the ordination of women to any ecclesiastical office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretations of The
Book of Church Order, The Westminster Standards, “The Rules of Assembly
Operation,” “The Operating Manual of the Standing Judicial
Commission,” and/or Robert’s Rules of Order by the Stated Clerk of the
General Assembly of the PCA or staff members of the Office of the
Stated Clerk are for information only and are not authoritative rulings
that may only be made by the courts of the Church. The Office of the
Stated Clerk does not represent parties in ecclesiastical judicial
cases. Parties to potential cases or cases in process are responsible
for their own constitutional and procedural knowledge and
understanding. The Office of the Stated Clerk does not give legal
advice. When legal advice is needed, professional legal counsel should
be secured from one familiar with applicable laws and regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Presbyterian Church in America
Non-hierarchal Presbyterianism
L. Roy Taylor
Stated Clerk of the
General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in America
The
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) was founded in 1973 as a
denomination with the vision to be “Faithful to the Scriptures, True to
the Reformed Faith, and Obedient the Great Commission.” The PCA was
begun by Ruling Elders and Ministers who had sought over two
generations to reverse trends in our former denominational connection
which we believed to be (1) a departure from the evangelical Reformed
Faith and (2) an emergence of an increasingly coercive denominational
church polity. [Footnote] 1 So the PCA emerged because of both theological and
church governance issues.
Church
polity is based not only on explicit scriptural teachings, but also on
biblical principles, biblical precedents, common sense, Christian
prudence, and historical-circumstantial factors (Westminster Confession
of Faith I-6). [Footnote] 2 All of these have affected the PCA’s polity, which
has resulted in a grass-roots Presbyterianism.
There
is a significant difference between the PCA’s Presbyterian polity and
the polity of hierarchal Churches. In an hierarchal Church such as the
Roman Catholic Church there is “canon law” which deals in great detail
about what is to be done in numerous situations. In a Church with
Episcopal polity (ruled by bishops), bishops exercise ecclesiastical
authority over churches and often hold title to local church property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 1 For personal accounts of some “founding fathers” regarding the beginnings of the PCA, detailing examples of these two roots causes for establishing the PCA, see How the Gold Has Become Dim, Morton H. Smith. Greenville, SC: Greenville Theological Seminary Press, 1973; I Am Reminded, Kennedy Smartt, privately published, 1998; To God All Praise and Glory, Paul G. Settle. Atlanta: PCA Administrative Committee, 1998; and Hitherto: A Biographical Testimony, Harold Borchert, n.d., privately published. All are available from the PCA Christian
Education and Publications Bookstore, www.cepbookstore.com.
[Footnote] 2 “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, [emphasis added] common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” The Westminster Confession of Faith is the doctrinal Standard of the PCA. It was originally written by the Westminster Assembly in London 1643-1648, was adopted by the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) shortly thereafter. It was adopted by colonial Presbyterians in America in 1729 (with a few revisions) and adopted by the PCA in 1973.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the features of the Protestant Reformation was the restoration of Presbyterian church
governance in a number of Continental Reformed Churches and in the Church of Scotland. The
Church of Scotland became the Mother Church of Presbyterian Churches around the world. It is
the understanding of a number of historical theologians that the Church of the First and Second
Centuries had a Presbyterian governance, but the Church developed an Episcopal governance by
the mid-Second Century due to several circumstantial factors. [Footnote] 3 But within Presbyterianism there have been, and still are, two perspectives; an hierarchal, top-down view and a non-hierarchal, bottom-up view. These two different perspectives were evident at the Westminster Assembly. [Footnote] 4 When colonial Presbyterians organized as a General Assembly in 1789 they adapted Presbyterian church governance to the free church situation in America, in contrast to the state church system in the Britain and Europe. Additionally, the first American General Assembly adopted some Preliminary Principles authored by John Witherspoon. [Footnote] 5 Those preliminary principles espoused a non-hierarchal, bottom-up, from-the-ground-up, democratic Presbyterianism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 3 For a biblical-exegetical and historical argument that the Church of the First and Second Centuries had a Presbyterian polity carried over from the Old Testament and synagogue system, see J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953, reprint of 1913 edition), 181-269. Dr. Lightfoot was the Anglican Bishop of Durham in the 19th century as well as a New Testament and Patristic scholar at Cambridge University. For an explanation of the factors producing the episcopacy from the mid-Second Century forward, see L. Roy Taylor, “Presbyterianism” in Who Runs the Church: Four Views on Church Government (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2004).
[Footnote] 4 For an account of the origins and development of these two types of Presbyterianism in The British Isles and America, see Paul R. Gilchrist, Distinctives of Biblical Presbyterianism (Atlanta: World Reformed Fellowship, 2002). Gilchrist demonstrates that an hierarchal, top-down, aristocratic Presbyterianism was advocated by some commissioners to the Westminster Assembly (ex. Samuel Rutherford and Robert Baillie) in response to the advocacy of Congregationalism by a few commissioners who later became Congregationalists. But a non-hierarchal, bottom-up, democratic types of Presbyterianism was the practice of Continental Reformed Churches and advocated by some Westminster commissioners such as George Gillespie and Alexander Henderson. Moreover, the Church of Scotland established a General Assembly first, then Presbyteries, then congregations. In colonial America the process was the opposite, congregations first, then Presbyteries, then synods, and finally a General Assembly. Presbyterianism in America was more of a grass-roots movement.
[Footnote] 5 The Rev. John Witherspoon was the first President of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University), the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. The by-word in England concerning the American Revolution, “The Americans have run off with a Presbyterian parson,” referred to Witherspoon’s influence. Several of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were his students at Princeton (ex. James Madison) who were involved in the development of the Constitution of the United States and the writing of the Federalist Papers urging the adoption of the Constitution. There are several parallels between the Presbyterian governance adopted by the First American Presbyterian General Assembly and the U.S. Constitution. These “Preliminary Principles” are:
1. God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from any doctrines or commandments of men (a) which are in any respect contrary to the Word of God, or (b) which, in regard to matters of faith and worship, are not governed by the Word of God. Therefore, the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable. No religious constitution should be supported by the civil power further than may be necessary for protection and security equal and common to all others.
2. In perfect consistency with the above principle, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ has appointed. In the exercise of this right it may, notwithstanding, err in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet even in this case, it does not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only makes an improper use of its own.
3. Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty. It is incumbent upon these officers and upon the whole Church in whose name they
act, to censure or cast out the erroneous and scandalous, observing in
all cases the rules contained in the Word of God.
4.
Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote
holiness according to our Saviour's rule, "By their fruits ye shall
know them" (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious or more
absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same
level.On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith
and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence
either to discover truth or to embrace it.
5.While,
under the conviction of the above principle, it is necessary to make
effective provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in
the faith, there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good
character and principles may differ. In all these it is the duty both
of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance
toward each other.
6.Though the character, qualifications and authority of church officers are laid down in the Holy Scriptures,
as well as the proper method of officer investiture, the power to elect
persons to the exercise of authority in any particular society resides
in that society.
7.All
church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by
representation, is only ministerial and declarative since the Holy
Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church
judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church courts may
err through human frailty, yet it rests upon them to uphold the laws of
Scripture though this obligation be lodged with fallible men.
8.
Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in
its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no
force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an
impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of
the Church.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As we see it, over the years the larger Presbyterian Church (now called the Presbyterian Church, USA) underwent a metamorphosis from a democratic type of Presbyterianism into an hierarchal Presbyterianism. The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church, USA is now written as “church law” and is stated in much greater detail than the BCO of the PCA because the PCUSA is hierarchal Presbyterianism with the emphasis on the higher courts of the Church directing the lower courts. The PCUSA BCO deals much more extensively with detailed procedures covering a wide variety of situations. Therefore, the PC(USA) BCO is much longer than the PCA BCO. Moreover, in recent civil court cases regarding disputes over local church property the PCUSA argues that the PCUSA is an hierarchal church with the Presbytery being tantamount to a bishop.
By contrast, the PCA is a non-hierarchal, grass-roots type of Presbyterianism. One of the major reasons for the formation of the PCA was to revert to a democratic Presbyterianism. The PCA BCO is written more as a set of principles, emphasizing the use of discretion and wisdom by the lower courts. The “Preface” of the BCO lists “The Preliminary Principles” that are not merely an introductory statement to the constitution or historical information, but are an integral part of the constitution, or the lenses through which the rest of the BCO is to be viewed. It is not envisioned that the PCA BCO would have detailed instructions on virtually every situation.
When faced with situations and circumstances that are not dealt with in detail in the PCA BCO, sessions and presbyteries should exercise their own wisdom and discretion within the parameters of biblical principles and the constitution of the PCA, particularly the “Preliminary Principles,” (the constitution is the BCO and the Westminster Standards). [Footnote] 6 The voluntary nature of the PCA
[Footnote] 6 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church (BCO, Preface, § III).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
is explicitly stated in BCO 25-9; 25-10 regarding church property [Footnote] 7 and in BCO 25-11 regarding the process of a local church’s withdrawing from the denomination. [Footnote] 8 Both of these statements are consistent with the “Preliminary Principles.” In recent court cases involving employment law, the PCA successfully argued that as a non-hierarchal denomination, local church pastors and local church staff members are not employees of a Presbytery or the General Assembly. [Footnote] 9 The PCA argued that the relationship of a PCA minister to a Presbytery is analogous to that of a lawyer with a bar association. The bar association examines the lawyer regarding expertise and character, but a law firm, not the bar, is the attorney’s employer.
So, the PCUSA represents itself as a hierarchal denomination; the PCA represents itself as a non-hierarchal denomination.
The PCA is non-hierarchal in that: (1) local churches, Presbyteries, and the General Assembly are distinct and separate civil entities and (2) the authority of the Church is moral and spiritual, ministerial and declarative. Two entire chapters of the BCO (Chapters 3 and 11) are devoted to that explanation. Yet the PCA is spiritually united (not civilly connected) and Presbyterian churches are inter-dependent, not independent. [Footnote] 10 This connectionalism is expressed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 7 25-9. All particular churches shall be entitled to hold, own and enjoy their own local properties, without any right of reversion whatsoever to any Presbytery, General Assembly or any other courts hereafter created, trustees or other officers of such courts.
25-10. The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body. All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt.
[Footnote] 8 25-11. While a congregation consists of all the communing members of a particular church, and in matters ecclesiastical the actions of such local congregation or church shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Book of Church Order, nevertheless, in matters pertaining to the subject matters referred to in this BCO 25, including specifically the right to affiliate with or become a member of this body or a Presbytery hereof and the right to withdraw from or to sever any affiliation of connection with this body or any Presbytery hereof, action may be taken by such local congregation or local church in accordance with the civil laws applicable to such local congregation or local church; and as long as such action is taken in compliance with such applicable civil laws, then such shall be the action of the local congregation or local church.
It is expressly recognized that each local congregation or local church shall be competent to function and to take actions covering the matters set forth herein as long as such action is in compliance with the civil laws with which said local congregation or local church must comply, and this right shall never be taken from said local congregation or local church without the express consent of and affirmative action of such local church or congregation.
Particular churches need remain in association with any court of this body only so long as they themselves so desire. The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever. [Emphasis added]. A particular church may withdraw from any court of this body at any time for reasons which seem to it sufficient.
[Footnote] 9 See Susanne MacDonald vs. Grace Church, Seattle, Northwest Presbytery and the PCA, a Corporation, US District Court For the Western District of Washington at Seattle, and Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court ruled that the Presbytery and General Assembly are not the employers of local PCA church pastors of local PCA church staff. The ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff filed six actions in various venues on the matter and did not prevail in any of them.
[Footnote] 10 Note that I define a connectional Church as follows: “By ‘connectional’ we mean that local churches see themselves as part of the larger Church, that local churches are not independent but are accountable to the larger Church, and that local churches do not minister alone but in cooperation with the larger Church.” (Taylor, Who Runs the Church, p. 75). Such a definition does not require or even imply that churches must be civilly connected in order to be connectional.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
in our confessional theology, our system of government and discipline, and our cooperative
ministry. [Footnote] 11 PCA founding fathers Cannada and Williamson so state in their book:
The thing that is special about the PCA is that there is a clear and vital spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries, and the General Assembly. Accordingly it is entirely proper to designate the polity of the PCA as being “connectional” as long as it is made clear that the connection is a spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries and the General Assembly and there is no connection of any kind between the civil entities formed by them. The members of the Congregations, the Presbyteries and the General Assembly make up the membership of the respective civil entities formed by them and are, therefore, in complete control of those civil entities. Accordingly, since there is a vital spiritual connection between the Congregations, the Presbyteries, and the General Assembly in the PCA and each has complete control of the civil entity formed by it, the PCA does not consist of a group of independent local churches that are free to teach and promote whatever they see fit. [Footnote] 12
When a person joins a congregation he voluntarily takes a vow to submit himself to the government and discipline of the church (BCO 57-5.5). When a ruling elder or deacon is ordained he vows to submit himself unto his brethren in the Lord (BCO 24-5.5) and affirms that he believes that the form of government and discipline of the PCA conform to general principles of biblical polity (BCO 24-5.3). Ministers take similar vows upon ordination (BCO 21-5.3, 4).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 11 Doctrinal Fidelity: No system of church polity can absolutely guarantee theological integrity among its ministers and office-bearers. Apostasy and heresy have cropped up in branches of the Church with all types of church government. Nevertheless, Presbyterian church polity has built-in safeguards that will work, if the system is faithfully followed. First, a Reformed-Presbyterian Church has a binding confessional doctrinal standard that is not just an advisory consensus statement. Second, the doctrinal standards of a Reformed-Presbyterian Church are derived from scripture, relying upon the Holy Spirit, benefiting from the wisdom of the theological consensus of the Church throughout the ages. Finally, ministers and office-bearers are required to adhere to the biblical system of doctrine for ordination and continued ministry.
Mutual Accountability: In a Church with a Presbyterian-representative-connectional system, there is mutual accountability not only in doctrinal integrity, but also for one’s manner of life. Historically, the Reformed- Presbyterian Churches have regarded the “marks of the Church” to be (1) the faithful preaching of the Word, (2) the proper administration of the sacraments, and (3) the practice of discipline. In a Presbyterian system the members of the local church are accountable to the elders of that church, ministers and churches are accountable to the presbytery, and presbyteries are accountable to the general assembly. There are carefully detailed procedures to be followed, once a judicial process of discipline has been instituted. Moreover, there is the possibility of appeal to the larger Church, the Presbytery, or even the General Assembly.
Cooperative Ministry: To be a Presbyterian Church involves not only a mutual commitment to a confessional doctrinal standard and mutual accountability, but also a commitment to cooperative ministry. That is based on an ecclesiology which posits that the Church is more than the local church, that local churches ministering together as a regional Church or national Church can accomplish more in ministry than local churches ministering separately. Because the Church is a covenant community of the people of God, local churches are not independent, but interdependent, not only in doctrinal confessions and accountability, and in cooperative ministry. This is not to say that churches with other forms of church government cannot have effective cooperative ministries, but that for Presbyterians cooperative ministry is a matter of theological principle, not merely practical strategy. (Taylor. Op. cit. pp. 96-97).
[Footnote] 12 Robert C. Cannada and W. Jack Williamson. The Historic Polity of the PCA. Pp. 34-35. (Italics in original).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When a local church is constituted as a church the congregation as a whole promises to operate on the principles of the faith and order [doctrine and church governance] of the PCA (BCO 5- 8.3). When an existing congregation transfers into a PCA presbytery, the elders of the church, as representatives of the congregation, vow to uphold the doctrine and polity of the PCA (BCO 13- 8).
When members, ruling elders, deacons and ministers take such vows they voluntarily place themselves under the spiritual authority of the Church. When ruling elders, deacons and ministers affirm that they believe that the form of government and discipline of the PCA conform to general principles of biblical polity, they voluntarily pledge themselves to exercise their office in accordance with the constitution of the PCA. Those who have taken such vows have a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the decision, judgment or order of a church court of original jurisdiction, or they may carry the matter forward until a higher court decides it (BCO 43 details the complaint process; BCO 42 details the appeals process). [Footnote] 13 By taking the vows of membership or ordination one agrees to abide by the authority of the court of original jurisdiction and higher courts as well because of the spiritual connectionalism of the Church (BCO 11-3, 11-4). Once the higher court has handled the matter finally, there is, because of the vows they have taken and theological beliefs they have espoused, a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the final disposition of the matter as long as they are members of the PCA. A person may think that he cannot in good conscience accept the final disposition of the matter after the complaint or appellate process is complete, in which case he may leave the PCA without coercion.
It should be noted that all members, sessions, Presbyteries and the General Assembly of the PCA are morally obligated to follow the constitution of the PCA. Blind obedience, however, may not be required by any church officer or church court. [Footnote] 14 Church courts that violate the constitution of the PCA may themselves be subject to ecclesiastical trial. [Footnote] 15
Thus, the Presbyterian Church in America is Presbyterian (governed by elders elected by the people whom they represent), yet a democratic type of Presbyterianism; it is connectional, but non-hierarchal, in that the power of the Church is not civil or coercive but moral and spiritual,
ministerial and declarative; it is constitutional not authoritarian, that is, all of her members, officers, and church courts are to operate within the framework of the constitution of the Church and may not resort to arbitrary use of ecclesiastical authority that is contrary to the Church constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote] 13 In PCA parlance an appeal deals only with a person who has undergone an ecclesiastical trial; a complaint deals with all other constitutional irregularities.
[Footnote] 14 Westminster Confession of Faith XX-II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. [Emphasis added].
[Footnote] 15 BCO 40-6. In process against a lower court, the trial shall be conducted according to the rules provided for process against individuals, so far as they may be applicable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretations of The
Book of Church Order, The Westminster Standards, “The Rules of Assembly
Operation,” “The Operating Manual of the Standing Judicial
Commission,” and/or Robert’s Rules of Order by the Stated Clerk of the
General Assembly of the PCA or staff members of the Office of the
Stated Clerk are for information only and are not authoritative rulings
that may only be made by the courts of the Church. The Office of the
Stated Clerk does not represent parties in ecclesiastical judicial
cases. Parties to potential cases or cases in process are responsible
for their own constitutional and procedural knowledge and
understanding. The Office of the Stated Clerk does not give legal
advice. When legal advice is needed, professional legal counsel should
be secured from one familiar with applicable laws and regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Similarities in Worship and Polity Issues
L. Roy Taylor
There are a number of similarities between worship and polity.
Calvin had a more complex and nuanced view of worship than late Puritans (post 1662).
Worship is specifically addressed in three sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-1648) as an expansion of Article XX, The Authority of the Church, in the Thirty- nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1563, 1571).
1.Chapter 1.6 "Concerning Holy Scriptures." The "good and necessary inference doctrine" may be applied to matters of worship and polity. Discretion and reason must be exercised in worship and polity as long as the general principles of the Bible are observed
2.Chapter 21 "Concerning Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day." Only God can regulate worship.
3.Chapter 20.2 "Concerning Christian Freedom and Freedom of Conscience." Blind obedience in matters of worship and polity is forbidden.
THE NATURE OF THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE
Over the centuries numerous practices had crept into Christian Worship in the Western Church.
The 16th-century reformers sought to correct theses errors and re-form the worship practices according to the Word of God. (Hence the title of our Hughes Old’s book Worship That Is Reformed According to the Scriptures being principally a study of the Reformation).
Luther took the position that whatever was not forbidden was allowed. He and Melanchthon
reasoned:
This position would rid the church of error and superstition eliminating such things as prayers to Mary and the saints, transubstantiation, adoration of the host, etc.
This position would cause the least disruption in the Church leaving much in the category of
adiaphora, i.e. things indifferent, ex. Confirmation, extreme unction. Luther had a broader category of adiaphora than Calvin did later.
(This position later became the official position of Lutherans in the Formula of Concord in
1576, Article X.).
The statement that the Reformed position is that whatever is not commanded is prohibited is an
over simplification. Calvin and the Calvinist Reformers did not take such a simplistic position. Theirs was more complicated:
Nothing forbidden by the Word of God would be allowed. This would rid the Church of errors and superstitious practices. Positive commandments obviously must be obeyed. N.T. precedents could be used. For example there is not explicit N.T. commandment to cease worship on the Jewish Sabbath and begin to celebrate corporate worship on the Lord's Day.
A specific proof text for every practice was not required for it to be allowed. Jesus participated in Hannukah (John 10:22) even though that feast (like Purim) was not specifically commanded in the Scriptures. General principles may be used. (See Calvin’s influence in WCF I-6).
There is greater flexibility in matters of worship in the N.T. than in the O.T. See Calvin's Institutes Bk. IV. x. 23. The O.T. prescribed in great detail the form of worship in the Levitical system. The N.T. does not give such detailed instructions.
The conscience of Christians is not to be bound by the imposition of forms of worship, but the institution of forms of worship that are not forbidden by God or do not obscure the Gospel may be allowed with discretion. See Institutes Bk. IV. x. 20.
The questions on which the Scriptures do not specifically speak should be answered in such a way that is consistent with the fundamental teaching of Scriptures.
They recognized the validity of the adiaphora category, but did not make it as broad as the
Lutherans later did. For example, Extreme Unction would not be allowed because it was not a sacrament instituted by Christ and in effect denied the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ. Indeed all of the Five Other Ceremonies called sacraments by the Roman Church were disallowed.
Other less significant matters were considered matters of indifference such as:
(1)Leaven or unleavened bread used in communion.
(2)Use of a common loaf of bread or separate pieces in communion.
(3)Whether red wine or white wine is used in communion.
(4)Whether communicants sat or stood at the communion table.
The development of the Puritan position on the Regulative Principle of Worship.
The Church of England was not reformed to the degree the continental Reformed Churches were.
The English monarchs thwarted repeated attempts at thorough reforms (Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, Charles I). Thoroughgoing reforms were not instituted to the degree Puritans wanted even in the Commonwealth under Cromwell.
With the restoration of the monarchy and the Act of Uniformity of 1662 under Charles II and the Great Ejection of Puritans and Presbyterians from the Established Church, there was a narrowing of perspectives among those ejected from the Established Church.
The English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians were desirous of ridding the Church not only errors and superstitions but also of practices others considered as matters of indifference but that the Puritans considered as contributing to superstition.
The 16th-century Calvinists wrote and used Reformed service books. The Puritans objected to matters of worship being required. For example the Church of England required that the congregation kneel at certain times during prayer. No exceptions were allowed for the elderly or infirm. The Puritan solution was to write a Directory of Worship rather than another Book of Common Prayer. Directed worship rather than prescribed worship then became the norm. (Though is interesting to note that the Directory of Worship could be used as a service book with little effort. This may be an indication of the practice of the Westminster Assembly to write things in such a way as to accommodate various positions within Reformed parameters).
Worship is specifically addressed in three sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Chapter 21 "Concerning Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day." Only God regulate worship.
Chapter 20.2 "Concerning Christian Freedom and Freedom of Conscience." Blind obedience in matters of worship is forbidden.
Chapter 1.6 "Concerning Holy Scriptures." The "good and necessary inference doctrine" may be applied to matters of worship. Discretion and reason must be exercised in worship.
......Thus the confessional teaching on worship needs to be understood in light of all three passages in the WCF, not just 21. Chapter 21 taken by itself may be appealed to in order to uphold a stricter view requiring a N.T. proof text for every practice. Chapter 1.6 and 20.2 are closer to the 16th-century Reformed position.
Even in the O.T. there were two strains of worship; 1). Explicit and specific divine warrants for worship (Exod. 25:40) and 2). Holy convocations and assemblies for which no specific instructions were given (Exod. 12:16; Lev. 23:2ff, 7f, 21, 24, 25, 27, 35ff; Num. 28:18, 25f; 29:1, 7, 12).
Worship
Definition: Worship is the adoration of God by the people of God according to the word of God.
Characteristics of biblical worship:
1. God-centered
2. Biblical (prohibitions, commands, principles, precedents)
3. Historically informed by the entire history of the Church.
4. Participatory – congregants are not simply observers.
5. Culturally expressed – There may be cultural variations within biblical
parameters
Polity
Definition: Church polity is the government of Christ’s Church according to the principles set forth in Scripture.
Factors in polity:
1. Christ is the Head and King of the Church (contra papacy and secular monarchs)
2. Biblical data – (prohibitions, commands, principles, precedents).
3. History & experience – recent or remote, positive or negative (tend to duplicate the positive and react against the negative)
4. Participation of laity on an autocratic-democratic continuum.
5. Culture – national, regional, ethnic, local. (Episcopal polity is similar in some respects to the Roman government. Contemporary polity is modeled to a degree after an MBA business model).
6. Personality of present leaders or movement founders.
7. Size of local congregation and network. Small = simple. Large = more complex.
8. Mission –simple or complex. Polity tends to reflect breadth of the mission. Para-church organizations tend to have a more narrow mission than churches.
9. Legal considerations – Some churches exist in restrictive situations (ex. China, Saudi Arabia). In America legal liabilities need to be considered.
To take the position that there must be an explicit commandment in Scripture to justify each and every practice in worship or in polity is to over simplify the biblical-theological-historical development of the regulative principle of worship. And further, take the position that there must be an explicit statement in the Book of Church Order to justify or allow each and every practice in church government is not only simplistic; it is over-reaching, particularly in a non- hierarchal polity of the PCA.
Exhibit F
METROPOLITAN NEW YORK
PRESBYTERY
61st STATED MEETING, MARCH 13TH, 2009
Location: Redeemer Presbyterian Church
1359 Broadway, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10018 Directions on page 3
9:00 – 10:15 Call to Order & Worship
Preaching
10:30 – 10:45 Approve Docket
Visitors Welcomed
Clerk’s Report
10:45 - Facilitating Team Report
Campus Ministry Team Report
Shepherding Team Report
Missions Team Report
Leadership Development Team
12:00 - Lunch
Review Session minutes
Facilitating Team Recommendations
1. Appoint Committee of Commissioners for the GA
2. Diaconate Proposal from November 7th Presbytery Meeting
3. Treasurer’s Report
4. New Perspective Report
[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Since this docket is not essential to an
understanding and consideration of the complaint, I've not reproduced it in its entirety, here, although it is reproduced in its
entirety in the text of the formal complaint as filed.]
