Woman deacons in Northern California Presbytery: account of recent actions...

(Tim) Here's an account of recent actions within Northern California Presbytery leading up to their March stated meeting action approving the practice within her bounds of withholding ordination from male deacons and affirming male and female deacons serving together without sexual distinction. This account was written by Ruling Elder Brian Eschen, one of the men who, since, has filed a complaint against his presbtyery for their action.

The text is Elder Eschen's, and I have not confirmed it for accuracy. If readers find errors, please correct them in the comments section or send me an e-mail at tbbayly at gmail dot com and I'll work to change the text as seems best. It must be emphasized that these are not approved minutes, but rather one man's narrative of the events leading up to the complaint. As such, they have all the strengths and weaknesses of narrative as opposed to approved minutes...

* * *

Account of Actions of Northern California Presbytery (PCA) Related to Woman Deacons

The 36th Presbyterian General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (2008) determined the following:

That the following responses to the 35th GA exceptions be found unsatisfactory. Responses should be submitted to the 37th GA:

Exception: March 3-4, 2006: Diaconate of new church includes 2 Deaconesses commissioned contrary to BCO 9-3.

Response: (Northern California) Presbytery respectfully disagrees with the exception (RAO 16-10.b.2). Presbytery approved the organizing pastor’s exception with respect to the diaconate (provided below) upon transfer into Presbytery. The action, thus recorded, is not a matter of substance, but consistent with the approved exception, viz., commissioning of the diaconate.

ORDINATION AND OBEDIENCE TO DEACONS (specifically BCO 24-5, 24-6) Whereas the BCO correctly identifies Deacons as an office in the church, I believe it misinterprets Scripture regarding their ordination. The question to the congregation in 24-5 asks them to yield obedience to Deacons. In 24-6 (and various other places) the Deacons are referred to as ordained in the same manner as Elders. Until the BCO is amended, I intend to not ordain deacons, but elect and install them. I also intend to elect and install unordained deaconnnesses. This is allowable under BCO 9-7.

MOTION: Presbytery approves the proposed response to GA.

MOVED/SECONDED/PASSED Rationale: Presbytery’s response does not adequately address the specific issue identified by the 35th GA. The newly installed Session of the particularized church “commissioned” unordained men and women for a body which the Presbytery minutes called the “diaconate” (BCO 9, 19-15, 24-10). However, BCO 9 is clear that only ordained and elected men can be members of a “diaconate.” The appeal to BCO 9-7 is flawed because 9-7 addresses people appointed by the Session, not members of a diaconate

In light of this finding by the General Assembly, the NorCal Presbytery in its Fall 2008 (October 3) Stated Meeting at Valley Springs Presbyterian Church in Roseville, CA, passed the following motion:

MOTION:  That a special committee made up of the Moderator (convener), the Stated
Clerk, TE Sam Wheatley, RE John Cavin (Canyon Creek, San Ramon), RE Rick Hall
(Redeemer PC, Santa Rosa) and RE Ed Donohue (Valley Springs PC, Roseville) be
erected to prepare a response for Presbytery’s consideration at the Spring 2009 meeting of the Presbytery to docket items:

Furthermore, Presbytery shall meet on January 24, 2009 to give an opportunity for this
committee to present its preliminary work to Presbytery for discussion.  At this meeting,
no action is to be taken and this is the only item of business for the meeting.

MOVED/SECONDED/PASSED

This "special committee" then set to work to make a recommendation to the Presbytery at the next stated meeting laying out what would be acceptable practices regarding the diaconal ministry. This committee was scheduled to give a progress report at a called meeting on January 24, 2009 prior to the Spring 2009 Stated Meeting.

In the meantime, the Moderator of our Presbytery ...was found to be in scandalous public sin and was deposed from office and indefinitely suspended from the Sacraments in a "case without process."  (taken from the approved minutes of the called meeting December 6, 2008).

TE Sam Wheatley therefore took over as chair of the "special committee." At the called January 24, 2009 meeting, Pastor Wheatley submitted a written report totaling approximately 4 and 1/2 pages (the basic substance of the attached final report) which included the proposed recommendation submitted in the final report. The members of Presbytery discussed the matter at length, arguments being made for and against the report's recommendation. This was merely an informational meeting (no action being taken) to give presbyters an opportunity to understand what would be presented at the Spring 2009 Stated Meeting. Although the final report was much longer than the initial report, there was no alteration in the substance of the arguments nor in the recommendations.

At the Spring 2009 Stated Meeting, held in Carmel, CA, TE Sam Wheatley presented the final report (see attached document). The following resolution was presented (this is not the final version but was amended . . . the final version follows):

Therefore, be it resolved that the Northern California Presbytery:

1) Recognizes that the diversity of practices listed above do exist and have for some time among churches of good standing in our Presbytery.

2) 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, if not, all of this denomination’s history.

3) Acknowledge that ministers or session may hold and practice various views reflected above while being “in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity” (3rd ordination vow, BCO 21-5 and 24-6).

A note must be made here.  The "various views reflected above" refers to the six views listed in the report which are:

1. Only men are ordained as deacons and they alone conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.
2. Only men are ordained as deacons, yet Sessions appoint others—men and/or women—to assist the deacons in their work.
3. Only men are ordained as deacons and women are 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 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.

This resolution was seconded.

A substitute motion was offered by TE David R Brown:

Men only shall be elected by a congregation to the office deacon, unless providentially hindered.
Women cannot be elected by a congregation to the office of deacon.
Women cannot be commissioned or ordained as deacons.
Women cannot serve on diaconates.
According to BCO 9-7, it is the session of a church which is ultimately responsible, not the congregation, to “select and appoint,” not commission, godly men and women to assist the deacons in mercy ministry, but that the diaconate does not consist of these godly men and women.

Substitute motion: Moved, Second, Failed by hand vote: 6 in favor, 25 against (this is taken from notes and not approved minutes)

We then returned to the main motion and split the three points to vote on each separately. The first resolution was moved, seconded and passed unanimously. The second resolution was amended to strike out "and that this reflects a breadth of practice that has existed in the PCA for most, if not, all of this denomination’s history" and end at the word "Presbytery." The amended resolution was moved, seconded and passed.

In dealing with the third resolution, the presbytery moved to discuss and vote on each of the six views ("various views" noted above in numbers 1-6) referenced in the resolution independently. This motion was seconded and passed.

The first view was amended to strike the word "alone." It was argued that no church excludes women from helping out with diaconal work. The amended wording was moved, seconded and passed (30 for, 0 against).

The second view was amended to include the words "select and" before the word "appoint" in order to conform with the language of the Book of Church Order (BCO). This amended wording was moved, seconded and passed (30 for, 0 against).

The third view was amended to include the words "selected and" before "appointed" for the same reasons cited above. There was concern expressed over the use of the word "deaconess" as creating a female office of deacon. The amended wording was moved, seconded and passed (29 for, 3 against).

The fourth view was amended to include "with the approval of the session" after "elects women." It was reasoned that this is more in keeping with the wording in the BCO which allows for the Session to select and appoint women to assist the deacons. The "election" of the congregation is therefore to be seen as the means by which the Session selects and appoints women. The amended wording was moved, seconded and passed (26 for, 4 against).

The fifth view was presented and an amendment offered to strike the word "equal" from the wording. The concern with the word "equal" is that it confers to women equal authority with men on a deacon board. Women may therefore serve as the chair of a deacon board. This was not merely a hypothetical concern as it was freely admitted on the floor of Presbytery that this is the intention of including the word "equal." The amendment was seconded and failed (14 for, 15 against). The original wording was moved, seconded and passed (21 for, 9 against).

The sixth view was kept as is in its wording, no amendments being offered. The great concern with this view by the minority was the degrading of the office of deacon by withholding ordination from qualified men. Additionally the "equal" wording carried with it the same problem as the fifth view. Some men admitted that this view represented their practice in their respective congregations and that they wanted this view to pass so that they would not have to change their practice. Another concern raised was the clear violation of the BCO in this view in regards to the office of deacon both by way of women deacons and ordination. It was argued that the "honorable" thing to do would be to overture GA (as recommended by the Overtures Committee at the 36th GA) to amend the BCO to allow for this preferred practice. Until then, it was urged by the minority, to submit to the BCO. This view was moved, seconded and passed (21 for, 9 against).

Those who voted in the negative asked to have their votes recorded: TE David R Brown, RE Brian Eschen, TE Reddit Andrews, TE Sean Henderson, RE Mark Casson, RE Dave Palmgren, and TE Brian Peterson.

The committee recommendation, as amended, was then voted on as an entire resolution and passed (21 for, 9 against) with the same men requesting to have their negative vote recorded.

The final amended resolution, which passed as noted above, reads as follows:

Be it resolved that the Northern California Presbytery:

1) Recognizes that the diversity of practices listed above do exist and have for some time among churches of good standing in our Presbytery.

2) 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.

3) Acknowledge that ministers or session may hold and practice various views reflected above while being “in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity” (3rd ordination vow, BCO 21-5 and 24-6).

With these six views ("various views" mentioned in number 3) :

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.

One item on the order of business that our Presbytery was not prepared to address was a response to GA in finding our response to the 35th GA RPR committee "unacceptable." The reason we were unprepared is because the previous Moderator, who had been removed from office, was in charge of formulating a response. The current Moderator, TE Rod Miles, and the Stated Clerk, TE Andy Lee, were instructed to form a response.

After the resolution was passed, the Presbytery moved to form a committee to overture the General Assembly to clarify the Book of Church Order regarding the office of Deacon (BCO 9, 24). This committee is instructed to present their recommendations at the next Stated Meeting and consists of: TE Reddit Andrews, TE Brian Peterson, TE Timothy Barton, TE Andrew Field, and TE Sam Wheatley. It should be noted that both Andrews and Peterson are against women deacons.

Subsequent to this meeting, the Session of Grace Church of Pleasanton wrote a complaint against the resolution on the basis that it allows for practices that are out of accord with the BCO. A complaint was also prepared and sent against the same resolution by TE David R Brown. I did not view this complaint or its contents so am not familiar with the arguments set forth therein.