Yup, Mabel, it's a fact: Redeemer has woman officers...
by David and Tim Bayly on June 17, 2010 - 2:30pm
(Tim) To all those who write in to correct us when we refer to Redeemer of New York City's practice and promotion of woman officers, saying Redeemer "does not have woman officers," here is Redeemer's "Officer Nomination Form" downloaded today from their web site.
So, let's all stop playing word games and agree that, for years, Redeemer has maintained the practice of woman officers.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Abortion euthanasia... (584)
Feminism (584)
Politics (366)
Reformed world (322)
PCA (302)
Evangelicalism (294)
Homosexuality (294)
Misc. (270)
Throw the radio in the bathtub (258)
Academia (256)
Reformed theology (234)
Culture (227)
Children are a blessing (218)
Emergent church (208)
R2K (Radical Two Kingdom) (196)
Recent Comments
- David J. Wegener on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Emily Burlingham on Why move to Bloomington?
- Robert Woodyard on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Tim Bayly on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Christopher Lee on Some pics for your enjoyment...
Comments
The qualifier, of course, is that Redeemer ordains its male officers but does not ordain its female deaconesses. So they do have female "officers," but those officers are not ordained.
>So they do have female "officers," but those officers are not ordained.
So why do you think they call them officers?
One more stab at a sister church in the PCA, typical Bayly style...
No, Jake, Redeemer doesn't ordain *all* of their male officers. They haven't been ordaining the male deacons.
Got to love these guys. First it's "We don't have woman officers" then it's... "We have female officers but they are not ordained." Keep Moving those goal post fellas... Keep moving those goal posts.
Craig French -
You're simply wrong, as usual. You can retract now or try to conjure some proof.
Jake,
Why do they call those women officers?
Craig French: "Redeemer doesn't ordain *all* of their male officers. They haven't been ordaining the male deacons."
Jake S.: "Craig French - You're simply wrong, as usual. You can retract now or try to conjure some proof."
* * *
Redeemer doesn’t and hasn’t ordained her deacons for many years, now. Here’s a transcription of Tim Keller’s statement:
“Redeemer laid hands on our off[icers] ...on our deacons for about half of our life. Several years ago, we stopped doing it. We thought ...I thought that didn’t mean that we stopped ordaining them. Plenty of people think it does. ...For a quite a long time, we laid hands on them... uhhhh we haven’t and it’s largely partly because some of our deacons asked us not to ...originally.”
So no, Redeemer does not ordain her male or female deacons as everyone but Tim Keller understands ordination. Thus in congregational life and publications, Tim Keller uses the same word, “Deek,” for both male and female deacons. Every effort is made to communicate that Redeemer’s male and female officers are identical, and that is plain to every member of the church.
Love,
It is clear, at least from their rich, descriptive and detailed website, that deacons, deaconesses, and ruling elders are all officers and are all elected in the same manner. They are absolutely consistent in their repeated descriptions of this process. Actually, the deacon/ess process sounds like a more thorough process. Elders are simply elected. Deacons/essses are "nominated, elected, trained and appointed", whatever that means. I suppose that the material on the website, as well as the nomination form, could be all in error and not reflect Redeemer's actual practice, but that seems highly unlikely.
There is no mention of ordination for either office. That simply could be an oversight or it could be just semantics. However, I was at a "safe place" at General Assembly to hear a discussion between Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan on this issue, and this specific question came up at the end. As I recall, Keller had difficulty answering the question. He said that Redeemer did not ordain women. Duncan described how he viewed (and how the BCO describes) ordination, including laying on of hands, etc. Keller seemed a little surprised and basically said he was not sure that they did that with the male deacons, that perhaps they were not ordaining them, at least not properly, that perhaps this was not a good practice and that he would have to look into it further. That is the last I heard of that. At least, that is my recollection of what he said.
The BCO makes it clear what ordination is, what the offices of the church are, who is to be ordained to them and how. It is pretty specific. Whether to have deaconesses or not, what to call them, what the role of women is, etc. is a different matter of debate. But it seems clear that Redeemer is out of order when it comes to officers in the church, and is probably not ordaining properly either. It seems sometimes that answers from them about this issue are elusive and evasive. It reminds me of my children trying to bend the meaning of the rules in order to justify their behavior. Redeemer should submit to their authority and then try to change it if they believe it is unbiblical, not evade or ignore their authority. (So should other churches and presbyteries instead of passing resolutions saying, "We think this is OK, even though it violates our church constitution.")
Apparently Tim was posting a transcript of my recollection as I was writing... That is the statement to which I was referring. I don't think they are properly ordaining deacons. I have no idea what they are doing with their ruling elders. Regardless, deacons and deaconesses are both officers and are both elected and "appointed" through the same process, both serve on the diaconate, function in the same way, and the deaconesses are actually in charge of the diaconate. And rather than ordaining the women, it looks like they just stopped ordaining the men (a practice now being replicated in other PCA churches).
The following e-mail response to these posts came from a Redeemer man last night:
* * *
All (Redeemer NYC) Sunday bulletins have the following at the end: "If you have a question, a financial or other practical need or would like to pray with someone, Redeemer officers are at the front after the worship service, or you may call the Diaconate Message Helpline, (212) 726-1334.”
Almost exclusively, it is women standing at the front addressing the needs of those who come forward. In fact, the women often have to go seek out men to stand up front (with them).
Additionally, the worship leaders are forced to say "officers" or "deacons/deaconesses" when they close the service.
* * *
So Redeemer calls its women "officers" each week in the bulletin, she forces her pastors to refer to them as "officers" at the conclusion of each worship service, and when a pastor on Redeemer's staff called them "leaders" instead of "officers," he was disciplined.
Love,
The form shows violation of constitution and vows to uphold it, including misrepresenting the term office.
Office is an explicit category, reflecting our understanding of Scripture.
BCO 1-1
"The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or presbyterian, is comprehended under five heads: a. The Church b. Its members c. Its officer d. Its courts e. Its courts."
The procedure for nominating, examining and qualifying officers by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, electing, ordaining and installing them, and the vows of the congregation receiving them as God's appointed authority for them is throughout the constitution (Book of Church Order) of the PCA.
There really is no such thing as "unordained" officer, or officers not examined for exemplary life and doctrinal understanding- men with those qualifications per I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Nomination and qualification by biblical examination are attributes of officers in the PCA, not of assistants or members generally.
Men or women assistants are appointed by Session, not nominated, examined and elected by congregation.
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."
The constitution and vows require that men who assist in this way have the same process as do women who assist in this way.
It must also be understood, in context, that while caring for sick, the widows, etc. is an important part of the governing office of Deacon in the PCA- it is not that offices only function.
Deacons are given care for the money and property of the congregation.
Deacons meet jointly with Session, and lead in developing means of collecting and distributing money and "develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church." BCO 9-2
Practically, much of a Deacon's time is also taken up with property upkeep issues, facility use, etc.
It appears that another violation is not laying hands on officers, yet representing they have been ordained.
BCO 17-2
"Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship."
I'm not sure why there has not been complaint filed by Session, Diaconate, or a church member for these obvious violations of constitution and vows.
This form alone is implicit evidence of misrepresentation and violation of constitution and oath to uphold it.
It is a responsibility of Session, collectively, before God and before the people, to faithfully represent and follow our confessed polity in the PCA.
JakeS: "You're simply wrong, as usual. You can retract now or try to conjure some proof."
Well, I'm not going to retract, but I will apologize for not taking the time to delve into how egregious Redeemer's practice has been. Fortunately, Tim, Patrick, and PCA Friend have filled in the gaps which my incomplete assertion left gaping. I've read most (if not all) of Tim's posts on this subject, so in retrospect I should have done more digging.
I offer my apology, JakeS. My comment failed to express how awful Redeemer's practice is.
Tim Bayly and Patrick Pulliam - you should have included the rest of the transcript, where Keller asks Ligon Duncan if he considers Redeemer's ordination practices to be legitimate. Duncan agrees that they are acceptable.
[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: We already posted all of the transcript. Here it is: http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/07/woman-deacons-wwf-arrives-at-the-pca-bi...
And you are wrong to report it the way you have--that "Duncan agrees that (what Redeemer does is) acceptable." Lig has never endorsed what Redeemer does, nor would he.]
Keller goes on to say that if the PCA considers the practice to be invalid, he would change it.
Craig - Redeemer ordains its male officers. Or are you calling Tim Keller and the entire church leadership liars. You may not like how they do it, but their male deacons and elder are ordained. The deaconesses are not ordained. Ready to retract?
Again, the point is that Redeemer has officers, but they are not ordained, any way you look at it.
[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Wrong again, Jake; but I give up. Read Brian Eschen, below. Working on your accuracy is like trying to squeeze a water balloon.]
Pastor Duncan has often given reformed folk reason to view his words and actions skeptically. This is one more reason.
Oops, last sentence should have said "the point is that Redeemer has female officers, but they are not ordained..."
That's what I get for writing when I'm in a hurry...
Our Constitution on Ordination (BCO 17):
"Doctrine of Ordination
17-1. Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.
17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.
17-3. As every ecclesiastical office, according to the Scriptures, is a special charge, no man shall be ordained unless it be to the performance of a definite work."
Note particularly that ordination is accompanied with "prayer and the laying on of hands . . ."
"female officers" is an oxymoron. As is "unordained officers".
Where is the transcript of the Duncan-Keller debate available?
I don't think anyone can judge their ordination practices without more specific details than were presented at the debate and are on their website.
Regardless, the practice of not laying on of hands when ordaining officers is unconstitutional. Therefore Redeemer should change it. Not ordaining deacons would also unconstitutional, should that prove to be their practice.
Yawn.
I'm sure the confrontation between historical Christianity and liberal error has no great import for many.
> "female officers" is an oxymoron.
Not really. It's no different than an "unqualified officer" (for instance, an elder who had no teaching ability or who was inhospitable). Such a one could truly be elected, ordained, and installed to office and even fulfilling its duties, even while being biblically disqualified from doing so.
>Not really.
Yes really. A woman cannot be an officer of the church, even if they pose as such. Being a woman officer is like being a woman father. Inherently impossible.
David Gray said,
"Pastor Duncan has often given reformed folk reason to view his words and actions skeptically. This is one more reason."
Cynicism is not helpful.
The esteemed Pastor from Jackson has faithfully represented and practiced his denomination's polity and the teachings of Scripture on this.
He teaches, practices, and defends it.
He has a solid reputation for reformed theology, most characteristically in the charitable way he behaves toward those who differ.
>He has a solid reputation for reformed theology, most characteristically in the charitable way he behaves toward those who differ.
It is not cynicism to find that statement to be pollyannish to a regrettable degree.
@ David Gray - Okay well, we differ on that matter (but not on whether women SHOULD be officers in the church).
Enjoy the Lord's Day!
Its too bad Keller and Redeemer aren't more clear on this issue. They should just come out in favor of women deacons and have done with it. And the PCA should follow their lead.
> It's too bad Kellor and Redeemer aren't more clear on this issue. They should just come out in favor of women deacons and have done with it.
And the PCA should follow their lead.
When that happens, those of us who insist on sexual orthodoxy should be done with the PCA.
> Yawn.
That's what all the endless clamor to ape the clueless world is. So predictable, so blah and so boring.
I'm surprised Redeemer even bothers to use the sexist term "deaconess," when there doesn't seem to be any practical distinction other than the label itself. Eventually, some deaconess will be offended that she is a second class officer, because she carries a non-male label.
Add new comment