Redeemer NYC: Officer Nominations --> Deaconesses!!!

ColdSilverMoon · #41 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.

kvanlaan · #42 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.

But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."

ColdSilverMoon · #43 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Quote:

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.

But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."

That's exactly what it's saying. In the PCA, women are not to be ordained as deacons. Redeemer does not ordain women to the office of deacon. So what's the problem?

kvanlaan · #44 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:30 PM

Because the OP indicates quite clearly that Redeemer is exploiting loopholes in terminology. Merely using different terms to describe the same act doesn't excuse the practise. They are electing leaders. Are women to be leaders in the church?

Quote:

deaconesses provide input and support to elders working on complicated shepherding situations. Acts 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13

Eh? Why quote scripture as a supporting proof when it refutes your practises?

Quote:

Jenny Chang, Diaconate Director

Zenas · #45 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.

My frailties and ignorance on PCA BCO are expressing themselves.

It's my understanding that there is an office of deacon, and that under the PCA BCO, those in that office are only ordained, not merely installed. I also understand that Redeemer has the practice of ordaining men to the office of deacon, and installing women to, in their own words, the office of deaconess.

Since there is no office of deaconess in the PCA BCO, and any officers must be ordained under the PCA BCO, I have two questions which arise from your assertion that Redeemer's practices are in accordance with the PCA BCO, namely:

(1) If there is no office of deaconess recognized by the PCA BCO, and Redeemer has the practice of recognizing that office, have they then added another office not prescribed by the PCA BCO? My question is merely rhetorical, the answer is implied as yes. That being the case, what authority does Redeemer rely on to conclude they have the power to do this?

(2) In their own words, Redeemer installs women to the office of deaconess. Where, in the BCO, do they get the authority to install and not ordain officers of the church?

It seems there is a dual violation: first, creating an extra office, and two, refusing to follow the BCO with regard to those elected to that office.

All things then considered, there then is a violation, whether the SJC chose to recognize it or not.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 01:37:01 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Quote:

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.

But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."

That's exactly what it's saying. In the PCA, women are not to be ordained as deacons. Redeemer does not ordain women to the office of deacon. So what's the problem?

That's disingenuous and violates the spirit of the law through redefinition and refusing the follow the proscriptive mandates of the BCO.

All officers are to be ordained, Redeemer refuses to ordain officers, but rather installs them, therefore, Redeemer refuses to follow the BCO.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 01:37:44 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Quote:

Many on here may not like Redeemer's practices, but there is nothing in their practice that is in discord with the BCO with regard to deaconesses. They ordain male deacons and do not ordain female deacons. Simple as that.

But is this not being reduced (in an almost ridiculous manner) to semantics? It's like saying that "we don't have deaconesses, we have 'deeconesses', so we're within the bounds of our denominations practices."

An apt description of the subversion occurring.

***fredtgreco*** · #46 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

ColdSilverMoon · #47 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

My understanding, Pastor Greco, is that the SJC has already ruled that the complaint was out of order. You obviously know more than I do, so I defer to you on this. I think if there is any objectivity on the panel the complaint will be tossed - the Presbytery acted in good faith, and it is clear those bringing forward the complaint did not. But even if the SJC upholds the complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery, the practices at Redeemer won't change because they weren't directly called into question, and don't fall under the umbrella of what the complaint was about anyway.

Several other notes:

1. I am a member in good standing at Redeemer, but I did not receive that e-mail. I went through all my spam folders and deleted items but couldn't find it. I receive e-mails from Redeemer all the time, so I know they have my correct address. Strange.

2. I see where the term "office" causes confusion, and frankly I wish they wouldn't use the term in regard to deaconesses because it does create confusion with the perpetual ordained offices of the church. That said, it is probably used for brevity more than anything else. The deaconesses at Redeemer aren't in authoritative roles as the e-mail plainly says.

3. As heated as the discussions are on the PB, this is a complete non-issue at Redeemer. Most members and regular attenders would be very surprised to learn that the deaconess issue is the least bit controversial. I think people who are familiar with the church are comfortable with the way it utilizes its deaconesses, and understand Redeemer's practices are in line with Scriptural, Reformed, and PCA standards.

4. For all the squawking on this thread and other places about the PCA not enforcing standards and bringing Redeemer to trial, I believe (though I'm not 100% certain) there are mechanisms in place for PCA members to bring a formal complaint against the church and Dr. Keller. So if you are so passionate about it, please do so and we can settle the issue once and for all. It's been 20 years and still no one has complained - perhaps one of you can be the first!

lynnie · #48 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 04:44 PM

I am surprised that some people see this as such a Tim Keller only thing. 10th Pres has a national good reputation, with Ryken now and the late James M Boice, and they have deaconesses (servants only, non authority). The New Life Churches started by Jack Miller do too. This is not unique to Redeemer at all.

I don't happen to believe in the practice, but it is longstanding and well established in the PCA, with the faithful understanding that God intended churches to be ruled by men. Now I happen to think deacons are part of the ruling office and like I said I don't agree with the PCA allowing this, but to single out Redeemer or Keller is not accurate at all.

Archlute · #49 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:00 PM

Isn't one big difference between 10th pres and Redeemer, however, that 10th came into the PCA with that practice already grandfathered, and Redeemer was a MNA plant that had to make a conscious decision to implement this in the face of denominational policy?

Scott1 · #50 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:04 PM

It's very understandable wanting to believe the best of one's Pastor.

And Dr. Keller is a good teacher, and many of us have benefited from his teaching, and wish him well as a high profile ambassador of our Lord.

But I'm afraid we are in denial about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

My understanding, Pastor Greco, is that the SJC has already ruled that the complaint was out of order. You obviously know more than I do, so I defer to you on this. I think if there is any objectivity on the panel the complaint will be tossed - the Presbytery acted in good faith, and it is clear those bringing forward the complaint did not. But even if the SJC upholds the complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery, the practices at Redeemer won't change because they weren't directly called into question, and don't fall under the umbrella of what the complaint was about anyway.

As process is underway and we don't have the facts, its best to refrain from comment on this process. It is not over.

Several other notes:

1. I am a member in good standing at Redeemer, but I did not receive that e-mail. I went through all my spam folders and deleted items but couldn't find it. I receive e-mails from Redeemer all the time, so I know they have my correct address. Strange.

2. I see where the term "office" causes confusion, and frankly I wish they wouldn't use the term in regard to deaconesses because it does create confusion with the perpetual ordained offices of the church. That said, it is probably used for brevity more than anything else. The deaconesses at Redeemer aren't in authoritative roles as the e-mail plainly says.

The term "office" has particular meaning in the PCA. It means deacons and elders. In fact, there is specific provision in our BCO for others to not usurp the authority of office.

Quote:

Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order
.....
7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority
therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as
are employed in the Scriptures.

3. As heated as the discussions are on the PB, this is a complete non-issue at Redeemer. Most members and regular attenders would be very surprised to learn that the deaconess issue is the least bit controversial. I think people who are familiar with the church are comfortable with the way it utilizes its deaconesses, and understand Redeemer's practices are in line with Scriptural, Reformed, and PCA standards.

I really hope some are concerned about this. If they are being taught the polity of our denomination and the documents of our faith such as the Book of Church Order, and officers are following their vows to receive and uphold it, I hope it is always a big issue.

Keeping one's public vows is always an issue, particularly for those who would lead.

4. For all the squawking on this thread and other places about the PCA not enforcing standards and bringing Redeemer to trial, I believe (though I'm not 100% certain) there are mechanisms in place for PCA members to bring a formal complaint against the church and Dr. Keller. So if you are so passionate about it, please do so and we can settle the issue once and for all. It's been 20 years and still no one has complained - perhaps one of you can be the first!

Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.

Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.

For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:

Quote:

Complaint

TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery

.....

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.

bouletheou · #51 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:11 PM

Well, someone should send up a Memorial to the SJC.

That's what happened in the Wilkins case to get the ball rolling.

Scott1 · #52 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Complaint

TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery

(excerpts "Proposed reasoning and opinion" section, with emphasis added)

.....

The BCO, together with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechism, form the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America. 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.” The BCO does not allow an unordained diaconate. 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 practices occurring within the Presbytery’s jurisdiction and authorized by the Presbytery’s March 13, 2009 resolution do not amount to permissible supplementing of the BCO, but rather a competing system of government.

A view holding that the diaconal provisions of the BCO may be supplemented to allow for the creation of a wholly unordained diaconate is only tenable if the BCO considers the diaconate outside the form of government established by the Constitution. Only in such a case could one argue that the BCO’s provisions regarding the diaconate are subject to substantial variation insofar as ancillary ministries of the church are not fully developed in the Constitution. However, the BCO is a constitutional document and it specifically identifies the office of deacon together with the office of elder as constituting the offices forming the PCA’s coordinated system of government. A primary purpose of a constitution is to set forth a system of government. In fact, the formation of government is the sine qua non of a constitution. Therefore, strict interpretation of the constitution is required in matters touching upon the offices comprising the government of the church. The explicit statements of the BCO further establish the importance of the PCA’s two-office system of government. 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. 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.

A 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 no more establishes that the office of deacon is unnecessary or subject to the prerogative of the elders than Christ’s plenary rule disestablishes his plenipotentiaries. The authority of office establishes those offices under its influence. 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, has a distinct existence apart from any particular local church or the office of elder.

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, these offices [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, such practices functionally either abolish the office of deacon or seat 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/title of deacon. BCO 7-2 (“In accord with Scripture, these offices [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 view of the diaconate that is based on Scripture. In BCO 7-2, the male-only restriction of the office of deacon is said to be “in 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.” Whatever binding authority the BCO may have on this issue solely by virtue of its constitutional nature is only further established by references to Scripture in the very texts that principally relate to the matter under consideration. 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. BCO 24-6. The merits of diaconal practice must be evaluated, therefore, in light of such vows and in accordance with the BCO’s clarity and scriptural emphases in the areas of women officers and diaconal authority.

.

Romans922 · #53 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bouletheou

Well, someone should send up a Memorial to the SJC.

That's what happened in the Wilkins case to get the ball rolling.

Memorials are no longer allowed, the SJC Manual 16 was changed at the last GA.

Also, I believe there are complaints in Metro Philadelphia Presbytery on this issue (Phil Ryken's presbytery), although their presbytery is delayed at the moment from reaching SJC (I could be wrong). But there are complaints from Metro Atlanta and Northern California. I believe. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head those being the most 'liberal' presbyterys are having complaints against them for 'deaconess' issues.

lynnie · #54 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Isn't one big difference between 10th pres and Redeemer, however, that 10th came into the PCA with that practice already grandfathered, and Redeemer was a MNA plant that had to make a conscious decision to implement this in the face of denominational policy?

I have no idea, you have to wait for Mason

Romans922 · #55 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:29 PM

Either way, both have agreed to follow the Standards and the BCO.

***toddpedlar*** · #56 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

Either way, both have agreed to follow the Standards and the BCO.

There are times when I think this mode of practice is little different than the following scenario.

"Memo to Pizza Hut delivery drivers: When delivering pizza, in the Pizza Hut delivery car, employees of Pizza Hut shall not drive faster than 40 mph."

Knowing this rule, but late with a delivery, Joe the Pizza Hut delivery employee gets into the Pizza Hut delivery car with his wife Helen in the driver's seat, and she takes off at 55 mph, so that Joe can deliver his pizza.

When the car carrying Joe and the pizza passes Brian, Joe's boss, Brian notes the speed of the car, and follows Joe to the delivery location. He promptly fires him.

Joe argues later in his own defense that he wasn't in violation of company policy because he was not the one driving.

Would this hold up in an employee lawsuit against his company?

NO.

Neither does the practice of any PCA church who merely "commissions" deaconnesses but elects them and asks them to take vows alongside their ordained mail deacon colleagues, and gives them the same roles and responsibilities.

brianeschen · #57 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 05:52 PM

Complaints are against action or inaction of Presbytery. It does not deal with individuals. In a recent case, SESSION OF CROSSROADS COMMUNITY CHURCH SJC 2008-1 RE MARK GRASSO ET AL SJC 2008-10 VS. PHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERY, the SJC reminded the complainants that when a minister's views are in question (and this was dealing with the deacon issue) there are more appropriate ways to handle it than filing a complaint.

From the concurring opinion . . .

Quote:

. . . Otherwise stated, perhaps a complaint about a candidate’s ordination exam may not be the most practical way to raise certain issues. This is especially true when there is some uncertainty as to exactly what the views, beliefs, and practices of the candidate are.

What would be the effect of the complaint being sustained? Would the man suddenly be "unordained?" What would be the effect of any ecclesiastical functions, such as baptisms or marriages, that he performed during this time?

It is within this context that we would suggest that the better way in this case, and other cases where the views, beliefs, and practices of men are called into question, would be for the party who is concerned about these views, beliefs, and practices to make such inquiries as are necessary and practical to ascertain exactly what these views, beliefs, and practices are; then, assuming they are contrary to Scripture or our Constitution, formally file a Charge, pursuant to BCO 32-2 and 32-3. This procedure not only removes the question of whether or not a strong presumption of guilt exists (BCO 31-2), but allows a court to directly try the issue raised in the Charge. (BCO 32-3) Furthermore, this procedure will require an accurate record of the questions and answers, in that all testimony shall be recorded and become a part of the Record. (BCO 35-7) This will eliminate the problem of not having a complete or accurate Record upon which to judge and decide the case.

If there is concern about a minister's practices, investigation needs to be made. If the concern is substantiated by the investigation, charges need to be filed. That's what the SJC seems to be saying.

lynnie · #58 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 07:10 PM

Neither does the practice of any PCA church who merely "commissions" deaconnesses but elects them and asks them to take vows alongside their ordained mail deacon colleagues, and gives them the same roles and responsibilities.

For what its worth (and I am on the anti deaconess side of the debate), I have two PCA deaconess friends and they don't have the same roles and responsibilities. Its more like the women are in the kitchen and the men are in the rest of the house.

ColdSilverMoon · #59 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Isn't one big difference between 10th pres and Redeemer, however, that 10th came into the PCA with that practice already grandfathered, and Redeemer was a MNA plant that had to make a conscious decision to implement this in the face of denominational policy?

I have no idea, you have to wait for Mason

Yes, Redeemer has had deaconesses since its founding in 1989. They didn't (and still do not) view this as contrary to denominational policy.

Scott1 · #60 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 08:39 PM

Remember that deacons and elders in the PCA go through an extensive process of selection and confirmation, the idea being that the congregation receives them as authority God has blessed them with in the particular church.

The process involves nomination, instruction, examination, declaration of exceptions to doctrine if any, character references, election by the congregation.

If selected, they are ordained (for life) and then installed (for term of office). A fitting sermon illustrating these doctrinal principles is to be given as charge to both the officer and the congregation receiving them.

Hands are laid on by session and a religious ceremony installs them, publicly, before the people. It a solemn occassion, and a significant event in the life of a church.

One of the most disturbing practices that has come to light is this practice of refusing to lay hands on men to ordain them as deacons. In order to justify the flagrant violation of their constitution and vows, some are are actually arguing that that ordination does not need laying on of hands. In addition, some are making the incredible claim that the office of deacon is not perpetual in the PCA, and therefore, a woman 'deaconess' can lay aside ordination once they leave the presbytery, because almost no other presbytery accepts that as an office.

A lot of things are getting lost in their accommodation, important things.

The following video, shows "Deb" being installed as 'deaconess' at the church that is subject of this post. It demeans the doctrine of ordination- a doctrine explicitly taught in our Book of Church Order.

Setting aside the shallow content of the very brief charge given here (that draws on a secular movie for insight), this accommodation has turned the whole process and the doctrines it represents on their head.

What is depicted here might go on in a mainline church that almost completely fallen away from the truth of Scripture without much concern. But in the PCA, a confessional church, connectional in polity, this is grounds for discipline. A complaint with at least 15 different amends could be filed on the basis of this instance alone.

May God grant remedy- in His Time, and for peace and purity of His Church.

YouTube - 5/24/09 Officer Ordination & Installation

ColdSilverMoon · #61 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.

Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.

For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:

Quote:

Complaint

TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery

.....

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.

Scott,

There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing. How can Redeemer possibly be faulted for 1. Ordaining male deacons, and 2. Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?

I know you don't like the practice, and that's fine - I understand and respect your reasoning. But you cannot say Redeemer is willfully violating the BCO when it is plainly obvious the church is not out of line with the BCO.

Edward · #62 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

So What if he's disobeying the official position of a denomination, your right its an issue of rebellion, Tim Keller doesnt want to rebel against God's word and so that means he must rebel against the denomination because obviously for him, he believes God says that it's OK. Sure I value the westminster confession of faith, but if my interpretation of scripture differs from it on a point, then I've got 2 options either

1) Please the denomination
2) Go with what I think God says in his word

So if we claim to be going on scripture alone, should the man say...well I dont care what I think God's word teaches, I'll just be comfortable and conform to the "official" position.

Are we Roman Catholics now?

You've left out an option - he's free to leave (and take his church -- I'm sure that an overwhelming majority of Redeemer would go with him) and join the EPC (probably an excellent fit), or the ARP, or one of several other bodies. He could even go to the PCUSA. But if he chooses to stay in the PCA, he should abide by the Book of Church Order.

-----

Unrelated thought. Interesting who isn't on this thread.

ColdSilverMoon · #63 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

If selected, they are ordained (for life) and then installed (for term of office). A fitting sermon illustrating these doctrinal principles is to be given as charge to both the officer and the congregation receiving them.

Hands are laid on by session and a religious ceremony installs them, publicly, before the people. It a solemn occassion, and a significant event in the life of a church.

One of the most disturbing practices that has come to light is that this church is refusing to lay hands on men to ordain them as deacons. (In order to justify the flagrant violation of their constitution and vows, some are are actually arguing that that ordination does not need laying on of hands. In addition some are making the incredible claim that the office of deacon is not perpetual in the PCA, and therefore, a woman 'deaconess' can lay aside ordination once they leave the presbytery, because almost no other presbytery accepts that as an office.)

Scott, women are not ordained as officers at Redeemer. So there is no "laying aside" ordination because they are not ordained to begin with. You shouldn't disseminate false information by claiming Redeemer's deaconesses are ordained. In addition, laying on of hands is not a requirement for ordination. Tim Keller has publicly said that if the PCA amends to the BCO to make it a requirement, he will willingly comply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

following video, which purports to show "Deb" being installed as 'deaconess' at the church that is subject of this post, is demeaning of the profound meaning of the doctrine of ordination- a doctrine explicitly taught in our Book of Church Order.

She wasn't being ordained. So how is it demeaning to ordination? For that matter, how is it demeaning at all? The associate pastor defines the role of deacon, describes it as a "high calling," describes the rigorous selection process, and encourages the congregation to do their part in as unofficial deacons in their every day lives. It may be demeaning in your personal view of how such a ceremony should be conducted, but it violates no Scriptural or BCO elements.

Romans922 · #64 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

Yes, there are. As you may be aware, there have been instances last couple General Assemblies where churches violating the constitution have been cited for doing similar things. These have not all played out yet.

Further, a very specific complaint has been filed and is in process.

For those not familiar with the background, here are the two summarized practices at issue from the current complaint. These are not the only violations, but the most egregious ones the complaint focuses on:

Quote:

Complaint

TE Mark Robinson, et. al. vs. Metropolitan New York Presbytery

.....

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.

Scott,

There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing. How can Redeemer possibly be faulted for 1. Ordaining male deacons, and 2. Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?

I know you don't like the practice, and that's fine - I understand and respect your reasoning. But you cannot say Redeemer is willfully violating the BCO when it is plainly obvious the church is not out of line with the BCO.

There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.

Deacons (male) of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. Why is there an option (again, if I am correct)? If one is a deacon than they are a deacon, they are to be ordained. There are no options.

BCO 9-7 referring to those who assist the deacons, it clearly says that such people are selected by the Session, not nominated, trained, examined, and elected by the congregation. That is only for ordained elders/deacons. This whole thing is messed up.

Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.

Archlute · #65 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:21 PM

Mason, several times in this thread you have made the assertion that Redeemer is merely following Scriptural and Reformed precedent, but if it were undoubtedly supported by Scripture and previous Reformed practice it would not even be up for debate.

The case from Scripture is quite weak, it's really not even noteworthy apart from the fact that it has become such a big issue among the modern day church, which tends to cave to pressure on this issue. Saying that "Phoebe was a deaconess" is a bit facile, since the meaning of the term (whether official deacon, or just one noticed for her service to the church in an unofficial capacity) is not very clear, and the discussion of what are almost assuredly the wives of the deacons in 1 Timothy has to employ agonizingly convoluted exegetical arguments to make it say something other than what Paul is clearly saying in the overall context of the pastoral epistles.

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

ColdSilverMoon · #66 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

There is nothing in the BCO because commissioning does not exist within the Church. It is made up to get passed loopholes. There is no commissioning in Scripture, nor Standards, nor BCO for these reasons.

Deacons of Redeemer, from my understanding are given the option on whether or not to be ordained... Option? There is a great confusion here. And to continue to back a church which continues to rebel against Scripture/Standards/BCO is to continue to serve the Devil himself, it is to not follow God's own command (openly and unrepentantly) of the 5th Commandment (as well as others).

Watching the video above, she answers the questions that one is asked for ordination. This only confirms what has already been said. This is sad. Sorry to be so strong in my language, but it is the truth.

So, Pastor Barnes, all those churches (perhaps your included?) that commission VBS leaders, missionaries (long and short-term), and a variety of other church roles are doing so to find loopholes and in so doing "serve the Devil himself?" I don't think you would agree with that! The truth is PCA churches commission people all the time to various roles and I don't think you would call them rebellious against Scripture and the BCO.

The bottom line is you don't agree with deaconesses being utilized, and that's fine - I understand completely. But if you disagree with them being commissioned then you must disagree with ALL commissioning in every single PCA church. If you do, then you are in the vast minority of PCA pastors. If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.

Unordained deaconesses are not contrary to Scripture. In fact, a strong case can be made that they are promoted and established in Scripture. Calvin even utilized unordained deaconesses in his church - was Calvin rebellious against Scripture and a servant of the devil? The Westminster Standards are silent on the role of deacons and deaconesses - so how is Redeemer rebellious against them? As discussed above the BCO does not prohibit commissioning groups of people within the congregation, so Redeemer is not rebelling against the BCO.

I respect your role as a TE, Pastor Barnes, and your desire to maintain the purity of the Church and the PCA. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments - on this issue you are dead wrong.

kvanlaan · #67 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Commissioning but not ordaining deaconesses in accordance with Scriptural and Reformed precedent?

Can I have an example of this commissioning from Scripture?

ColdSilverMoon · #68 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Quote:

Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

jwithnell · #69 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 10:11 PM

I was challenged a bit on another forum, so I looked up the Redeemer website -- http://download.redeemer.com/pdf/NominationForm.pdf

Michael Doyle · #70 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Quote:

Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

I am sorry my friend Mason, observing this post from afar, while I do admire your diligence in defending what I am sure you believe to be true, and I do disagree vehemently, the reformed precedence you confirm is a real stretch. If that is the best you have, I think your position is terribly weak.

Peace Brother

lynnie · #71 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 10:40 PM

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Quote:
Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

Very interesting. Excellent debate point!

Mason, do you think that in light of the struggle with egalitarianism and rejection of male leadership in the home and the church, it might be getting to the point of causing brethren to stumble to use this terminology (deaconesses)? I mean, might it not be better to call them "diaconal assistants" or " The Women's ministry team" or something else? They can be honored and set apart without such loaded language. In a culture struggling to throw off all gender differences, it seems to be unwise for the church to do something so confusing, especially a place like Redeemer in the heart of NYC. You can see from just this thread of educated posters that many assume it is an authoritative role.

Like I said my deaconess friends are humble, gentle, feminine, non pushy women. They are not authoritative in their roles in any way. And somebody needs to break up the crackers and fill the little cups before communion, and somebody needs to get the tables ready for the fellowship dinners, and plan meals and clean up after. And older women need to help younger ones in many ways. It is wonderful to see Redeemer encourage women to serve. But at this point, doesn't it seem like maybe the terms should be changed? Do you think it may lead to compromise with feminist egalitarianism? I don't know, I am just asking. I wonder if it can cause brethren to stumble.

Brad, you are really begging for a mod to step in again, aren't you..........

WarrenInSC · #72 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how a man can go on the public record in so many venues blatantly opposing our standards on this point and yet NEVER be brought on trial?

His brazen defiance is grating. The utter inaction on the part of the courts of my church is really disheartening.

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

Hello Pastor Greco,

1) There may be more than one uninformed 'lay' person on here, like myself, who would appreciate a concise definition, applied to this situation, if it's not violating any confidentiality, about being 'judically out of order' versus being 'administratively out of order".

2) For what it's worth, the sooner an SJC panel deals with this clearly divisive situation, the better. Our PCA needs resolution on this. The blatant disregard our constitution involved is going to snowball in all sorts of areas if not addressed soon, IMHO.

3) Many thanks for your deep and devoted service to our church.

***fredtgreco*** · #73 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenInSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

They have been brought to trial. The complaint against the NY Metro Presbytery was rejected by the SJC. Case closed...at least for now.

Actually, it was not rejected by the SJC. It is to be assigned a panel soon. And it was never suggested that it was judicially out of order - only that it might be administratively out of order.

Hello Pastor Greco,

1) There may be more than one uninformed 'lay' person on here, like myself, who would appreciate a concise definition, applied to this situation, if it's not violating any confidentiality, about being 'judically out of order' versus being 'administratively out of order".

Warren,

A case is administratively out of order because it is defective in form. In other words it asks for relief the ecclesiastical court cannot grant ("make the U.S. Congress pass a law about gay marriage") or it is filed untimely (e.g. beyond the period required for a complaint), or some such.

A case is judicially out of order if it is rejected on substantive grounds.

Scott1 · #74 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 05:47 AM

Quote:

ColdSilverMoon
There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing.

Again, it is understandable you would want to defend the good name of your Pastor.

However, we must faithfully represent our polity, governance and Book of Church Order to those not familiar with it.

Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) deaconess as an office in the church (the church email calls it an office, that's what started this thread)

Notice in the video “Deb” is given the oath of office for deacons or elders (about 2/3 through the video).

Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) giving the oath of office to deaconess

(For reference, here is the oath of office, the one "Deb" takes in the video for deacons and elders in the PCA):

Quote:

Presbyterian Church in America

Ordination and Installation

24-6.

The day having arrived, and the Session being convened in the
presence of the congregation, a sermon shall be preached after which the
presiding minister shall state in a concise manner the warrant and nature of
the office of ruling elder, or deacon, together with the character proper to be
sustained and the duties to be fulfilled. Having done this, he shall propose to
the candidate, in the presence of the church, the following questions, namely:

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as
originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only
infallible rule of faith and practice?

2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and
the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further
promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with
any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will, on
your own initiative, make known to your Session the change
which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this
ordination vow?

3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the
Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general
principles of biblical polity?

4. Do you accept the office of ruling elder (or deacon, as the case
may be) in this church, and promise faithfully to perform all the
duties thereof, and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the
profession of the Gospel in your life, and to set a worthy example
before the Church of which God has made you an officer?
5. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?

6. Do you promise to strive for the purity, peace, unity and
edification of the Church?

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 04:47:33 EST-----

Quote:

ColdSilverMoon
In addition, laying on of hands is not a requirement for ordination.

Mason,

In order to defend this blatantly unconstitutional behavior and violation of vows by officers to receive the governance and polity of their denomination, do you really want to say we do not lay hands on for ordination in the PCA?

Really?

Quote:

Acts 6

1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

Quote:

Presbyterian Church in America

Book of Church Order
CHAPTER 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

William Price · #75 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 07:11 AM

I am a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian, but have many friends who are, and this includes on this board. But, I have to ask, with all sincerity, even outside the BCO, why would one have a position of leadership created when the scriptures declare that a woman is not to teach nor usurp authority over the man? Since when does one need to circumvent scripture in order to 'make a position'?

And, please understand I ask this with utmost respect for my friends here and elsewhere.

Scott1 · #76 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Price

I am a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian, but have many friends who are, and this includes on this board. But, I have to ask, with all sincerity, even outside the BCO, why would one have a position of leadership created when the scriptures declare that a woman is not to teach nor usurp authority over the man? Since when does one need to circumvent scripture in order to 'make a position'?

And, please understand I ask this with utmost respect for my friends here and elsewhere.

Within our denomination, those who are arguing for 'deaconess' are a very small, but high profile minority. Remember, very very few churches are doing the violations shown in the video.

And remember also the esteemed Pastor from New York City is right on many, many things and we do not want to see him harden and fall- that's why this so painful!

In recent past, they have been arguing one of two ways:

1) deaconess is not an office (and therefore there is no authority)

or

2) deaconess is an office, but does not have the kind of authority of which you speak (teaching or usurping over men)

The problem is, as you can see in the video, in case#1, they are doing all the accoutrements of office: nominating, examining, taking exceptions, electing, installing, etc. even copying word-for-word the ordination vows (except changing them to the word 'woman')

It's as if they are saying- it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and enjoys being in the presence of other ducks, but... somehow it is not a duck.

In case#2 they are not understanding the spiritual charge of the I Timothy 3 office of deacon. Granted, there is not a lot explicit about the exact duties of deacons in Scripture. Mostly, we have analogy, but principles can be discerned and applied.

That's what we do.

In the PCA, that is understood and chartered in our Book of Church Order as overseeing property stewardship, mercy ministry and the development of a "spirit of liberality" in the congregation.

In presbyterianism generally, governance of the local church (often referred to as the "particular" church) is by and through deacons and elders.

Unordained men and women assist them in many ways, but under their oversight. We have many ministries, including mercy ministries that men and women coordinate and run, but under governing authority and one layer of accountability of deacons.

The systems works well in practice, and from what I've observed, unordained men and woman and children have a "safe" biblical framework within which to use their God given talents and abilities without usurping authority or operating under pretense of name recognition by office.

No question deacon is an office with a higher level of authority too. As a Deacon myself, I can tell you we exercise authority all the time. It's not the same sphere as the Elders, but our Book of Church Order clearly assumes it- both implicitly and explicitly- and our people understand it (and are grateful for it)

.

Edward · #77 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

Within our denomination, those who are arguing for 'deaconess' are a very small, but high profile minority. Remember, very very few churches are doing the violations shown in the video.

An open question, not particularly directed at you:

Does anyone have a rough count as to how many churches have Deaconesses, or how many Presbyteries tolerate this?

Backwoods Presbyterian · #78 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

As well, why do you continue to insist that it has historic Reformed support? Apart from a few modern Presbyterian denominations, I am not certain where you are getting this. Please tell me so I can see if I have misunderstood something here.

From the Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 19:

Quote:

Deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love.

In context, Calvin is discussing the role of the widows of I Timothy 5:12 - Calvin apparently only allowed women over the age of 60 to engage in a formal role in the diaconate. He did not ordain them, but did give them an officially recognized role. I think Calvin's use of deaconesses qualifies as Reformed precedent.

Is "Deb" and all the other "deaconesses" over 60 and widows?

ColdSilverMoon · #79 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

Quote:

ColdSilverMoon
There is nothing in the BCO that forbids the commissioning of deaconesses. Absolutely nothing.

Again, it is understandable you would want to defend the good name of your Pastor.

However, we must faithfully represent our polity, governance and Book of Church Order to those not familiar with it.

Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) deaconess as an office in the church (the church email calls it an office, that's what started this thread)

Notice in the video “Deb” is given the oath of office for deacons or elders (about 2/3 through the video).

Please quote the section of the BCO that warrants:

a) giving the oath of office to deaconess

Scott, as I've said before, I don't like the term "office" applied to deaconesses because it can cause confusion with ordained offices. I'm sure it's done for simplicity and brevity, but I'll admit it can cause confusion. Same with the simultaneous ordination of the officers and commissioning of deaconesses: it's easier to have a uniform, blanket installation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

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

[/QUOTE]

The laying on of hands is not considered a requirement for ordination. At their discussion at the GA, Ligon Duncan agreed that he considered the deacons at Redeemer to be ordained without laying of hands.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 07:46:22 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnie

Mason, do you think that in light of the struggle with egalitarianism and rejection of male leadership in the home and the church, it might be getting to the point of causing brethren to stumble to use this terminology (deaconesses)? I mean, might it not be better to call them "diaconal assistants" or " The Women's ministry team" or something else? They can be honored and set apart without such loaded language. In a culture struggling to throw off all gender differences, it seems to be unwise for the church to do something so confusing, especially a place like Redeemer in the heart of NYC. You can see from just this thread of educated posters that many assume it is an authoritative role.

Like I said my deaconess friends are humble, gentle, feminine, non pushy women. They are not authoritative in their roles in any way. And somebody needs to break up the crackers and fill the little cups before communion, and somebody needs to get the tables ready for the fellowship dinners, and plan meals and clean up after. And older women need to help younger ones in many ways. It is wonderful to see Redeemer encourage women to serve. But at this point, doesn't it seem like maybe the terms should be changed? Do you think it may lead to compromise with feminist egalitarianism? I don't know, I am just asking. I wonder if it can cause brethren to stumble.

Lynnie, you raise two excellent points:

1. Deaconess is used because it is the most accurate description of their role. Besides, deaconess is less nebulous and much easier to say and write than diaconal assistant. As I've stated on here multiple times, deaconess - whether or not a formal role in the church - has Scriptural and Reformed precedent.

2. I know you're anti-deaconess, but I think those of us who are experienced with their role realize they do not overstep the role of women in the church and the home as outlined in the Bible. No one is arguing that deaconesses are in positions of authority or headship within the church. You know deaconesses firsthand, so like me you know that they are not after some egalitarian ideal the way many on here and other inflammatory blogs would have us believe. They are godly women who want to serve the church and the community with the gifts God has given them.

I think part of the hubbub about this is basic fear of the unknown. People in conservative places who might not be familiar with deaconesses are concerned that they are somehow overtaking the biblically defined sexual roles within the church. They fear that the next step from deaconesses is ordained elders and pastors, despite the fact that there is no real reason to believe that will happen. Those of us familiar with the situation know the practical utilization of deaconesses, at least in the PCA, is completely in line with biblical teaching for men and women. I would guess that most of the anti-deaconess crowd would have many of their fears allayed if they spent a few months at Redeemer an saw the practical function of the diaconal ministry...

lynnie · #80 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 10:44 AM

Thanks Mason.

I see both sides.

Yes, my experience with PCA deaconesses is such that I know they are godly non authoritative women in churches led by "real men", not wimps.

But it may be that some or much of the fear is well founded. We once were in a supposedly Calvinistic baptist church in our past that had some real hard driving women deaconesses in it who had an attitude that the elders ruled the church but stayed OUT of women's ministry. Women deaconesses can turn into controlling witches, believe me I've seen it. Give them a title and they become the Mom bossing the house.

So it goes back to what the bible says, and even if I disagree, Keller/Ryken have a reasonable position. But when you go back to the BCO and their vows, even if the BCO is wrong, they do seem to be highly questionable based on the replies here.

I wish they could go back to ordaining men and calling women the assistants. As somebody in their 50s watching younger girls in their 20s wrestle with the role of women and mothers and careers, I tend to think that they need all the help we can give to create a church culture that upholds complementarianism. They won't get it in the world. Every tiny bit of help is a plus.

I love Tim Keller's teaching. Let's all keep him in prayer as he influences so many younger folks today.