Thread: Complaint filed against PCA Metro NY Presbytery (Deaconesses)

You can read about over at the Bayly Blog.

BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Woman deacons and Metro NY Presbytery: Complaint filed...

Please note other items: Metro Atlanta Presbytery and Northern California Presbytery have adopted similar proposals concerning deaconesses (not the complaints, just the proposals). Philadelphia (the one with Phil Ryken's Church) is in the process of doing the same.

On a positive note: Rocky Mountain Presbytery has adopted a statement contrary to the other presbyteries in line with the BCO

Good! Probably won't go anywhere, but they've been in violation of the BCO in practice (holding to the letter, I suppose, by using the dodge of ordaining nobody but having a 'vibrant diaconal ministry') for YEARS in Metro NY.

Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.

One of the TEs mentioned in the Metro NY Presbytery report (Craig Higgins) was my campus minister in college. While I consider to him to be a brilliant, godly man, this isn't the first time in the last few years that I've read/seen/heard something regarding him that has distressed me. When the committee report concerning the FV came up at the PCA GA a couple of years ago, he was either minister directly before or directly after Sproul's famous admonition (which means he was speaking from the other viewpoint).

Originally Posted by Romans922

You can read about over at the Bayly Blog.

BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Woman deacons and Metro NY Presbytery: Complaint filed...

Please note other items: Metro Atlanta Presbytery and Northern California Presbytery have adopted similar proposals concerning deaconesses (not the complaints, just the proposals). Philadelphia (the one with Phil Ryken's Church) is in the process of doing the same.

On a positive note: Rocky Mountain Presbytery has adopted a statement contrary to the other presbyteries in line with the BCO

Ryken's church has had women deeks for a LONG time. I believe that they were grandmothered in when 10th came into the PCA from the UPCNA.

No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures teach when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.

Originally Posted by Joshua

No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.

I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.

*

It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.

I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.

Originally Posted by jonmo

Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.

Yes, Tim Kellar is a gifted teaching elder and the church he serves is a great asset.

We need to pray he and the leadership will respond humbly as this is being "called out" for accountability to the larger church.

There appears to be a failure here to follow the denomination's polity (something all elders and deacons vow to) in a very significant way:

1) refusing to ordain and install Deacons
2) denying the congregation of the benefits of the presbyterian system of government

(That is the church is governed by elders and deacons, with unordained men and women assisting)

We also have to remember that a particular church is not intended to be overly dominated by one person in presbyterian polity. We all have a tendency to "worship" people by being "respectors of persons." That is not right, biblically.

There are many checks in the PCA system including ordaining and installing associate pastors (called by the congregation). Leadership (governance) really is designed to come from the plurality of elders (usually ruling elders). So, one teaching elder's views ought not be dominating polity- that should be coming from the ruling elders.

If what is coming out is true, there has been a real failure of that, and the situation has been allowed to get out of hand.

We all need to pray here that this will be met with humility, submission and charity all around. This needs to be shown to the outside watching as well as for the peace and purity of Christ's church.

Originally Posted by jonmo

Originally Posted by Joshua

No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.

I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.

Definitely keep reading the Bayly Blog...Tim Bayly has documented Redeemer's violations clearly...and has shown that Tim Keller less than forthright when it comes to Redeemer and their deaconesses.

Tim Bayly on deaconesses being "grandfathered" in:
BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: The RPCES heritage in the PCA: Jim Hurley, Joel Belz, Will Barker, Steve Smallman, and Dominic Aquila...

Tim's systematic dealing with the RPCES decisions re: deaconesses:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6a
Part 6b

While I take great issue with Pastors Tim and David Bayly in some of the highly inappropriate and unfounded things they've said about Pastor Keller and Redeemer (you can see my comments there - I don't want to start a "blog war"), I do commend them for their desire to maintain the integrity of the PCA polity and to uphold Scripture. I understand their concern about the deaconess issue, but I think these presbyteries have a strong case; I support the Metro NY Presbytery (and the 3 others), but can see the strength of the complaints against them.

As I understand it, the complaint against the Metro NY Presbytery will first go before the presbytery itself, and then before the presbytery's standing judicial committee. Since the presbytery itself just passed these resolutions, it seems highly unlikely that they would reverse course and uphold the complaint.

From there, I believe it would go before the GA judicial committee. At that point, one of two things will happen: the complaint will be rejected and things will continue as they are, or they will uphold the complaint against the Metro NY Presbytery, which would directly affect my church (Redeemer) and pastor. While I hope they reject the complaint, my hunch is that they will uphold it, and rule against the practice of not ordaining male deacons.

If that happens, I suspect the Metro NY Presbytery will disagree with the decision but will comply, and as a result Redeemer will ordain male deacons - I think it is highly unlikely that Redeemer would leave the PCA over this. In practice, I doubt anything will change - a handful of male deacons will be ordained, but the day to day function of the diaconate will likely remain completely unchanged.

So in the end, I think everyone will be satisfied: Redeemer can retain its strong female presence in the diaconate, only now with some ordained male deacons, and the anti-deaconess camp will be happy because the BCO will be strictly upheld and it will be viewed as a repudiation of liberalization (as much as I personally disagree). So in the end, this complaint could actually be a good thing overall for the PCA. While I personally hate to see my church under fire, I am glad this issue is being addressed, and will hopefully be resolved once and for all.

I pray for the PCA, particularly for unity, and for wisdom of the men on the judicial committees. I also pray for Redeemer and Pastor Keller, especially for wisdom as they navigate these choppy waters.

Originally Posted by Edward

It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.

I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.

It ain't necessarily peachy in the ARP, either. The presbytery I'm in, by and large, is opposed the whole deaconness thing as well (the ARP policy is to allow the practice on a sessional basis -- the wording allowing it in the Form of Government is very vague, btw). The memorial (same as overtures in the PCA) has been presented to rescind the practice, but it cannot get any traction outside of our presbytery.

This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in. The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books. And barring anything extraordinary, it's won't go away.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in.

Agreed.

I grew up in the PCUS, and unlike some of the younger brothers, I know that change like this is generally a one way street. Southern Baptists, under the leadership of Patterson and Patterson is the only case I can think of where the liberals were not just stopped in their tracks, but rolled back decisively.

The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.

Praying for the elimination of Egalitarianism within the PCA as soon as it is able to do so as I believe this to be of the utmost importance.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

This is a precedent the PCA needs to carefully consider: once the genie's out of the bottle, it ain't going back in.

Agreed.

I grew up in the PCUS, and unlike some of the younger brothers, I know that change like this is generally a one way street. Southern Baptists, under the leadership of Patterson and Patterson is the only case I can think of where the liberals were not just stopped in their tracks, but rolled back decisively.

The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.

As a recent convert from the PC(USA) I can concur wholeheartedly. Egalitarianism is not a disease that many recover from, especially those with "big names" doing the pushing.

Don't count out NorCal. There are still three Presbyterian churches in that Presbytery, and they have more energy and knowledge than those of churches there like Keller's who say "We have no women Deacons. Please welcome Amy Chung, our head of the Deaconate" and think that they can even spell the word integrity.

Originally Posted by Edward

...*

It would be nice if those who can't live with the current standards would depart to a body more in keeping with their views, such as ARP or EPC, but I don't see that happening without a long and bitter fight.

I will pray for your church, which has gotten caught up in a mess apparently not of its making.

Indeed. It has already 'blown up into a mess" - that's the problem. We in the PCA are supposed to be part of a confessional and connectional church. When a high profile church with a high profile pastor knowingly and deliberately ignores the governing instrument of our unity, the BCO, that is an attack on the very heart of our unity. It is deeply divisive and distresses the brotherhood of believers within our PCA. It is a great service to the peace and unity of the church to call out this blatant non-conformance and bring it to account. This is really two issues - the issue of deaconesses, which is clearly settled in our standards, consistents with centuries of understanding by the Church as a whole, and the issue of deliberate unconstitutional process. Just think - if this unconstitutional process is allowed to go unchallenged and not rolled back, the same unconstitutional process could then be pointed to as acceptable practice within the PCA - and then made a habit, but on other deep issues of faith and practice.

Let me ask a dumb question: in the ARP, we have the "local option" with regard to deacons and deaconnesses (I'm not making this up -- our Form of Government defines deacons as "persons* of good character, honest repute, exemplary life, brotherly love, sympathetic nature, and sound judgment, and who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture"; the asterisk leads to the following statement: "Circumstances of the local congregation shall require each session to determine the meaning of the word 'persons.' "). But it is still left up to local sessions. Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?

Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?

Neither. They are headed to take their BCO seriously.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Let me ask a dumb question: in the ARP, we have the "local option" with regard to deacons and deaconnesses (I'm not making this up -- our Form of Government defines deacons as "persons* of good character, honest repute, exemplary life, brotherly love, sympathetic nature, and sound judgment, and who are qualified under the standards recorded in Scripture"; the asterisk leads to the following statement: "Circumstances of the local congregation shall require each session to determine the meaning of the word 'persons.' "). But it is still left up to local sessions. Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?

Hopefully C: None of the Above! Here is an Overtures link and Overture 5 is seeking to open up the question of what is the woman's role in the Church.

Presbyterian Church in America

It cannot be put in the same category with the creeds and confessions even though you promise to uphold them all. I sure hope they go straight to the Word when it comes to women in leadership.

But that's chaos. If I said I thought that cussing was fine, and I joined this board and agreed not to cuss then I have to abide by my word. These people joined the PCA with eyes wide open, and they are ignoring their vows. That's the problem, not women Deacons. There are ways to change the BCO legally and orderly.

Originally Posted by TimV

It cannot be put in the same category with the creeds and confessions even though you promise to uphold them all. I sure hope they go straight to the Word when it comes to women in leadership.

But that's chaos. If I said I thought that cussing was fine, and I joined this board and agreed not to cuss then I have to abide by my word. These people joined the PCA with eyes wide open, and they are ignoring their vows. That's the problem, not women Deacons. There are ways to change the BCO legally and orderly.

Precisely - when every one of the TE's & RE's in Metro NY took a vow, they said words before the Lord and His Church that are supposed to MEAN something - not some post-modernist personal reinterpretation that changes with time & culture.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Now, what direction exactly is the PCA headed toward? Will there be a similar "local option", or will churches be "required" to ordain deaconness?

IF the innovation is allowed to stand, based upon my recollection of what transpired in the PCUS, I would guess that it would initially be permissive, and a few years later become required. And now (or at least a couple of years ago, based on the last statistics I saw) 75% of the 'deacons' in the PCUSA are women, and right around half of the elders. So I know how this story ends if proper discipline isn't enforced at this stage.

Originally Posted by jonmo

Originally Posted by Joshua

No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.

I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.

Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution.

Oh Lord I pray for my denomination.

Originally Posted by Edward

The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.

Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so.

Mason,

Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up?

Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst?

Originally Posted by jonmo

Yes, Redeemer PCA Manhattan, for example, does indeed have a "vibrant diaconal ministry" and Metro NY is better off for it. This is a tough issue where I think the leadership at Redeemer have sought to balance a lot of conflicting demands and still hold to the letter. It was very sad when City Church San Francisco left the PCA over BCO 8 and 9. I hope it doesn't split the denomination further, especially somewhere like New York, where there are enough pressures from the outside.

City Church San Francisco left because they wouldn't submit to the vows they agreed to submit to. BCO 8 - the elder and BCO 9 - the deacon. They knew getting into the denomination that the PCA holds that these two offices are for qualified MEN only. They remained in long enough for the PCA to get them started financially and then they bolted.

This issue bears some similarities with another thread I started here. Though it is over different issues (WCF v. BCO), the root problem is similar: how do we handle ministers who enter a denomination knowing full well what that denomination teaches and yet begin teaching (in some capacity) differently from the system accepted by that denomination. It seems a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

This issue bears some similarities with another thread I started here. Though it is over different issues (WCF v. BCO), the root problem is similar: how do we handle ministers who enter a denomination knowing full well what that denomination teaches and yet begin teaching (in some capacity) differently from the system accepted by that denomination. It seems a recipe for disaster.

Tim great point. I do not understand why we tolerate this for a single minute. It is vital to the health of the denomination that we put these men out of the denomination the minute that they publicly or privately teach against the standards. This issue has been settled for thousands of years, there is no reason to be tolerant, but unfortunately we will. We should keep in mind that this is only the beginning.

*

I cannot understand the arrogance of someone who would disturb the peace and unity of the church and split a denomination by pushing an agenda like this. The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter. But causing a split over egalitarianism and/or quasi-feminism?!? For shame.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Originally Posted by Edward

The PCA is not the denomination that its founders envisioned.

Sounds like a new thread is needed here to expound on why you believe this to be so.

Private conversations with a few of the men involved, and reading some of the material in connection with the threat of a Presbytery to withdraw a few years ago. Probably not worth a thread from me, because I don't think I'd say much beyond that, and would likely not defend my point further if someone could refute it.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books.

Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter.

I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The ARP voted to allow the practice back in its quasi-liberal days (in part to ward off the female elder issue at the time); even though the denomination returned to its conservative roots, this is still on the books.

Actually Tim, I am pretty sure that the ARP has had women deacons since the 1880s, much like the RPCNA. It is not connected to the 1970s women's lib movement.

From a Position Paper approved by the ARP General Synod:
( Women in the Life of the Church )

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church discussed and debated these matters with vigor from the 1960's until the early 1980's. A key development was the defeat of a 1969 proposal to rewrite the Form of Government so as to open all offices to women. The 1969 General Synod declined to open the offices of elder and minister to women but did permit
Sessions to allow women to serve in the office of deacon

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The old PCUS was "split" because that denomination had abandoned the gospel; that's a different matter.

I'm not sure that I will concede the point that this is different from what happened in the PCUS. They either accept all of scripture, or they cut out the uncomfortable parts. And then the only discussion is what parts to cut out.

Eh, you may be correct. I understand your point. I only meant that the conservatives who left in 1973 did so for the "right" reasons. If a disgruntled group leaves now b/c of egalitarianism, that is not the right reason.

Originally Posted by jonmo

Originally Posted by Joshua

No church is "better off for" violating what the Scriptures when it comes to Church Office, regardless of how it seems to practically benefit the people. It's better to suffer the greatest of afflictions than to commit such.

I guess I need to have a better understanding of the particular charges in the lengthy complaint, which I am still reading, to conclude that somewhere like Redeemer is violating the Scriptures re church office. From my own experience attending there, it did not, although the role of deaconesses is definitely more prominent than in any other church I have attended.

The primary issue I have is that the office of deaconness is not Scriptural, and is certainly contrary to the confession, and without a doubt contrary to the BCO.

So what has been done at Redeemer and other churches is to dispense with the "office" of deacon entirely so that men and women can equally well fill exactly the role that ordained deacons do in churches that hold to the BCO they claim as their own as part of the PCA. The deaconesses at Redeemer and other places that have merely "commissioned" people doing the diaconal role do just what deacons do at places that properly ordain deacons.

So the other problem, which is not much less significant than the Biblical issue, is that these churches are skirting (no pun intended) the BCO which they claim to uphold. They are doing what they want to do in such a way that they are not violating the letter of the BCO, but are CLEARLY violating the intent. This is the source of the complaint, and in my opinion a highly dishonest way of operating. It would be far better and more respectable to practice according to the BCO as it is written, and work to change it, than to sidestep the BCO and practice the way you'd rather (with male and female deacons holding office equally, though you argue strenuously that they really aren't holding office) and pretend you're not violating the church constitution.

I will say that I'm disturbed by the number of these reformed womens' conferences and retreats (from a variety of reformed denominations) where women travel around and speak. I stopped attending these because they annoy me no end. These women already have a podium, and have made a business career out of traveling around to these conferences. Certainly they belong to churches which forbid women elders, but if they're lecturing and teaching publicly in "business suits" behind a podium, what's the next step? Why do they need a podium to minister to other women?

Further, while I think it's wonderful for women to get together and teach one another, I'm uncomfortable with women's theological bible studies. I think this is where the trouble can start. They're already teaching theology like an elder instead of teaching according to Titus II. The Greek in the Titus II passage for teach is "sophronidzo" - different than the Greek "didaktikos" used for passages which speak of elders teaching. "Sophronidzo" means sober-mindedness, and that is what is to be communicated to other women in the areas of keeping the home and loving their husbands and children.
And if women are going to teach women these things, the home, not the public sphere, is where this all needs to take place.

ADMIN NOTE:

Unless you have names and examples that you're willing to provide, all speculations about female elders existing in the PCA need not be posted here on the PB. Even if you have proof, such should be handled by sessions, presbyteries, etc.

Also note: this is a not a personal rebuke against anyone, just an Administrative call that I think's appropriate.

Originally Posted by Romans922

Redeemer without a shadow of a doubt is violating Scripture in that they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution.

Pastor Barnes,

Redeemer doesn't believe they are not submitting to the PCA Constitution. Did you read the lengthy resolution that the Metro NY Presbytery and others passed? They make a lengthy argument that they ARE submitting to the BCO. I understand why you and others disagree - I suppose this will be resolved when it comes before the SJC.

Originally Posted by Zenas

Mason,

Is it your hope then that no substantial change comes to Redeemer and that they, in practice, continue to employ female deacons in violation the spirit of the BCO while maintaining its letter to shut those who disagree with you up?

Is that not disingenuous at best and deceitful in violation of the 9th Commandment at worst?

Andrew,

No it is not disingenuous or deceitful, and your point is at the core of Redeemer's philosophy on non-ordained female deacons. The BCO makes it clear that the role of the deacon is one of service, mercy ministry, and is at times advisory (BCO 9-1, BCO 9-6). So even if you ordain a male deacon, there is no practical (day to day) role of authority (teaching, exhortation, rule, policy-making, etc) that he has that precludes a woman from serving in the same capacity. Thus an ordained male deacon has no clear role that distinguishes him functionally from an unordained deaconess - the only difference would be that he is in a church office and she is not.

I think the problem people have with Redeemer's practice is the fact that they do not ordain male deacons at all. People view this as a violation of the BCO, because it makes women and men equal within the diaconate, even though women aren't ordained into the office. So it seems everyone would be satisfied with the result if Redeemer (and other churches) simply ordained male deacons, even if the daily function of the diaconate didn't change - I don't think this would be disingenuous at all.

Originally Posted by TimV

There is a method set up in the BCO for legitimate discourse, even such as would lead to changes in the BCO. But that is not the route chosen by the sneaks and liberals. They would rather constantly chip and erode. First this issue, then the next, and the next and so on.

They, if they get their way on this issue, will use the same technique, which will be to ignore their vows, openly flaunting the BCO until they can bring the debate to a field of their own choosing.

Tim,

I don't think anyone is openly flaunting the BCO. If you read the rationale for their practice (in the link Pastor Barnes provided), you will find they make a strong case for why they are in submission to the BCO. You (and plenty of others) may disagree, but it is anything but ignoring or flaunting the BCO.

Also, this practice has not been one of "sneaks and liberals." The fact that they have made their views and practices widely known for 20+ years flies in the face of that argument. I know you've had a bad experience and want to see the integrity of the BCO upheld, as we all do. Hopefully this complaint and the procedures that follow will resolve this issue for good.