Thread: PCA General Assembly in Dallas

Yes, thanks, Jamie. That is correct. I just didn't understand the prior question.

The assembly sustained the Overtures Committee's recommendation to strike that portion.

The effect, as explained by current Stated Clerk Dr. Roy Taylor, in response to a question by former Stated Clerk Dr. Morton Smith, is that in our internal minutes, the offending material is printed with strikethroughs, and in published minutes, it is excised entirely.

Originally Posted by Dwimble

Originally Posted by jogri17

Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter

Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.

In defense of the brother who made that comment, he may have meant unwhitting tool of feminism. I think the argument was: the feminist movement will see our division over this issue enshrined in the majority and minority report from a study committee and will try to use it to their advantage.

Personally, i doubt the feminist movement has it's eye on our relatively small denomination.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

For you PCA brethren . . .

Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.

Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was the opinion of only one speaker in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."

And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.

The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.

I think it is the opinion of more than that one speaker. The thing is you can't really say it out loud for two reasons:

1) it is viewed by many to be intemperate. Therefore, it is more likely to loose you votes than gain them.

2) it may be ruled out of order, if the moderator were to see it as questioning the motives of others on the floor, which is prohibited by Robert's Rules of Order.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Originally Posted by Dwimble

Originally Posted by jogri17

Isn't the PCA just the OPC without a psalter

Apparantly it is also a denomination with "tools of feminism" in it.

In defense of the brother who made that comment, he may have meant unwhitting tool of feminism. I think the argument was: the feminist movement will see our division over this issue enshrined in the majority and minority report from a study committee and will try to use it to their advantage.

Personally, i doubt the feminist movement has it's eye on our relatively small denomination.

Yes, I think the brother quoted actually used the term "unwitting tool of egalitarianism," or words to that effect.

I have not seen any secular press or blogs presenting us in a bad light relative to our treatment of women.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

For you PCA brethren . . .

Am I reading it accurately to think that the egalitarian position was being championed by the Covenant prez because his school is possibly hiring more egalitarian profs these days? Or, is that just a malignant speculation on my part? I always thought you Reformed folks were holding the line while we broad evangelicals were in a bidding war to see who could get to hell in a handbasket first.

Again, Dennis, I must dissent: the idea that the minority position was "egalitarian" was the opinion of only one speaker in favor of the majority position. No one speaking from the podium branded the minority position as "egalitarian."

And one speaker in favor of the majority rebuked the speaker using the term "egalitarian" as out of order.

The moderator's response was: feelings are running high; no one is surprised that this issue invoked the most passion; and I hope no one has been offended.

I think it is the opinion of more than that one speaker. The thing is you can't really say it out loud for two reasons:

1) it is viewed by many to be intemperate. Therefore, it is more likely to loose you votes than gain them.

2) it may be ruled out of order, if the moderator were to see it as questioning the motives of others on the floor, which is prohibited by Robert's Rules of Order.

That may very well be. I limited my comments to what was actually said while I was there. I cannot comment on secretly held opinions or feelings of any speaker. Overall, I felt the debates were very gracious and respectful of each side.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.

No one disputes that Phoebe was referred to using the Gk. word diakonos. The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

If I were to go back to my session and propose something, and find that, say, all of the WIC officers were uncomfortable with the title of deaconess, I would not pursue it.

Why is the opinion of your congregants the controlling consideration here? If your current deacons said that they were uncomfortable with the title of deacon, what would you do? There is enough biblical data to come to a conclusion on these questions. It is better to come to a conclusion of what the Bible teaches and apply that uniformly in the church rather than polling our members and deciding from that.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.

No one disputes that Phoebe was referred to using the Gk. word diakonos. The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church.

Actually, some erroneously do. I was sitting on the Nominations Committee, and while we were awaiting the appointed hour, some were gossiping about how Overture 9 might be dealt with, and the general tone was anti-feminist, with one TE actually arguing that Phoebe was addressed with the feminine form of diakonos, with which dialog I chose not to engage.

Originally Posted by ahavah7

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

If I were to go back to my session and propose something, and find that, say, all of the WIC officers were uncomfortable with the title of deaconess, I would not pursue it.

Why is the opinion of your congregants the controlling consideration here? If your current deacons said that they were uncomfortable with the title of deacon, what would you do? There is enough biblical data to come to a conclusion on these questions. It is better to come to a conclusion of what the Bible teaches and apply that uniformly in the church rather than polling our members and deciding from that.

Good question. I would answer that in part with your own answer to the Phoebe, diakonos passage: "The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church." My suggestion is only one possible application, and it would be my suggested application to the most likely candidates in our current congregation to fit the Phoebe, diakonos precedent in Scripture. It would be a suggestion to benefit those likely candidates; so if the candidates were not interested, I would not force it on them. My role as an elder is not to lord it over anyone, but rather act as a member of the covenant community with leadership responsibilities.

As to your hypothetical about the men deacons, we have more Scriptural authority and denominational precedent. Your hypothetical has the deacons going against it all. I would not countenance that. If they did that, I would encourage them to resign, and seek candidates willing to step up to the Biblical and precedental challenges.

But thanks very much for your challenging question.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

And, Scott, I would only add that I have no burning desire to have some women with the title of deaconess, other than recognizing that a woman is addressed in Scripture as a deacon, Gk. diakonos, the same Gk. word used for other deacons.

Well, it's the female form of the word diakonos, whereas in 1 Tim 3, the male form is used when describing qualifications of the officer. The word diakonos is more commonly termed servant - and is used many more times in the New Testament to be just that - servant, and not the office of deacon. Whether diakone (fem form) in Romans 16.1 should be used as "deaconess" (implying office) and not "servant" (implying a servant of the church in some capacity) needs to be determined from the context of its use and the statements made about the office of deacon elsewhere. It is in this particular that it seems quite clear to me that there is no justification whatsoever for calling women deaconesses. To actually give them the name 'deaconess' (even if you don't ordain them) is to put them on par with the ordained deacons. Deacon is a special term now - it has implications that the simple term 'servant' doesn't. Diaconal assistants is far better, and is consistent with both todays usage and implications.

As regards the context of 'deacon' vs. 'servant': oftentimes egalitarians go to the passage in 1 Timothy 3 and insist that the word that can be translated "women" or "wives" in verse 3:11 must mean 'deaconesses' because otherwise the construction is awkward... but this seems completely unreasonable to me. First of all, the people being called 'deacon' in 1 Tim 3:2 are clearly men - since they must be husbands of one wive, and must be good rulers of their own house. Second, if the qualification given in 1 Tim 3:11 about "the women" or "wives" were meant to specify qualifications of deaconesses, then Paul very well, who wrote both 1 Timothy and Romans, could have and would have been expected to use the word deaconess and not "women" which is better there translated as "wives" given the context.

So the short of it - Romans 16:1 does not prove that women are properly called "Deaconess" in the sense of the male term "deacon". It just doesn't line up with Scripture in other places, and the fact is that the majority of uses of the word "diakonos" does not speak about officers in the church, but people who helped in one way or another. Women in the church serving in mercy ministries may be called servants - but given what "deaconess" means today, and that one cannot very well distinguish "deaconess" from "deacon" as "non-officer" and "officer" very easily... I think it exceedingly unwise to promote the idea of female diaconal assistants being given that title.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Well, it's the female form of the word diakonos, whereas in 1 Tim 3, the male form is used when describing qualifications of the officer. The word diakonos is more commonly termed servant - and is used many more times in the New Testament to be just that - servant, and not the office of deacon. Whether diakone (fem form) in Romans 16.1 should be used as "deaconess" (implying office) and not "servant" (implying a servant of the church in some capacity) needs to be determined from the context of its use and the statements made about the office of deacon elsewhere.

Todd, I've only had one semester of Greek, which is long forgotten, but my e-Sword download shows Strong's Exhaustive Concordance having the male form, diakonos, in both passages (the Phoebe address, and the officer qualifications), in both NASV and KJV.

Where do you get that the feminine form is used in Rom. 16:1, brother?

Thanks!

Well, almost 6 hours have gone by and Todd has not responded to my question about the notion (erroneous, in my view) that Phoebe is addressed in Romans 16:1 by the feminine form of the word deacon.

I have referred above to others doing the same. Elder Bob Mattes has an article on Green Baggins in which he does the same, and I respectfully dissent there as well.

If I am wrong on this, I hope someone will respond and show me. Thanks.

You can find all kinds of claims about the Greek word for deacon! Here's what I found, and I believe it is correct...

Perhaps in your learning of NT Greek you didn't learn about common-
gender nouns, which may be either masculine or feminine just as there
are adjectives of two terminations, one termination serving for both
masculine and feminine and another for the neuter, e.g. AGAMOS,
AGNAFOS, AGNWSTOS, or even the word for wilderness/desert that is
very common in the gospels, ERHMOS, an adjective usually written as
a substantive hH ERHMOS, probably with the noun GH normally
understood. At any rate, ANQRWPOS and DIAKONOS are indeed common-
gender nouns. What makes it clear in Romans 16:1 that DIAKONOS must
be understood as feminine is the participle OUSAN that construes with
it.

I hope you're not arguing that word-usage in the GNT is somehow
different from standard Greek usage outside of the GNT. That is a
notion that has generally been laid to rest for the better part of a
century.

You have left your message without a signature and from your
transliterations it seems evident that you're a new list-member. You
should have read but now should read our FAQ at http://
www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/faq.txt or EarthLink® - Page Not Found
There you will find our rules of list netiquette -- including our
requirement that all messages sent to the list include a full-name
signature and our standard transliteration scheme for representation
of Greek text. Please use a full-name signature when next you write
to the list.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: C.W.Conrad Home Page

a link: [B-Greek] Diakonon in Romans 16:1

Thanks, Pastor St. John, for posting Professor Conrad's article.

It certainly would make sense that a feminine article was used to address Phoebe in Romans 16:1, but what I have been reading by some posters here is that the word describing her, diakonos, is somehow feminine, when in fact that same word is used in the passage with qualifications for the office of deacon.

As for the lack of a signature in posts here on this thread, that is a function of the PB software, which, after multiple posts by the same person on the same thread, omits the signature. Having made over 700 posts on PB now, my signature is available on many of them.

Thanks again, sir.
HaigLaw, RE, Shreveport, LA- Grace PCA

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Good question. I would answer that in part with your own answer to the Phoebe, diakonos passage: "The dispute is over what it means and how to apply it to the church." My suggestion is only one possible application, and it would be my suggested application to the most likely candidates in our current congregation to fit the Phoebe, diakonos precedent in Scripture.

This is what I'm trying to get at. I think you would agree that the word diakonos in the greek has a general meaning of servant and a specific meaning of church officer we now refer to as Deacon.

In English, when we want to use the general meaning of servant ,we say servant. However, when we want to speak of the office, we say Deacon.

What I think I hear you saying is this: you are not in favor of women serving on the Board of Deacons or as an ordained Deacons. However, you would like to be able to call women "deaconess" since Phoebe was referred to using Diakonos. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming I have your position correct, this is my problem with it: it blurs the distinction b/w the office of Deacon and the general concept of a servant. We find this distinction in Bible although not by virtue of word usage (same word means either one or the other depending on the context). In English we have made the distinction more explicit by using two different words. I think it is important to maintain that distinction and justifiable from scripture.

I think you have characterized my concerns fairly, and I appreciate yours.

If there is a blurred distinction, however, it is probably due to the fact that tradition has put more emphasis on the honor of the position than the servanthood of the position.

We have on our deacon board various men who see the main job of the deacon to be:
1. taking up the offering; 2. taking care of the building; and 3. doing helps ministries.

The fact that we have all these 3 very different visions is not the fault of Scripture in not being clear enough. The fault is in the lack of vision of some of these men.

Sometimes we need to shake things up and risk blurring things to get at what Scripture says, in my view. Particularly when we make rules like the PCA does in saying that all deacons must be men, when Scripture recognizes there were women deacons in N.T. times.

Originally Posted by Josiah

Praise God for this! I am thankful that this minority report was voted down, but I wonder what will happen at the next GA? What will be the next move for those who are pushing the egalitarian issue? I hope that the younger generation will not fall for the emotional arguments pro-minority report.

May the Lord Bless the PCA and keep her strong.

As it has already been stated earlier in this thread many on the minority report are not in favor of ordaining women to office of deacon. The issue that led to the minority report had nothing to do with ordaining women but addressing the issue of overture # 9 which came from Philadelphia Presbytery. Be careful in accusing those who voted for the minority report of being egalitarian because this is not the case.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

If there is a blurred distinction, however, it is probably due to the fact that tradition has put more emphasis on the honor of the position than the servanthood of the position.

Who do you see elevating honor of position over spiritual nature of the office?

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

We have on our deacon board various men who see the main job of the deacon to be:
1. taking up the offering; 2. taking care of the building; and 3. doing helps ministries.

The fact that we have all these 3 very different visions is not the fault of Scripture in not being clear enough. The fault is in the lack of vision of some of these men.

If your Deacon's have a deficient understanding of the duties of their office, it is the responsibility of the elders of your church to remedy that by teaching, exhortation, and reproof.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Sometimes we need to shake things up and risk blurring things to get at what Scripture says, in my view.

This is the kind of thinking that corporate executives use. If Lehman Brothers wants to fire their CFO and COO to "shake things up", that's fine. But we ought not import their ways into the church.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Particularly when we make rules like the PCA does in saying that all deacons must be men, when Scripture recognizes there were women deacons in N.T. times.

So I'm confused. Now it appears you are arguing in favor of ordaining women to the office of Deacon. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Stephen

[As it has already been stated earlier in this thread many on the minority report are not in favor of ordaining women to office of deacon. The issue that led to the minority report had nothing to do with ordaining women but addressing the issue of overture # 9 which came from Philadelphia Presbytery. Be careful in accusing those who voted for the minority report of being egalitarian because this is not the case.

Overture 9 called for a study committee to study "Scriptural teaching bearing on women's eligibility for election and ordination to the office of deacon and recommending, if necessary, changes to the BCO in keeping with any findings proceeding from the study of Scripture; ..."

In light of BCO 9-7, which already allows the session to appoint godly men and women to assist in diaconal ministry, one can only conclude that those submitting the overture hoped that the BCO would eventually be amended to allow women to be ordained.

no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women?

I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.

I have finished my photo report on the 36th GA. Enjoy!

http://www.waysidechurch.org/2008ga/ga01.htm

Originally Posted by ahavah7

no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women?

I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.

It is interesting to me that all this talk about egalitarianism is from those who oppose it. No one who supported Overture 9 said they were doing so because they wanted to advance the issues of egalitarianism.

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.

The scriptures say there were women who served the Church, not women who held the ordained office of Deacon in the Church. The scripture elsewhere gives the qualifications for that Church office as limited to men. Why all the semantic gymnastics?

Why would this be an issue? This seems to be intentional myopia. It has been explained repeatedly.

Moderators, it seems that both "sides" to this have repeatedly made their points, and some are on the verge of name-calling. I suggest this threat be closed. It has been a pleasure. Thanks to all on all sides.

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?

Originally Posted by jfschultz

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.

Each file starts out with part of the nominating report, but after a little while (I can't remember how long), it gets to the right one. It's definitely somewhat annoying, but it is all there.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?

It's in the report of the Overtures Committee.

Originally Posted by jfschultz

Is there a link for the overtures committee report? It appears that several Thursday afternoon links are all pointing to the nominating committee report. Thanks.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Does anyone know WHICH archive the deaconess issue was in?

I don't know why, but probably because the Assembly was running 4-5+ hours ahead of schedule, all the links lead to the same file, which is the video of the entire afternoon session. It starts with the nominating committee report. That goes on until about the 29th minute, and then the Overtures report comes back on. So start the video, wait for it to load (the gray bar going across) and then drag the time indicator a bit until you reach 29 minutes.

Thank you, Fred It was interesting to watch, but I only caught parts of it (I was running around doing all the things mothers have to do).

I have addressed HaigLaw's position here.

HaigLaw;

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

Why does it come across as if that a bad thing?

What is the deal, that women 'feel' they should have titles or be ordained? Are they that unsatisfied with who they are in Christ, that they must be given a title or be ordained? Are they so afraid they will be overlooked or not heard if they don't have what men have?

I can certainly serve God by ministering to other women without using a 'title',
which is what this issue seems to be about, people wanting to be given a title, because they some how *feel* like less of a child of God without one.

What's next give everyone in the congregation a title so that they can 'feel' more a part of God's family? Or so they can 'feel' as if they are more important in God's kingdom? How childish.

How about we give them a title more consistent of what we are as part of the BODY of Christ.. such hand, foot, big toe, finger, liver, nose, colon, large intestine, kidney, thyroid, all of which are important functions to a BODY. Oh wait, some would complain they weren't the mouth, or the ear, or the left arm. To me this all seems like utter foolishness to be tearing apart the body in such a fashion so that everyone is happy, just so one 'feels important in their own mind..it seems time the church grow up and get over themselves..as it's not about them, it is about Christ..and until they accept that truth, they will continually bicker and tear each other apart..

It seems to me this type of argument was addressed a couple times in Scripture..

Mar 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who [should be] the greatest.
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

and again here:

1Cr 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Cr 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Cr 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Cr 12:17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?
1Cr 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Cr 12:19 And if they were all one member, where [were] the body?
1Cr 12:20 But now [are they] many members, yet but one body.
1Cr 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1Cr 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
1Cr 12:23 And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness.
1Cr 12:24 For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked:
1Cr 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another.
1Cr 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1Cr 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Cr 12:29 [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles?
1Cr 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Cr 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by ahavah7

no doubt many in favor believe that ordaining women to the office of deacon is scriptural. They are sincere and they are wrong. But I have to ask myself what has prompted them to reject the historic teaching of our denomination? Why would they reject the strong biblical evidence for men only in favor of the weak biblical evidence for men and women?

I have to conclude that it's because of the subtle influence of egalitarianism. I don't mean to say that the supports of overture 9 or the minority report wake up every morning and plot ways to advance egalitarianism in our denom. Rather I believe they feel the subtle and overt pressure from egalitarians from within their congregation and without. On the one hand they fear losing the egalitarians within the congregation, and on the other hand they want to try to appeal to the egalitarians without. So they take the easier road and champion the weaker evidence over and against the stronger evidence.

It is interesting to me that all this talk about egalitarianism is from those who oppose it. No one who supported Overture 9 said they were doing so because they wanted to advance the issues of egalitarianism.

It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The Bible says there were women deacons and the PCA BCO says no women deacons -- plain and simple. Those who justify the prohibition on women deacons have the burden of proof and they have failed to sustain it, in my view.

I started a new thread in Church Office to discuss the biblical arguments for and against men only as deacons.