PCA and Deaconesses - What's Next?

I've been musing a bit on this whole issue and wondering how the presbyteries of Philadelphia and Northern California will respond to the 36th General Assembly on the issue of deaconesses. To help you get perspective I've included the pertinent parts of our report (Committee on Review of Presbytery Minutes) that will be sent to each presbytery. Note: These exceptions were originally flagged in 2007 at the 35th General Assembly in Memphis, Tennessee. Each presbytery responded to our inquiry and now the 36th General Assembly is communicating back to them that their responses to our original questions are inadequate.

PHILADELPHIA (p. 1240 of Commissioner Handbook): That the following response to the 35th GA exceptions be found unsatisfactory. Responses should be submitted to the 37th GA.
Exeption: November 11, 2006: Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned contrary to BCO 9-3.

Response (from Philadelphia): "We note that the exception taken to our minutes of November 11, 2006 state, 'Diaconate of new church includes 4 Deaconesses commissioned contrary to BCO 9-3)'...Philadelphia Presbytery respectfully requests more information from the RPR. Please clarify how the commissioning of 4 unordained women as deaconesses is out of accord with BCO 9-3."

Rationale (Response from this year's RPR and General Assembly): "We agree with the Presbytery that BCO 9-3 would not directly apply to the commissioning of unordained women, if they are not considered to be members of the Diaconate. However, the record (Philadelphia Presbytery's 2006 minutes) indicates that "four deaconesses and one deacon were commissioned", and the record of the particularization service refers to "Vows/Commissioning of the Diaconate." BCO 9-3 and 9-4 are clear that only ordained and elected men can be members of a "Diaconate."

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (p. 1232 of Commissioner's Handbook): That the following response to the 35th GA exceptions be found unsatisfactory. Responses should be submitted to the 37th GA.

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

Response (from Northern California): "Presbytery respectfully disagrees with the exception (RAO 16.10.b.2). Presbytery approved the organizing pastor's exception with respect to the diaconate (provided below) upon transfer into Presbytery...
Pastor's Exception: ORDINATION AND OBEDIENCE TO DEACONS (specifically BCO 24-5, 24-6) Whereas the BCO correctly identifies Deacons as an office in the church, I believe it misinterprets Scripture regarding their ordination. The question to the congregation in 24-5 asks them to yield obedience to Deacons. In 24-6 (and various other places) the Deacons are referred to as ordained in the same manner as Elders. Until the BCO is amended, I intend to not ordain deacons, but elect and install them. I also intend to elect and install unordained deaconessess. This is allowable under BCO 9-7."

MOTION: Presbytery approves the proposed response to GA. MOVED/SECONDED/PASSED.

Rationale (Response from RPR and this year's GA): Presbytery's response does not adequately address the specific issue identified by the 35th GA. The newly installed Session of the particularized church "commissioned" unordained men and women for a body which the Presbytery minutes call the "diaconate" (BCO 9, 19-15, 24-10). However, BCO 9 is clear that only ordained and elected men can be members of a "diaconate." The appeal to BCO 9-7 is flawed because 9-7 addresses people appointed by the Session, not members of a diaconate (Board of Deacons, 9-4). According to BCO 9-3 and 9-4, a diaconate may only include men who are elected, ordained and installed. Therefore, the body referenced in the exception must not be called a diaconate. In addition this practice, coupled with the minister's expressed view that he intends not to ordain deacons "until the BCO is amended," denies qualified men their constitutional and biblical right to be considered for office."

You will note that the common theme in both cases is that each church chose to eliminate the biblical office of deacon in favor of establishing a committee of 'commissioned' men and women to do the work of mercy ministry. What tripped them up was using the term "diaconate" (board of deacons) to refer to this body.

What I fully expect is a response from each presbytery that will go something like this: "Fathers and brothers, our presbytery erred when it allowed XYZ Church to 'commission' men and women to serve on a diaconate. We have instructed that church to refer to that commissioned body by using a different term (ie. Mercy Ministry Team) so as not to cause confusion about the biblical office of deacon. We regret our error and promise to be more careful in the future."

You will see that this response is nothing more than a careful parsing of words that sidesteps the bigger issues involved, namely 'commissioning' (which is not mentioned in the BCO) and a church's refusal to permit the biblical office of deacon from being filled.

Absent in our committee discussions (Review of Presbytery minutes) and on the floor of General Assembly was any mention of the term 'commission.' This is unfortunate because each set of presbytery minutes noted that the commissioning included the taking of vows and the laying on of hands (both part of a regular ordination service). I think that a complaint needs to be filed against this practice citing the language of BCO 9-7 which specifies that the Session may appoint qualified men and women to assist the deacons. An appointment need not happen publicly: it can be a matter of a Session meeting that is later reported to the congregation. Vows and laying on of hands are not required either.

The other issue will be much harder to deal with: how to require churches to have a biblical diaconate (male only, and ordained to office). Our present constitution makes an allowance for churches that may not have deacons (see BCO 5-10). A church may choose not to have deacons or may not have qualified men to fill this office: in such cases the duties of deacons "shall devolve upon the ruling elders" (BCO 5-10).

A number of churches that came into the PCA had a history of women deacons and their solution was to do away with the office of deacon altogether. We have some churches like this in our presbytery and their elders do the work of shepherding and mercy. The instances cited above in Philadelphia and Northern California are occasions where churches are trying to establish a committee of men and women (equals) to do mercy ministry in lieu of a male diaconate. The end result is captured in the last phrase of our response to Northern California: "(it) denies qualified men their constitutional and biblical right to be considered for office."

Perhaps a constitutional challenge (a reference, see BCO 41) or a complaint can be filed against churches for failing to allow qualified men their constitutional and biblical rights to be considered for office. Another tack might be to challenge churches that commission men and women for mercy ministry for failing to allow that work to "devolve upon the ruling elders." I understand that phrase to mean that the elders are charged with doing the work of the deacons and not delegating it to whatever body they may dream up. That's exactly how Dr. Morton Smith understands that phrase. From his commentary on the BCO, in section 5-10 he has this comment, "Many new congregations will not have enough qualified men to provide for both elders and deacons. In this case the Session must assume the duties of the Diaconate."

I don't know if I am on the right track in all of this but I foresee the process taking 3-5 years to work its way through the courts of our church.