Fault Lines, Part Two: A Question to Ask and Positions to Consider
It is vital to ask a tough question before I explore the ways in which the various cultures within the PCA that I described in my last article may respond to the question of women deacons/deaconesses. We have to truthfully answer the ‘why’ question before we move to the ‘what’ question. Is the issue of a woman’s role in the church as a deacon or deaconess a question motivated by an abiding concern to be more Biblical, or is it motivated by embarrassment with regard to our stated position when it comes to how the world views the PCA? Before someone shouts, ‘False dilemma!’ let me hasten to note that I am certain that some people may believe the current stance of the PCA banning women from holding all ordained offices, including deacon, and not currently officially recognizing an order of non-ordained deaconesses is indeed Biblically inaccurate and that they sincerely wish to see this changed whatever the world thinks of how we handle this matter. Yet this question must be faced because those who do often argue for this change do so out of a stated desire to ‘more effectively’ interface with our contemporary culture, a society dominated by a feminist mindset and agenda. Often some very nice sounding theological jargon (like ‘being missional’ or ‘incarnational’) is employed to dress up this concern; no one wishes to appear to be a mere appeaser, or as Paul would put it, a ‘man-pleaser’ (maybe he should have been more prescient and written ‘feminist pleaser’).
This question cuts both ways however. Those who simply don’t wish to even discuss the matter might equally be accused of cultural and theological arrogance. If upon reflection we find that our current practice does indeed fall short of what Scripture commands then we should be prepared (and eager) to change. Simply saying, ‘We don’t do it that way around here’ is no shelter for anyone claiming to be Reformed.
So then, cultural capitulation and ecclesiastical arrogance should not be allowed to govern the reasoning and conclusions the PCA reaches on this matter. Just because someone says, ‘We can’t effectively reach the Bay area without this change’ (as though the power of the Gospel depends on the purity of our polity), or, “We don’t do it that way in Mississippi” (as though that big river is the one that must be crossed to find the home of orthodoxy) is an insufficient basis for making a determination about this important question. Those who want to enter into the debate must ask first why they wish to champion the position they hold. Neither the maintenance of Reformed tradition nor the appearance of being culturally hip are very good reasons for starting a study committee.
That noted, I turn to the various PCA tectonic plates and the possibility of their collision over this issue. How will each of these respond to the question?
Obviously, the grid I am suggesting is a generalization, and there is overlap among these various sub-communities. What I think is vital to recall is the distinctive that worship makes as these groups wrestle with the issue. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi must be kept in mind. That old Latin phrase means in essence that the way we worship shapes the way we believe. It is a truth born out in experience over the centuries and a phenomenon observed by ecclesiastical sociologists of all stripes. From David Wells to Benedict XVI we have ample writing to demonstrate the reality that the culture of worship often drives the bus of belief. Informal, pop worship can lead to a view of God that is also informal and ‘pop’, a view in which God exists to entertain the congregation. In this model, the personal experience of worship as getting goose bumps to line up and fly in formation becomes the standard of evaluation for the effectiveness of the worship service. The Revivalism of 19th century America reshaped the Church and her culture of worship – right down to the architecture – and her view of the Faith. I don’t think I will meet with widespread opposition when I assert that Anabaptist belief and practice is the dominant evangelical culture in America, long ago displacing the older communities that arose out of the early Reformation – Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed. These latter communions, often in an effort to play catch up with their brothers, are now adopting worship styles that are not congruent with their stated theology of God and worship. This abandonment of their ancient practice (lex orandi) will reshape their ancient faith (lex credendi) into something virtually unrecognizable to those who were around long enough to witness the transition from one generation to the next.
In the PCA, the HCs, the NPs, and the STs, will be less likely to embrace any change on the role of women in the Church as officers, or as non-ordained deaconesses. The EPMs however have already shifted the culture of their worship to accommodate what they understand to the demands/needs/desires of their market-niche/audience/community/parish. That strategic decision to reshape the worship culture of the church for accommodation with the demands of the contemporary society sets these churches on the path towards a more ready acceptance of change with regard to women’s roles – even advocacy for such change – because they have come to grasp the significance of ‘branding’ in the world’s church mall. If a church is viewed as being ‘anti-woman’ (at least as defined by feminists) it loses credibility – and perhaps viability – in certain ‘markets’ of outreach. Thus the matter of the way in which the Church relates to the world, the mystery of how she is ‘in’ the world without being ‘of’ the world, lies at the heart of the discussion. Many EPM’s will not countenance for a moment the notion that Scripture alone must determine this matter. Oh to be sure, Scriptural arguments will rolled out in defense of the position stated, but one must again ask if this ‘exegesis’ has been done to defend a culturally relevant position, or if the new position on women arose from the exegesis.
HCs find themselves in an interesting position. They will be mindful that Scripture must be determinative (indeed, in many ways radically so), but they will also be aware of the contribution women have made in Scripture and in Church history (especially in the early centuries), together with carefully stated concerns over the ministry of sacraments. With regard to the latter, because the HCs are very concerned about worship and sacramental ministry, they won’t be asking simply ‘Does this mean women can preach?”, but “Does this mean that women may assist in the distribution of the bread and cup?”, and “Does this mean that women may be readers in the Lord’s Day Liturgy of the Word?” The issue of ‘office’ will be important, but of supreme importance will be how such an office appears before the Church in worship. Thus, while potentially accepting the idea of an order of deaconesses who are different from deacons and are not ordained (and thus in a certain measure of agreement with EPMs), they may not accept women as liturgical readers or as participants in sacramental ministry.
NPs will be on the lookout for any evidence of modernity creeping into the Church, and eager to root it out. I suspect that the views of John Knox on women ministers will supply the sermon ideas for some of my brothers in this grouping. In certain ways, the NPs can, like the HCs, be accused of re-prisitinating a certain era and advocating for this. They too, like the EPMs, might be accused of simply doing exegesis with a view to a previously determined conclusion. They will need to make sure that they do all that is possible to show that such an accusation has no grounds, pleading their case on the basis of the inspired text and not simply on the confessional tradition, rich and in accord with Scripture as it may be.
And what of the STs? They too must have an ad fontes movement, taking seriously the Scriptural case for women deaconesses offered by those who see things differently than they have always held to be true. Yet the STs distinctive concern with preserving a ‘Christian America’ culture may prove to be a great influence as well. STs will be very mindful of the feminist political agenda, and may conclude that this agenda, which is often seen to be an attack on a traditional southern way of living, is cause enough for the dismissal of any call to consider the role of women in the Church. The ‘slippery slope’ argument – that allowing for deaconesses today paves the way female ruling and teaching elders tomorrow – will find widespread appeal in ST congregations.
Thus both STs and NPs will be able to make common cause on this issue, though perhaps from slightly different perspectives, against the EPM initiative. The HC concerns may well alienate them from ST and NP leadership, their very different worship cultures contributing to a certain level of unfortunate suspicion between leaders in these communities. As of today it almost impossible to imagine the NPs and STs countenancing any change to the BCO on the role of women in the church, or tolerating the use of the word ‘deaconess’ or ‘minister’ with reference to women in the church. It is equally hard to imagine the EPMs long tolerating the status quo as they train an emerging group of young leaders and urban church planters. One can imagine the HCs fairly divided and filled with a certain degree of wrangling over the issue for years to come, one group allowing for deaconesses, the others saying ‘Never’ to make sure the tide of feminism is stopped at the gates, no matter what the cost.
You know, I think I’m glad I’m an Anglican.
David, good thoughts on how things may unfold. It is important to ask who is driving the train when it comes to women deaconnesses and other female issues. I would consider a push for a closer examination of women in ministry by men like James Jordan or Douglas Wilson with more charity than I would a push by EPM types. Men like Wilson and Jordan have shown that they do not suck down the culture through a straw and try to root things in Scripture. However, many EPM’s, through their approach to worship, show that they are willing to adopt the culture. Our culture is clearly feminist and thus a push by those who have already molded to the culture in other ways should be regarded with suspicion. Even if the EPM’s do not want to bring in feminist culture, they have shown themselves unable to resist in other areas. Why should I assume they will be able to when it comes to this issue?
Peter Jones, Pastor
Am I correct in assuming that the presbyteries that have initiated the debate for this summer are predominately EPM?
It seems to me the PCA already accepts the idea of an order of deaconesses who are different from deacons and are not ordained, or at least has since the early 1980s when it embraced the RPCES. The question is whether we will still retain the long-standing practice.
And I don’t see why this is “an EPM initiative,” even though it might go over well among the EPM sorts (I also think there is considerable overlap between EPM and HC in the context of the PCA).
Many of those in the PCA who favor permitting the ordination of women to the diaconate are from an older generation, are not within the EPM fold, and their views date back decades. This was discussed, after all, in the RPCES in the 1960s and 70s and a significant minority agreed with the Synod’s 1976 majority report favoring opening the ordained diaconate to women.
Joel,
The history of the discussion with regard to the RPCES is well-known, and those with that background would not be bothered by the non-ordained deaconess order that is suggested. My point is that the current discussion is driven not by history and exegesis but by the desire on the part of some to find a model of ministry that is deemed more politically correct and acceptable within the American urban culture devoted to egalitarianism. That’s why its an EPM initiative.
Ros,
Hmmm. Out of the frying pan and into the fire?
DC
Where does the PCA’s current WIC (women in the church) rate as far as providing a role for women persuant to this question? I have been in a PCA church before where the WIC group seemed more active and impacting at times that did the session.
Well, I’m here in the Philly Presbytery, which sent up the first Overture to GA on the question and I’m pretty well acquainted with the details here, and I don’t think “EPM initiative” accurately represents the discussion, though it may reflect the views of some participants in the discussion.
I think ultimately the discussion is in fact largely driven by history and exegesis, though the situations in which more EPM-minded people find themselves ministering are making it a more pressing issue than it might have been before, when the PCA was largely limited to contexts where our practices didn’t prove so much a barrier to ministry.
So, yes, there’s a sense in which the current bubbling up of the discussion to the point that it is now a “live issue” is a matter of missional concern. But that’s only the case because the history and exegesis has already been in place within the conservative Presbyterian world for more than a generation.
It’s easy to be patient with and tolerate practices you’ve long deemed to be not fully biblical when you are in a context where those practices fit more easily with the prevailing culture. But it becomes much more difficult to remain patient when such practices are proving a barrier to effective ministry.
EPMs and others who want to press the issue, in my experience, presuppose the history and exegesis represented by the RPCES majority report, the OPC minority report, the practice and reasoning of the RCPNA and ARP, and so forth.
Not only is the exegesis and history already there, but those who are pressing the issue (including many EPMs) have been formed theologically by an earlier generation where that history and exegesis have been part of that formation. Thus those leaders and elders in the faith who made up their minds about it a generation ago (James Hurley, Jim Boice, Bob Strimple, etc.) in terms of history and exegesis are beginning to press the issue indirectly through their spiritual descendents.
So I think history and exegesis have a much more decisive role than you seem to be allowing.
David,
That’s rather how I felt when I moved to the US. Now, about to return to the UK, I feel more like ‘Better the devil you know.’
Ros
Perhaps it is a case of the history and the exegesis having a greater role than *some* of people who are looking for change are highlighting.
To be clear, from all I understand the Philly Presbytery is acting with the utmost sincerity in motive, and I am not questioning their reasons for the overture they have sent. What I am suggesting is that there are people who see this issue (not the overture, but the issue as a whole) as an opportunity to ‘better position’ the PCA on the street, or even in the broader evangelical culture. They are moved by an egalitarian and feminist agenda. I am further suggesting that this issue may be one that sets off a chain of events that create a collision of sorts between the communities I have described. Thus, whatever the history and exegesis may be (as I have said) there are entrenched people who will not countenance the view that women deaconesses are permitted. There are those who will insist that we must do so, and quickly. That looks like a potential – and very powerful – collision to me.
Thank you for allowing me to respond to any suggestion that I think the overture has been sent for anything other than godly reasons. I believe my brothers there are acting with great hope that the Church can find a way forward in peace.
That doesn’t mean I agree a study committee is the answer (I am not convinced they accomplish what we need). But if GA votes for one to be raised I’ll be praying for its every success.
Kevin,
The Philadelphia Presbytery has rightly asked the GA to take up this issue, sending up an Overture (considered first by the Overtures Committee which will determine whether and how it comes to the floor) that asks for the formation of a study committee made up of men who hold to all sides of the issue that will take a year to research the matter and offer a report at the next GA. However, while the overture arises from Philly, the undercurrents that led to that action are across the PCA. In the past few years the denomination has bid farewell to some substantial churches and leaders over the status of women in the ministry in these churches, and how that official status affects their ability (as they see it) to be a ‘missional church’ in their communities. Within the categories I have defined it would be the (very broad) group of EPMs that are most urgently concerned with this matter, and who have already started using terms like ‘deaconess’ and ‘minister’ to refer to women’s ministry and staff members in their churches. That language makes others less than comfortable. Yet it also has to be said that many more traditionalist churches and pastors in the PCA believe that Scripture and history show a deaconess ministry in the Church, and these wish the PCA to allow for this language and new openness to the role of women. They too would like to see change, though they are less likely to press for change on the basis of how the church is perceived in the world.
As a former PCAer, I am following this with great interest. Thanks for the clear analysis, David. Are there any women in the PCA commenting on the matter? By the way, I think revisiting the issue of Mary is a great way to approach this issue!
Philip,
Women are not allowed to speak about this or anything else important in the PCA.
Just kidding of course.
But then, I haven’t heard from any women on this.
As for Mary, you must have picked that up off my blog rather than over here on the BH site. But yes, I think a discussion about the role of women in the Church begins with a discussion about women in redemptive history, most specifically the role of Mary as one by whom the Lord fulfills his promise to bring forth a seed to crush the head of the serpent. I don’t believe she would be pressing to be an elder or deacon, and I also beleive the apostles and elders would not have been reluctant to recognize in her one with something to say (to put it mildly). I wonder aloud on my blog if the typical invisibility of Mary in Protestant circles (in a never-ending struggle to make sure no one confuses us with Roman Catholics) hasn’t led to an improper and undue silencing of women as well (though this would be more of a subconscious thing rather than an intentional outcome, her invisibility so great that the very thought of negating her in some way hardly shows up on the radar screen).
Let us start with Eve, go to Jael and her nail, and make sure we hear Gabriel say ‘Eve’ in reverse (in Latin anyway) when he visits Mary – ‘Ave’. In Mary’s womb the reversal of the fall begins in earnest, the war against the serpent moves to a new and more aggressive era, and thus her last words in the NT (“Do whatever he says to you”) should allow us to be pointed to Christ through that woman’s voice. Just a thought, not a dogma.
All the best.
Yes, I saw your comments on your blog about Mary, I thought you mentioned her briefly here as well, though. Very insightful.
A different, but related question: What is the meaning of ordination in the PCA? I never delved into this question when I was a member in the PCA, but my impression is that ordination is basically a “stamp of approval” by the elders or presbytery that in effect says “yes, this man has been educated in reformed doctrine, is faithful to our creeds, and we give him authority to teach and rule over our congregation”. Is there also any concept of a metaphysical/spiritual reality that is conferred upon the ordinand from the elders to the ordinand at the moment of ordination? Or any concept of of something metaphysical occuring during ordination?
I may be off base, but my suspicion is that the different plates in the PCA would have different answers to this question, and how one answers the question would be very telling of one’s position of women’s leadership roles. My impression also is that there is a paucity of teachings on the significance of ordination itself in the PCA, but I may just be ignorant.
Jael was “blessed among women.” When Mary is called that, it’s a quotation. Mary gave birth to THE tentpeg that crushed THE Sisera-head.
There is a unitarian/Islamic streak in historic Calvinism that talks about God all the time and not very often about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is Sovran and Suzerein far more than He is Father and Teacher. Biblical Horizons is not very sympathetic with that, and stands with the approach of the Athanasian Creed. I submit that the overly hierarchical view of men and women in Calvinism is a manifestation of that outlook.
If this be so, then the fault lines in the PCA are going once again to fall between those who think they are being true to Westminster (but who are better described as American Arminian individualists who believe in predestination), and “social trinity” Federal Vision types who do theology much more societally and far less ordo-hierarchically.
I think you/we should ask, though, what is wrong with seeking to be relevant and user-friendly (in some ways) to our culture? I have not followed this closely, but from remarks others have made, it does seem that a rather unisexual view of humanity lies behind some moves for lady deacons in some urban PCA churches. But any view that distinguishes deaconnesses from deacons is moving against such a gnostic view.
And as I said at AAPC this year, when we don’t have deaconnesses and women-elders functioning fully in our churches, then the pastor and elders tend to become overly feminine and take up that role, that the whole warfare aspect of liturgy disappears. American Presbyterian worship is feminine (in a bad way) to the core.
Rather than reacting against a feminist agenda by refusing to have women’s orders, it would be better to have proper orders of women (elder-women, deaconnesses, etc.) and show how to do it right.
Jim,
I completely agree with you on having ‘proper orders for women’; the question then would be what constitutes ‘proper’.
That should be a part three article. :-)
As for *starting* with how we relate to the culture, my caution is a lex orandi – lex credendi issue. The role of women in worship is also part of the discussion, and if we begin with the notion of confomity for the sake of acceptance (as opposed to mere communication) then our worship will be re-shaped by the current culture (just as has happened in American evangelicalism with stunning effects, the tide for this beginning with the second great awakening and accelerating since then into our present, contemptable ‘performance’ worship band culture). In other words, we don’t begin with what the world demands in order to hear us or attend with us to worship. Being incarnational does not in my opinion mean surrendering the worship culture to the demands of the day.
A man walking down the street in a cassock or a collar can touch the world and relate to and in the world just as much (if not more) that the man who is a minister but wears no indication of his office.
I beieve we need a new theology of women in ministry that is around Eve-Jael-Mary so that the Protestant scene is less bedeviled with ecclesiastical girly men on the one hand, and political correctness on the other.
Amen, bro. Yes, by “starting” from the culture I meant only what you say, that when culture raises issues, we do have answers, not merely objections.
At http://www.biblicalhorizons.com, Rite Reasons 41, 86, and 87 give some of my thoughts, particularly the first of these.
As many of you know the RPCNA has had women deacons, or ordained deaconesses since 1888, and the ARP since the 1970s.
In the RPCNA there is no special role for deacons in worship.
My question is two fold:
1. In the American Reformed denominations, is there any special role for deacons in worship?
2. Should there be?
Behind this is the historical reality that there were deaconesses in the early church which assisted the bishops and presebyters in visitation of the sick and had an especially feminine ministry – working with women and children. Calvin allowed a two fold kind of diaconate, and allowed for women to serve as deacons in the helper, visitor ministry. As deacons became more elders/priests in training, deaconesses fell out of favor.
At the council of Chalcedon they lowered the age for deaconesses from 60 to 40. They were widely accepted (and ordained) in the East especially, until around 600 Ad.
Should deacons have a special role in worship? If so, What?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Tony
Can there be women on the study committee?
Hey PastorDC!
Totally unrelated–saw your note on “one baptism for the remission of sins” back in january.
I saw it b/c I was pondering today (I’m a bit of a reformed reformed [sic] Christian) about the one baptism for the remission of sins vis-a-vis modern presbyterian doctrine.
So…I agree that baptism certainly doesn’t save..<– and that truth certainly doesn’t hurt the doctrine of infant baptism. I only see, however, two ways in which the modern Pres. church could justify using that line of the Nicene:
1) when we say it, we of course don’t believe baptism itself is salvific
And
2) that we’re not stretching the (read as non-salvific) meaning of the nicene phrase when our “one baptism” takes place between 4 and 80 years before actual conversion.
I’ve had arguments about infant baptism before, and that’s NOT what I’m looking for now. I have my own opinions about that. What I’m wondering is, can the Presbyterian church really justify using the phrase “one baptism for the remission of sins” when it views the symbol as being so VERY distinct from the act–more of a christening, a preparation, a dedication, and a time for the congregation to pledge their support of the child?
Again, not trying to hash out pedobaptism per se, but only how the practice relates to the Nicean phrase.
Anyway, would LOVE a reply! I’m michael, reachable at wmsmcfadden@gmail.edu
Thanks PastorDC!
And hey, just read a bit of your post here too. Such reasoned analysis…makes me want to start studying theology again!