Semantic Range
I want to begin by restating what I said in my first article, which laid out seven arguments for why I would like brothers in the PCA to stop using the term non-ordained commissioned deaconesses. My discussion is seen as sparking healthy discussion and debate within the PCA. We cannot deny that this practice happens in the PCA (see article by RE Matt Lee). We do not have any official statistics, since neither the Presbyteries nor the AC office record this information. However, the Save the PCA data reflects publicly available information from church websites. Out of 1,531 PCA churches with data, 89 (about 5.8%) list deaconesses on their websites. My first article, this article, and subsequent articles will prompt my brothers to reconsider this practice or to put forward an overture to implement it in the BCO.
I pray that people will read my articles, understanding that I seek to foster healthy discussion and avoid emotional arguments or accusatory language (although at times the reader might perceive such a tone, it is not my intent or motive). I do hope that this is challenging and thought-provoking. We need to either learn how to write well and speak the truth in gentleness and respect, or not speak at all. I am aiming to do the first. Social media has its purpose, but we need to restore the historical practice of writing about issues. I have always appreciated the Old Princeton men, Hodge and Miller, along with the Southern Presbyterians, Thornwell and Palmer, in their writings on issues the church was facing. While I do not agree with everything they said, they did engage in thorough discussions through journals and pamphlets. Today’s equivalents are blogs and online articles. I pray as I write, I do so charitably and clearly. At the same time, being open to rebuke and correction.
Although this practice is within the PCA, it is not uniform (as we have no constitutional guardrails). Some churches appear to be in direct violation of the BCO, listing both male and female “deacons” on their website. I pray that these churches will stop this apparent unconstitutional practice. I always try to see things in the best possible light. Even if this is a web designer’s mistake and not a blatant act of rebellion, it still needs to be corrected. Presbyteries and presbyters should also act to correct this practice, through the process if required. We should also be able to unite in correcting our brothers for these errors.
However, other practices, though not as clear a constitutional violation, still create confusion. In trying to engage fairly, I will focus on churches that practice some form of the “non-ordained commissioned deaconesses” model or similar approaches. As I will point out, the practice is inconsistent across the PCA, and not all situations warrant the same level of concern. We need to stop the unconstitutional aspects, or the practice altogether, or drastically change how churches practice it so that it does not create a quasi-office or confusion.
Semantic Range
The first argument I made was centered around the semantic range of the term deaconess. I believe this term is not helpful in our modern church, particularly when trying to reach people from non-churched or non-Presbyterian backgrounds. Most people hear the word deaconess and assume it means female deacon. Just as there is no functional difference between an actor and an actress besides gender, many believe the same is true for a deacon and a deaconess. I will seek to unpack further arguments that support this concern of semantic range.
Two Offices
The PCA has a clear stance on the perpetual offices ordained by Christ to rule and serve His church, those being elder and deacon (See Article). The office of elder is divided into two classes: Ruling and Teaching Elders. However, we do not have two classes: deacon and deaconess. When we use this term interchangeably, I believe it is not helpful for those in the pews or even in higher church courts (that is another discussion for another day).
To my knowledge, most who use the term ‘deaconess’ do not claim it as an ordained office. However, using a title so closely related to ‘deacon’ can, in practice, create a quasi-office, especially if the terminology, election process, and role are indistinguishable from those of ordained deacons. The concern extends beyond just the title itself; the entire structure of the role can mirror an office when there is significant overlap in function, process, and perceived authority. In some churches, the distinction becomes so blurred that, if one were to illustrate it with a Venn diagram, deacons and deaconesses would appear almost as overlapping circles, and nomination, training, examination, election, and commissioning follow a process nearly identical to ordination, even done together with deacons and deaconesses. The PCA holds a clear position on church government, affirming a two-office view, and these blurred distinctions raise important questions about adherence to that structure.
Get Thomas Rickard’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
While members might not understand the complex nuance of our polity, they should know who their ordained leaders are and who they are to submit to, as stated in membership question 5, “Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?” The practice of non-ordained commissioned deaconesses, at best, blurs the lines, at worst, crosses the line.
Objection: The Church Employs Many People Who Have Titles Not Prescribed in Scripture
This is true. A youth director is not a youth pastor. However, a few distinctions must be made. First, these terms are not within the same semantic range. One has a clear secular use, while the other is rooted in biblical language. It would be unwise to conflate the two, such as a non-ordained commissioned overseer or bishop (which is not forbidden explicitly in the BCO). Second, we need to be clear to the congregation that the authority given to our offices is through Christ. Staff members hold no authority over the congregation, as the congregation does not elect them; their responsibilities come through the elders. I believe I would be as concerned if staff hiring began to look like the process of calling a pastor, or nominations and elections for offices. But most of this is done through the session and diaconate, without congregational involvement.
The BCO Does Not Use the Term Deaconess
I will address this in more depth in another post, but concerning the semantic range of the word, we must recognize that simply changing a term does not make a practice wise. In my other post, I will expand on the idea that just because the BCO allows it, it does not mean the BCO has nothing to say about the correct avenue for a man or woman to assist the diaconate (BCO 9–7).
The BCO does not use the term deaconess because the PCA does not acknowledge this as a scriptural office. Although Romans 16:1 refers to Phoebe as a diakonos, the PCA holds a specific interpretation of this word. Since the offices of elder and deacon are limited to men, it must be deduced that diakonos in Romans 16:1 is best translated as servant or, if gendered, servantess. Supporters of the non-ordained commissioned deaconess use the semantic range argument, but in reverse, Paul uses the phrase ‘deaconess’; therefore, we should use it. However, we do not use this argument consistently; we do not call older women “presbyteras,” the feminine term used to refer to the office of Elder in the Bible, although that is what Paul used in 1 Timothy 5:1-2. Rarely, if at all, do we use the Greek or Hebrew Words to define people in our church, outside of church offices. Using a Greek transliteration of a word to describe a title appears like a quasi-office.
If the BCO were to forbid the use of the word deaconess explicitly, it would imply that the PCA acknowledges an alternative interpretation of this passage, which it does not. The BCO does not seek to list every possible word that should not be used, as that would turn it into a thesaurus rather than a form of government. Instead, it affirms what the offices are rather than exhaustively listing what they are not. As Presbyterians, we affirm the regulative principle of government.
Anatis simile
This argument is commonly referred to as the “looks like a duck” argument, or I am sure there is some smart Latin phrase, such as: Anatis simile, ergo anas (If it looks like a duck, it is a duck).
Some may point to the historical use of deaconesses in Calvin’s Geneva, the RPCES, or other Reformed bodies as precedent. While the PCA has historical ties to the RPCES, no congregation was ‘grandmothered’ into retaining the RPCES constitution (if it were, then all RPCES ‘grandmothered’ churches would also have a constitutionally binding directory for worship). However, we must evaluate how the practice is functioning within the PCA today. Calvin is a great scholar, and I am appreciative of all his writings, even naming my only son after him. However, unless we are using the process and position that Calvin used, we are not speaking of the same thing (eg, Widows, 1 Tim 5:9-10).
More directly, if the same process is followed for the election and training of deaconesses as for deacons (cf. BCO 9, 24), then how is the average congregant to recognize a meaningful distinction? If congregations nominate women with reference to the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3, provide them with training, and then present them for election, does this not inherently convey a sense of authority? In the BCO, election is almost always linked to authority (PP 6). If they are then commissioned in a service resembling ordination, complete with vows made by the nominees and the congregation, can the absence of the laying on of hands alone sufficiently differentiate between ordination and commissioning? Moreover, if these women participate in the diaconate (assuming the church has one) or another leadership team and are listed under offices on church websites or in bulletins, does this not further blur the lines?
We use our Presbyterian polity to establish a process for nominating and electing people to serve the church, which is not an office but appears to be one. Substitute the title deacon for deaconess, substitute ordination for commissioning, and substitute the name diaconate for deacon team (or another name). Is this a distinction without a difference? We must question whether this is truly a separate role or simply a semantic workaround to comply with the BCO. I know this might seem harsh, but I am unsure how else to put it.
I do not wish to assume motives, but this concern is real to many in the PCA. At the very least, if a church insists on using the title deaconess, they must be absolutely clear that these women are not officers, are not elected, and are not ordained. Not merely in the phrase non-ordained commissioned deaconess, I do not believe this is sufficient, as most people do not know what that term actually means.
Conclusion
I pray once more that some in the PCA seriously consider this practice or at least correct the significant issues. I believe it is unwise and unhelpful for some in the PCA to persist in this practice. I am also unsure why sessions do not simply use the terminology of BCO 9–7, which allows for assistants to the deacons. This category is not bound to gender, is already established in our polity, and is more concise than non-ordained commissioned deaconess. It expresses that they are appointed by the session, not elected by the congregation. It spells out their relationship to the diaconate as assistants, not officers. The BCO does not specify how they would be announced to the congregation, but I believe it would not be perceived as an ordination service, as no vows would be given or a charge given. In my opinion, establishing a quasi-office that is not founded in the BCO falls outside the established order of Presbyterian polity and does not align with our church government.
