Stewardship requires judgment, wisdom, discretion, decision-making, and directing others. These are not neutral or purely mechanical tasks. They require recognized authority, exercised for the sake of mercy and order. Perhaps the clearest evidence that deacons possess real ecclesiastical authority lies in the ordination vows themselves.

Note: This article is a follow-up from Dr. Guy Waters’ article “What Is Biblical Ordination?“

Introduction

In recent years, few debates in the Presbyterian Church in America have proven as persistent, or as revealing, as the question of whether women may serve as deacons. Now, in the past few days, with two presbyteries passing overtures arguing for the local church’s right to ordain women to the office of deacon, social media has become frenzied with the same conversations. 

While often framed as a dispute over mercy ministry or the recognition of women’s gifts, the debate is fundamentally about something deeper: the nature of ecclesiastical office and authority in the church of Jesus Christ.

At the heart of the disagreement lies a question that is not always plainly asked: Do deacons possess real authority in the local church? How one answers that question largely determines how one answers the question of women in the diaconate.

Historical Reflection

When the PCA was formed in 1973, it affirmed a historic Presbyterian understanding of church office. That understanding recognized two ordinary and perpetual offices, elder and deacon, each established by Scripture, requiring ordination, and exercising authority appropriate to its office.

The Book of Church Order reflects this clearly:

BCO 9-2: “The office of deacon is set forth in the Scriptures as ordinary and perpetual in the Church.”

From the beginning, the diaconate was not conceived as a temporary practical or volunteer role, but as a permanent ecclesiastical office. Deacons were understood to possess real, though limited, authority, exercised in stewarding the church’s material resources and leading her ministry of mercy.

Notably, the PCA did not begin with an active controversy over women deacons. Male-only ordination across all offices was assumed. The present debate emerged later, driven not by a change in constitutional language, but by a gradual shift in practice and underlying assumptions about authority.

From Office to Function: How the Debate Emerged

As PCA congregations grew and diversified, particularly in suburban and urban contexts, mercy ministry significantly expanded. Women were often the most active and effective participants in caring for the poor, the sick, and the vulnerable. In response, many churches sought ways to formalize women’s involvement without altering the doctrine of ordination.

This led to the widespread use of non-ordained diaconal assistants, a practice explicitly permitted by the BCO:

BCO 9-7: “It is often expedient that the Session select and appoint godly men and women to assist the deacons in the execution of their duties.”

This provision was intended to preserve two things simultaneously: Male-only ordination to church office, and robust participation by women in works of mercy. Yet over time, practice outpaced polity. In many churches, diaconal assistants performed the same functions as ordained deacons by administering benevolence funds, directing mercy ministries, and exercising practical leadership. The only difference was ordination status.

The debate over women deacons thus shifted from a theological question to a functional one: If women already do the work of deacons, and are gifted in those areas, why should they not be recognized as deacons?

That question, however, assumes that the diaconate is defined primarily by what one does, rather than what one is ordained to be. I simply do not see that view in the Bible.

Read More