When churches create roles for women that closely resemble the work, visibility, and symbolic authority of ordained officers—while denying that these roles carry authority—they introduce confusion. Authority becomes something that can be visually imitated without being formally bestowed. The congregation is taught (however unintentionally) that authority is aesthetic rather than substantive. 

For Dr. Guy Waters’ article on “What Is Biblical Ordination?”

For Matt Adams’ article on “Do Deacons Have Ecclesial Authority?”

Introduction

I write not as a theologian, minister, or church officer, but as a woman and an ordinary PCA churchgoer who has a real stake in the continuing faithfulness of the church. Decisions made at the General Assembly and in presbyteries are not abstract, but have an impact on ordinary congregations. Like many others, I am a sheep affected by the decisions my shepherds make. Leaders in the church have a responsibility to their members to reject cultural forces and errant logic shaping the debate about women in church office. Currently, the question is whether the church may stage the appearance of women in leadership, without the actual substance of authority, in order to respond to cultural expectations or internal pressures. I argue that it may not and that doing so carries real costs for the church’s doctrine, worship, and witness. 

What Is The Core Issue In This Debate?

The debate over “functional female officers” is often framed as a question of pastoral sensitivity or pragmatic flexibility. But it is neither. The push for women in visible leadership roles in the PCA is largely an appeal to empathy. Women’s participation is seen as a way to honor them, as a loving acknowledgement of their gifts and talents. Treating office as something that women must visibly approximate in order to be appreciated imports a worldly view of hierarchy into the church. Leadership grants fulfillment, and visibility confirms value. But this is a thoroughly modern assumption that the New Testament never makes.

There are two main problems with the question before us. Firstly, much of the present debate proceeds as though the central concern were the distribution of gifts, but this is the wrong question. Nobody denies that women are gifted and valuable members of Christ’s body. Secondly, the insistence on latitude and flexibility with our practice is too suspiciously responsive to cultural expectations about men and women. 

In her essay The Great Feminization, Helen Andrews posits that nearly every major institution in America has been reshaped by “feminization”: the imposition of feminine-coded social norms like empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over principled disagreement. (1) Over time, these norms reshape institutions, not through formal revolutions, but through gradual accommodation. Institutional leaders on the whole respond to cultural expectations about what it means to be kind, loving, or inclusive.

We can see how over time cultural expectations reshape institutions, not through formal revolutions, but through gradual accommodation. The most readily available example we have of this happening in the church is the state of the mainline denominations, which began to ordain women over 60 years ago. And the Presbyterian Church in America is not immune to the same kinds of emotional leverage that captured our mother church.

An Example Of The Underlying Issue

For example, Overture 38 from Metro Atlanta Presbytery calls for “flexibility regarding the diaconate”. This overture, in particular, is interesting since it seeks to change what the BCO says about officers, but not in a way that explicitly calls for the PCA to change the stated beliefs on ordination. The stakes are made to sound low, and certainty on the church’s message unimportant. But is that actually the case?

A similar argument made in favor of loosening our perspective on women’s roles in the church is that women in the PCA are being “sidelined”. (2) Yet this claim is not really explained at any point. How could you make such a claim that women are being “sidelined”? Nobody knows how every PCA church operates on a day to day basis. The only thing that could be pointed to is the objective fact that women are not ordained to any office in our churches. 

The above arguments are calls to merely soften the church’s doctrine and position, but not to officially change anything about the doctrine. The most common argument is that churches should be able to exercise a very wide range of positions on women’s participation in visible leadership. The reason for this seems to be that the stated doctrinal position keeps women “sidelined” and subdued (an argument, I’ll note, that leans on the way women are perceived more than anything else). 

Since we tend to see this primarily as a doctrinal debate, we are often discussing the substance of authority and the evidence for different positions. However, opposing arguments don’t seem to rely on advocating for a specific doctrinal position. Rather, they seek to maintain a status quo where multiple views are tolerated. Maintaining the appearance of women in authority seems to be much more important than defending a concrete doctrinal position about women in leadership. 

Read More