The Presbyterian Church in America’s Metro Atlanta Presbytery (MAP) on September 20, 2011, rescinded a six-point resolution it had adopted in April 2009 allowing for different interpretations on who may be chosen or elected to serve as deacons and deaconesses in local churches.

The resolution that had originally been adopted allowed for the following possible interpretations of the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO):
1. Only men are ordained as deacons and they conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.
2. Only men are ordained as deacon, yet Sessions select and appoint others – men and/or women – to assist the deacons in their work.
3. Only men are ordained as deacons and women are selected and appointed by the Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
4. Only men are ordained as deacons, yet the congregation elects women, with the approval of the Session, to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.
5. Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry.
6. Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon” or “deaconess” though no one is ordained to this ministry.

The 38th PCA General Assembly (2010) found that this resolution was out of order and listed it as an exception of substance to the minutes of MAP. The Presbytery was directed to respond to the next GA to this exception. MAP responded to the stated exception to the 39th GA (2011), however, the GA found that the response was not satisfactory and adopted the following motion: “The following response to the 38th GA exceptions be found unsatisfactory.” The motion also required MAP to respond again on this matter to the 40th GA, which will meet in Louisville, Ky., in June 2012.

At its September 20 meeting MAP adopted the following as its response to the 40th GA actions:

To rescind our resolution of April 2009 in regard to churches asking help in clarifying how women may serve alongside of men as deaconesses. To inform the churches that requested our help in regard to the matter of women serving as deaconess be answered that their practices would be out of accord with the Book of Church Order if they ordained women to an office.

The 39th General Assembly found Metro Atlanta Presbytery’s explanations of its deaconess policy unsatisfactory. For example, MAP said with reference to point #5, “In reference to #5, we see no conflict with the BCO in the area of prohibition against the electing of or commissioning of women to missions or ministry including diaconal ministry. Ordination is distinctive from commissioning and has been historically noted as such. Further, we see that, as in marriage, men and women are equal partners but have differing roles and differing God given authority.”

The GA responded by referring to BCO 7-2; BCO 9-2 and stated, “Given the means of selection (election by the congregation, rather than appointed by the elders), and the end result that men and women would be “equal partners in diaconal ministry”, choosing to use the word “commissioned” rather than “ordained” appears to be a distinction without a difference.”

With reference to resolution #6 the Presbytery argued: “We see no conflict with the BCO here, as the BCO does not require a church to have ordained deacons. Please note that our resolution put the words deacon and deaconess in quotes, attempting to differentiate the role from the office of Deacon. We would humbly request further insight from the court as to their concern. We stand with the historical church in affirming that men are to be ordained for both the office of deacon and the office of elder.”

The General Assembly responded to resolution #6 by referring to BCO 9-2: “This practice again denies the BCO provision for men leading the diaconal ministries of the church as Deacons and further denies men their Biblical and constitutional right to ordination.” Further, the GA ruled:

Rational: No court of this Church is authorized to issue an authoritative decree outside of the proper exercise of its jurisdiction (see, e.g., BCO 11-4, BCO 12-5, 13-9, 14-6, 31-1, 40-1). No decree of a court of this Church has binding effect except over those who are expressly under the jurisdiction of the court when it issues the decree (see, e.g. BCO 14-7). See SJC Ruling in cases #2009-25 and #2009-26. In addition, with regard to the responses dealing with practices #4 and #5 of the resolution in question, BCO 9-7 is clear that the session must be the body that appoints assistants to the deacons (whether male or female). Also, BCO 9-7 specifies that these appointees “assist the deacons”; they are not to serve as “equal partners in diaconal ministry” as stated in #5. This would not prohibit a session from asking the congregation to “nominate” such assistants, but it is the session that must be the appointing body.

With regard to practice #6 of the resolution, it is true that God may not call or equip men in a particular congregation to the office of deacon. However, that is very different from a church or session prohibiting qualified men from serving as deacons by virtue of a general rule/practice. To institute such a general prohibition undercuts the fact that the office of deacon is “ordinary and perpetual” (BCO 7-2 and BCO 9-1), it runs counter to our doctrine of vocation (BCO 16), and it impinges on the rights of the congregation (BCO 24-1).

Besides Metro Atlanta Presbytery, this six-point resolution had also been adopted by Metro New York and Northern California Presbyteries. Complaints were filed in these two latter Presbyteries alleging that the courts had erred in making such a resolution. Metro New York Presbytery sustained the complaint, however, Northern California Presbytery denied it, and the complaint was carried to the Standing Judicial Commission and it became SJC case 2009-25 & 26.

In this case, the SJC answered the following issue in the affirmative:

Did Northern California Presbytery err when it adopted an abstract statement of what views with respect to the office of deacon that ministers or sessions may hold and practice while being “in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity”?

In its Reasoning and Opinion, the SJC stated:

At the heart of this matter is the belief that Northern California Presbytery, by adopting the recommendations of its Procedural Committee, determined which views related to the Diaconate may be held and practiced by ministers, Sessions, and member churches of presbytery. This belief is incorrect.

No court of this church is authorized to issue an authoritative decree outside of the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. (See, e.g., BCO 11-4, BCO 12-5, 13-9, 14-6, 31-1, 40-1). No decree of a court of this church has binding effect except over those who are expressly under the jurisdiction of the court when it issues the decree. (See, e.g. BCO 14-7 and SJCM 19.3). For example, during an examination of a candidate for ordination, presbytery may properly exercise its jurisdiction over that candidate by declaring a view stated by that candidate to be out of accord with our Constitution. However, the declaration concerning that candidate’s view has no power or effect upon any other person and cannot be used as a basis to prohibit or require any action by any other person or congregation. Similarly, in a judicial proceeding against a teaching elder, a presbytery may declare that a view held by the teaching elder is out of accord with our Constitution and may impose sanctions against that teaching elder. However, the verdict cannot be used as a basis to impose sanctions against anyone other than the person who was the subject of the proceeding. In order to issue a binding and conclusive decree, a court must first have a legitimate basis upon which to assert jurisdiction over a specific person or persons. Then it must 1 properly exercise that jurisdiction through powers granted to it by our Constitution.

In answer to the question “What views and practices are to be regarded as in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity?” the Presbytery should have adopted a statement such as the following: “It would be unwise, improper, and unconstitutional for the Presbytery to determine abstractly apart from the proper processes afforded by our constitutional standards what would disqualify a man from holding office or bring an elder or session under judicial scrutiny. As the result of proper judicial processes, judgments may be made by the Presbytery which determinately interpret what may or may not be in accord with our standards, subject always to the procedures of review and control, complaint and appeal. Any other procedure of setting forth or compiling a list of essential or nonessential doctrines or practices would, in effect, amend the standards by an unconstitutional method” [cf. M10GA, p. 103, III. 25].

The rationale for this position is plain: were the Presbytery, in the abstract, to declare either more or less than the express statements of the BCO, it could not in that declaration either add to, or take away from, what is constitutional with respect to these doctrines and duties; nor could such a declaration infringe upon the right and responsibility of Sessions and Elders to interpret and apply the Constitution as they see best, subject always to the procedures of review and control, complaint and appeal [cf. M22GA (1994), p. 233].

Accordingly, the actions of Presbytery against which the Complaints were made are annulled (BCO 43-10). This judgment neither expressly, nor by implication, renders judgment on the fidelity, or lack thereof, of the six views set forth in the actions of Presbytery.

Because there was regular debate over the years on the interpretation of BCO 9-7, the 38th General Assembly approved an amendment to BCO 9-7 that added the following sentence to the end of this provision, “These assistants to the deacons are not officers of the church (BCO 7-2) and, as such, are not subjects for ordination (BCO 17).” As a result, BCO 9-7 in its entirety now reads:

It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need. These assistants to the deacons are not officers of the church (BCO 7-2) and, as such, are not subjects for ordination (BCO 17).