If a presbytery believes non-ordained commissioned deaconesses should be part of our polity, are convicted by scripture women should serve as deacons, the proper course would be to propose an overture to the General Assembly. However, I am confident that this practice is inconsistent with our two-office system and the intent of the BCO.

This is the fifth article I have written as a plea to my brothers in the PCA to stop the practice of non-ordained commissioned deaconesses. The first article briefly summarized seven arguments for why this practice should stop. The subsequent articles have been written to unpack those main arguments in more detail. This article addresses the fourth of the arguments in which I tried to warn of the dangers of the normative principle of polity.

For those unfamiliar with this terminology, it originates from the Reformed understanding of how the Second Commandment applies to worship. The Reformed Presbyterian approach, known as the Regulative Principle of Worship, holds that we may only do what God has expressly commanded in Scripture. In contrast, other traditions, primarily Anglicans and Evangelicals, follow the Normative Principle of Worship, which allows anything not explicitly forbidden in the Bible. I have extended this framework beyond worship to apply it to our constitution (polity) and practice, examining whether we should follow only what is prescribed or allow what is not expressly prohibited (BCO Preface). The Second Commandment requires this practice (WLC 108). I am using a well-known concept within the PCA to illustrate the potential dangers of a particular line of reasoning when applied to our polity. I believe this is what we see in the Westminster Confession (WCF 1.6), and you can read more about that here.

Before I begin, I want to make sure I am clear. I am not arguing that our BCO needs to stipulate every exact item that is required. There needs to be the ability to explain the principles that allow the church’s courts to function. Take, for example, examinations of candidates for ministry, the BCO explains what those examinations need to be, but not every particular question that needs to be asked. This does not violate the regulative principle of polity but enforces it (1 Cor 14:40). Just as there are elements, forms, and circumstances in worship, so too we can apply that we have processes, forms, and prudent wisdom. My argument, more specifically, is that courts of the church should not create or adopt alternatives when the Constitution provides a clear and explicit solution.

Flaw in the Argument

To begin with, the most popular argument I have heard for non-ordained commissioned deaconesses is that the constitution of the PCA BCO does not forbid it. This statement is correct, but I also believe it is not helpful. Liberals use this argument to express that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. I am not calling my brothers liberals or conflating the two arguments as equal. What I want to point out is that to say Jesus never spoke about homosexuality is correct; the Bible doesn’t record Jesus saying that particular word. However, we push back and explain that just because he didn’t utter the word doesn’t mean he didn’t talk about it. He spoke of marriage (what is permitted) and sexual sin, not to mention the whole of God’s counsel. So the BCO not forbidding the use of non-ordained commissioned deaconesses does not mean the BCO has nothing to say about the diaconate, how Christ has structured his church with two offices of elder and deacon, the purpose of the diaconate, the functions of the diaconate, the organization of the diaconate, or even more specifically, how non-ordained members would be able to assist the diaconate (BCO 9–7).

This is not to even speak of broader topics in the BCO, such as the BCO’s careful distinctions between nominations, ordination, election, selection, installation, vows, and appointment, which are necessary for a church polity that is both orderly and biblical. The strength of Presbyterian polity is its structure and clarity. When churches move beyond what the BCO prescribes, they introduce confusion and undermine the careful balance between office, title, function, and service. Faithfulness to our polity requires that we remain within the bounds of what has been given to us rather than assume permission where Scripture and the BCO are silent with specific words, particularly if the BCO has something to say about the topic at hand, such as godly men and women assisting the diaconate (BCO 9–7).

Presbyterian polity does not assume that churches may do anything the BCO does not explicitly forbid. Instead, it functions by stating what is permitted. The fact that the BCO never prescribes the commissioning of deaconesses, while it does prescribe how godly men and women may assist the diaconate (BCO 9–7), is itself an argument against the practice. The BCO would become unwieldy if it attempted to list every forbidden practice in the church. It would cease to be a constitution of principles and processes and instead become a rulebook of prohibitions. This topic alone would require a list of officially forbidden titles to be given to people. It is far better for the BCO to set forth the offices and their functions Christ has appointed to His Church and to outline the proper process by which the Church should nominate, elect, and install men to those offices and calls. Even how the session may appoint men and women to assist the diaconate.

Larger Issue

I want to tread carefully here because this is both an important and sensitive discussion. I do not want to assume the motives of others or falsely accuse my brothers. My concern with what I call the normative principle of polity is that it can lead to loophole legalism, a way of engaging with church polity that adheres to the letter of the law while sidestepping its intent.

Read More