Ohio Valley Presbytery erected a special committee at the October 12, 2007 stated meeting to investigate the irregularities concerning the office of deacon at one of its churches in that the church asserts, “There is no scriptural basis to differentiate between men and women serving as Deacons under the authority of the Session.” The committee presented its report at the January 2008 stated meeting, which was adopted by OVP. This decision by OVP is a part the ongoing discussion on the nature of the office of deacon throughout the Presbyterian Church in America.

 
Committee Report
 
Of
 
The OhioValley Presbytery (OVP) of
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
Special Committee Investigating Diaconal Irregularities of
Redeemer Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis, Indiana (RPC)
 
January 2008
 
1. Committee Members
          TE David McKay (chairman) — Grace PC, Indianapolis, IN
          TE James Furey — Trinity PC, Indianapolis, IN
          TE Timothy Kirk — ChristCommunityChurch, Carmel, IN
          RE Stephen Fisher — Trinity PC, Brownsburg, IN
          RE Craig Speicher (secretary) – The Church of the Covenant, Cincinnati, OH
 
2.0 Purpose of the Committee
This Committee was established by the Ohio Valley Presbytery at the October 12, 2007 stated meeting and given the following tasks:

• To investigate the irregularities concerning the office of deacon at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Indianapolis, Indiana;
• To instruct that Session on the proper constitutional practices regarding the office of deacon;
• To report their findings to the Ohio Valley Presbytery at the January 2008 meeting; and
• To recommend a course of action to the Presbytery.

 
 
3.0 Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to communicate the findings of the Committee to the OVP and to recommend a course of action to the Presbytery.
 
 
4.0 Investigation and Findings
The Committee chairman requested and received written documentation from Pastor Jason Dorsey of Redeemer Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis, Indiana (RPC) detailing their diaconal practices. These documents were distributed to the Committee members for review prior to the Committee meeting with the RPC Session on October 27, 2007. At the face to face meeting with the RPC Session, the oral description of RPC’s diaconal practices was essentially the same as the description in the written documentation. Therefore, these documents are quoted at several places in this report.
 
As the basis for RPC’s diaconal practices, the RPC Session asserts their conviction that
 
“there is no scriptural basis to differentiate between men and women serving as Deacons under the authority of the Session.”[1]
 
The Presbyterian Church in America affirms that our subordinate and fallible Constitution has been adopted by the church as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice and as setting forth a form of government and discipline in conformity with the general principles of biblical polity. (BCO 39-3) It is the stated position of the PCA that “In accord with Scripture, [the office of deacon] is open to men only.” (BCO 7-2, 24-1) The Committee notes that according to the BCO, regarding issues involving the interpretation of the Constitution of the Church, a higher court has the duty and authority to interpret and apply the Constitution of the Church according to its best abilities and understanding, regardless of the opinion of the lower court. (BCO 39-3-4) Therefore, the Committee concludes that the underlying conviction which forms the basis of the RPC diaconal practices is out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA.
 
RPC indicates that they strive to hold their deacons to the same standards as “ordained” (presumably ordained according to the BCO) deacons. The RPC deacons must go through a “process of nomination, examination, and election.”[2] TE Dorsey also informed the Committee that process includes training of diaconal candidates.[3] In discussion with the Committee, the RPC Session reported that their deacons also have a service of installation which includes vows on the part of their deacon candidates. However, the RPC Session in their own words report that “out of respect for dissenting friends in the PCA, [they] do not have a ceremony of Laying on of Hands for [their] deacons (the customary method of ordination).”[4] At RPC men and women serve three-year terms in office as deacons, and a person can serve a second consecutive term.[5] When leaving the office of deacon at RPC, a person also lays aside the title of deacon.
 
The Committee notes that the process of an individual becoming a deacon at RPC is practically identical to the ordination process outlined for deacons in BCO 24 with the following important exceptions:
 
1. RPC deacons may be men or women.
2. At RPC, no person is “ordained” into the office of deacon.
3. At RPC, the office of deacon is not perpetual.
 
 
4.1 RPC Deacons May Be Men Or Women.
As previously noted, in the PCA, “In accord with Scripture, [the office of deacon] is open to men only.” (BCO 7-2, 24-1) Therefore, the Committee concludes that by assigning the title of deacon to women RPC is out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA.
 

4.2 At RPC, No Person Is “Ordained” Into The Office Of Deacon.
In an attempt to avoid being out of accord with the BCO, the RPC Session points out that they “do not ordain deacons at all [men or women] but … appoint godly men and women to the ministry role of deacon.”[6] This position is reiterated by the withholding of the laying on of hands mentioned above. RPC is also careful to acknowledge “that deacons at Redeemer serve at Redeemer; they do not hold an official or recognized ‘office’ in the Presbyterian Church of America.”[7]
 
The Committee notes that the office of deacon is considered to be a Biblical office (BCO 7-2) and therefore not one that should change its nature from congregation to congregation. BCO 17-1 states that “Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.” BCO 24-1 indicates that “every church shall elect persons to the offices of ruling elder and deacon … keeping in mind that each prospective officer should be an active male member who meets the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.” This position is strengthened by the BCO 9-2 statement that only when it is “impossible” to secure deacons do the diaconal responsibilities devolve upon the Session. Therefore, the Committee concludes that by withholding ordination from deacons RPC is out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA.
 
By including in the process of a diaconal candidate the steps of congregational nomination, training, examination by the Session, election by the congregation, and installation by the Session with vows, it appears to the Committee that the RPC office of deacon has all the substance of ordination without the outward visible signs of ordination (i.e. laying on of hands). It also concerns the Committee that there may in fact be men who are qualified to be ordained to the office of deacon who are being denied ordination because of the current practice at RPC.
 
 
4.3 At RPC, The Office Of Deacon Is Not Perpetual.
According to the diaconal practices at RPC, a deacon is elected for a three-year term and may serve a second consecutive term before stepping down from office.[8] The clear implication is that when a person at RPC steps down from active office as a deacon he or she also gives up the title of deacon. The BCO declares that “The office of deacon is set forth in the Scriptures as ordinary and perpetual in the Church.” (BCO 7-2, 9-1, 24-7) BCO 24-7 gives the specific admonition
 
“Ordination to the offices of ruling elder or deacon is perpetual; nor can such offices be laid aside at pleasure; nor can any person be degraded from either office but by deposition after regular trial.”
 
Therefore, the Committee concludes that by redefining the office of deacon as being non-perpetual RPC is out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA.
 

4.4 The BCO 9-7 Loophole
The RPC Session attempts to defend their position that “[they] are confident that [they] are in submission to the BCO which allows the Session to ‘appoint godly men and women’ (BCO 9-7) to assist the deacons (or elders, if there are no ordained deacons) in the ministry of mercy”[9] by pointing to BCO 9-7. The complete text of BCO 9-7 reads as follows:
 
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.
 
It is RPC’s position that the RPC deacons are actually the appointed “godly men and women” of BCO 9-7 and not deacons as the office is defined by the BCO. The Committee finds this to be an errant assertion. The “godly men and women” of BCO 9-7 are appointed to assist the deacons, not be the deacons.
 
The RPC Session alludes to BCO 9-2 when they state that these godly men and women “assist the deacons (or elders, if there are no ordained deacons).” The thinking is that these godly men and women assist the elders at RPC because RPC has no “ordained” deacons in the BCO sense. The Committee notes that while the godly men and women of BCO 9-7 are to be selected by the Session, the “deacons” of RPC are nominated by the congregation and complete a process that is more similar to the BCO ordination process than to the BCO 9-7 process. BCO 9-2 also states that the diaconal responsibilities only devolve upon the Session when it is “impossible” to secure deacons and the Committee notes that this is not the case at RPC.
 
Therefore, for the above reasons the Committee concludes that the “deacons” at RPC can not legitimately be considered to be the appointed godly men and women of BCO 9-7.
 

5.0 Recommendations
The Committee is saddened by the lack of conformity to the Constitution of the PCA on the part of the Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church especially in this case where the very heart of our form of government is at risk. However, the Committee also feels compassion for our brothers who now find themselves in a difficult circumstance. After prayerful consideration, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the Ohio Valley Presbytery.
 
5.1. That the OVP receive this report of the Committee’s investigation as information.
 
5.2. That OVP adopt the following declarations:
 
5.2.1 Whereas, it is the constitutional position of the PCA that “In accord with Scripture, [the office of deacon] is open to men only” (BCO 7-2, 24-1), Therefore,
 
5.2.1.1 assigning the title of deacon to women is out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA, and
5.2.1.2 having women function in the constitutionally defined role of deacon is out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA, and
5.2.1.3 the position that “there is no scriptural basis to differentiate between men and women serving as Deacons under the authority of the Session” is an unconstitutional position.
 
5.2.2 Whereas, it is the constitutional position of the PCA that “Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court” (BCO 17-1) and requires that “every church shall elect persons to the offices of ruling elder and deacon … keeping in mind that each prospective officer should be an active male member who meets the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1” (BCO 24-1). Therefore,
 
5.2.2.1 it is unconstitutional to elect women to office in the PCA and
5.2.2.2 it is unconstitutional to elect men to office in the PCA and not induct them to office by ordination.
 
5.2.3 It is the position of the OVP that differences in these areas may be allowed as exceptions of belief, but not practice.
 
5.2.4 These declarations should be used by the Examinations and Credentials Committee of OVP to clarify for those seeking admission to OVP the position of and practice acceptable within OVP.
 
5.3 That the Ohio Valley Presbytery direct the Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis, Indiana to bring their diaconal practices into full conformity with the Constitution of the PCA as articulated in this report.
 
5.4 That the Ohio Valley Presbytery offer assistance to the Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church regarding the difficulties that may arise in the process of bringing their diaconal practices into full conformity with the Constitution of the PCA either through this Committee or by some other means.
 
5.5 That the Ohio Valley Presbytery require the Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church to provide good evidence to this Committee of their progress toward bringing their diaconal practices into full conformity with the Constitution of the PCA one month prior to the October 2008 meeting of the OVP with a report being made by this Committee to the Presbytery at the October 2008 meeting.
 
5.6 That Ohio Valley Presbytery require the Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church to provide good evidence to this Committee of their diaconal practices being in full conformity with the Constitution of the PCA one month prior to the January 2009 meeting of the OVP with a report being made by this Committee to the Presbytery at the January 2009 meeting.
 
 
The Committee would like to move at the January 2008 meeting that the Ohio Valley Presbytery adopt and execute these recommendations.
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
TE David McKay, TE James Furey, TE Timothy Kirk, RE Stephen Fisher, RE Craig Speicher

[1] Redeemer Presbyterian Church, “Women in the Ministry of the Church” page 16

[2] Ibid., page 17.

[3] A Letter from TE Jason Dorsey to the Committee dated October 17, 2007

[4] RPC, “Women in the Ministry of the Church” page 17.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Dorsey Letter dated October 17, 2007

[7] RPC, “Women in the Ministry of the Church” page 16.

[8] [8] Ibid, page 17 and Dorsey Letter

[9] RPC, “Women in the Ministry of the Church” page 16.