We use our Presbyterian polity to establish a process for nominating and electing people to serve the church, which is not an office but appears to be one. Substitute the title deacon for deaconess, substitute ordination for commissioning, and substitute the name diaconate for deacon team (or another name). Is this a distinction without a difference? We must question whether this is truly a separate role or simply a semantic workaround to comply with the BCO. I know this might seem harsh, but I am unsure how else to put it.

I want to begin by restating what I said in my first article, which laid out seven arguments for why I would like brothers in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to stop using the term non-ordained commissioned deaconesses. My discussion is seen as sparking healthy discussion and debate within the PCA. We cannot deny that this practice happens in the PCA (see article by RE Matt Lee). We do not have any official statistics, since neither the Presbyteries nor the AC office record this information. However, the Save the PCA data reflects publicly available information from church websites. Out of 1,531 PCA churches with data, 89 (about 5.8%) list deaconesses on their websites. My first article, this article, and subsequent articles will prompt my brothers to reconsider this practice or to put forward an overture to implement it in the BCO.

I pray that people will read my articles, understanding that I seek to foster healthy discussion and avoid emotional arguments or accusatory language (although at times the reader might perceive such a tone, it is not my intent or motive). I do hope that this is challenging and thought-provoking. We need to either learn how to write well and speak the truth in gentleness and respect, or not speak at all. I am aiming to do the first. Social media has its purpose, but we need to restore the historical practice of writing about issues. I have always appreciated the Old Princeton men, Hodge and Miller, along with the Southern Presbyterians, Thornwell and Palmer, in their writings on issues the church was facing. While I do not agree with everything they said, they did engage in thorough discussions through journals and pamphlets. Today’s equivalents are blogs and online articles. I pray as I write, I do so charitably and clearly. At the same time, being open to rebuke and correction.

Although this practice is within the PCA, it is not uniform (as we have no constitutional guardrails). Some churches appear to be in direct violation of the BCO, listing both male and female “deacons” on their website. I pray that these churches will stop this apparent unconstitutional practice. I always try to see things in the best possible light. Even if this is a web designer’s mistake and not a blatant act of rebellion, it still needs to be corrected. Presbyteries and presbyters should also act to correct this practice, through the process if required. We should also be able to unite in correcting our brothers for these errors.

However, other practices, though not as clear a constitutional violation, still create confusion. In trying to engage fairly, I will focus on churches that practice some form of the “non-ordained commissioned deaconesses” model or similar approaches. As I will point out, the practice is inconsistent across the PCA, and not all situations warrant the same level of concern. We need to stop the unconstitutional aspects, or the practice altogether, or drastically change how churches practice it so that it does not create a quasi-office or confusion.

Semantic Range

The first argument I made was centered around the semantic range of the term deaconess. I believe this term is not helpful in our modern church, particularly when trying to reach people from non-churched or non-Presbyterian backgrounds. Most people hear the word deaconess and assume it means female deacon. Just as there is no functional difference between an actor and an actress besides gender, many believe the same is true for a deacon and a deaconess. I will seek to unpack further arguments that support this concern of semantic range.

Two Offices

The PCA has a clear stance on the perpetual offices ordained by Christ to rule and serve His church, those being elder and deacon (See Article). The office of elder is divided into two classes: Ruling and Teaching Elders. However, we do not have two classes: deacon and deaconess. When we use this term interchangeably, I believe it is not helpful for those in the pews or even in higher church courts (that is another discussion for another day).

To my knowledge, most who use the term ‘deaconess’ do not claim it as an ordained office. However, using a title so closely related to ‘deacon’ can, in practice, create a quasi-office, especially if the terminology, election process, and role are indistinguishable from those of ordained deacons. The concern extends beyond just the title itself; the entire structure of the role can mirror an office when there is significant overlap in function, process, and perceived authority. In some churches, the distinction becomes so blurred that, if one were to illustrate it with a Venn diagram, deacons and deaconesses would appear almost as overlapping circles, and nomination, training, examination, election, and commissioning follow a process nearly identical to ordination, even done together with deacons and deaconesses.

Read More