I want to remind readers that I am writing a plea, not a charge. I recognize that some PCA churches practice non-ordained commissioned deaconesses in different ways, with some being more extreme than others. My basic plea is that the arguments I have presented outweigh the reasons for maintaining this practice.

This is the sixth 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 unpacked those arguments in more detail. This article addresses the fifth and sixth arguments I originally presented. I am presenting these two together because I believe they are the weakest of my arguments.

These arguments are valid, rational, and accurate, but arguments based on a single SJC decision and a study report ultimately have a major limitations. Even if I could prove my point from these sources, others could dismiss them because, while they serve a purpose in our denomination, they are not part of its constitution.

I would also like to clarify my position: I am writing these arguments as a plea, not a charge. Some matters in our denomination are not formally up for discussion. Currently, there is no overture before the General Assembly to allow for women to serve in an ordained office. In the future I will write about the history of how the northern and southern churches came so such a vote, but that is for another day.

One could arguably support the practice of non-ordained commissioned deaconesses using these two sources, the SJC case SJC 2007–13 TE Kniseley vs. Rocky Mountain Presbytery, and the Ad Interim Committee on Women Serving in the Church. Both SJC reports and study committees provide helpful insight to the denomination, but they also have their limitations. I still stand by the original arguments I presented in the first article, as I believe they warrant careful thought, discussion, and consideration. However, this article will highlight the limitations of using these sources as a foundation for such an argument. I also believe that examining documents that could be interpreted as ‘pro-deaconess’ helps to expose some concerns with the practice itself.

SJC

The SJC has a specific function in the PCA as defined by the BCO: “The Standing Judicial Commission shall have the judicial powers and be governed by the judicial procedures of the General Assembly” (BCO 15–5.a). Its power is limited to judicial matters. In simplest terms, the SJC determines cases involving discipline, doctrinal disputes, and constitutional interpretation (BCO 31–2, 34–5).

A key distinction to understand is that the SJC does not have unlimited authority to define doctrine, discipline, or constitutional matters in whatever way it chooses. It only addresses cases properly brought before it through the constitutional process. To my knowledge, the SJC has never ruled on a case directly or indirectly concerning non-ordained commissioned deaconesses.

Not all cases presented to the SJC are equivalent. Two similar cases could be decided differently for various reasons. This is not to say that SJC members show favoritism, but rather that each case involves multiple variables that affect the outcome.

One major factor is that the constitution itself changes over time. The SJC interprets cases in light of the constitution as it stands at the time of the ruling. As amendments occur, prior SJC decisions may no longer be applicable today due to the change in the Constitution.

Another factor to consider is the changing composition of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). While many members serve multiple terms, providing continuity, a commission with a different set of members may reach a different conclusion on a similar case. This does not imply a lack of consistency in SJC rulings, as most decisions are unanimous or reached by a supermajority.

Read More