The project was led by Michael Foster, a former PCA pastor. The report uncovers “evidence gathered from publicly available websites, live streams, and church documents” that demonstrates that a non-negligible portion of the PCA (7.3% by their estimates) publicly list women in official and titled leadership roles that, according to Foster and his coauthors, “function in officer-like ways, both in public worship and in the governance of the church.”

Earlier this month, a team of interested churchmen released “The Functional Female Officer Report.” The project was led by Michael Foster, a former PCA pastor. The report uncovers “evidence gathered from publicly available websites, live streams, and church documents” that demonstrates that a non-negligible portion of the PCA (7.3% by their estimates) publicly list women in official and titled leadership roles that, according to Foster and his coauthors, “function in officer-like ways, both in public worship and in the governance of the church.” The report and underlying data have been published at www.savethepca.com.

In 2023, my friend Liam Carr and I published what was at the time the only empirical treatment of the subject of women’s leadership in the PCA. We drew a random (that is to say, representative of the denomination) sample of 14 presbyteries and reviewed the available websites of every church in those presbyteries, 294 churches altogether. We concluded that 4.1% of churches in the PCA have “deaconesses.”

Foster’s work expands on ours in at least two important ways. First, while we used a representative sample, Foster’s data is nearly a census of the PCA. A representative sample is useful because it helps us guess within a reasonable margin of error characteristics about the population. Census data takes the guesswork out of the equation and is thus superior to random samples. Foster and his team reviewed all 1,528 working English-language websites in the PCA, approaching a census of the PCA.

Second, while we narrowly defined our search to “deaconesses” explicitly, Foster and his team expanded the scope of their search to include “shepherdesses” and other examples of what they deemed “functional female offices.” The most common examples of women’s leadership roles include women’s councils, elder advisory boards, and mercy teams.

Foster’s report should be believed as a credible report of women serving in officer-like leadership roles in the PCA.

“Too many mistakes”

One criticism of the Foster Report is that there are too many mistakes for the data to be usable.

Every data set is subject to imperfections. There are strengths and weaknesses with both my method and Foster’s method for addressing these imperfections. The advantage of my method was that its laser-focus on the specific term “deaconess” meant that there was little room for coding error. The clear disadvantage is that such focus could not capture the full extent of females in officer-like roles in the PCA. The advantage of Foster’s method lies in its sweeping scope. However, the disadvantage is that a greater degree of subjectivity is required in consistently coding such data.

Critics would have us dismiss the entire report because of this subjectivity. However, I would contend that these criticisms actually strengthen Foster’s central thesis in two important ways. First, the difficulty in coding means it is more likely that Foster and his team are undercounting rather than overcounting. The result is that it is probable that many more than 7.3% of PCA churches engage in some sort of related practice. Second, the difficulty in coding arises from the fact that churches have used a wide range of titles to give women leadership roles. Had these churches operated in specific ways prescribed by our BCO, the coding process would have been much simpler and more straightforward.

“Specific women named”

Another critique of the Foster Report is that it was unethical for him to name specific women. It’s a reasonable critique, and had I been involved in this project (I wasn’t), I would have advocated for reporting the data in deidentified ways.

To be clear, this method should not be considered unethical because Foster relies on directory data that is publicly reported by the churches themselves. It is not considered by law to be sensitive data that needs to be deidentified. Those alleging abuse and calling for discipline should direct the attention of ecclesial courts to the churches themselves that named the women on their websites in the first place.

The advantage of this method is that it is fully transparent as to how the data were coded. Foster’s raw data lists specific women with specific titles and provides archived links to church websites to validate. One common mistake I’ve seen among his critics is that this raw data lists women who are clearly fulfilling appropriate church roles that shouldn’t be considered functional officers. Foster’s analysis codes only a portion of these as functional officers. In fact, he would agree with many of his critics that some of the women named are not operating in violation of PCA polity.

Critics of the Foster Report cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim the method is too muddled to produce useful data. On the other hand, they claim that it was wrong for Foster to explicitly list names. Unfortunately for his critics, Foster’s data cannot both be muddled and explicit at the same time.

The transparency of his method makes it possible for a person to replicate his work one-to-one. Replicability strengthens the credibility of his work.

“Not that widespread”

A third critique of the Foster Report is that his findings actually seem to suggest that the practice of women’s leadership in officer-like roles is not that widespread. Again, Foster reports that 7.3% of PCA church websites list women functioning in officer-like roles.

Foster’s estimate is likely a lower-bound estimate. In other words, it is highly believable at least 7.3% of PCA churches have women in official roles with various leadership titles. The first reason it is a lower-bound estimate is because of a censored data issue. A recent amendment to the Book of Church Order forbids the giving of titles connected to “the ordained offices of pastor/elder, or deacon” to unordained persons (BCO 7-3). Churches wishing to avoid the sanctions of higher courts have a strong incentive to avoid reporting practices that might invite scrutiny.

The second reason it is a lower-bound estimate is related to their method. Foster and his team counted churches that listed specific women “in official roles with various titles.” Churches that mention deaconesses or shepherdesses without identifying specific women would have evaded detection. The practice of functional female leadership is likely more pervasive throughout the PCA than the 7.3% figure suggests, though it is impossible to determine exactly how pervasive.

Finally, even if it is merely 7.3% of PCA churches, these churches were reported in 43 presbyteries. Nearly half of the PCA’s presbyteries have this practice within their bounds and have not restricted it.

“Not in the PCA”

A fourth critique of the Foster Report is that Michael Foster himself is not a member of the PCA.

According to BCO 40-5, when a court receives a credible report regarding one of the courts in its jurisdiction, it has an obligation to act by citing the lower court. BCO 40-5 is silent as to the originating source of the credible source. The source can be a covenant child. The source can be an avowed atheist. The source can certainly be a former PCA pastor.

Whether a court acts will depend on whether it believes the findings of this report should be considered “any important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings.” As Foster himself has stated, not every case documented by his report should be considered delinquent or grossly unconstitutional. And many in the PCA will disagree as to whether other cases rise to this level.

As I have argued, Foster has provided a credible report. The next step is to bring this credible report to the ecclesial courts and to allow them to do their work.

If you are a person concerned about the findings of this report, you have the right to bring the report to the attention of the church courts. You may bring it to the attention of your elders. You may bring it to the attention of churches or presbyteries identified in this report. If you are unsure about how to do the latter, you may ask your elders to contact the churches or presbyteries for you.

The Foster Report is a credible report. It should not be dismissed on the basis of these common critiques. However, it is not sufficient for change. There is still important work left to be done, both in bringing the report to the attention of the courts, and in doing the work in the courts themselves to resolve any practices, if any, that are inconsistent with our polity and practice.

Matthew Lee is a ruling elder in Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Woodstock, GA.