Deacons, Deaconesses, and Deeks

Our church doesn’t have elders, just deacons. Thus, our deacons do more than just the service-oriented things hinted at in Acts 6. But if all deacons are going to do are service oriented things (they aren’t going to publically teach or bear spiritual authority over the congregation), would it be wrong to have deaconesses? Tim Keller’s letter seems to make clear that there elders are only men and that the diaconate do very practical service oriented ministry.

It seems strange that a comment over a dispute over the PCA Book of Church Order would merit posting on SI, especially when (and I could be wrong here) I don’t remember the actual debate at GA being discussed on here. However, for anyone wanting to know what’s going on, here is a link to a text transcript (or adaptation) of Ligon Duncan’s (anti-deaconness) presentation at GA. At the bottom, there is a link to Keller’s counter-piece. Deaconnesses have been a small part of the PCA ever since the PCA adopted the RPCNA churches.

http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-church/the-case-for-our-current-po…

Our church doesn’t have elders

That’s strange. How long have you been without and are you pursuing calling at least one?

There is an audio presentation of the debate between Keller and Duncan that is available. It would be worth listening to to help frame the debate. It is about 1 1/2 hours long.

I meant to say, since the PCA received the RPCES churches (RPCNA is a small but still existing denomination), which had deaconesses (for example, James Montgomery Boice at 10th Pres). However, only those churches that already had them were allowed to keep them, and I’m not sure that Redeemer was ever part of the RPCES, hence the problem.