Phil Ryken on Women and the Deaconate
For those interested, I did make a point to defend Phil on the Bayly blog a few months back since I was at the special Saturday meeting of the Philadelphia Presbytery which was called to consider how to proceed on the request of Liberty Church and their involvement in this matter. While Tenth has women involved in their mercy ministry they do not ordain them to the office of deacon. In keeping with BCO 9-7 (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) the only issue for Tenth is what they should call those women. At one point Dr. Ryken stood up and recommended something to the intent that the Presbytery should petition the GA committee concerning what title should be used in reference to these women serving in a commissioned capacity.
Though I may not hold the exact view as Dr. Ryken on this particular matter, I know that he has not pushed for or supported the ordination of women to the office of deacon. I hope that people will be careful in what positions they impute to others. This is a good lesson for all of us. We are often too quick to misrepresent another man’s views.
About Post Author
I don’t think Philadelphia presbytery’s discussions are nearly as troublesome as what we saw coming out of California last summer. When a minster says he will ordaine NO deacons unless he can ordain both men and women and the presbtery does nothing, THAT is a problem. On all kinds of levels.
I agree Kevin!
I do think Liberty’s position is troublesome however. They essentially said “We are going to commission one man and three women to serve as a deacon and deaconesses to show that we think women should be ordained to the office.” The really strange thing was that they commissioned them when there were no office-bearers to commission them to serve beside. They did not wait to have enough men to ordain to the office so they took it upon themselves to lay hands on one man and three women–as if they were ordaining them. It looked like a duck and it sounded like a duck, so what is the logical conclusion?
Mr. Batzig,
You’re concerned about Phil Ryken’s views being misrepresented. They haven’t been.
First, back when you posted a comment on our blog, here’s what I’d written there: “…it’s clear those pushing for the study committee are pushing for change–specifically, the change of ammending our “Book of Church Order” so it would allow something close to what many of them already practice: Namely, having unordained women officers serving in their congregations.”
“Unordained.” For Phil to say that I’ve been accusing him of pushing for the ordination of woman deacons is a straw man.
Phil’s Reformation 21 post doesn’t allow any response, but on my own blog I’ve shown how Phil’s post does little to commend his accuracy.
It’s over at Baylyblog.
Rev. Bayly,
I am much more sympathetic–even supportive of your own view of the deaconate issue–but I am concerned that Phil is being misrepresented on some issues involved. While it might be easy to say that I am simply defending him because of my affiliation with Tenth, I want you to know that I am not in full agreement with Phil on his view of women and deaconal ministry. In fact, I would be supportive of changing the BCO in order to forbid the commissioning of women for deaconal service. I actually believe the provision in the BCO (9-7)lies behind much of the controversy in the PCA.
That being said, I believe that you are not saying that Phil is pushing for women’s ordination. It does appear that you are insinuating that he is sympathetic to that view (i.e. by your statement about his misreading Warfield). Please know that I am not trying to put down your concern about the future of the PCA in regard to women and the deaconate in any way. I sincerely agree with your position (which I alos believe is biblical). I am trying to give a fair representation to Phil since I have often heard him misrepresented in this regard.
Rev. Bayly,
You say, “For me to say that Phil is pushing for the ordination of women deacons is a staw man.” But over on the October 20th post at BaylyBlog you wrote, “Those who watched the battle over woman deacons at this year’s PCA General Assembly know Tenth Presbyterian Church and its presbytery figured prominently in the work to change the PCA’s constitution to allow woman deacons. The effort to have a study committee appointed was not approved by the assembly, but the issue isn’t going away.”
Knowing that there are churches in the Philadelphia Presbytery who are pushing for the ordination of women deacons (i.e. Liberty Church) and then saying that “Tenth Presbyterian Church and its presbytery figured prominently in the work to change the PCA’s constitution to allow woman deacons,” is ambigous at best and misrepresentation at worst. That is the point I have been trying to make. Again, please know that I sincerely share your concerns about the issue. I strongly disagree with Tim Keller and think that your assessment of his influence is accurate. But I do not think that your assessment of Phil or Tenth is completely accurate.
Dear Mr. Batzig,
Fair enough. Thanks for your response. For my own thinking on Phil’s and Tim’s clarity, or lack thereof, I’ve written at length today in the post “Phil Ryken publicly corrects one error, and yet…” over at Baylyblog.
It might be worth mentioning that Lig Duncan’s “byFaith” piece makes it clear how broad-spread is the misunderstanding you attribute to me. For myself, I continue to believe both Tim and Phil are seeking change to the BCO.
Warmly,
Thanks Tim. I appreciate the research you have put into this matter. It is extremely important. I have personally benefited greatly from the work of George Knight. I will check out the Duncan article. Blessings.