How to Navigate Our Ongoing Differences—Geoff Ziegler
by Geoff Ziegler
The 2026 General Assembly will not resolve our denomination’s differences regarding the role of women in diaconal ministry.
This is not a difficult prediction to make. From at least the time when the RPCES joined the PCA in 1982, faithful leaders within the PCA have disagreed on this topic. To this point, efforts such as the famous GA Keller/Duncan seminar in 2009, or the 2017 Ad Interim Report on Women in Ministry have not seemed to bring us any closer to consensus. To see how little has changed, we need only look at the multiple overtures sent to our upcoming GA that pertain to this very question, including Overture 37’s proposal for the PCA to allow the ordination of women deacons.
A significant reason for this apparent lack of progress is that an earnest commitment to submit to Scripture cannot on its own settle the matter. Phoebe is described as a diakonon of the church in Romans 16:1. Is that a formal title or a reference to her faithful service? In the middle of naming the qualifications for deacons, Paul lists qualifications for gynaikas. Is he referring to wives of deacons or women who serve with/as deacons? As the two companion essays to this piece demonstrate, one can make strong biblical arguments for both positions, and both can cite many respected, conservative scholars and pastors in their favor.
Rather than trying here to resolve this disagreement, I want to consider a perhaps more existential question. Given that these differences are not likely to go away anytime soon, what should we as a denomination do about them? What does it look like to fulfill our vows to “be in subjection to our brethren” and to be “zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church” when we can’t seem to agree on what the Bible says about an important matter?
I propose three principles:
1. Subjection sometimes involves abiding by policies we believe are unbiblical.
Given our deep commitment to Scripture, this statement might seem problematic. Yet it’s the necessary implication of our commitment to maintain bonds of partnership and accountability in a time when we can only “see in part.” Unless we somehow eliminate all disagreement on what the Bible teaches, a denomination’s standards will always appear to some within it either to bind or give freedom in ways that are contrary to Scripture. If our denomination were like the RCNA in allowing women deacons, subjection for those who disagree with the practice would mean choosing to respect that policy and not be divisive. In our current context, subjection means that those who believe that it would be biblical to appoint women deacons nevertheless refrain from doing so.
Of course, the exception to this principle relates to matters of conscience. There may be occasions when some conclude that their denomination is in such error that it would be wrong for them to stay in their denomination in its current form and submit to its regulations. In such an instance, only two options are open to such people: to seek immediate change or, failing that, to leave.
Importantly, this does not seem to describe our present situation. To my knowledge, no one in our denomination (including the writers of Overture 37) argues that the Bible requires us to ordain women deacons.
Such would be a difficult claim to biblically defend.
Yes, it is clear that Paul’s “Likewise, women” in 1 Timothy 3:11 indicates an expectation that women/wives participate in diaconal ministry in a publicly recognizable way. However, the “likewise” suggests that when Paul first mentions deacons in verse 8, he does not expect Timothy immediately to assume he’s writing about women. It would appear, rather, to indicate that the women mentioned in verse 10 belong to a closely related and yet different category than the “deacons” of verse 8-10. It certainly does not offer evidence that women serving in diaconal ministry are required to be called deacons.
Similarly, whether or not we are to view those appointed in Acts 6 as prototypical deacons, they certainly are tasked with deacon-like ministry, called to serve (diakonein) the needs of Hellenistic Jew widows. Surely it’s significant that in a situation that is focused on caring for women, the apostles nevertheless instruct the gathering to select seven “men” (andras) to fulfill this task.
My intent here is not to resolve the question of whether it is appropriate for a church to appoint women deacons, but simply to point out that a church is not required by Scripture to do so. Thus, elders who believe having women deacons would better reflect the teaching of Scripture can nevertheless subject themselves to our denomination’s current standards without believing themselves to be disobeying Scripture.
2. Maintaining purity requires allowing space for ongoing disagreement.
Importantly, subjection to the current standards does not preclude members of our denomination from discussing changes to them. Given that we are also to be zealous to maintain the “truths of the Gospel” and the “purity” of the Church, we must always be a denomination open to the possibility of the need to repent and reform. We must therefore provide space for deliberation and the possibility of persuasion in contestable matters.
It is of course true that not every issue should be up for discussion in our denomination. Issues such as the deity of Christ, the practice of infant baptism, or the evils of slavery are settled within the PCA and warrant no further debate. Some in our denomination would classify the question at hand similarly, and would argue that even the discussion of women deacons is a drift toward progressivism, a slippery slope toward the ordination of women elders. Often undergirding this is the contention that it is wrong for women to exercise any sort of authority in any publicly recognizable fashion within the church.
But such a restriction finds no warrant in Scripture. Paul never prohibits women serving the church in a public fashion or in a way that might involve responsibility or leadership. However we understand the nature of Phoebe’s ministry in Cenchrae, Paul’s command to “present to her whatever she might need” (Rom 16:1), describes a kind of delegated authority. Likewise, it would be absurd to assume that when women were prophesying in accordance with Paul’s instructions (1 Cor 11:2-16), the men were expected to cover their ears with their hands. Neither is it likely that when Priscilla and Aquila were correcting Apollos, only Aquila was saying anything helpful.
The kind of pastoral authority that Scripture allows only qualified men to bear is what the writer of Hebrews refers to when he says “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give an account”(Heb 13:17). Women could pray and prophesy, but they were required to do so in a way that acknowledged being under the authority of others—specifically male elders, who bore the final responsibility for weighing different prophecies (1 Cor 14:26-40). While women are part of the congregational project of speaking the truth to one another (Eph 5:19) and exhorting each other (Heb 10:25), they must not teach in a fashion or context that usurps the authority of elders (1 Tim 2:12).
The PCA has throughout its history held that one of the key distinctions between the office of elder and deacon is that only the elder bears this specific type of pastoral authority: “The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service” (BCO 7-2). This explains why the PCA, even as it took the lead in expelling the CRC from NAPARC for ordaining women elders, has been able to maintain fraternal relationships with denominations that ordain women deacons. A decision to ordain women elders violates Scripture’s instructions related to pastoral authority; the decision to have women deacons does not.
To quote from Duncan’s 2008 By Faith article, “I want to say emphatically that the discussion over female deacons is a very different discussion than the debate over the ordination of women to the pastoral office or to eldership.” Discussions about the possibility of women deacons are within the bounds of conservative and careful reading of Scripture. Rather than signaling “progressive drift,” such conversations should be seen as a sign of health. It is how people with a shared desire to submit themselves to Scripture actively work together to hear and obey God’s instructions.
3. Maintaining peace means waiting for widespread consensus
Finally, I would suggest that as a general rule, our commitment to maintaining peace means that we change our church policies only as a response to a shift in our denomination’s convictions, rather than as the means of trying to bring such a shift about. Any significant change to the BCO should only come after a significant majority has been persuaded.
When an officer is ordained into the PCA, he vows to “approve” of our “form of government,” thereby declaring that the practices required by our BCO are a good expression of what the Bible teaches. We can only be in genuine unity with each other if a broad majority of our denomination is able to affirm that the BCO expresses well the teaching of the Bible.
Complicating this affirmation is the fact that the BCO being “approved” is altered every year. We are binding ourselves to an always changing set of standards. For that to work, those changes must come slowly and achieve broad approval. This is why for even the smallest of changes, the BCO requires not only a majority of the commissioners of two General Assemblies but also a majority among two-thirds of our presbyteries. I would suggest that in such cases where the proposed change is significant, an even more significant consensus should be sought.
Imagine if, by the barest of margins, our denomination voted to amend the BCO so that it prohibited the practice of using grape juice in communion; only wine would be allowed henceforth. Countless elders would suddenly find the set of standards to which they previously bound themselves no longer reflecting their convictions. Now they would face an agonizing dilemma: do they follow this instruction, even though it goes against their personal understanding of what Scripture teaches, or do they choose to disobey?
To maintain peace and unity within our denomination, major changes in our denominational regulations must follow a widespread change in our convictions. When it comes to what is proposed in Overture 37, such a significant change does not yet represent the convictions of a significant majority of the denomination. Thus, enacting it at this time would be a mistake, a failure to maintain the peace and unity of the denomination.
Conclusion
Preliminary Principle 5 of our BCO states that, while “it is necessary to make effective provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. In all these, it is the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” “Forbearance” is a suitably difficult word for situations such as this one. It is genuinely difficult to accept constraints with which we do not agree. It is hard to listen charitably to articulations of positions we believe are deeply incorrect. It is a test of endurance to allow the reform one longs for to happen according to the slow pace of human persuasion. Nevertheless, it is, in fact, what we signed up for in making our vows. More importantly, it is what is required of us to be simultaneously the diverse and unified denomination that Christ calls us to be.
Geoff Ziegler is the senior pastor of Trinity PCA in Western Springs, Illinois, and a visiting lecturer in practical theology at RTS Orlando. He received his Ph.D. in systematic theology from Wheaton College and is the author of Free to Be Sons of God and the Galatians study for Crossway’s Knowing the Bible series.