Classis NSW to appeal Synod Decision on Diaconate

TROWEL & SWORD

Classis NSW to appeal Synod Decision on Diaconate
Four appeals presented

Rev. John Westendorp

At it’s August 26th meeting, Classis New South Wales of the CRCA, was faced with four different appeals against the recent CRCA Synod’s decision to separate the diaconate from the Session (Church Council) – a step taken by the denomination to allow the churches to ordain women deacons.

In all four appeals there was a procedural objection – the understanding that the crucial decision to separate the deacons from the other offices (eldership and ministry of the Word) did not pass at Synod with the required two-thirds majority vote.

In subsequent discussion it became clear that while there was widespread support in Classis for an appeal, some churches did not want to support the procedural objection. It was argued by these churches that this decision had been made by Synod in good faith and that the decision was not challenged at Synod either at the time of the vote being taken or afterwards.

Other churches argued that the decision had nevertheless been invalidly made because the Church Order does require that any changes to it be adopted by a two-thirds majority. These churches saw it as a matter of fact that the decision to separate did not receive the required majority and therefore was not a valid decision.

A further issue that muddied the water is that Synod 2000 was also faced with a major overhaul of the Church Order. There were those at Classis who thought that the diaconal issue did not require the two-thirds majority because it was merely an ‘in principle’ change that would be formalised and endorsed when the final Church Order was accepted. By passing the finalised Church order it was argued that Synod properly passed also the diaconal matters. Others saw this as way around the issue.

When the final vote was taken at Classis it was a tied vote and was passed only on the casting vote of the Classis chairman.

Having dealt with the procedural issue Classis then turned its attention to the substance of the matter. The issue was not seen primarily as that of allowing women to serve as deacons but rather the issue of the separating the deacons from the Session. In some of the overtures there was strong concern voiced about the consequences of that decision, especially when the Confessions, the Church Order and ordination/installation forms stress a parity of offices.

It became rather difficult for Classis to do justice to all the material presented in the various appeals. It was therefore decided in principle to proceed with an appeal to Synod on this issue. The matter will be back on the agenda of the November Classis meeting. Meanwhile a process has been set in motion to consolidate the material from the various appeals.

Editorial Comment

The editor of T&S has been asked by various people to address this issue of the diaconate. The above development in Classis NSW seems an appropriate time to do so. It is not my purpose here to address the decisions of Synod as such – the proper way for that to happen is through appeals to the assemblies of the church. Instead I wish to mention some reactions and implications, to look at what is happening in a neighbouring reformed church and offer an additional perspective that seems not to have figured in the discussions to date.

Reactions

From a practical point of view the new arrangement has already met with some mixed reactions.

Some deacons are pleased not to have to bother with general Session business. They are more than happy now to leave that to the elders and get on with their own work in the diaconate. They feel that there is more than enough for deacons to do without having to bother with pastoral and administrative matters that are really the responsibility of those who govern the church – the elders.

Others have responded negatively. They feel they have a role to play in Session meetings. They even find discussion of pastoral matters helpful, believing that it often gives them valuable insights into the lives of people they also have to deal with as deacons. Those who feel most strongly that they ought to be part of Session have asked why Synod made the change. Responses have ranged from “If it isn’t broken why try to fix it?” to “We took up office as part of Session but now that’s taken away from us.”

One particular fear that is not ungrounded is that the change lends itself to deacons being abandoned. Where there is a strong diaconate it may possibly flourish once loosed from the “constraints” of Session. My concern is for those churches where the diaconate struggles and where being part of Session acts as a stimulus to an active diaconate. In these latter situations Sessions will need to work hard to encourage their deacons to be effective in their labours.

A further problem that some have struggled with, and that has particularly given rise to appeals in NSW, is that churches which feel strongly about deacons being part of Session as a matter of principle are now at odds with the (new) Church Order and the denomination. In discussing this with a colleague the comment was made that this is still a matter to be left to the discretion of the local church. That is not the way four churches in NSW read the decisions of Synod. It is only in smaller churches (and who defines how small?) that deacons are allowed to stay on Session.

If there are important matters of principle involved in this issue, as some are claiming, then the separation of the deaconate will further polarise our churches. I can imagine calls to ministers now being responded to in some cases by a query whether or not the calling church has removed the deacons from Session or is appealing the matter.

The Presbyterians

We do need to recognise that many Presbyterian and Reformed Churches do have an active diaconate that is not part of the Session or Church Council. In my own Session some have come from a background where deacons were never a part of Session.

I have just finished reading a booklet by Peter Barnes, “Serving as Deacons”. It is a report to the Presbyterian Church of Australia and is the culmination of a decision made by our Presbyterian brethren, back in 1994, to take seriously the office of deacon. It is an excellent little booklet of 48 pages. The final recommendations (‘suggestions’) to the PCA are that “each deacon should be attached to an elder” but they are not part of Session, forming instead a separate Deacons Court.

Obviously our Presbyterians friends would be very comfortable with the decisions of the CRCA Synod 2000. However, it raises the question why other reformed churches have a deaconate that is not part of the Session while some of our own people in the CRCA feel strongly enough about the issue to appeal the matter.

One of the crucial issues here is our confessional basis. Scripture does not give us a blueprint for how elders and deacons are to work together in the church. At best we can say that Scripture recognises both eldership and diaconate as offices in the church. Possibly the closest that Scripture comes to putting the two together is in Paul’s greeting to the church at Philippi where Paul brackets together the overseers (elders) and deacons.

The difference lies in the confessional basis. For our Presbyterian friends their confessional basis is the Westminster Confession of Faith in which I can find no reference at all to deacons. In contrast our Belgic Confession states that along with the pastors there should be elders and deacons to make up the council of the church (Art.30).

Christ and the diaconate

I personally find it telling that the Belgic Confession has opted for this approach – although it is by no means the only reformational confession to do so.

Already in my studies at the RTC I was taught that there are some beautiful connections in Scripture – that though not spelled out, may be drawn out as having implications for the church.

In the Old Testament there were three offices through which the Lord guided and led His Old Testament Church: prophets, priest and kings. In the Heidelberg Catechism we rightly confess that these offices were fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ, our great Prophet, our only High Priest and our eternal King. Is it then accidental that these three offices find their parallels in the prophetic ministry of the Word, in the ruling office of elder and in the sacrificial office of the deacon?

In this way the offices of the church form a parallel to the offices every believer holds as prophet, priest and king (Heidelberg Catechism L.D.12). This leaves us with a beautiful symmetry between the ministry of Christ, the ministry of the believer and the ministry of the leadership of the church. My question is whether this has been given enough thought in the whole debate around the separation of the diaconate from the Session.

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy