The PCA's "Essgate"

Yes, office & ordination are muddled in the PCA, but a social media conflagration isn't helping

By Brad Isbell

“I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it.”

This is an old saw often deployed against the Reformed by revivalist evangelicals to imply that the Reformed don’t “do” evangelism at all (not true), and that even a sloppy and reckless kind of evangelism, replete with Finneyite “new measures,” is better than an alleged nothing.

Some are now using the quip in online discussions of what I will call the PCA’s “Essgate,” which concerns the use of titles for women who are called deaconesses and shepherdesses (and a few other related non-standard titles). If the “reporters” (most of whom appear to be non-PCA men or anons) can be believed, these titles are used in something less than 10% of PCA churches.

These issues are not new, and sometimes the use of such titles is disorderly or deceptive; sometimes this is not the case. No one has commented or written more on these issues in the last 10 years than yours truly. The work of churchmen in a denomination is quiet and largely invisible except when the problems are dire and existential, like Revoice and “Side B” were in the PCA in the last decade. Usually, reform and church discipline are frustratingly slow, and the “success” rate can seem painfully low. Yet the work must be done. And I know enough to say that things have been done and are being done.

First of all, more than one PCA church that had women actually preaching in the church, or who had women members preaching outside the PCA church, has left the PCA in the last several years. Presbyteries got involved, or sessions were alarmed, not because of publicity, but because of privately communicated facts. In at least one case, writing to the erring PCA church seemed to be enough to cause the church to reconsider its affiliational options…and leave. I know of churches that have changed the way they identify certain females on their websites simply because of a phone call or email.

Most importantly, the PCA Book of Church Order (7-4) was amended in 2024 to clarify that no unordained person (which includes all women) can be called by the titles of ordained office—deacon, elder, and pastor. The effects of this new “church law” are slowly being felt.

Many in the PCA wish that language had been included (or retained) in the amendment outlawing the non-standard, non-office title “deaconess.” There is no consensus in the PCA about the advisability of the term’s use, or whether the amendment (as initially proposed or as passed) would actually outlaw the term.

Proposed: “Furthermore, unordained people should not be referred to as, or given the titles connected to, the ecclesial offices of pastor, elder, or deacon.

Passed: Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles of, the ordained offices of pastor/elder, or deacon.

Incrementalism and compromise—and the passed language is an example of both—is no fun, but it is necessary in any polity, whether ecclesial or civil. The most critical issues in the PCA’s Battle of the Sexes and Titles are the preaching of the word and the protection of the ordained offices. There has been success in the former and progress in the latter.

In church polity, the objective trumps the subjective. Withholding ordination from qualified officers, willfully going without deacons, or calling unordained people officers are all objectively wrong, subversive, and are clearly outlawed by the current PCA constitution.

The leadership of nearly every part of worship by unordained or unordainable persons in PCA churches is a harder issue to prosecute, but I am persuaded that both the Bible and the Westminster Standards clearly outlaw this as well. Reforming and convincing on this issue will take time. This issue is related to ordination, but not necessarily to titles.

Bestowing titles not found in the church order, especially when they are suspiciously adjacent or similar to the actual PCA officer titles, can be deceptive, unwise, unhelpful, and may undermine good order. Still, the lack of fixed definitions,¹ standards, or processes for these non-standard, non-officer titles makes ruling on them a subjective matter. Who leads worship and the maintenance of properly ordained biblical officers are more important matters than titles for non-officers.

Churchmen who would propose legislation, make reports of unconstitutional actions, or file charges quickly learn that precision and accuracy are critical.² Every specification must be correct. Like it or not, church courts rule on evidence and the letter of the law. Church law may be changed, but that, too, is difficult and slow. What is easy and quick is a slapdash, error-riddled social media blitz by unaccountable outsiders or anonymous actors. What is easy for outside critics, though, makes it hard for churchmen who must play by the rules and persuade with facts and the force of biblical and confessional teaching rather than shaming, allegation, and public pressure.³

1. There is no definition in the PCA for “deaconess”—sometimes they are presented as equal to deacons, sometimes as BCO 9-7 assistants, sometimes as members of the “diaconate,” sometimes as a separate group. “Shepherdess” is the other main rub. Its use can range from “shadow” elders who appear to be non-voting session members to women who aid other women in crisis. It has absolutely no fixed meaning. Neither “deaconess” nor “shepherdess” is an office and should not be presented as such. In my opinion, neither should the election and training processes (if any) for any non-standard titled roles occur alongside or closely resemble those of actual officers.

2. It should go without saying that the Ninth Commandment applies here, too.

3. I think calling public attention to certain, obviously egregious things (like a lady preaching on the Lord’s Day in a PCA church or an unordained person listed as a “pastor” is appropriate, though doing so may not always be the best way.

Another issue with naming ladies who have some sort of church title: many of them did not seek titles or may not even understand the implications of those titles in PCA polity. Not all sessions are concerned with teaching their congregants the rudiments of presbyterian policy in general or in their denomination’s polity more specifically.