Presbyterian Polity Does Not Assume The Normative Principle

by on December 1, 2025 | 3 Comments

To begin with, the most popular argument I have heard for non-ordained commissioned deaconesses is that the constitution of the PCA BCO does not forbid it. This statement is correct, but I also believe it is not helpful. Liberals use this argument to express that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. I am not calling my brothers liberals or conflating the two arguments as equal. What I want to point out is that to say Jesus never spoke about homosexuality is correct; the Bible doesn’t record Jesus saying that particular word. However, we push back and explain that just because he didn’t utter the word doesn’t mean he didn’t talk about it. He spoke of marriage (what is permitted) and sexual sin, not to mention the whole of God’s counsel. So the BCO not forbidding the use of non-ordained commissioned deaconesses does not mean the BCO has nothing to say about the diaconate, how Christ has structured his church with two offices of elder and deacon, the purpose of the diaconate, the functions of the diaconate, the organization of the diaconate, or even more specifically, how non-ordained members would be able to assist the diaconate (BCO 9–7).

…Presbyterian polity does not assume that churches may do anything the BCOdoes not explicitly forbid. Instead, it functions by stating what is permitted. The fact that the BCO never prescribes the commissioning of deaconesses, while it does prescribe how godly men and women may assist the diaconate (BCO 9–7), is itself an argument against the practice. The BCO would become unwieldy if it attempted to list every forbidden practice in the church. It would cease to be a constitution of principles and processes and instead become a rulebook of prohibitions. This topic alone would require a list of officially forbidden titles to be given to people. It is far better for the BCO to set forth the offices and their functions Christ has appointed to His Church and to outline the proper process by which the Church should nominate, elect, and install men to those offices and calls. Even how the session may appoint men and women to assist the diaconate.
Read more»

Thomas Rickard | “Normative Principle of Polity” | November 4, 2025

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Heidelblog
    Author Image

    The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

    More by Heidelblog ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


3 comments

  1. The idea that what is permitted is defined by what isn’t stated in the BCO is just a symptom of a larger problem. This like of thinking is completely couched in the “instant gratification” (or maybe Dr. Clark can posit a more succinctly apt term here) dilemna we find ourselves in. A while ago there was a podcast (Presbycast?) with D.G. Hart two CN’ers (Timon Cline was one) where Mr. Cline’s said, and I quote, “doesn’t say you cant”. Poor D.G. Hart lost it, and rightly so. Mr. Cline’s response was exactly the kind of response those arguing for deaconesses use. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. A grown man and an editor for the AR using what I would hear my 11 year old say. As Dr. Sproul was fond of saying…”just boggles the mind”.

    • Although I agree with the gist of your comment, I want to point that many respected pastors and scholars from reformed denomination, seminaries, and churches, have argued for Deaconesses for centuries and have not used that response.

      Just because some moderns use that argument does not mean it is the biblical argument that others make.

  2. In these types of discussions, I often think of the principle “by good and necessary consequence” [WCF I.6; also Ryan McGraw’s lovely book(let).]

Comments are closed.