I’ve never been more encouraged by an action of the General Assembly than its 2017 commendation of the Ad Interim committee report on women serving in the ministry of the church. For me—as for many—it represented a shift for the PCA’s from a back-heel posture on these important questions to a proactive and winsome approach. It was, as the report says, a movement away from talking only about what women cannot do, toward what Scripture in its beauty and wisdom calls them to do.

I found the recommendations adopted by the 45th General Assembly to be faithful to Scripture—practical, helpful, and encouraging. I was serving as the youth pastor at our church, and our senior pastor wisely led our session to consider these recommendations, to discuss with women and men at the church, and to institute several appropriate changes, which we continue to work through to this day. Those changes have come with their own growing pains and learning curves, but they have beautified Christ’s church in our local context. Indeed, as I look back over the last decade of ministry, the growth and development of ministries and service for women in our church is one of our greatest gains!

So here I am in late 2025, hearing (secondhand) about an online campaign to expose some cabal of underground saboteurs (among whom my church is somehow listed) who want to ordain women, and I’m thinking, “Wait a minute!” I’m attending presbytery meetings where the conversation is beginning to shift back to what women cannot do, including things that the GA adopted and commended in 2017! And I can’t help but think, “Where have I seen this playbook before?”

I’m not on social media any more, and I’m not interested in the debates that take place there. But here’s what I’d like to see, and so what I’d like to offer in this essay: a broad vision for women serving in the ministry of the church, apart from political mudslinging and straw-manning—faithful to Scripture, true to the Reformed faith, and aimed at building up Christ’s church. While I think the 2017 report did a superb job at this, I think some points are worthy of restating for our day. There are three things I’d like to plead for in this essay:

1. For Worship–the freedom to express the good, true, and beautiful within the bounds of Scripture and our Reformed Tradition
2. For Church Roles–the freedom to use contextually helpful language while maintaining proper distinctions for ordained office
3. For Catholicity–the freedom to express unity without uniformity.

Freedom in Worship

I can’t say it better than the 2017 report, under the rationale for recommendation 5: “Within a complementarian framework, there is substantial, non-controversial opportunity for non-ordained men and women to participate in the leadership of a worship service, in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 14:26.” I understand that a prominent stream in the Reformed tradition believes all elements of worship must be led by ordained men. But I implore those brothers to remember that there are other streams who have practiced recommendation 5 faithfully under the banner of biblical complementarity. As the 2017 report points out, in Corinth, at least, women were allowed to prophesy in the gathered worship of Christ’s church, though they were limited from the authoritative weighing of such prophecy, which belonged to the elders. Even John Calvin recognized that the command to “remain silent” in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was meant in reference to the authoritative preaching of the word (a point on which we all agree). I’ll just note that the slam dunk for me here actually comes from 1 Corinthians 11:5, where Paul is dealing with the contextual/cultural issue of head coverings. Note there what he does NOT say, that women should be silent in public, but that when they pray or prophesy, they should have their head covered, as a contextual sign of their Christ-like submission, for the sake of gospel clarity in Corinth. The point is: Paul permitted certain public speaking roles for women—and prohibited others—in the gathered church. This is not a novel interpretation, but one that has deep roots in the Reformed tradition.

To bolster this point, consider the objection of our Scottish forefather Robert Baillie, who at the Westminster Assembly formally stated his concern that the elimination of the Scottish practice of laypeople reading Scripture would prove to be detrimental to the church. In 1991, a committee of the OPC, tasked with studying the very question of laypeople leading certain elements of corporate worship, considered this historical fact when recommending to its general assembly that such restrictions are not mandated by the regulative principle for worship. My point is not to establish a normative historical practice, but to demonstrate the biblical and historically Reformed precedents for the kinds of things that can express the good, the true, and the beautiful within the bounds of Scripture and our tradition.

What are some of those things? While I would hesitate to prescribe a list for all churches, consider a few ways congregations might engage laypeople (both men and women) in leading elements of public worship.

• The Public reading of Scripture—This practice could communicate the Reformational truth that the Scriptures belong to the people.
• Prayers of Intercession/Prayers of the People—This practice could communicate the goodness of corporate prayer and the beauty in the diversity of expressions of prayer in a congregation. This could be a public prayer, or a private prayer time, for those bringing particular requests. At our church, members of the Women’s Leadership Team (as well as elders and deacons) are available after communion to pray with church members who might have a need.
• Announcements/Community Engagement—A moment to share about ways both men and women can be involved in the life of a church.
• Thanksgiving—Offering praise to God for his work in various areas of ministry.
• Music Leading—I should hope it is obvious how the musical worship of God’s people is enhanced by the beauty of both male and female voices and instrumentalists who are trained and gifted to offer melodious praise to God!
• Ushering—Helping to pass the communion elements after the minister has clearly set them apart.

None of these things strikes at the vitals of Reformed distinctives or the regulative principle. None of these things necessarily confuse the role of the minister as a spokesman for God. None of these things do damage to the beauty and historicity of Reformed worship, and further, in my view they actually enhance it! May we walk in the freedom of Christ-centered worship!

Freedom with Roles & Language

In many places, the advice and suggestions above may not be contextually wise. If it is a stumbling block in your context to have unordained women and men read Scripture, it may be best to refrain. However, what I am advocating is the broad-tent freedom to express Reformed, Christian worship in ways that make sense of one’s context, one’s congregation, and one’s personal convictions. I’m advocating a similar approach to various expressions of roles and language. I believe PCA churches should have the freedom to use contextually helpful language for particular roles, so long as we maintain proper distinctions for ordained office. There was likely a role or class of service in the early church called “servant” or “minister” (διάκονος–diakonos) which included women, as noted by Paul of his friend Phoebe, a servant (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae (Romans 16:1-2). The word itself does not imply an ordained office. It is widely used in the New Testament in the more general sense of a “servant” or someone who assists. In the early centuries after the Apostolic age, there were some (Origen, Chrysostom) who identified Paul’s reference to Phoebe with a special office called ‘deaconess.’ This developed into a practice of laying on of hands (ordination) to set apart women to this office, but interestingly this practice was condemned by the council of Laodicea (ca. 363 AD) and thus ceased to be practiced.

It is well attested that Calvin distinguished two classes of deacons in Geneva–one occupying an authoritative office and another modeled after the order of widows in 1 Timothy 5. It seems fairly clear from various places in Calvin that the latter role–which included women–was set apart from the kind of ordained office we practice today, but nevertheless had a public role in diaconal ministry (see Institutes, 4.3.9). Let us recall that Calvin’s context is not our own, and therefore he is not attempting to answer the same questions. Nevertheless, what we can see is that this great father of our Reformed faith made room in his understanding of biblical teaching for a distinct, non-authoritative diaconal role for women, and that he doesn’t seem to have objected to appointing godly women for this important, public role in Geneva.

I believe one correlative in our day could be to make room for a diaconal role for women that is non-ordained, but nevertheless set apart. This is not an office, but a public role (surely those who deal in the nuance of Reformed theology can appreciate some genuine nuance here). Further, this kind of distinction actually upholds and promotes the doctrine of ordination. In ordination, Christ builds his church by conferring his authority on those he calls and qualifies through the ministry of his ordained officers. This accords with the most important preliminary principle of church government, which is that Christ, who is the sole King and Head of the church, rules his church through the ministry of those he sets apart to church office, according to the qualifications and processes of His Word. It is not men who rule the church; it is Christ, who confers his authority to those he calls and qualifies. When ordained officers of the church identify, equip, and catalyze unordained men and women for public service in the church, we are doing exactly what we have been set apart to do–equipping the saints for the work of ministry.

The freedom this could bring to the PCA is important to consider. When we understand properly the distinction between ordained office and unordained leadership roles, we are able to free up men and women to serve in the ways they are gifted and called. Further, when we allow some freedom in language, we recognize the contextual importance of the mission Christ has called us to. Surely we can agree to allow some freedom to allow for terminology (such as deaconess) that is attested in both Scripture and the Reformed tradition! The obvious objection to this seems to be that such terminology will confuse people. I doubt that in my own context, but I recognize that there are plenty of places where this could be true. My proposal for ministers in those places is to exercise wisdom for your own context, and my advice to those who wish to use contextually helpful terminology is to teach on its biblical and Reformational roots.

What might this look like? Here are a few ideas.

• Diaconal Assistants, Deaconesses (non-ordained). The 2017 report has made this case well. If it is helpful in some contexts, I pray we would have the freedom to move in this direction.
• Women’s Leadership Team. At our church, we have a team of women who are important leaders. They teach Bible studies, organize discipleship efforts, advise our elders, enter into difficult shepherding matters, and more. They are not elders. But they are partners. They are leaders, and we are not afraid to call them leaders. They engage in shepherding work alongside our elders. But this doesn’t seem to confuse people about who the elders are.
• Staff positions. This is an area where I would advocate for wide freedom based on one’s context. We have a children’s director. She is in charge of children’s ministry, and everyone knows it. At the same time, everyone seems to understand that she submits to the session in her leadership role. She is a key leader in our church, and she speaks with more influence in the area of children’s ministry than many of our elders. Why? Because this is what she is gifted, called, and trained to do. Let us not confuse authority (given to elders) with expertise (given to gifted, trained people in various ministry areas)!

Freedom For Catholicity

Here’s a personal conviction, so take it as just that. Perhaps it was a gift of the Lord’s providence that the PCA never constitutionalized a Directory for Worship. I think this has been significant to the growth of a big-tent denomination, thriving agencies, church planting in the radically diverse places we inhabit across the United States, and more. In short, I believe it is one way that Christ has been at work to build his church in our land.

The Dutch Reformed fathers had it right–catholicity, true unity, is to be found in a reflective diversity before it is to be found in uniformity of external forms. No one who wants to make room for women’s roles in public ministry is seeking to impose that on every church. What we want is the freedom to practice unity in diversity, to beautify the reflective diversity that we practice after the image of our Triune God, and to see the diverse gifts of church members catalyzed for the building up of Christ’s body. I want to see this happen within the bounds of historic Reformed doctrine and practice, and under the authority of the Scriptures and our doctrinal standards. And I want to see us offer a true catholicity that serves as an alternative to uniformity. I want to see renewal in our churches. I want to see reformation according to the word of God, renewal in our cities, a catalyzing of the gifts of every believer, and revival in the name of Jesus Christ. I think the ways forward I’m proposing can help, but I welcome any dialogue! You can find me pastoring in a little corner of East Dallas. I’d love to buy you coffee and talk further.

Alex grew up in the DFW area and attended Dallas Baptist University. He and his wife Alicia were married in 2012 and moved to central Florida in 2013, where Alex served as a youth minister while attending Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando (M.Div. ’18). In 2017, they were excited to return home to Dallas with the call to serve at NSP. Alex and Alicia have four children: Henry (2015-2018), Julia (2018), Lucy (2020), and Norah Jane (2022). During some of the darkest days in their lives, with the loss of their sweet son Henry, the Deans were thankful to lean on God’s people here at New St. Peters, and they continue to be grateful for God’s call to this church. In 2022, Alex was called to serve as lead pastor. It continues to be a joy serve this congregation.m er