Slow Descent
Change in this denomination did not begin with an overture or a floor debate, but with small, incremental steps that few recognized as leading down a perilous path. What seemed minor at the time became, in hindsight, the first slides on a slope that few imagined they were on. Standing on the other side of history, we can learn from this cautionary tale; how direction, not intention, often determines a denomination’s destination.
Many people hear of the ‘slippery slope’ argument and either agree or disagree with the argument based on who articulated it. The argument can be more rhetorical and based upon unqualified comments, or it can be a legitimate concern. The basis of the argument is founded upon the factual and historical basis that the path we are walking on is in fact slippery and a slope. Or articulate the foundation differently, the argument needs to prove not only two or more data points, but that the points are connected. Correlation does not imply causation, but it does not rule it out.
In this article I seek to look back on the history of the Northern Presbyterian Church (PUSA) and their progression that led to women’s ordination as pastors. These changes in the polity within the denomination did not appear overnight, and always with close votes. Sometimes the change occurred slowly and subtly, other times abruptly. For this article I am leaning heavily upon the research found in an article written by Brackenridge, R. Douglas, and Lois A. Boyd. “United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church — an Historical Overview.”[1] For the sake of the article, I will refer to these two authors, as ‘the authors,’ instead of Brackenridge and Boyd, mainly for ease of reading. In doing research on the topic, I came across this article, and there was no reason to reinvent the wheel. I also want to explain that the connections in my article are the same as the original authors make, but they see these changes as a positive, while I see it as a decline. The original authors make the progressions and connections between all of these steps.
I pray this might be a cautionary tale to us all, highlighting that direction matters and denominations are shaped by the practices, arguments, and changes we make today for generations to come. This cautionary tale might sound familiar to some and might be apparent to others. Yet, it is not only a tale of this discussion and their history, but also of many of our discussions, and could become our history. In under 100 years, a denomination turned its back on Scripture and rejected what it once taught as Scriptural.
The Beginnings
The origins of these progressions are difficult to pinpoint, but they can be traced to the early 1830s, particularly to the revivalist influence of Charles Finney. In defending his decision to allow women to pray in mixed assemblies, Finney argued that every innovation in church life had faced opposition, even those now widely accepted. As he wrote, “All these were denounced as New Measures, not found in the Bible, and that would necessarily lead to distraction and confusion in the churches.” [2] In other words, Finney’s defense suggested that resistance to his new measures was simply part of the church’s habitual reluctance toward change, implying that what was once opposed as unscriptural might eventually be recognized as progress.
While Finney is one person, many of these changes happened in many denominations and the timelines are very consistent across denominations regardless of beliefs, traditions, and polity. Parallel studies could be done, with an enormous level of overlap between each denomination each one slowly descending down the slippery slope (I will have another article about the PCUS).
Throughout this time (19th Century) women began to be more involved in official public functions in the church, the journal article begins explaining the position of the Presbyterian church in the early 1800’s as,
“Presbyterian church fathers, functioning in a context of Reformed theology and Presbyterian order as mandated by the Westminster Confession of Faith, believed that biblical principles called for a subordinate role for women in family, church, and society. According to the church’s interpretation of passages of scripture pertaining to women, primarily from First Corinthians and First Timothy, a female was forbidden to speak, preach, or pray aloud in mixed assemblies of the church.”
They continue to express their understanding that while this was the practice it was not the ruling of the denomination explaining,
“The General Assembly had no constitutional ruling delineating these restrictions, however, although the earliest Constitution did use masculine pronouns when describing persons eligible for ordination as ministers, elders, and deacons.”[3]
They pointed to the silence in the constitution (I have written on the dangers of reading the blank portions of our BCO to direct our practice, see article).
While some of these practices can be found throughout the 19th century they begin to increase in the last portion of the 19th century. While you can see small shifts since 1832, our story begins, not with an overture or change in polity but with the appointment of Edith Livingston Peake as an evangelist by the First United Presbyterian of San Francisco, in 1893.[4] This might not seem like a drastic change, and we do not have many records around this appointment. However, many who advocate for women’s ordination see this not a small achievement but as a great victory. 1893 was not the end of the descent but one clear marker of the slow descent which would lead to women’s ordination. Changes do happen incrementally and slowly, often ending with overtures that change policy to align with practice not the other way around.
The discussion, of women’s roles in the church became more prominent with books and writings such as “May Women Speak?” published in 1899.[5] Prior to this there was a slow and steady movement which was articulated in a report at the 1891 General Assembly, “It is quite evident that a majority in the church are in favor of securing in some orderly way the services of godly women to assist in religious work and are desirous of clothing them with some measure of authority.” The authors, continue to explain, “Subsequently, but not immediately, the church opened the door to ordination first as deacon, and then as elder and minster.”[6] This is the principle that we see throughout the timeline they present. Change did not happen overnight, but as if one began to slide down a ramp unable to stop. Or as another might describe, they stepped onto the slippery slope.
Diaconate
The authors point out that the discussion of women serving as deacons in the Presbyterian Church began in the 1870’s. BB Warfield references several examples (Presbyterian Review, 1889). The authors explain the different forms of diaconal ministry of ordained female deacons or diaconal assistance. They describe the second as,
“appointment as deaconesses, women set apart by prayer and special training for service in some benevolent or educational ministry. This included work as pastors’ assistants, social workers, and practical nurses. Concentrated primarily in large city parishes, the deaconess movement was the forerunner of the modern Director of Christian Education and Commissioned Church Worker.”[7]
What needs to be pointed out is the connection the authors make that this was a forerunner of what was to come. The authors see this as a step in a particular direction. We should be careful, for although the original intention may not have been to pursue the ordination of women, that was the eventual and direct outcome of these practices over successive generations.
The discussion continued until 1878, with the General Assembly affirming there was no Scriptural warrant for the ordination of women to the office of Deacon. They acknowledged the need for those to assistant the diaconate. Although a clear position this would not be the end of the slide down the slope. Actually, this becomes a good marker to see how rapidly a denomination can make a clear biblical statement and then a period of time later say the opposite. The discussion continued, in 1890 an overture was proposed to change the Form of Government to affirm the Scriptural use of ‘deaconess’ and create an office in the church. The overture failed, but the movement continued, often a failed overture is not the end of a dispute but a marker for us to be aware of.
In 1893 the General Assembly ruled that Sessions may “appoint godly and competent women in full communion in the church for such ministrations to bodily and spiritual needs as may properly come within their sphere.” While the PUSA adopted the above in 1893, the United Presbyterian Church ruled that “female members of the Church are eligible to the office of Deacon.”[8] The Cumberland Presbyterian Church merged in 1906 (More information can be found here). It was in 1915 that the office of Deaconess was formally adopted in the Form of Government of the PUSA. In 1920, a clear definition of a deaconess was adopted,
“deaconess is not an elected officer of an individual congregation, but is a self-chosen candidate, set apart with prayer by the church-at-large for a definite service in any congregation by which she may be employed, though without ordination.”
The clear definition in 1920 was not enough, the slide continued. Finally in 1922, the first major slide had taken place in the PUSA, the General Assembly approved an overture from the Presbytery of Transylvania, located in Kentucky, granting women the right to be ordained as deacons.[9]
To this point we have covered under a century of movement in the denomination and the progression which led to the ordination of women to the diaconate. While this might not appear like a drastic movement it is the beginning of more to come. The arguments that caused this reversal of statements from 1878 to 1922 (44 years), would continue to be used to slide further downward. The authors were correct to point out at the opening portion, “Subsequently, but not immediately, the church opened the door to ordination first as deacon…”[10] The denomination previously stepped on this slope and began to slide, sometimes slowing down but never stopping.
Ruling Elders
Their slide continued to be a slow trickle. During the beginning of the 20th century, between 1907 and 1920 five women were appointed to as ministers.[11] It is important to note that within a short period, just under 30 years, the denomination went from appointment as an evangelist (1893) to several other women serving in official functions related to ministers. No major change to the constitution. The authors make a telling connection,
“The relaxation of a rigid “women’s sphere” in the church to allow women to serve as public speakers, teachers, deaconesses and deacons failed to satisfy the belief among many that women should be given full representation. Once the question of equality was raised, inevitable the debate turned to the right of women to vote in church courts and to be ordained.”[12]
The allowance of women to serve in the diaconate did not satisfy the desire for full representation in church office. This same impulse is evident today in the common claim that “a woman can do anything a non-ordained man can do.” Yet this statement is inaccurate (Cf. BCO 25–4), and few have clearly defined the functional difference between a non-ordained and an ordained man. The most evident distinctions lie in preaching, administering the sacraments (generally reserved for Teaching Elders), and voting in the courts of the church (reserved for elders).
The movement allowed the first, but aimed at the last, looking for representation in the courts. In 1920, two years before women were formally permitted to serve as deacons, an overture came before the General Assembly to allow women to serve as ruling elders. Showing that the desire was present within the members of the Denomination. The measure failed by only thirteen votes. Nevertheless, the effort did not end there. Conferences, petitions, and committee meetings pressed for greater participation in church governance. Three overtures followed, proposing varying degrees of representation: (1) full equality, (2) ordination as ruling elders, and (3) the licensing of women. In 1930, the second proposal passed, opening the office of ruling elder to women.[13]
The period between the appointment to the office of deacon and the appointment of office of Ruling Elder was only a period of eight years, and even the close vote in 1920 of 13 showed the movement that had already started to slide. This is not some mainline denomination in the late 20th century, but this was the denomination that Machen was a part of and warned about the effects of liberalism. We need to understand that many of these people who voted would hold more strict views on many topics than us today. How quickly, the Denomination went from stating in 1878 that there is no Scriptural warrant for the ordination of women to the diaconate, to 1930, now having women ordained to the office of Deacon and Ruling Elder. There is one more step in the authors’ initial claim, “Subsequently, but not immediately, the church opened the door to ordination first as deacon, and then as elder and minister.”
Sidetrack: Commissioned Church Workers
You would expect the next change to come in 1940, with the ordination of women to serve as ministers, however, this change did not come as quickly, but the movement of the slippery slope was set in motion. In 1938 an overture came in the form of a request to prepare standards for “Commissioned Lay Workers” or “Commissioned Church Workers” (CCW). These were men and women who would serve the church. Examined and under the supervision of the Presbytery. They were not automatically granted a voice, nor were they allowed to vote at Presbytery. In 1949, the guidelines were reviewed raising the requirements, previously a high school diploma and four-year degree at an approved college to be increased to a seminary degree or equivalent (similar to the educational and examination requirements of ministers). The other change, although subtle would continue the slide down the slope, the change was the CCW could be installed if invited by a congregation.[14]
Many today might exclaim they have not crossed any drastic lines in many peoples opinions, they still hold that ordination of a minister is for men only, they are not ordaining these CCW only commissioning them, however, the direction and movement was important. The concern was then raised in 1955 when an overture came to the General Assembly to mandate Presbytery install CCW if they were employed by a local congregation, along with other parameters. In 1959 the disparity of CCW with graduate or undergraduate degrees caused the need for another level of Certified Church Educator (CCE). The CCW was eventually ended in 1976, when no more candidates would be accepted. Current CCW could remain commissioned or qualify for Ordination.[15]
The establishment of the CCW program did not halt the denominational drift; it merely slowed it. The path toward full ordination of women had already been charted. Without clear Scriptural warrant, the church’s innovations blurred the biblical and constitutional lines between service and office, between assistance and authority. The appeal to inclusion and equality masked a deeper redefinition of ministry itself, one that prepared the way for later changes under the guise of progress. It is worth noting that the Ad-Interim Committee of the PCA suggested an overture be sent to General Assembly to create such a position in the PCA.
Pastoral Office
To turn to Pastoral office, we need to take a few steps back in our timeline to see the progression of this change in polity. The authors begin by explaining,
“Despite the restriction against ordination, a few Presbyterian women preached and taught under presbytery supervision as lay evangelists. Although the United Presbyterian Church of North America stopped short of a formal provision in its Book of Government, it did not prohibit presbyteries from designating women as lay evangelists. Women served in similar capacities in the Presbyterian Church in the USA although judicatory record-keeping makes it difficult to identify all of them by name.”[16]
Their point is that the practices prior to official vote or action of the General Assembly that women served in functional similar roles regarding preaching as we have seen earlier with the appointment of Edith Livingston Peake in 1873. They were not ordaining women to the office of Minister, but women were serving in functional roles equivalent to ministers.
In 1912 a Presbytery in upper New York State passed a motion to accept Miss Rachel Gleason Brooks as a candidate under care. The Presbytery asked for a ‘definite deliverance’ to allow them to accept a woman as a ministerial candidate. The General Assembly expressed it inappropriate to have a woman be received as a candidate for ordained ministry. Once more notice the early practices even in 1912, before women could be ordained as deacons or elders. The change in 1930 did appear to slow down the movement and in 1946 an overture was defeated to allow for women to be ordained to the office of minister.[17] It is important to see the perceived direction, and the willingness to stop on the slope, if you were to ask member in 1946 do you believe the PUSA will allow the ordination of women to serve as ministers they would point to the overwhelming vote at that years General Assembly, but they would have been greatly mistaken.
However, the 1950’s brought more momentum when new leaders began serving the denomination, bringing with them a “strong sense of social consciousness, a commitment to ecumenical cooperation, and a conviction that the old liberal fundamentalist interpretations of scripture needed the insights of a new biblical (neo-orthodox) theology.”[18] This shift could be found with the appointment of a new stated clerk in 1952, which the authors describe, “symbolized these shifting social and theological perspectives within the denomination.” [19]
The slide continued in 1953 when an overture came before the General Assembly to permit the ordination of women to the office of minister. This was during the proposed union between the United Presbyterians and the PUSA, causing slight delays, but not defeat. The overture passed in 1955 and ratified in 1956, passing with a vote of 206 to 35. Previously the Denomination went from stating in 1878 that there is no Scriptural warrant for the ordination of women to the diaconate, to voting in 1922 to allow women to serve as deacons, a period of 44 years. The change is also found the vote regarding women serving as Ruling Elder in 1920 (losing by 13 votes) to 1930, eight years. However, in a short span of ten years, the denomination went from a strong vote in 1946 saying no to women’s ordination as Pastors, to an overwhelming yes in 1956. The United Presbyterians merging with the PUSA might have had influenced this, but even prior to the merger many Presbyteries (66) supported this action (in 1953). The drastic shift might require more study, but it is important to note the majority changing their stance in such a short time, or young elders influencing the denomination in a negative way. Once more, we need to understand this is not the PCUSA of today, but in the 1950’s. The result is not because congregations are leaving for the OPC, there are not many other places for conservatives to go.
The change happened over time, and with a new generation coming in effecting the denomination in a negative way. The change in polity effected the denomination which eventually would be put to the test in the 1970’s when Mr. Walter Kenyon was declined ordination because of his opposition to ordain women.[20] What was permitted became mandatory. It would take until 2001 until the courts had equal representation of women and men. This did not come in one generation but through a series of progressive changes that lead to the change in polity in 1956.
Conclusion
The history of the church offers a sobering warning. The ‘slippery slope’ is not cliché but a recognizable pattern that has repeated across many denominations. A careful study of the ordination of women in the Church of England, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Baptists, and others reveals a familiar trajectory: the introduction of deaconesses or female deacons, followed by commissioned workers, unordained functional offices, occasional preaching, and later the office of ruling elder or its equivalent, and finally the full embrace of egalitarianism. The story of the PCUS followed a similar pattern, though with a steeper and faster descent, ultimately giving rise to the Concerned Presbyterians and the Steering Committee that would form the PCA, which affirmed that “Presbyterians believe that the ordination of women to offices in the Church is unscriptural.” [21]
There are exceptions, such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, whose history is instructive in its own right, making a statement in 1888 after a church ordained a woman to the diaconate.[22] Even the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church has its own story of a slippery slope; they were able to stop and change direction. That would be another story for another day.
Yet, in most cases, the turning point did not come through overtures or constitutional amendments, but through local practice that became de facto policy over time. Therefore, when concerned Presbyterians raise questions about present practices or warn of dangerous trajectories, it is unwise to dismiss them as alarmists. Instead, we should heed the historical record, recognizing that many denominations now at the bottom of the slope once thought it too slight to notice.
[1] Brackenridge, R. Douglas, and Lois A. Boyd. “United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church — an Historical Overview.” Journal of Presbyterian History (1962–1985) 59, no. 3 (1981): 383–407. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23328186.
[2] Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Leavitt, Lord & Co., 1835), 240.
[3] Brackenridge, R. Douglas, and Lois A. Boyd. “United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church — an Historical Overview.” Journal of Presbyterian History (1962–1985) 59, no. 3 (1981): 383–407. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23328186, page 384.
[4] https://www.fpceh.org/nancy-howarth-first-woman, accessed October 23, 2025.
[5] George P. Hays. Hays, George P. May Women Speak? A Bible Study by a Presbyterian Minister. Pamphlets. Chicago, Illinois: Woman’s Temperance Publication Association, 1889. https://jstor.org/stable/community.39334802.
[6] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 385–86
[7] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 388
[8] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 389
[9] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 389
[10] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 385–86
[11] https://www.fpceh.org/nancy-howarth-first-woman, accessed October 23, 2025.
[12] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 389–390
[13] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 390
[14] The PCA WIC report recommended and PCA GA adopted, “That presbyteries and the General Assembly consider an overture that would establish formally the right of sessions, presbyteries, and the General Assembly to establish the position of commissioned church worker within the PCA for qualified and gifted unordained men and women.”
[15] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 391–92
[16] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 392
[17] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 392
[18] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 393
[19] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 393
[20] Brackenridge and Boyd, ‘United Presbyterian Policy on Women and the Church,’ 393
[21] https://pcahistory.org/pca/50th/images/WhichWay/ordination.pdf
[22] https://rpwitness.org/article/women-deacons-in-the-rpcna