# Practices of Female Deacons in Presbyterian and Reformed Denominations



## Jake

I have noticed that the ARP and RPCNA both allow female deacons, along with several smaller Presbyterian denominations. I am most interested in the practices of these denominations (and possibly others) that are confessional and conservative and allow for this practice... although information regarding the practice in the PCA (and maybe the EPC) is welcome. 

How are female deacons played out in a reformed or presbyterian denomination? Are they ordained? What type of vows do they take? What roles do they play? Are they distinct from male deacons? These questions aren't conclusive, just ideas of what I am wondering about.

I am *not* looking for a debate about whether they should exist, just how churches that are confessional practice female deacons.

Thanks!


----------



## Eoghan

My impression is that churches cease to be confessional to remove one of the obstacles to female elders etc... Deacons tend to be a baptist office in my experience and elders presbyterian.


----------



## FenderPriest

I wrote an extensive paper on the subject of women deacons last year for our church, and delved in to what the Reformed tradition has done in this area. It's a bit across the board, but folks who practice women deacons in Presbyterian circles tend to treat them like servant-organizers and lay-help to worship services. They tend to be very clear about the office not having a vested authority, and thus not prohibited to women. However, given the Presbyterian tradition has a long standing definition of the deaconate that does include a provision about authority, some churches withhold ordination of any deacons until the definition is adjusted (and, in their view, rightly aligned so that it is not an office prohibited to women).

The practice of women deacons goes back even to the time of Calvin and the post-reformation era, where churches struggled with the same tensions we'd feel today: The prohibition of women from authoritative office in the church and there being no clear provision against women serving deacons in the Bible. How churches work that out has been something the Reformed have been thinking about for more time than the rise of egalitarian wash in the church.

If you're interested in my paper, send me a PM.

EDIT: You'd probably find this interesting: OPC Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office - APPENDIX- Women Deacons? Focusing The Issue. I've linked to the appendix since you're interested in how orthodox Presbyterians think through this issue, though the entire paper is very good. (Personally, I agree with the minority opinion in that paper.)


----------



## Jake

Eoghan said:


> My impression is that churches cease to be confessional to remove one of the obstacles to female elders etc... Deacons tend to be a baptist office in my experience and elders presbyterian.



Presbyterians traditionally have both elders and deacons. I know that in some cases female deacons leads to female elders, but keep in mind that some very serious conservative and confessional Presbyterians have maintained a type of female deacon, such as the RPCNA.

EDIT: Fixed an inaccuracy addressed later in the thread. 



FenderPriest said:


> I wrote an extensive paper on the subject of women deacons last year for our church, and delved in to what the Reformed tradition has done in this area. It's a bit across the board, but folks who practice women deacons in Presbyterian circles tend to treat them like servant-organizers and lay-help to worship services. They tend to be very clear about the office not having a vested authority, and thus not prohibited to women. However, given the Presbyterian tradition has a long standing definition of the deaconate that does include a provision about authority, some churches withhold ordination of any deacons until the definition is adjusted (and, in their view, rightly aligned so that it is not an office prohibited to women).
> 
> The practice of women deacons goes back even to the time of Calvin and the post-reformation era, where churches struggled with the same tensions we'd feel today: The prohibition of women from authoritative office in the church and there being no clear provision against women serving deacons in the Bible. How churches work that out has been something the Reformed have been thinking about for more time than the rise of egalitarian wash in the church.
> 
> If you're interested in my paper, send me a PM.
> 
> EDIT: You'd probably find this interesting: OPC Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office - APPENDIX- Women Deacons? Focusing The Issue. I've linked to the appendix since you're interested in how orthodox Presbyterians think through this issue, though the entire paper is very good. (Personally, I agree with the minority opinion in that paper.)




Thanks for your comments. I am sending you a PM... I am certainly interested as I have seen comments about deacons serving at Geneva and other historical information but not well-collected. 

With regard to your edit, thank you for that as well. I find it interesting that the OPC is the largest American Presbyterian denomination (although maybe a Korean body?) that has no female deacons, so the paper is appreciated.


----------



## Gforce9

Jake said:


> Presbyterians traditionally have two offices, elder and deacon.



The OPC holds to three offices; deacon, elder, and minister.


----------



## Scott1

Here is an in-depth and excellent research paper on the topic, a relatively modern invention:
A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons

While I can't speak for the denominations you mention, one has done this only relatively recently, it was not historical practice.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Actually the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government is four-office:

Pastors
Teachers
Ruling Elders
Deacons


----------



## Jake

Greg and Pastor Benjamin,

Sorry for misstating the offices in the church. My main point was to emphasize that there are both elders *and* deacons within Presbyterianism. I've edited my post to reflect this.

Scott,

Thank you for the link. This looks relevant.

I focused this question around the ARP and RPCNA, because I realize the circumstances around female elders (EDIT: *deacons*) within the PCA is often undesirable and has only occurred recently.


----------



## Scott1

Jake said:


> I focused this question around the ARP and RPCNA, because I realize the circumstances around female elders within the PCA is often undesirable and has only occurred recently.



I think you mean female Deacons, not Elders.
And you may be aware about two years ago, the PCA added explicit new language to its Book of Church Order affirming men as one biblical qualification for church officers, elder and deacon.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Since 1888 the office of diaconate has been held by women in the RPCNA. Now if you want to equate that with some bowing to feminism or liberalism that is your prerogative I guess. But I am not inclined to believe you are correct when I examine or look at how the RPCNA has held up through the years in comparison to other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. I am not one who agrees with the position but I can't say that their adherence to the position has inclined them towards feminism or the liberalism that is infecting the other denominations. Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## louis_jp

The ARP allows individual churches to decide whether to have female deacons, or whether to restrict the office to men only.


----------



## Edward

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Since 1888 the office of diaconate has been held by women in the RPCNA. Now if you want to equate that with some bowing to feminism



Time wise, it does seem to coincide with the women's suffrage movement and the women's temperance movement, both of which were early manifestations of the feminist movement. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> how the RPCNA has held up through the years



One would need to look at the debates leading up to the decision, rather than the results flowing from them to determine if it was feminist driven or coincidental.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Since 1888 the office of diaconate has been held by women in the RPCNA. Now if you want to equate that with some bowing to feminism or liberalism that is your prerogative I guess. But I am not inclined to believe you are correct when I examine or look at how the RPCNA has held up through the years in comparison to other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. I am not one who agrees with the position but I can't say that their adherence to the position has inclined them towards feminism or the liberalism that is infecting the other denominations. Just my 2 cents worth.



Interesting. This fits what I've observed from PCA people who believe firmly that women should be eligible to be deacons. The ones I know are not liberals who tend to follow the culture. They aren't going with the culture on other issues. They're actually independently-minded and NOT inclined to go with the flow—neither the flow of the world's culture nor the flow of the denominational culture. Rather, they're determined to do what they think is biblical even if it means going against the flow of the denomination. It's quite different from what I sensed several decades ago when the CRC started admitting female deacons. That _was_ a response to cultural pressure, I thought.

So I suspect allowing female deacons _might_ be a capitulation to culture, but that isn't the case always.


----------



## FenderPriest

Jack K said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1888 the office of diaconate has been held by women in the RPCNA. Now if you want to equate that with some bowing to feminism or liberalism that is your prerogative I guess. But I am not inclined to believe you are correct when I examine or look at how the RPCNA has held up through the years in comparison to other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. I am not one who agrees with the position but I can't say that their adherence to the position has inclined them towards feminism or the liberalism that is infecting the other denominations. Just my 2 cents worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. This fits what I've observed from PCA people who believe firmly that women should be eligible to be deacons. The ones I know are not liberals who tend to follow the culture. They aren't going with the culture on other issues. They're actually independently-minded and NOT inclined to go with the flow—neither the flow of the world's culture nor the flow of the denominational culture. Rather, they're determined to do what they think is biblical even if it means going against the flow of the denomination. It's quite different from what I sensed several decades ago when the CRC started admitting female deacons. That _was_ a response to cultural pressure, I thought.
> 
> So I suspect allowing female deacons _might_ be a capitulation to culture, but that isn't the case always.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good point to make. Interestingly, when I was doing research on this last year, I found J. Cameron Fraser's 2003 dissertation, _”Women in Office” In Relation To The Role of Deacons and Their Delegation to Major Assemblies: Testing Another Approach to a Debate Within the Christian Reformed_. It was very interesting to see the small step-by-step progressions of liberalism in their denomination that lead to ordination of women. Something that should be noted and guarded against. However, in denominations like the PCA, OPC and RPCNA the trajectory towards women deacons is very different and the arguments for it containing different motivations.

If you'd like a copy of his thesis, let me know - it's a bit tricky to find online.
~Jacob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Don't get me wrong. I am not for women being ordained to office. I know RPCNA guys who aren't. Maybe that is why there are only a couple. I am wondering if the issue will surface again in the future. Either way the RPCNA has mainly stayed strong and on a steady pace. There have been times when it became a bit more inclusive I imagine and times when some of their principles have slid. But for the most part it has remained on an even keel realizing that Christ is head of the Church and things roll off of that foundation.


----------



## Marrow Man

Someone in the RPCNA (I think the librarian at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary) wrote an article for the ARP's denominational magazine a couple of years ago and mentioned the existence of female deacons in the RPCNA. I believe he attributed the practice to a liberalizing tendency in the RPCNA in the late 19th century. Obviously that is no longer the case with the RP brethren. I can look up the article if anyone is interested, but it will take time, and it was only a sentence.

But this is the problem with the practice of women being ordained to the diaconate -- once the genie is out of the bottle, she ain't going back in again. The ARP adopted the practice in the 1970s (early 70s if memory serves), which wasn't exactly a great period of orthodoxy for the denomination. In my conversations with some of the conservative men who were in the denomination back then, it was pretty much a stop-gap to prevent (at least temporarily) the ordination of women as elders. The denomination was apparently, at that time, moving in that direction. All of that changed in the late 70s. There was a movement among the conservatives to take a strong stand on biblical authority, and that turned the denomination around. But that genie was already out of the bottle by that point, and we still live with it today.

For the record, I can't comment too much on ordaining women as deacons (since I've never done it), but I assume it is the same as with men (saying vows, laying on of hands, etc.). In the churches I've pastored, I've made it no secret that I do not think the practice is biblical, and I won't personally ordain women to that office.


----------



## Herald

Eoghan said:


> My impression is that churches cease to be confessional to remove one of the obstacles to female elders etc... Deacons tend to be a baptist office in my experience and elders presbyterian.



Most Reformed Baptist churches have elders and deacons. 

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## Herald

I am not aware of female deacons in 1689 RB churches. Does anybody know differently?

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## FenderPriest

Herald said:


> I am not aware of female deacons in 1689 RB churches. Does anybody know differently?
> 
> Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


There were some. The practice was more prevalent in America, in the South if you'd believe it. But as churches went more Particular (i.e. Calvinistic), they tended to move away from ordaining women. Charles DeWeese's Women Deacons And Deaconesses: 400 Years of Baptist Service is interesting on the subject. He has a clear egalitarian bias, which is frustrating and spoils the objectivity of his historical research. Even still, his charting of the practice of women deacons and deaconesses in the 16th and 17th century of Baptist history is very helpful. The practice largely dies away in the 1800's and isn't revived until the late 19th century, which ultimately culminated in the major battles of the mid 20th century in Southern Baptist life. 

Anyhow, I may be mistaken on this, but I believe Al Martin is in favor to some extent of women deacons. That's drawing from memory there and not a citation so if anybody has further clarity on it, that'd be helpful! Not a 1689, but I know MacArthur is in favor of women deacons, and so is Mark Dever.

It should be noted that in this discussion, not everybody is convinced that the deaconate office is one to which people are ordained to, therefore the question of authority in the office and those who occupy it takes on a different flavor.


----------



## Scott1

FenderPriest said:


> It should be noted that in this discussion, not everybody is convinced that the deaconate office is one to which people are ordained to,



Broadly speaking, Deacons as an office of the church, governing authority, qualified by ordination is not contested in Protestantism (or Roman Catholicism).

Historically, the church looked to a I Timothy 5 servant widow model for women as distinct from the I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 office of Deacon. Keep in mind the I Timothy 5 was an elderly widow, without support, who took a vow of celibacy.

This is not what those advocating women deacons in the egalitarian spirit of this generation are arguing for.

Those arguing for women deacons today, e.g. are generally arguing for the two as being without distinction, and in so doing, clearly confusing, wishing their own ideas, or confusing the clear teaching of Scripture qualifying men for ordained office, the pattern of creation, etc.


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be noted that in this discussion, not everybody is convinced that the deaconate office is one to which people are ordained to,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broadly speaking, Deacons as an office of the church, governing authority, qualified by ordination is not contested in Protestantism (or Roman Catholicism).
> 
> Historically, the church looked to a I Timothy 5 servant widow model for women as distinct from the I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 office of Deacon. Keep in mind the I Timothy 5 was an elderly widow, without support, who took a vow of celibacy.
> 
> This is not what those advocating women deacons in the egalitarian spirit of this generation are arguing for.
> 
> Those arguing for women deacons today, e.g. are generally arguing for the two as being without distinction, and in so doing, clearly confusing, wishing their own ideas, or confusing the clear teaching of Scripture qualifying men for ordained office, the pattern of creation, etc.
Click to expand...

My point in the section you quoted is that ordination inherently has authority in it, and given the rather sparse discussions about Deacons in the Bible, it is not clear that they receive an ordination process. They certainly are examined and commissioned, but I do not see diaconate vows vested with ecclesiastical authority being clearly taught, especially since submission is clearly directed to the Eldership in the NT, not the deacons. I don't think Acts 7 establishes the full pattern of Deacons since we're looking at the earliest days of the church and the function we see the Seven practice throughout the book of Acts is preaching and teaching - eldership functions. Thus, as one who would argue for women in the diaconate, the issue of authority is not on the table as it relates to office or ordination since I do not see a Biblical connection between Deacons and authority. So personally, I'd argue that deacons as a category are commissioned for a period of service within the local church for the purpose of releasing the Elders to preach and pastor. Thus, they aren't ordained since they do not have authority, but they do have a central function to play in the life of a church. I'm also not entirely convinced by arguments for widow-deaconesses from 1 Timothy 5 - though Brian M. Schwertley's work is good. (Interestingly, Calvin's own practice of this issue couldn't fully account for the central, servant roles women played in the church life of Geneva.) Hopefully this clarifies what I was saying somewhat.


----------



## Scott1

FenderPriest said:


> My point in the section you quoted is that ordination inherently has authority in it, and given the rather sparse discussions about Deacons in the Bible, it is not clear that they receive an ordination process.



Yes it is.

I Timothy 3 combines bishops, elders, deacons as officers and links them to Titus 1 requiring ordination and calling.


FenderPriest said:


> I don't think Acts 7 establishes the full pattern of Deacons



I certainly disagree,
that's exactly what happened, Stephen, et. all, officers were chosen, by the people, seven men in a qualified role.



FenderPriest said:


> the issue of authority is not on the table


The issue of authority is on the table, that's what makes it an office.
It's why the PCA, in accord with historic doctrine and practice sets governance in the church, ordained of God by Deacons and elders.
You may not agree, but the burden is on you in light of longstanding church history and practice.


FenderPriest said:


> Interestingly, Calvin's own practice



Calvin's practice was older women who took vows of celibacy and were a separate class, as he repeatedly refers to it in the Institutes and in the records of the consistory at Geneva.
Never did he advocate men and women serving without distinction as Deacons as do virtually all the modern arguers.
Calvin's model was servant widow, destitute, no man to provide, and too old ordinarily for marriage.


----------



## FenderPriest

Scott1 said:


> Calvin's practice was older women who took vows of celibacy and were a separate class, as he repeatedly refers to it in the Institutes and in the records of the consistory at Geneva.
> Never did he advocate men and women serving without distinction as Deacons as do virtually all the modern arguers.
> Calvin's model was servant widow, destitute, no man to provide, and too old ordinarily for marriage.


Scott, to give examples of what I'm talking about regarding Calvin's practice in Geneva - note, I said that it didn't account for the full range of service, I didn't speak narrowly to what he taught - this section begins Jeannine E Olson's discussion of women and the role of deacon in Calvin's Geneva in her book Calvin and Social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Française.

As for the rest of the observations you made, I was simply giving a scan of my (and other Reformed thinkers) perspective. Unless this is to turn into a debate on the matter, I'll let it rest. If you'd like to read my paper on the subject, please send me a message - I want to be respectful to the intentions of the original post on this thread.


----------

