# Should women be deacons?



## Herald

Originally posted by Shackleton:

Is this the slippery road that leads to having women as pastors and elders? Someone told me yesterday that the PCA is heading down this path, that they are beginning to ordain women as deacons.
__________________
Erick Bohndorf
Newly Reformed
Member PCA Kansas
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
Simul iustus et Peccator Simultaneously righteous and sinner
Martin Luther


----------



## Herald

Forgive me all. I tried to move the posts from the original thread to this poll thread. I messed it up big time. I will try to recover them if I can. Rookie error.


----------



## Herald

Right now I say "no" but I need to research it further.


----------



## raekwon

Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.

I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard *very* strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.


----------



## JBaldwin

I vote, no, it is not scriptural, but I need to clarify. 

Scripture clearly defines the office of deacon in I Timothy 3:8-13, therefore it is an authoritative office, as is the office of elder. The fact that I Timothy points out that a deacon is to be the husband of one wife is an indication to me that the office is for men. 

However, we do see examples of women in the New Testament who were exercising spiritual gifts along side the apostles and in the case of Priscilla along side her husband. This is an indication to me that God gifted some women with the same spiritual gifts as many of the men, and that the apostles recognized these women and encouraged them to use their gifts, but always under the authority of the men. 

Based on that, I do believe that if elders and deacons desire to do so, they can recognize gifted women by appointing them to be deaconnesses, but without the authoritative office, and under the leadership of the men.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

I'm fairly close to the consensus so far. I voted "yes, but scripture is vauge." Being raised in the Baptist tradition we always had a few women deacons, but never a woman pastor. I was also raised in a church that practiced foot washing (I know this is a strange concept to those who are unfamiliar with old fashioned baptist practices). The women deacons were responsible for overseeing the women's foot washing (the men and women were always separated for this ordinance). I never remember the women deacons helping with communion. That was always done by the men. As far as eldership, women knew very clearly that the diaconate was the only office they could hold and that their duties were only to the other women. There was never, ever, any idea of the women becoming pastors.


----------



## Kevin

I voted yes. However I see that JBaldwin who voted no has almost the same view as I do!

I would have been more comfortable voting yes if "deaconess" had been the option. I think that as far as the use of authority and the office are concerned only a man may be a deacon. However, there is no doubt in my mind the the scripture teaches that some women (widows, deaconesses, older women, whatever name is used) have a role in the administration of mercy that is qalitativly different then the role of every believer.


----------



## travis

JBaldwin said:


> I vote, no, it is not scriptural, but I need to clarify.
> 
> Scripture clearly defines the office of deacon in I Timothy 3:8-13, therefore it is an authoritative office, as is the office of elder. The fact that I Timothy points out that a deacon is to be the husband of one wife is an indication to me that the office is for men.
> 
> However, we do see examples of women in the New Testament who were exercising spiritual gifts along side the apostles and in the case of Priscilla along side her husband. This is an indication to me that God gifted some women with the same spiritual gifts as many of the men, and that the apostles recognized these women and encouraged them to use their gifts, but always under the authority of the men.
> 
> Based on that, I do believe that if elders and deacons desire to do so, they can recognize gifted women by appointing them to be deaconnesses, but without the authoritative office, and under the leadership of the men.


I think I am in this boat right now. I cannot ignore the scriptures and what they say about women in the early church and I also cannot ignore what it says about male leadership. Deaconesses that are not ordained, but 'recognized' or 'comissioned' would be fine by me.


----------



## Stephen

There is already a thread on this topic. This is starting to sound redundent.


----------



## raekwon

travis said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote, no, it is not scriptural, but I need to clarify.
> 
> Scripture clearly defines the office of deacon in I Timothy 3:8-13, therefore it is an authoritative office, as is the office of elder. The fact that I Timothy points out that a deacon is to be the husband of one wife is an indication to me that the office is for men.
> 
> However, we do see examples of women in the New Testament who were exercising spiritual gifts along side the apostles and in the case of Priscilla along side her husband. This is an indication to me that God gifted some women with the same spiritual gifts as many of the men, and that the apostles recognized these women and encouraged them to use their gifts, but always under the authority of the men.
> 
> Based on that, I do believe that if elders and deacons desire to do so, they can recognize gifted women by appointing them to be deaconnesses, but without the authoritative office, and under the leadership of the men.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I am in this boat right now. I cannot ignore the scriptures and what they say about women in the early church and I also cannot ignore what it says about male leadership. Deaconesses that are not ordained, but 'recognized' or 'comissioned' would be fine by me.
Click to expand...


See, I think that the difference between "ordination" and "commissioning" (or whatever term churches use in order to say "they're not ordained") is just a matter of semantics. I maybe stepping on some toes here, but while I understand the doctrine of ordination, what I don't understand is the propensity for reformed folks like us to treat the word "ordained" as if it contains some sort of supernatural power.


----------



## Romans922

"Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." - 1 Timothy 4:14

"For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." - 2 Timothy 1:6

Seems supernatural to me.


----------



## Gryphonette

Is there a set, firm definition of "deacon" as it's being used here?

My general, knee-jerk reaction is "certainly not!" but some "deaconess" positions appear to be so service-oriented, with no authority over men (barring the "hey, please don't track mud through here!" sort), I don't see a problem with it.

Considering how humanity never seems to fail to slip rapidly down any slippery slope in a ten-mile vicinity, however, it's probably safest to refrain from providing even the slightest downward slope.


----------



## JBaldwin

Romans922 said:


> "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." - 1 Timothy 4:14
> 
> "For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." - 2 Timothy 1:6
> 
> Seems supernatural to me.



As I see it, it is about authority and recognition of gifts. The scripture is quite plain about recognizing and giving authority to those whom He has gifted. Ordination recognizes those gifts and hands authority over to those who have the gifts. 

Again this is why I bring out the fact that women who are gifted should be recognized and used by leadership. They just don't have the authority to lead.


----------



## Herald

Folks, Shackelton started this thread and I asked him if I could make a poll out it because I thought it would a worthwhile discussion. I tried to move the posts in that thread to this one but I merged them instead and made a mess out of it. I apologize. Even mods can mess up! Hard to believe but true. Forgive me.


----------



## JBaldwin

Gryphonette said:


> Is there a set, firm definition of "deacon" as it's being used here?
> 
> My general, knee-jerk reaction is "certainly not!" but some "deaconess" positions appear to be so service-oriented, with no authority over men (barring the "hey, please don't track mud through here!" sort), I don't see a problem with it.
> 
> Considering how humanity never seems to fail to slip rapidly down any slippery slope in a ten-mile vicinity, however, it's probably safest to refrain from providing even the slightest downward slope.



The deacons are the ones set aside in Acts 6 to do the work of ministering to physical needs of the church so that elders can focus on preaching the Word of God.


----------



## JBaldwin

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Folks, Shackelton started this thread and I asked him if I could make a poll out it because I thought it would a worthwhile discussion. I tried to move the posts in that thread to this one but I merged them instead and made a mess out of it. I apologize. Even mods can mess up! Hard to believe but true. Forgive me.



Bill, 

As long as you forgive us the next time we mess up!


----------



## Stephen

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Originally posted by Shackleton:
> 
> Is this the slippery road that leads to having women as pastors and elders? Someone told me yesterday that the PCA is heading down this path, that they are beginning to ordain women as deacons.
> __________________
> Erick Bohndorf
> Newly Reformed
> Member PCA Kansas
> Qayaq Traveler
> Simul iustus et Peccator Simultaneously righteous and sinner
> Martin Luther



Brother, you have been misinformed. The PCA has never ordained woman and restricts the office to qualified men only. There is an overture that the Philadelphia Presbytery sent to the General Assembly, but it has been not decided by the committee to bring it before the higher court. The committee can still decide to not bring it before the Assembly. There are some congregations (and it is a minority) that have deaconessess but they are appointed to specific tasks and have not been ordained. The WIC ministry functions in this capacity by fulfilling Titus 2.


----------



## Eoghan

The biggest problem is that there is no clear distinction in some denominations. Thurso Baptist Church has only deacons. I have always wondered if the reference to deaconess is to the wife of a deacon?


----------



## N. Eshelman

I do not think that it is a slippery slope to female ministers and elders. 

Example: Both the ARP and the RPCNA have had female deacons since the end of the 19th century. Neither of them have ever ordained female elders.


----------



## Stephen

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Folks, Shackelton started this thread and I asked him if I could make a poll out it because I thought it would a worthwhile discussion. I tried to move the posts in that thread to this one but I merged them instead and made a mess out of it. I apologize. Even mods can mess up! Hard to believe but true. Forgive me.




We forgive you, brother. I did not realize what you were trying to do, so I understand. I am new to posting threads, so I would certainly mess it up if I were doing it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I'll try posting this again:

Brian Schwertley, _A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons_:



> The contention that ordaining women to the diaconate was more a product of the sprit of the times rather than an outgrowth of careful exegetical considerations is supported by an eyewitness and participant at the R.P. Synod of 1888, the Rev. D. S. Faris. In an article entitled "The Female Deacon and the Sentimental Overflow of Synod" Faris documents that what occurred at the Synod of 1888 was a rush to judgment based on sentimentality and an "overflow of enthusiasm."
> 
> ...I wish to state those facts which, to my mind, prove that Synod reached its conclusions, not by means of deliberate and sober examination of the whole subject in all its bearings, but by "sentimental overflow." This word "overflow" was used by Dr. Kennedy himself to designate Synod's method of dealing with the subject. The Synod was borne along by the wave of popular sentiment, and did not act like a deliberative and judicial body. The only scholarly and effective argument in the case was that of Dr. Stevenson. The argument consisted, first, of a construction of certain passages of the New Testament, and second, of an argument based on allusions to the matter in the early fathers. No one was prepared to answer the patristic argument, on the spur of the moment; yet as Dr. Kennedy admitted, this line of argument is worthless, unless a foundation can be found for it in the word of God. The Doctor went about establishing the Scriptural foundation, evidently not with the deliberation and research of a scholar and a theologian, but as one borne along by the tide of sentimentalism. His first statement was that the direct Scriptural proof was wanting; but there are important things that are and must be taken for granted. He said that there is no direct proof that women were baptized or admitted to the Lord's table. This has always been taken for granted, and women's rights to these privileges have never been questioned. So, he said, women have been found doing work belonging to the deacon's office, and therefore we ought to presume that they were ordained. The Doctor in the rush of the overwhelming tide forgot the account of the baptism of Lydia and her household, recorded in Act 16:15. He would not have made such a mistake, if he had been following the matter in a cool, deliberate desire to obtain the truth. He knew better as soon as he had time to think, but he made his argument under the influence of what he himself called an "overflow," and not as a person searching and expounding the word of God deliberately....
> 
> Prof. Willson gave us no argument, but intimated, that from a thorough examination of the matter as a theologian, he had views that corresponded to the sentiment of Synod. He was surprised at the unanimous report of the committee, and equally surprised at the mind of the large part of Synod. The Professor should have given us the benefit of his theological researches, but contented himself by saying that he had heard no argument on the other side. Thus he brushed away what had been brought from the word of God, which seemed to demand some answer; and under the influence of the overflow, the Synod was willing to take for granted that the Professor was right, without hearing his reasons or exercising their own private judgment in the case. A few of us were not ready to vote for a measure which, to Presbyterians generally, will seem to be an innovation, at least without time to make up our minds prayerfully and carefully.
> 
> Another evidence of the overflow of enthusiasm, was the form in which the committee presented the matter at first, substantially as follows: "That we find nothing in nature nor in the word of God, to prevent a woman from holding the deacon's office." The second member of the committee was Dr. Kennedy, a well-known scholar and theologian, and would have known better than to have agreed to such a report, if at all sober and in his right mind. But being carried away by the enthusiasm in the committee, he agreed to it, and after the prelatical form of it had been objected to by myself, tardily found objections to the negative form of the report of his own committee. The Synod then changed it into the positive form, substantially as follows: "That we find it is agreeable to nature and the word of God that a woman should be ordained to the office of deacon."
> 
> Another fact showing the undeliberative character of the proceeding, was the statement by some of the advocates of the measure, in reply to the ground taken by Dr. George, that no authority is conferred in ordination to the office of deacon, but there would be in ordination to that of elder or preacher, and that authority on the part of woman is usurpation, that they were willing for woman to have her equal place with man in all offices, both in church and state. Thus no provision was made against the pressing of the matter further, in future, and the tide rushed onward overflowing the more cautious ground occupied by a few. Doubtless this flood-tide, if it be not checked, will carry women into all places of authority in church and state. Again, I would mention an argument of some one on the majority side, that it was necessary for us to take this step now, so as to continue to lead the churches in reform as heretofore. Reflection ought to convince such enthusiasts that leadership is not desirable unless in a Scriptural progress, and this ought to be first determined in a deliberate and constitutional manner. [86]
> 
> Faris's comments reveal a number of troubling things regarding the debate at Synod to ordain women as deacons. Faris reveals that there were members of Synod that wanted to open all church offices to women. This indicates that the feminist rhetoric of the preceding thirty years was having an effect on some members of Synod. (We can reach no other conclusion, considering the overwhelming and very clear scriptural evidence against women being pastors or elders in the church.) Other members of Synod argued that women should be ordained as deacons so the R.P. Church could lead other churches in the cause of reform. This supports the view that the popularity of putting women into the ordained diaconate was not based on a new, clearer, more objective understanding of Scripture, but was a direct result of the nineteenth century reform movements, especially the new Christian feminism. The fact that the R.P. committee which recommended women deacons to Synod originally rejected the regulative principle in favor of a "prelatical" argument further indicates that the motivating factor for ordaining women as deacons was not in the first place Scripture but was the cultural environment. These men had good intentions and believed they were doing a good thing for society and the church but in reality they were just following the latest "evangelical" [87] fad.​
> Faris's warning that "this floodtide, if not checked, will carry women into all places of authority in church and state" has to a large extent already taken place. The sentiments of R.P. pastors such as Thomas Wylie who wanted to open all church offices to women apparently was held by a number of R.P. pastors. Even as late as 1938-39 there was a concerted effort to ordain women as ruling elders.
> 
> The Synod of 1938 appointed a Committee on Ordination of Women Elders, which reported to Synod the following year. The committee report recommended the ordination of women to the ruling eldership. Philip W. Martin and Johannes G. Vos responded with a paper entitled "Are Women Elders Scriptural?" etc. [88]​
> J. G. Vos, who was an excellent scholar and highly respected within the denomination, was largely responsible for stopping the effort to ordain women to the eldership at that time. The present movement within the RPCNA to open all church offices to women is led by Faith Martin. This movement is a product of the feminism of the nineteen sixties and seventies.


----------



## raekwon

Romans922 said:


> "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." - 1 Timothy 4:14
> 
> "For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." - 2 Timothy 1:6
> 
> Seems supernatural to me.



That's fine, but my point was more about the _word_ "ordination" (vs the word "commissioning" or whatever other word people want to use), not the laying on of hands and prayer.


----------



## Coram Deo

Now that I have my newer keyboard.... Couldn't barely post earlier.. 

Andrew, you beat me to it with Brian Schwertley, A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons... 


But I would like to Post some other quotes from him on that article that I would like to spur discussion on....

The Order of Widows

Those interpreters, such as Calvin and Rutherford, who argue that Phoebe was in the order of widows do justice to the immediate as well as to the broader context. They are not forced into embarrassing exegetical gymnastics to circumvent the clear teaching of Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Timothy 3:12.

Those who argue that Phoebe was a deacon in the same office as the male diaconate make much of her official sounding introduction by Paul. But if Phoebe was in the order of widows her official sounding introduction makes perfect sense. There is excellent evidence within the text to indicate that Phoebe was a competent, rich widow. The trip from Cenchrea (a port near Corinth) to Rome was a long one. A married woman in Greek society would not have made such a trip without her husband. Phoebe was rich and independent. It is very unlikely that a young Greek woman would have had such wealth. And it is virtually certain that a young Christian single woman would not have made such a trip. The fact that Phoebe was a wealthy widow, and the fact that she was a patron or helper of many in the church, fits perfectly with the description of Paul's order of widows in 1 Timothy 5:9ff. This is the only interpretation that does justice both to Paul's introduction of Phoebe, her official sounding activities and the very clear teaching regarding male deacons (Ac. 6:3; 1 Tim. 3:12). It also explains why female servants called deaconesses were required to fulfill the qualifications of Paul's order of widows (1 Tim. 5:9ff.) throughout church history (as noted in the historical section of this book). The deaconesses in the post-apostolic church should be defined by their qualifications (widows over sixty) and their duties (ministering to women's needs) and not be defined solely by their name.

Should the church have women in the church who serve in a sort of official capacity such as Phoebe? Yes, absolutely. But their office and activities should be patterned after the order of widows and not the male diaconate. To put women in the same office as the male diaconate does violence to the male diaconate and the biblical order of widows. It was the perversion of the female order of widows which led to its demise.

Summary of Interpretations of Romans 16:1-2

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant [diakonon] of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also (NKJV).

*Order of Widows*

Phoebe belonged to the order of widows and served in an official capacity, yet was not an ordained deacon in the same office with the male diaconate.

Advantages: This interpretation does justice to Phoebe's introduction by Paul and Phoebe's extensive activities on behalf of the church. It does not contradict the teaching in the N.T. regarding the male diaconate (e.g., Ac. 6:1-6). This interpretation does justice to indicators within the text: Phoebe was a wealthy widow engaged in an independent activity that would have been forbidden to younger single women and married women. Her office or order is explicitly described by Paul in 1 Tim. 5:9ff. She meets Paul's qualifications. This interpretation fits in perfectly with church history: godly widows over sixty served the church in an official capacity throughout the Roman empire, especially in the east.

Disadvantages: None.

The interpretation that 1 Timothy 5:9 is speaking of a distinct group of women set apart in the church for service was common among early Presbyterians. It was held by John Calvin, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford. Samuel Rutherford argued that the college of widows spoken of in 1 Timothy 5:9 definitely refers to a group of women set apart to serve in the church. He even argues that Phoebe of Romans 16:1 probably "was such a widow."

But some may object, if these widows had a charge [i.e., a defined duty], and did any work or service to the Church, (as it is clear from the text, v. 9 they did) in overseeing the poor, and the sick, were not wages due to them, for their work? For the laborer is worthy of his hire...[therefore it is] as a debt, not as an alms. I answer, the reason is not alike of the preaching elder, and of the widow; for the pastor's service requiring the whole man was of that nature...but a widow of sixty years being weak and infirm, cannot acquit herself, in such a painful office as does merit poor wages, and therefore the reward of her labour was both wages and alms.

Again, that this widow had some charge or service in the church, (I mean not any ministerial office, for she was not ordained as the deacon, Acts 6 with imposition of hands) I prove from the text. 1. Because this widow was not to be chosen to the number of college of widows, except she had been 60 years [of age], this is a positive qualification of a positive service, as if it were an office; for else what more reason in 60 years than in 61 or 62 or in 58 or 59 if she was a mere eleemosynary [i.e., someone who is dependent or supported by alms] and an indigent woman, for can godliness permit us to think that Paul would exclude a widow of 50 or 54 or 56 years, from the college of widows, who were desolate and poor? Nor, 2. Would Paul rebuke the widow taken into the society of these widows, because she married a husband, except she had entered into this service, and had vowed chastity, nor is marrying the second time which is lawful (Rom. 7:1-2), a waxing wanton against Christ and a casting off of the first faith; as the marrying of these widows is called (vs. 11-12), therefore this widow had some charge and service in the church. 3. The word katalegestho—let a widow be chosen of such an age, and not younger, and with such moral qualifications, as is required in the deacon, does also evidence that it was an election to some service of charge, as if she be of good report, if she has brought up her children; if she has lodged strangers; if she has washed the saints' feet; which qualifications not being in a widow [who is] poor and destitute, which cannot exclude her from the [church's] alms, and expose her to famishing for want: (this also does [argue] Ambrose, Augustine).... It is not unprobable to me that Phoebe, called a deacon, or servant of the church of Cenchrea, was such a widow, seeing she is (Rom. 16:1) expressly so called: how she came to Rome, if she was a poor widow and now 60 years old, I dispute not, seeing God's Spirit called her so. We can easily yield that widows of sixty years entering to this service did vow not to marry again; .... The last canon of the council of Nice denies that widows are church-officers, because they were not ordained with imposition of hands....

If the order of widows spoken of in 1 Timothy 5:9ff. is a biblical office or service within God's church, would it not be better for Reformed churches to reintroduce this biblical order with its specific qualifications than to seek to ordain women to the male diaconate which has no scriptural warrant, and which cannot be found in the church until the nineteenth century? There are no passages in the New Testament that indicate that the college of widows was a temporary institution. The servant-widows were not connected in any way to special revelations (e.g., prophets) and miracles which ceased with the close of the canon and the death of the apostles. They were not bound up with the ministrations of the apostles in a special way, as were the first evangelists. Do we have the scriptural right to ignore or set aside a ministry to and for women which is founded upon inspired revelation?

End of Quote..


So What does everyone think of the Order of Widows? Is this another church Office? I was unfamiliar with this understand but I find it quite compelling and leaning that way.....


----------



## Stephen

Some of those who voted that deaconesses were not scriptural come from traditions that have only an office for deacons and not elders. They believe that a deacon is one who has ecclesiastical authority to govern and rule the church, but this is not scriptural. Deacons are not rulers, authoritative teachers, or governors but servants who are given the function of ministering to the needs of others.


----------



## Coram Deo

Early Church Father Quotes on the Order of Widows...

"Teach the widows to be discreet as respects the faith of the Lord, praying continually for all, being far from all slandering, evil-speaking, false-witnessing, love of money, and every kind of evil; knowing that they are the altars of God," (Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, CHAPTER IV)

"Innumerable commands such as these are written in the holy Bible appertaining to chosen persons, some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons, others to widows, of whom we shall have another opportunity of speaking." (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book III, Chap. XII)

"I know plainly, that in a certain place a virgin of less than twenty years of age has been placed in the order of widows!" (Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Chap. IX)


Sounds like a Biblical and Apostolical Order or Office to me....


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I voted Yes. When I left the PC(USA) one of the first things I did when discerning where God was leading me to go was really dig deep into the questions surrounding Office.(As a little background one of the largest impetus's for my leaving the PC(USA) was due to a PCA Pastor in South Dakota sending me "Women in the Church" ed. Kostenberger)

I found in my research that it was biblical for women to be deacons. I highly recommend the ARP's Position paper on this subject.


----------



## JBaldwin

thunaer said:


> So What does everyone think of the Order of Widows? Is this another church Office? I was unfamiliar with this understand but I find it quite compelling and leaning that way.....



As usual, Schwertley has an interesting twist. I have always been under the impression from my study and from the preaching I have sat under that this passage was talking about supporting widows financially, and had nothing to do with an office. 

The idea of an 'office of widow' does not seem to square with Paul's other discussion of women serving in the church in I Corinthians 7 

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

To have an office strictly for widows would exclude women who are single, celebate, unmarried or even betrothed from being concerned with serving the Lord. There are other women mentioned in Scripture who were not widows who served along side Paul and the apostles in a similar capacity. There are and have been women down through the history of the church who have chosen to remain celebate so they can serve the Lord. God has gifted many of these women to serve Him in the church. 

To exclude the service of women in the church to widows doesn't square with the other examples of women in Scripture.


----------



## Coram Deo

JBaldwin said:


> As usual, Schwertley has an interesting twist.


----------



## Coram Deo

The Idea is that the younger woman marry or if widowed remarry and raise a family and serve the lord... especially since the young burn with passion..

But the aged widows need to be cared for by the church and can serve with even more responsibilities since they are no longer married nor have responsibilities toward husband or children since their children are all grown up.........


----------



## DMcFadden

Michael, 

I'm sure glad to learn that we middle-agers don't need to worry about burning with passion. That will make my life a lot easier.


----------



## Coram Deo

Is 60 year old or Older Woman a Middle-Ager?

Especially since they are done and have Menopause?

I did not know you were a woman (since you put "we" in that description)?







DMcFadden said:


> Michael,
> 
> I'm sure glad to learn that we middle-agers don't need to worry about burning with passion. That will make my life a lot easier.


----------



## JBaldwin

It still does not justify an office of widow from this passage. 

Again, there are and have been down through the centuries and in Paul's day as well, women who remain celebate in order to serve the Lord. Paul instructs younger widows to remarry, because, as you say the young burn with passion, but also he was keeping in mind that women in his day women could not go out and get a job and support themselves as women can in our society. The encouragement to go out and get married again had as much to do with finding a way to support themselves as it did with the burning desire of the young.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

thunaer said:


> Is 60 year old or Older Woman a Middle-Ager?
> 
> Especially since they are done and have Menopause?
> 
> I did not know you were a woman (since you put "we" in that description)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> I'm sure glad to learn that we middle-agers don't need to worry about burning with passion. That will make my life a lot easier.
Click to expand...


I never understand why people who are 55 or 60 refer to themselves as "middle-aged", after all, how many 110 or 120 year old people do you know?


----------



## SRoper

Stephen said:


> Brother, you have been misinformed. The PCA has never ordained woman and restricts the office to qualified men only. There is an overture that the Philadelphia Presbytery sent to the General Assembly, but it has been not decided by the committee to bring it before the higher court. The committee can still decide to not bring it before the Assembly. There are some congregations (and it is a minority) that have deaconessess but they are appointed to specific tasks and have not been ordained. The WIC ministry functions in this capacity by fulfilling Titus 2.



While churches in the PCA don't ordain deaconessess, many commission deaconessess and make no distinction between male and female members of the diaconate. That is the case at my own church. When nominating members to office they say that we are to nominate men for the office of elder and men and women for the office of deacon.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

My question then is why do not these churches that already quasi-ordain female deacons become ARP?


----------



## AV1611

No, it is not scriptural.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> No, it is not scriptural.



There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.


----------



## Mushroom

I find it hard to swallow that reformed Christians would even need to debate this subject. Syncretism seems to infect even the best of minds these days. What a sad commentary on the state of the Church today.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Bit much don't you think?


----------



## Craig

The Bayly Blog has dedicated a significant amount of time to this issue...and they've done so magnificently. This is a great post delving into the issue.

Pastor David Bayly's post sparked a follow up by his brother, Tim (linked above)...here is that post calling out the fact PCA churches are violating BCO:


> (David) Let's think for a moment about the meaning of presbyterial life.
> 
> If the essence of presbyterianism is elders willingly subjecting themselves to their brethren...
> 
> And if ordained elders should never willfully violate the PCA's standards without first submitting their teaching or course-of-action to presbytery for approval...
> 
> And if those who come to possess beliefs substantially opposed to settled portions of PCA standards should leave the PCA for a denomination sympathetic to their new convictions rather than mar PCA harmony by staying and fighting...
> 
> Then what, pray tell, are we to make of PCA churches actually laying hands upon women (and men) in services of "commissioning" to the diaconal office?
> 
> And what are we to make of this overture to the PCA's 2008 General Assembly from the Philadelphia Presbytery asking General Assembly to sanction retroactively the ordination of women to an office clearly forbidden them by PCA standards?
> 
> And finally, why has no one sought to discipline these churches and this presbytery?
> 
> The irony is so thick you could cut it.
> 
> (Thanks for the link, Andrew)


----------



## Mushroom

Craig said:


> The Bayly Blog has dedicated a significant amount of time to this issue...and they've done so magnificently. This is a great post delving into the issue.
> 
> Pastor David Bayly's post sparked a follow up by his brother, Tim (linked above)...here is that post calling out the fact PCA churches are violating BCO:
> 
> 
> 
> (David) Let's think for a moment about the meaning of presbyterial life.
> 
> If the essence of presbyterianism is elders willingly subjecting themselves to their brethren...
> 
> And if ordained elders should never willfully violate the PCA's standards without first submitting their teaching or course-of-action to presbytery for approval...
> 
> And if those who come to possess beliefs substantially opposed to settled portions of PCA standards should leave the PCA for a denomination sympathetic to their new convictions rather than mar PCA harmony by staying and fighting...
> 
> Then what, pray tell, are we to make of PCA churches actually laying hands upon women (and men) in services of "commissioning" to the diaconal office?
> 
> And what are we to make of this overture to the PCA's 2008 General Assembly from the Philadelphia Presbytery asking General Assembly to sanction retroactively the ordination of women to an office clearly forbidden them by PCA standards?
> 
> And finally, why has no one sought to discipline these churches and this presbytery?
> 
> The irony is so thick you could cut it.
> 
> (Thanks for the link, Andrew)
Click to expand...


Good points, but not surprising. The PCA (of which I am a member) has been "slouching towards Gommorah" for quite awhile.


----------



## raekwon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not scriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.
Click to expand...


Now, we all know what kind of issues we get into with a bald "it's never mentioned in the Bible" argument.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.



Exactly


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Stephen said:


> Some of those who voted that deaconesses were not scriptural come from traditions that have only an office for deacons and not elders. They believe that a deacon is one who has ecclesiastical authority to govern and rule the church, but this is not scriptural. Deacons are not rulers, authoritative teachers, or governors but servants who are given the function of ministering to the needs of others.




Well that may be true. But I am not sure who they would be. I have come from a Reformed Baptist pluralistic Elder rule understanding of the Scriptures. And I have been Presbyterian also. 

I asked a few questions in the other thread before it was made into this thread and I am going to try to re-ask them.


What is the office of a Deacon? 

Is this office different than being noted as one who is a servant to the Church?

Is διακονον (deaconess) an office or a description of Phoebe in Romans 16:1?

Is the office of Deacon one that has a position? 

Is the postion one that has some form of authority, if it is a postion? 

Can it be a neutral position in the Church? (one having no authority)

Can a woman be ordained into this office and not have authority over a man?


Here is a portion of Gill.


> Of this church Phebe was a servant, or, as the word signifies, a minister or deacon; not that she was a teacher of the word, or preacher of the Gospel, for that was not allowed of by the apostle in the church at Corinth, that a woman should teach; see 1Co_14:34; and therefore would never be admitted at Cenchrea. Rather, as some think, she was a deaconess appointed by the church, to take care of the poor sisters of the church; though as they were usually poor, and ancient women; that were put into that service, and this woman, according to the account of her, being neither poor, nor very ancient; it seems rather, that being a rich and generous woman, she served or ministered to the church by relieving the poor; not out of the church's stock, as deaconesses did, but out of her own substance; and received the ministers of the Gospel, and all strangers, into her house, which was open to all Christians; and so was exceeding serviceable to that church, and to all the saints that came thither: though it is certain that among the ancient Christians there were women servants who were called ministers. Pliny, in an epistle of his to Trajan the emperor, says (i), that he had examined two maids, "quae ministrae dicebantur", "who were called ministers", to know the truth of the Christian religion.



Here is Vincent


> The word may be either masculine or feminine. Commonly explained as deaconess. The term διακόνισσα deaconess is found only in ecclesiastical Greek. The “Apostolical Constitutions” distinguish deaconesses from widows and virgins, prescribe their duties, and a form for their ordination. Pliny the younger, about a.d. 104, appears to refer to them in his letter to Trajan, in which he speaks of the torture of two maids who were called minestrae (female ministers). The office seems to have been confined mainly to widows, though virgins were not absolutely excluded. Their duties were to take care of the sick and poor, to minister to martyrs and confessors in prison, to instruct catechumens, to assist at the baptism of women, and to exercise a general supervision over the female church-members. Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom_16:12) may have belonged to this class. See on 1Ti_5:3-16. Conybeare (“Life and Epistles of St. Paul”) assumes that Phoebe was a widow, on the ground that she could not, according to Greek manners, have been mentioned as acting in the independent manner described, either if her husband had been living or she had been unmarried. Renan says: “Phoebe carried under the folds of her robe the whole future of Christian theology.”



Just to lay my cards on the table. I do believe 1 Timothy 3:12 indicates the office of a deacon is a man's position. Not because of the ecclesiology of my denomination. But because the position described by Paul requires a man of one wife. 

(1Ti 3:12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

(1Ti 3:13) For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.


----------



## shackleton

*I was surprised to see that MacArthur was not against women as deacons*

In chapter 3:11 of his study bible: "Paul here likely refers not to deacons' wives but to the women who serve as deacons. The use of the word "likewise" suggests a third group in addition to elders and deacons. And since Paul gave no requirements for elders wives, there is no reason to assume these would be qualifications for deacons' wives." 

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (3:8–13)

When God raises up people to serve His church, He looks for those whose hearts are right with him. His concern is not about talents or abilities, but spiritual virtue.

The men God has chosen to serve His people have always had hearts devoted to Him. Nehemiah 9:8 says of Abraham, “Thou didst find his heart faithful before Thee.” When Samuel searched for a successor to Saul, the Lord reminded him that “the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Saul, chosen largely because he was “a choice and handsome man, and there was not a more handsome person than he among the sons of Israel” (1 Sam. 9:2), had turned out to be a disaster. To replace him, God “raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will”’ (Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Sam. 13:14). When he turned over the kingdom to his son Solomon, David advised him to “know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind” (1 Chron. 28:9). Godly King Jehoshaphat of Judah was blessed by God because he “set [his] heart to seek God” (2 Chron. 19:3). God used King Josiah to lead a spiritual revival because his heart was tender and he humbled himself before the Lord (2 Kings 22:19). Ezra was used by God because he “set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). The apostle Paul described his conduct among the Thessalonians as devout, upright, and blameless (1 Thess. 2:10). It is such men, men of integrity, purity, and virtue, that God chooses to lead His people.

Having discussed such spiritual qualifications for elders in 3:1–7, Paul now turns to those of deacons in 3:8–13. The standard for deacons is in no way inferior to that required of elders. Elders who lead and deacons who serve perform different functions, but the spiritual qualifications required for both are essentially identical. There is no drop-off in spiritual quality or maturity from overseers to deacons. The only difference is that overseers are “able to teach” (3:2).

Diakonos (deacon) and the related terms diakoneō (“to serve”), and diakonia (“service”) appear approximately 100 times in the New Testament. Only here and in Philippians 1:1 are they transliterated “deacon” or “deacons.” The rest of the time they are translated by various English words. Only in those two passages is the deacon elevated to official status. The rest of the time the terms are used in a general, nonspecific sense.

The original meaning of this word group had to do with performing menial tasks such as waiting on tables. That definition gradually broadened until it came to include any kind of service in the church. The word group’s versatility can be seen in its divergent usage in the New Testament. Diakonos, diakoneō, and diakonia are variously translated “administration,” “cared for,” “minister,” “servant,” “serve,” “service,” “preparations,” “relief,” “support,” and “deacon,” among others. The root idea of serving food comes across in John 2:5, where diakonos is used of the waiters at a wedding. Diakoneō is used in the same sense in Luke 4:39, where Peter’s mother-in-law served a meal. Luke 10:40; 17:8; and John 12:2 also use this word group to refer to serving food.

Diakonos is used to refer to soldiers and policemen who enforce justice (Rom. 13:4). In John 12:26, Jesus equated following Him with serving Him. Anything done in obedience to Him is spiritual service. In the general sense of the term, all Christians are deacons, for all are to be actively serving Christ and His church.

That is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 12:5, where he writes that “there are varieties of ministries” (diakoniōn). Every Christian is to be involved in some form of spiritual service. Leaders, through both teaching and modeling, are to equip believers to perform that service (Eph. 4:12).

But diakonos, diakonia, and diakoneō are also used in a second, more specific sense. The list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6–8 includes a gift for service. Those with that gift are specially equipped for service, though they may not hold the office of deacon. Stephanas and his family were so gifted. Paul wrote of them, “they have devoted themselves for ministry (diakonia) to the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15).

The third use of this word group refers to the officially recognized responsibility of deacons. Everyone is a deacon in the general sense, some are specially gifted by the Holy Spirit for service, but still others hold the office of deacon. They model spiritual service for everyone else. They work alongside the elders, implementing their preaching, teaching, and oversight in the practical life of the church.

The only discussion of the office of deacon is in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, though there is a possible reference to it in Philippians 1:1. Some hold that Paul was officially identified as a deacon. While Paul was a servant in the general sense of the word, he held the office of apostle (Rom. 11:13; cf. 2 Cor. 10–12). Others have argued, based on 1 Timothy 4:6, that Timothy was a deacon. In 2 Timothy 4:5, however, Paul seems to identify Timothy as an evangelist. Others have proposed Tychicus (cf. Eph. 6:21), but Paul’s use of diakonos (Eph. 3:7) and diakonia (Eph. 4:12) in a general, nonrestrictive sense makes doubtful the use of diakonos in Ephesians 6:21 as a strict reference to the office. There is likewise no reason to assume that the use of diakonos in reference to Epaphras (Col. 1:7) is limited to the specific office.

Many hold that the seven men chosen to oversee the distribution of food in Acts 6 were the first official deacons. The text, however, nowhere calls them deacons. In fact, the only use of diakonia in Acts 6 is in reference to the apostles (v. 4), and to the serving of food (v. 1). That again emphasizes its general usage. Nor are any of the seven ever called deacons elsewhere in Scripture. The book of Acts nowhere uses the term diakonos (deacon), which seems strange if an order of deacons was initiated in Acts 6. Elders are mentioned several times in Acts (cf. 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4; 20:17), making the omission of any reference to deacons even more significant. All seven men were apparently Hellenistic Jews, since all have Greek names. It is unlikely that an order of deacons at the Jerusalem church would not include any Palestinian Jews. Finally, they were in many respects more like elders than deacons. Stephen and Philip, the only two mentioned elsewhere in Acts, were evangelists (cf. Acts 6:8; 8:5ff.; 21:8). These seven men were chosen for a specific task. They did not hold the office of deacon, though their function of serving certainly foreshadowed that of the later deacons.

Paul wrote 1 Timothy some thirty years after the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost. The church had grown and developed to the point that there was a need for official deacons. They would function as models of spiritual virtue and service. To ensure that those given that responsibility were worthy, Paul lists several qualifications they must be measured by. As with elders, those qualifications relate to their spiritual character, not their function. In fact, no specifics are given in Scripture as to the duties of deacons. They were to carry out whatever tasks were assigned to them by the elders or needed by the congregation. _In 3:8–13, Paul lists those qualifications for both male deacons and female deacons (deaconesses). He then closes by mentioning the reward for those who serve faithfully.
_

Grudem and other reformed sources say that this refers to deacons' wives.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I forgot to add this....


> (1Ti 2:12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
> 
> (1Ti 2:13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.



This is also a prefall reason. Not just because Eve was deceived. For Adam was first formed is a prefall reference.

This has a lot to do with the discussion I believe. 

I don't have a problem with women teaching women. I think they are commanded to. Let the older women teach the younger women.


I don't have a problem with women ministering to other women. But if we have a Deborah in the ranks, shame on us men for not being Godly and holding to the things we are suppose to do.


----------



## timmopussycat

raekwon said:


> Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.
> 
> I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard *very* strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.



If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

timmopussycat said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.
> 
> I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard *very* strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.
Click to expand...


Exactly, both the ARP and RPCNA have female deacons and neither would even be on a short list of denominations that lean towards an egalitarian worldview.


----------



## JBaldwin

shackleton said:


> In chapter 3:11 of his study bible: "Paul here likely refers not to deacons' wives but to the women who serve as deacons. The use of the word "likewise" suggests a third group in addition to elders and deacons. And since Paul gave no requirements for elders wives, there is no reason to assume these would be qualifications for deacons' wives."
> 
> Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (3:8–13).




You haven't convinced me to change my position, however, you do make a good point. Unlike the passage above (I Timothy 3:1-7), no direct command is made for the wife of an elder (now that I think of it, that is odd). Also the word "their" which is in the KJV, is not in the original, so it can be interpreted either way. Hmmmm


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.
> 
> I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard *very* strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.
Click to expand...


But Tim,
I do think there is authority given to these 7 men. They had to determine where the goods went and for what reasons. There is no such office or job without authority. Even a slave has to make some decisions in order to serve his master properly.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Of course the question becomes is authority and decision-making the same thing?


----------



## timmopussycat

Gryphonette said:


> Is there a set, firm definition of "deacon" as it's being used here?
> 
> My general, knee-jerk reaction is "certainly not!" but some "deaconess" positions appear to be so service-oriented, with no authority over men (barring the "hey, please don't track mud through here!" sort), I don't see a problem with it.
> 
> Considering how humanity never seems to fail to slip rapidly down any slippery slope in a ten-mile vicinity, however, it's probably safest to refrain from providing even the slightest downward slope.



My general answer to danger of slippery slope arguments is that if God did not tell us in his word to put a fence around a particular slippery slope, we have no business adding one where he doesn't assign one to be placed. If there were women deacons in the early church (and the Scriptural evidence is such that we cannot reject the possiblity that there were), adding a fence here is not something we should do. 

It seems to me that adding a fence where he doesn't carries with it the inevitable suggestion that Christ is an incompetent shephed. May I suggest that perhaps more prayer for neighbours living near the slope might be something our Lord would rather see?


----------



## raekwon

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Of course the question becomes is authority and decision-making the same thing?



Good point. There are plenty of women in churches -- but not in positions of office -- who make decisions. That decision-making responsibility doesn't necessarily equal (spiritual) authority.


----------



## Stephen

AV1611 said:


> No, it is not scriptural.



You have deaconesses in the Church of England.


----------



## DMcFadden

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I never understand why people who are 55 or 60 refer to themselves as "middle-aged", after all, how many 110 or 120 year old people do you know?



Hey, I just had a 101 year old pass away last week in my retirement community. Remember, some of us don't hang out with kids all the time. According to the OED, middle age is "... the period between youth and old age, about 45 to 60." Others use the delimiters of 40-60.

As a 54 year old, I just found it fun that Michael said: 


> The Idea is that the younger woman marry or if widowed remarry and raise a family and serve the lord... especially since the young burn with passion..




I agree with Michael's point, but enjoyed the implication that those widows who were not "young" would not have a problem with "passion." As a middle-aged person, it is comforting to know that we (both males and females) do not need to worry about that kind of stuff any longer. During my pastoral years, many of the marriage-ending affairs that I became aware of were for people who were "middle aged." One of my mentors in ministry was eventually caught (unfortunately by my testimony) having triple digit affairs/assignations (yes, as in more than 99!) and he "began" his downward practice at age 45. I am also aware of numerous of our octagenarians here who ask their docs for ED pills (e.g., Viagra, etc.).

As to the substance of the thread. Yes to deacons, based on the somewhat unspecific instructions in the Pastorals regarding the status of the "wives" of Deacons.


----------



## Stephen

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.
> 
> I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard *very* strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Tim,
> I do think there is authority given to these 7 men. They had to determine where the goods went and for what reasons. There is no such office or job without authority. Even a slave has to make some decisions in order to serve his master properly.
Click to expand...


Yes, they had authority but they did not have authority to rule or teach. R.C. Sproul defined that the office of elder is a exercise of authoritative teaching. Women are certainly restricted from that function.


----------



## dwayne

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not scriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.
Click to expand...


I agree 1Tim 3:8-13 plainly tells us the requirments of the deacons are. " Deacons likewise must be dignified , not double-toungued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonestgain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignefied, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacon gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus." ESV So I don't think Paul contradicts himself in other scriptures.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.
> 
> I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard *very* strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Tim,
> I do think there is authority given to these 7 men. They had to determine where the goods went and for what reasons. There is no such office or job without authority. Even a slave has to make some decisions in order to serve his master properly.
Click to expand...


But Rae
Maybe true in the case of the seven, not necessarily true in other serving ministries. Let's take the cases in turn.

The seven seem to be called to meet a known need. Food was being distributed and needy Hellenistic widows were not getting any of it. 
The seven's job was (presumably) compile a list of Hellenistic widows, then deliver their portions to those on the list. The parameters would appear to have been set by the apostles when the earlier distribution was set up among Jewish widows. It is not an exercise of authority to determine whether or not someone fits paramenters set down by others and there was no exercise of authority in the food delivery.

Certainly other serving ministries do not neccessarily have authority over men vested in them.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The ARP distinction between Male and Female Deacons I think is helpful here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Tim,
> I do think there is authority given to these 7 men. They had to determine where the goods went and for what reasons. There is no such office or job without authority. Even a slave has to make some decisions in order to serve his master properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Rae
> It is not an exercise of authority to determine whether or not someone fits paramenters set down by others and there was no exercise of authority in the food delivery.
> 
> Certainly other serving ministries do not neccessarily have authority over men vested in them.
Click to expand...


I would disagree here. It is an exercise of authority to determine if someone fits parameters. The Elders do it when they are ordaining ministers. They are looking at a set of parameters and determining if the canidates meet the parameters. 

And I agreee there are ministries that do not necessarily have authority over men.

BTW Tim, my name is Randy.


----------



## Mushroom

> It is not an exercise of authority to determine whether or not someone fits paramenters set down by others


Huh? Isn't that exactly what a cop, a magistrate, or a judge does everyday? They determine whether people fit certain parameters set down by others, and act accordingly. Do you say they do not exercise authority in doing so?

I can't understand why a woman would want to hold an office for which there is very vague, if any at all, biblical support. And any Church Officer encouraging a woman to pursue such an office would be very suspect to me. I personally am not qualified to hold a Church Office as a divorced man, and it bothers me not a whit. My God has ordained it so, why would I argue with Him? Isn't He far wiser than I? And I've had Elders and even Pastors try to tell me that since my divorce was prior to some arbitrary date in my christian experience, that therefore I am not disqualified. But it did not happaen prior to God's ordaining of it, and I have always wondered at their cavalier attitude towards the Word in this. And I can attest that those who have done so turned out every time to be of questionable theological foundations as was evidenced in other areas. Run from these men.

If born a woman, why not rejoice in the offices that God has reserved for you, as sister, wife, and mother? Why covet the offices reserved for others?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Why would being a divorced man keep you from office?


----------



## Mushroom

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Why would being a divorced man keep you from office?



Puh-lease. "Husband of one wife" means what to you?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

That is a provision against polygamous marriage not people who have been married more than once, especially if one has repented of any sin stemming from a divorce.


----------



## Mushroom

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> That is a provision against polygamous marriage not people who have been married more than once, especially if one has repented of any sin stemming from a divorce.



Please post your scriptural proof for this position.


----------



## Stephen

Brad said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a provision against polygamous marriage not people who have been married more than once, especially if one has repented of any sin stemming from a divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post your scriptural proof for this position.
Click to expand...


The same applies to you as well. Where is you proof?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Brad said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a provision against polygamous marriage not people who have been married more than once, especially if one has repented of any sin stemming from a divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post your scriptural proof for this position.
Click to expand...


If Paul was meaning divorced men then there is a heckuva lot easier way to say it in Greek for one. Paul is clearly saying that the men cannot have more than one wife currently.


----------



## JBaldwin

Brad said:


> It is not an exercise of authority to determine whether or not someone fits paramenters set down by others
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Isn't that exactly what a cop, a magistrate, or a judge does everyday? They determine whether people fit certain parameters set down by others, and act accordingly. Do you say they do not exercise authority in doing so?
> 
> I can't understand why a woman would want to hold an office for which there is very vague, if any at all, biblical support. And any Church Officer encouraging a woman to pursue such an office would be very suspect to me. I personally am not qualified to hold a Church Office as a divorced man, and it bothers me not a whit. My God has ordained it so, why would I argue with Him? Isn't He far wiser than I? And I've had Elders and even Pastors try to tell me that since my divorce was prior to some arbitrary date in my christian experience, that therefore I am not disqualified. But it did not happaen prior to God's ordaining of it, and I have always wondered at their cavalier attitude towards the Word in this. And I can attest that those who have done so turned out every time to be of questionable theological foundations as was evidenced in other areas. Run from these men.
> 
> If born a woman, why not rejoice in the offices that God has reserved for you, as sister, wife, and mother? Why covet the offices reserved for others?
Click to expand...



I have been waiting for this last comment  or "Here we go again." Forgive me if I am being too sarcastic, but as has been already pointed out (by me and others) there are women who are not wives and mothers and whom God has gifted to do work in the church. Most of these women are not interested in an "office" as much as they are interested in having their gifts recognized and used in the church. See post#24 here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/overture-36th-ga-pca-deaconesses-29434/ for a further explanation of my view on this.


----------



## jaybird0827

"No, it is not scriptural."

Women may serve in the church; e.g. Phoebe, Dorcas. This is not an office in the ordained sense - no laying on of hands.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let's stay on Topic. Start another thread on divorce.


----------



## Mushroom

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 

Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 

One wife is one wife. This forbids anyone who has more than one wife, period, whether by divorce or polygamy or any other means, even being a widower. The flesh may cry foul and think it unfair, but who are we to reply against God? Are not all these things ordained by Him? Is He not wiser than we? To claim otherwise is eisegesis.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

How so? The context of Paul's writings provide no merit for that reading.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Infractions will be poured out if I am not heeded. Start another thread on Divorce and the Pulpit if you want. Quit hi-jacking the thread.


----------



## Mushroom

> Most of these women are not interested in an "office" as much as *they are interested in having their gifts recognized* and used in the church.


Is that a commendable interest? They need glory or what? The scriptures lay out precisely how women ought to serve in the Church. Those who are not wives or mothers have plenty of other avenues to serve. Offices established by scripture are not done so for the _recognition_ they convey upon the men occupying them, they are established for the orderly conduct of the Church.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

10-4 Pc


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Originally posted by Shackleton:
> 
> Is this the slippery road that leads to having women as pastors and elders? Someone told me yesterday that the PCA is heading down this path, that they are beginning to ordain women as deacons.
> __________________
> Erick Bohndorf
> Newly Reformed
> Member PCA Kansas
> Qayaq Traveler
> Simul iustus et Peccator Simultaneously righteous and sinner
> Martin Luther




No. It is not biblical. And we pray the PCA does not head down this road. 

We have heard that there will be an overture this year at GA to "study the issue" but many in the PCA already see the matter as clear. The Offices of Deacon and Elder are restricted to men (1 Timothy 3).


----------



## Mushroom

Funny how so many reformed Christians sound so much like arminians. God doesn't owe us anything but hell. Anything other than that is all of grace. He doesn't owe us to be "fair" about how He fills the offices in His church, whether to women who feel deprived because they aren't allowed to have a title, or for those men who've had more than one wife. Why can't His people simply accept His will as wiser than our desires or concept of what is fair?

All of this is just attempts by those who want it otherwise trying to foist into scripture what it does not say. Quite unbecoming of Christians.


----------



## Croghanite

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 

 I don't understand the confusion. Doesn't this verse disqualify a woman to the office of Deacon ?


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not scriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.
Click to expand...


So, in Romans 16:1 Pheobe wasn't a _diakonon_?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr Mike Kear said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not scriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in Romans 16:1 Pheobe wasn't a _diakonon_?
Click to expand...


She was a servant of the Church. But she wasn't ordained to the office that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

LAYMAN JOE said:


> 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
> 
> I don't understand the confusion. Doesn't this verse disqualify a woman to the office of Deacon ?




Yes. It does.


----------



## JBaldwin

Brad said:


> Most of these women are not interested in an "office" as much as *they are interested in having their gifts recognized* and used in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a commendable interest? They need glory or what? The scriptures lay out precisely how women ought to serve in the Church. Those who are not wives or mothers have plenty of other avenues to serve. Offices established by scripture are not done so for the _recognition_ they convey upon the men occupying them, they are established for the orderly conduct of the Church.
Click to expand...


Obviously, you have not read my other comments. Please try to see where I am coming from. I am NOT in any way advocating that a woman hold an office in the church or that she have authority over a man or that she even be put up in front of people for recognition. When I use the word "recognition" I am using it in the sense that men notice that some women are gifted. In other words, they don't try to do all the work by themselves, but look for women in the church who have spiritual gifts and put them to work. Too often, gifted women are ignored or allocated to the nursery or to Women in the Church (in some churches those women do nothing but organize dinners), and women who are gifted to counsel, teach and minister in other ways are overlooked. 

For years I have witnessed the frustration of gifted women in churches where leadership is desperate for help, but the men are so arrogant and afraid the women might try to usurp their authority, they are unwilling to even look in that direction. Meanwhile, the qualified women, totally frustrated start looking for other places to serve the Lord. 

Understand this, I am not saying that we should pull women from their homes and their families. I am speaking strictly of women who are free and spiritually gifted to serve. 

I look at Aquilla and Priscilla and I see a husband/wife teaching team. No where do I see Priscilla trying to usurp authority or look for recognition, but she is participating in the work of the ministry, as did Phoebe and others.


----------



## Croghanite

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> LAYMAN JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
> 
> I don't understand the confusion. Doesn't this verse disqualify a woman to the office of Deacon ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It does.
Click to expand...


it clearly does. yet there are people on this board that do not agree.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JBaldwin said:


> I look at Aquilla and Priscilla and I see a husband/wife teaching team. No where do I see Priscilla trying to usurp authority or look for recognition, but she is participating in the work of the ministry, as did Phoebe and others.



Where do you see them both teaching as a team?


----------



## JBaldwin

Acts 18:24-28 24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, [3] he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAYMAN JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
> 
> I don't understand the confusion. Doesn't this verse disqualify a woman to the office of Deacon ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it clearly does. yet there are people on this board that do not agree.
Click to expand...


You will find that there are many areas on this board where there will be differences.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JBaldwin said:


> Acts 18:24-28 24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, [3] he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, *they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.* 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus



Thank you.


----------



## JBaldwin

You're welcome


----------



## Herald

After reading this thread my wishy-washy "no" is becoming more concrete. I think I will wait a few days and then repost a new poll and see if this discussion has changed minds. I thank Shackelton for the thread. It's a great discussion.


----------



## Coram Deo

Bill,

Since Female Deacons = No, and I concur, What are your thoughts on Pastor Brian Schwertley's idea of "Order of Widows"?




BaptistInCrisis said:


> After reading this thread my wishy-washy "no" is becoming more concrete. I think I will wait a few days and then repost a new poll and see if this discussion has changed minds. I thank Shackelton for the thread. It's a great discussion.


----------



## Herald

Michael,

I agree with the functional aspect of the "Order of Widows" but not in the positional aspect. In other words "widows indeed" should occupy themselves with the work of charity but not as official or ordained ministers.


----------



## Civbert

Stephen said:


> Some of those who voted that deaconesses were not scriptural come from traditions that have only an office for deacons and not elders. They believe that a deacon is one who has ecclesiastical authority to govern and rule the church, but this is not scriptural. Deacons are not rulers, authoritative teachers, or governors but servants who are given the function of ministering to the needs of others.


 Who are you speaking about?


----------



## travis

Clowney defends female deacons in his book "The Church", no? I am fairly certain that is the reason why my church is sympathetic to it, while also in submission to the PCA's rule of not having them. Clowney was an assistant pastor at my church during its youth and helped shape much of what it is today.


----------



## Coram Deo

I guess I have no problem with an Official Position but not ordained or have hands laid upon one... Why an office need those things... Did other offices have hands laid upon and ordained?

Let leave the laying on of hands and ordination to pastors and deacons but let us also have the order of widows and keep to the qualifications of that office......




BaptistInCrisis said:


> Michael,
> 
> I agree with the functional aspect of the "Order of Widows" but not in the positional aspect. In other words "widows indeed" should occupy themselves with the work of charity but not as official or ordained ministers.


----------



## JBaldwin

thunaer said:


> I guess I have no problem with an Official Position but not ordained or have hands laid upon one... Why an office need those things... Did other offices have hands laid upon and ordained?
> 
> Let leave the laying on of hands and ordination to pastors and deacons but let us also have the order of widows and keep to the qualifications of that office......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> I agree with the functional aspect of the "Order of Widows" but not in the positional aspect. In other words "widows indeed" should occupy themselves with the work of charity but not as official or ordained ministers.
Click to expand...


Is this passage I Timothy 5 really referring to an "office of widow". From the context, it appears to me that Paul is instructing them on who to support financially and who not to support financially.


----------



## Herald

Michael, I am not in favor of creating a position. We don't have an "Order of Disciples", do we? That said, I am in favor of widows filling a vital need in the church along with older women. I don't believe it needs to be formalized.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Brad said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bayly Blog has dedicated a significant amount of time to this issue...and they've done so magnificently. This is a great post delving into the issue.
> 
> Pastor David Bayly's post sparked a follow up by his brother, Tim (linked above)...here is that post calling out the fact PCA churches are violating BCO:
> 
> 
> 
> (David) Let's think for a moment about the meaning of presbyterial life.
> 
> If the essence of presbyterianism is elders willingly subjecting themselves to their brethren...
> 
> And if ordained elders should never willfully violate the PCA's standards without first submitting their teaching or course-of-action to presbytery for approval...
> 
> And if those who come to possess beliefs substantially opposed to settled portions of PCA standards should leave the PCA for a denomination sympathetic to their new convictions rather than mar PCA harmony by staying and fighting...
> 
> Then what, pray tell, are we to make of PCA churches actually laying hands upon women (and men) in services of "commissioning" to the diaconal office?
> 
> And what are we to make of this overture to the PCA's 2008 General Assembly from the Philadelphia Presbytery asking General Assembly to sanction retroactively the ordination of women to an office clearly forbidden them by PCA standards?
> 
> And finally, why has no one sought to discipline these churches and this presbytery?
> 
> The irony is so thick you could cut it.
> 
> (Thanks for the link, Andrew)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good points, but not surprising. The PCA (of which I am a member) has been "slouching towards Gommorah" for quite awhile.
Click to expand...


Sir, the PCA stills has "a few names...who have not defiled their garments."


----------



## J. David Kear

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Dr Mike Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in Romans 16:1 Pheobe wasn't a _diakonon_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was a servant of the Church. But she wasn't ordained to the office that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3.
Click to expand...



Translation: she was a _diakonon_ of the Church but not an ordained _diakonon_.

She was a renegade driving without a license!


----------



## Mushroom

> Sir, the PCA stills has "a few names...who have not defiled their garments."


No doubt, brother, and I can tell you that I have shed tears with many of them over the drift of our denomination.


----------



## Coram Deo

Bill,

I am in favor of recreating a position if it is biblical and exampled by the early church which I quoted those examples..... I know as a Baptist you think you must hold to a two office system (Elders and Deacons), Isn't that the T in BapTist acronym: T as in Two Offices , I do not feel as constrained. I left the two office system more then a year ago when I read the Form of Presbyterian Church Government which list Pastor, Elders, Doctors and Deacons... Now I do not hold a distinction between Pastor and Elders as I see them one and in the same but I did come to see the office of Doctor... So I already hold to a Three Office View.. So a Fourth for me is not out of the question as long as the laying on of hands and ordination is not given to other offices besides Elders and Deacons...

If it is in the Bible and I will alter my view accordingly and as far as I see it right now I see a Order of Widows and the Qualifications for the Office in Timothy. 

I am not going to get bend out of shape if my view of Two Office System gets crushed or if it can be proven that my Four Office System is not right....

Maybe we are just arguing over semantics as you already said you see the functions of the Order of Widows but where there is qualifications given for a group of people then I believe formality is required and by formality I do not mean Laying on of Hands or Ordination... 




BaptistInCrisis said:


> Michael, I am not in favor of creating a position. We don't have an "Order of Disciples", do we? That said, I am in favor of widows filling a vital need in the church along with older women. I don't believe it needs to be formalized.


----------



## Herald

Michael,

A point of correction. I don't hold to my church office position because I am a Baptist. I hold to it because I am convinced it is scriptural. As a convinced Presbyterian you hold to your view and that's fine. I am convinced, from scripture, that the "Order of Widows" would be a pragmatic position, not a biblical position. But even though I would deny the formation of an "Order of Widows" I stand behind my opinion that older women and widows are invaluable to the body for service.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Michael, I am not in favor of creating a position. We don't have an "Order of Disciples", do we? That said, I am in favor of widows filling a vital need in the church along with older women. I don't believe it needs to be formalized.



Well stated, Bill. We would end up with numerous man-made offices if we had to assign every "work" an authoritative and publicly recognised position.


----------



## Kevin

In my "ancient church history" class we had an extended discussion on this topic. My understanding is that in every part, division, and region of the church in the early centuries there was an "office" of deaconess, or widow. These women were "set apart" to minister in an official way that differed from the role of every other christian. In practice these women only worked with other women. The nuns that we all know of from the RCC are the final version of this office.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. David Kear said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Mike Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in Romans 16:1 Pheobe wasn't a _diakonon_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was a servant of the Church. But she wasn't ordained to the office that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: she was a _diakonon_ of the Church but not an ordained _diakonon_.
> 
> She was a renegade driving without a license!
Click to expand...


Dr. Mike Kear gave J. David Kear a thumbs up. They must be related. 

......PC....Shakes his head and walks away decrying women drivers.......

Especially since he followed one home from Church tonight going 30 in a 40 MPH limit zone.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

thunaer said:


> Bill,
> 
> I am in favor of recreating a position if it is biblical and exampled by the early church which I quoted those examples.....



What examples? I didn't see any clear examples. I asked you earlier. And I just want to be clear because I have not heard of what you are talking about. And I have been around Presbyterian's for a long time. I have been a member of two Presbyterian denominations. Where in the OC does it have the office of Doctors? I have never seen anyone ordained a Doctor. I have seen a degree of doctorate confirmed upon a person for education but I didn't know it was an office of the Church. Where are the qualifications for this ordination?

P.S. You would do well to read the book I referenced and gave you a link to.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Kevin said:


> In my "ancient church history" class we had an extended discussion on this topic. My understanding is that in every part, division, and region of the church in the early centuries there was an "office" of deaconess, or widow. These women were "set apart" to minister in an official way that differed from the role of every other Christian. In practice these women only worked with other women. The nuns that we all know of from the RCC are the final version of this office.



And this is vital in understanding the role of female deaconesses in the ARP and RPCNA correct?


----------



## dwayne

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Dr Mike Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in Romans 16:1 Pheobe wasn't a _diakonon_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was a servant of the Church. But she wasn't ordained to the office that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3.
Click to expand...


right on brother


----------



## Coram Deo

I already quote this in the other thread.....

Here is a PermaLink to the Quote Office of Doctor


As for the Book.. I have already read and I disagree with it...





PuritanCovenanter said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I am in favor of recreating a position if it is biblical and exampled by the early church which I quoted those examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What examples? I didn't see any clear examples. I asked you earlier. And I just want to be clear because I have not heard of what you are talking about. And I have been around Presbyterian's for a long time. I have been a member of two Presbyterian denominations. Where in the OC does it have the office of Doctors? I have never seen anyone ordained a Doctor. I have seen a degree of doctorate confirmed upon a person for education but I didn't know it was an office of the Church. Where are the qualifications for this ordination?
> 
> P.S. You would do well to read the book I referenced and gave you a link to.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

PuritanCovenanter said:


> J. David Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was a servant of the Church. But she wasn't ordained to the office that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: she was a _diakonon_ of the Church but not an ordained _diakonon_.
> 
> She was a renegade driving without a license!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Mike Kear gave J. David Kear a thumbs up. They must be related.
> 
> ......PC....Shakes his head and walks away decrying women drivers.......
> 
> Especially since he followed one home from Church tonight going 30 in a 40 MPH limit zone.
Click to expand...


WAY 

We are brothers. God gave him a full head of hair. God gave me good looks and brains (both of which I got when I married my wife )


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

J. David Kear said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Mike Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in Romans 16:1 Pheobe wasn't a _diakonon_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was a servant of the Church. But she wasn't ordained to the office that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: she was a _diakonon_ of the Church but not an ordained _diakonon_.
> 
> She was a renegade driving without a license!
Click to expand...


Does this mean that Paul the Apostle was guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of deaconing without a license?


----------



## holyfool33

No it violates scripture the references to female deacons is a title given to the wife of a deacon showing that she is the wife of a deacon not a deacon.


----------



## Kevin

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my "ancient church history" class we had an extended discussion on this topic. My understanding is that in every part, division, and region of the church in the early centuries there was an "office" of deaconess, or widow. These women were "set apart" to minister in an official way that differed from the role of every other Christian. In practice these women only worked with other women. The nuns that we all know of from the RCC are the final version of this office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is vital in understanding the role of female deaconesses in the ARP and RPCNA correct?
Click to expand...


Not "vital", but "helpful"!

I came into the ARP from the PCA where I had been ordained to the office of deacon. I was chairman of one of the most active diaconates in the region. We were also part of the TVP during the entire Cedar Springs cerflufel.

At that time, and for a long time after, I was an outspoken opponent of deaconesses. In my opinion it was an anti-biblical accomodation with modern sensibilities and a slippery slope toward feamale elders.

I now know that I was wrong then.

The scriptural argument is hard to be categorical about. The deaconess camp has a prima facia validity.

The historical record is clear. The apostolic & post-apostolic churches did have some sort of quasi-official role for women, as deaconesses or widows.

The majority opinion (of the church triumphant) is in favour of women in *some* office.

The Reformed Church has a tradition of allowing it.

Reformed denominations have a history of accepting women as (non ruling) deaconesses, without adopting women as elders.

QED


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thanks for that, as a "new" ARP I am learning slowly but surely.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Tim,
> I do think there is authority given to these 7 men. They had to determine where the goods went and for what reasons. There is no such office or job without authority. Even a slave has to make some decisions in order to serve his master properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Rae
> It is not an exercise of authority to determine whether or not someone fits paramenters set down by others and there was no exercise of authority in the food delivery.
> 
> Certainly other serving ministries do not neccessarily have authority over men vested in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree here. It is an exercise of authority to determine if someone fits parameters. The Elders do it when they are ordaining ministers. They are looking at a set of parameters and determining if the canidates meet the parameters.
> 
> And I agreee there are ministries that do not necessarily have authority over men.
> 
> BTW Tim, my name is Randy.
Click to expand...


It is no exercise of authority to determine if someone fits parameters. If you drive by me at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone, even though I am not called to enforce them, I will easily determine that you fit the parameters for speeding. When you pull up at the store, I might walk over and request you to be a more careful driver. But it is the police officer who will authoritatively command and enforce an alteration of your behaviour, either by writing you a ticket or impounding your car (if you are driving under the influence). 

Serving deacons do not set parameters nor, unlike policemen, do they command behaviour change (exercise authority). Which is why women can be biblical deacons since such a role involves neither teaching nor being under authority.


----------



## timmopussycat

dwayne said:


> I agree 1Tim 3:8-13 plainly tells us the requirments of the deacons are. " Deacons likewise must be dignified , not double-toungued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonestgain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignefied, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacon gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus." ESV So I don't think Paul contradicts himself in other scriptures.



The situation is not as plain as it appears. As in all exegesis there are two issues here. What is said and what we think the writer, here Paul intended to mean. At one point in this passage Paul uses an equivocal term and he doesn't define it in context. Writing specifically to Timothy, who knew his teaching and practice, the ommission is unimportant. For us it creates a problem.

The word translated "their wives" can also be tanslated "the women" and Paul does not specify in the surrounding text the alternative he intends. Granted that in the text following this verse Paul speaks specifically of male deacons, but this although indicative, cannot be held to be decisive for us since Paul elsewhere refers to Phoebe as a "deacon" of the Cenchraen church. 

We must determine the practice of the early church from the following possibilities:

1) Phoebe was an ordained deacon serving in that church in a non-teaching non-authoritative role, coming to Rome for any number of reasons. Outside the church, she might have been a wealthy widow, a slave of a travelling owner or anything in between.
2)Pheobe was a slave who was a member of the church who was coming to Rome, either sent by her owner or with her owner. In either case for whatever reason she may need help from the Roman Christians.
3) Pheobe was a non-slave Christian coming to Rome and Paul refers to her as a deacon in the same way as he refers to the service of other Christians.
4) Phoebe was a "deaconess" ie. non-authoritative office specifically for women. There is no evidence either way for this possibility. Which leaves the other three possibilities. 

I think 3 unlikely. For Paul describing her, uses deacon as noun. Where he is describing service committed by other Christians, deacon is a verb or adverb.
1 and 2 remain possibilities for me and I don't see that we have sufficient evidence to categorically exclude either from consideration. Which means that Scripture leaves the question of women deacons as one of those circumstances "concerning the ... government of the church....which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word..." (WCF 1:6).

I know that I have left out the phrase "common to human actions and societies" from WCF 1:6 and I did so deliberately. I am not saying my stance is confessional, but I believe that the Confession here posits a principle that can be applied with profit to specifically Christian issues. For there are some matters in Scripture, such as the present case, where we cannot categorically reduce the possible alternative understings to one that is assuredly correct. And instead of dividing from one another over which alternative is correct, we should recognize both alternatives as legitimate possibilities, and recognize that our difference is not fundamentally Scriptural but over which possibility "in our best judgment" is likely. (If anyone is interested in my opinion as to what other issues fall within this class, PM me and I'll start another thread.)


----------



## SRoper

Kevin said:


> In my "ancient church history" class we had an extended discussion on this topic. My understanding is that in every part, division, and region of the church in the early centuries there was an "office" of deaconess, or widow. These women were "set apart" to minister in an official way that differed from the role of every other christian. In practice these women only worked with other women. The nuns that we all know of from the RCC are the final version of this office.



Then we might as well adopt episcopal church government since the distinction between presbyter and bishop was very early as well.


----------



## Coram Deo

The distinction between presbyter and bishop in the early church was only a distinction between the functions of the church....

So Bishops are Presbyters when they go to Session, Presbytery, or Synod....

There was no other material difference between Bishops and Presbyters in the Earliest Church...

It is sort of like the other functions of the Pastor...

He is Overseer during Oversight and during Discipline times
He is Pastor when he Pastors the Flock
He is Presbyter when in councils



SRoper said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my "ancient church history" class we had an extended discussion on this topic. My understanding is that in every part, division, and region of the church in the early centuries there was an "office" of deaconess, or widow. These women were "set apart" to minister in an official way that differed from the role of every other christian. In practice these women only worked with other women. The nuns that we all know of from the RCC are the final version of this office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we might as well adopt episcopal church government since the distinction between presbyter and bishop was very early as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## shackleton

From the Holman Dictionary of the Bible under deacon: The list of qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:11 requires that “women” must “likewise” (NASB) be similar in character to the men. Although this remark may refer to the wives of male deacons (KJV, NIV) it probably should be interpreted as a parenthetical reference to female deacons, or deaconesses (NIV footnote; NASB footnote; NRSV footnote). Romans 16:1 refers to Phebe as a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Williams New Testament translates this as deaconess. The NRSV uses “deacon.” Other translations use “servant.” In this verse, Phebe’s role as “helper” and Paul’s obvious regard for her work seem to support the conclusion that she functioned as a deacon in her church. Deaconesses are mentioned prominently in Christian writings of the first several centuries. They cared for needy fellow believers, visited the sick, and were especially charged with assisting in the baptism of women converts.

Fred A. Grissom


----------



## Mushroom

If I thought the PCA's reason for studying this issue was due to some new and better understanding of scripture, I'd be less skeptical, but we all know that the cause is the effect of feminism on the mindset of the membership. Maybe we should just put every controversial doctrine up for a vote, and change the name to the Wikiterian Church in America.


----------



## DMcFadden

Brad,

Unfortunately, the endorsement of feminism within broad evangelicalism is infecting you guys in the Presbyterian denominations too. When I went to seminary, you would get "looks" if you disagreed with the emerging party line of egalitarianism. Still, it was possible to hold to a complimentarian view as long as you were willing to considered a kind of theological luddite. Within a decade of my graduation, a professor was scolded by the dean (of the same seminary) for teaching the complimentarian view of 1 Timothy 2. Along with that, students were not permitted to submit term papers for grading unless they used inclusive language. Finally, the culture in that seminary became so hostile to any other view that I know of one woman graduate who left in a huff from her seat on a denominatinoal ordination committee because a man on the committee dared to suggest that Paul may not have intended the ordination of women for pastoral office (based on his biblical convictions).

Now, Inter Varsity will not even publish a book that takes anything other than an egalitarian view of men and women. The "party line" among evangelical theologs (including many PCA folk) is the egalitarian position.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

thunaer said:


> I already quote this in the other thread.....
> 
> Here is a PermaLink to the Quote Office of Doctor
> 
> 
> As for the Book.. I have already read and I disagree with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I am in favor of recreating a position if it is biblical and exampled by the early church which I quoted those examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What examples? I didn't see any clear examples. I asked you earlier. And I just want to be clear because I have not heard of what you are talking about. And I have been around Presbyterian's for a long time. I have been a member of two Presbyterian denominations. Where in the OC does it have the office of Doctors? I have never seen anyone ordained a Doctor. I have seen a degree of doctorate confirmed upon a person for education but I didn't know it was an office of the Church. Where are the qualifications for this ordination?
> 
> P.S. You would do well to read the book I referenced and gave you a link to.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are usually a little more solid than this. You have no Old Covenant testimony for your understanding of Doctor. This is eisegesis at its best.


----------



## dwayne

timmopussycat said:


> dwayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 1Tim 3:8-13 plainly tells us the requirments of the deacons are. " Deacons likewise must be dignified , not double-toungued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonestgain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignefied, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacon gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus." ESV So I don't think Paul contradicts himself in other scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is not as plain as it appears. As in all exegesis there are two issues here. What is said and what we think the writer, here Paul intended to mean. At one point in this passage Paul uses an equivocal term and he doesn't define it in context. Writing specifically to Timothy, who knew his teaching and practice, the ommission is unimportant. For us it creates a problem.
> 
> The word translated "their wives" can also be tanslated "the women" and Paul does not specify in the surrounding text the alternative he intends. Granted that in the text following this verse Paul speaks specifically of male deacons, but this although indicative, cannot be held to be decisive for us since Paul elsewhere refers to Phoebe as a "deacon" of the Cenchraen church.
> 
> We must determine the practice of the early church from the following possibilities:
> 
> 1) Phoebe was an ordained deacon serving in that church in a non-teaching non-authoritative role, coming to Rome for any number of reasons. Outside the church, she might have been a wealthy widow, a slave of a travelling owner or anything in between.
> 2)Pheobe was a slave who was a member of the church who was coming to Rome, either sent by her owner or with her owner. In either case for whatever reason she may need help from the Roman Christians.
> 3) Pheobe was a non-slave Christian coming to Rome and Paul refers to her as a deacon in the same way as he refers to the service of other Christians.
> 4) Phoebe was a "deaconess" ie. non-authoritative office specifically for women. There is no evidence either way for this possibility. Which leaves the other three possibilities.
> 
> I think 3 unlikely. For Paul describing her, uses deacon as noun. Where he is describing service committed by other Christians, deacon is a verb or adverb.
> 1 and 2 remain possibilities for me and I don't see that we have sufficient evidence to categorically exclude either from consideration. Which means that Scripture leaves the question of women deacons as one of those circumstances "concerning the ... government of the church....which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word..." (WCF 1:6).
> 
> I know that I have left out the phrase "common to human actions and societies" from WCF 1:6 and I did so deliberately. I am not saying my stance is confessional, but I believe that the Confession here posits a principle that can be applied with profit to specifically Christian issues. For there are some matters in Scripture, such as the present case, where we cannot categorically reduce the possible alternative understings to one that is assuredly correct. And instead of dividing from one another over which alternative is correct, we should recognize both alternatives as legitimate possibilities, and recognize that our difference is not fundamentally Scriptural but over which possibility "in our best judgment" is likely. (If anyone is interested in my opinion as to what other issues fall within this class, PM me and I'll start another thread.)
Click to expand...

 In Acts 6:1-6&Tim3:8-13,we see the qualification of deacons plainly state that you have to be a man, the Greek word for husbands in the text of Timothy 3 is amer meaning a man(properly as an individual male), fellow, husband,man, sir. The Greek word for wife is gune meaning a woman, specifically a wife, wife, woman.So in preceding verse (11) their wives I believe refer to their wives not to some women deacons Matthew Henry comment on this section of scripture by saying "Their wives likewise must have a good character(v. 11); they must be of a grave behaviour, not slanderers, talebearers, carrying stories to make mischief and sow discord; they must be sober and faithful in all things, not given to any excess, but trusty in all that is committed to them. All who are related to ministers must double their care to walk as becomes the gospel of Christ, lest, if they in any thing walk disorderly, the ministry be blamed. As he said before of the bishops or ministers, so here of the deacons, they must be the husbands of one wife, such as had not put away their wives, upon diskike, and married others; they must rule their childern and their own houses well; the families of deacons should be exaamples to other families. And the reason why the deacons must be thus qualifiedis(v.13)because, though the office of a deacon be of an inferior degree, yet it is a step towards the higher degree; and those who had served tables well the church might see cause afterwards to discharge from that service, and prefer to serve in preaching the word and in prayer. Or it may be meant of the good reputation that a man would gain by his fidelity in this office: they will purchase to themselves great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Observe, 1. In the primitive church there were but two orders of ministers or offices, bishops and deacons, Phil. 1:1. After-ages have invented the rest. " I agree with him.


----------

