# Should women be deacons?



## Herald (Mar 5, 2008)

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.

Would you mind if I made a poll out this question? My pastor and I have discussed this and we're on the opposite side of the fence. It should be a good discussion.

There was a very good discussion started on this recently. http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/overture-36th-ga-pca-deaconesses-29434/

I would like to see the discussion continued.

Make it a poll if you like

It's not a slippery slope to women as pastors, I know that. The ARP has had women deacons for, well, I have no idea how long, but there's absolutely no talk of female pastors in the works, and I have no reason to believe there ever will be.

I am inclinded to say they shouldn't be, but don't expect a learned answer backing that up. I havn't studied up on it a ton, or even a lot.

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.
> ...



Let me pose a question at this point. Does the office of Deacon (Servant) possess any authority that would be construed as a position over others in the congregation? If not, then why is it a position? If so, then how does the authoritative position render power over others?

If women are not to be in positions of authority over men, is this authoritative position defined differently so that it in no way renders a female in authority over men?

Just so I can lay my cards on the table for the benefit of everyone..... I'm against it. No deaconesses in the church as it pertains to an ordained office in the Church. This is not to say I don't believe women aren't considered servants of the church as Lydia was.


----------

