# Women deacons ?



## Mayflower (Nov 19, 2004)

At our church they are planning to have some deacons, and they wil also allowed women to be a deacon. They were saying that in the NT, there were women deacons, like "Phebe" in Romand 16:1.

If it is unscriptual to have women deacons, can please let me know why ? Or is it scriptual ?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 19, 2004)

Of what denomination is your church a part? Also, please see the "Signature Requirements" link at the bottom of my signature. Thanks,


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 19, 2004)

There at least one thread in which I have already addressed this issue:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2166#pid24339


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 19, 2004)

Ordained women deaconesses -- as opposed to the widows spoken of in the Scriptures who serve the church -- have no Biblical warrant. Ordination signifies authority and women are not to have authority in the church.


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 19, 2004)

Dear Chris,

Iam member of a baptist church, together with a friend of mine we are the only reformed believers. To make it more clear i embrace covenant theology and paedo baptism, but because there are no presbyterian churches, iam joining them, and i also grew up there. But that not my discussion point, iam already jioning the puritanbaord for more than a year. So i still hope that i can ask this question on the board!


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 19, 2004)

Dear fredtgreco & VirginiaHuguenot,

Thank you that you were willing to repley to my question.

Iam really struggeling with this, i also don't believe in women deaconess, but they are coming with Romans 16:1. 

Does anyone of you can explain me, why Romans 16:1, is not about Ordained women deaconesses ? 

Thanks,

Ralph


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 19, 2004)

Here is Calvin's comment:



> 1. I commend to you, etc. The greater part of this chapter is taken up with salutations; and as they contain no difficulties, it would be useless to dwell long on them. I shall only touch on those things which require some light by an explanation.
> 
> He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office, for she performed a most honorable and a most holy function in the Church; and then he adduces another reason why they ought to receive her and to show her every kindness, for she had always been a helper to all the godly. As then she was an assistant 1 of the Cenchrean Church, he bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord; and by adding as it is meet for saints, he intimates that it would be unbecoming the servants of Christ not to show her honor and kindness. And since it behooves us to embrace in love all the members of Christ, we ought surely to regard and especially to love and honor those who perform a public office in the Church. And besides, as she had always been full of kindness to all, so he bids that help and assistance should now be given to her in all her concerns; for it is what courtesy requires, that he who is naturally disposed to kind-ness should not be forsaken when in need of aid, and to incline their minds the more, he numbers himself among those whom she had assisted.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 19, 2004)

Here is another commentary on the subject by Bob Deffinbaugh:

Phoebe: A Woman to Welcome 
(16:1-2)
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe,129 who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;130 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.

The thrust of Paul´s words in the first two verses of chapter 16 is to commend Phoebe to the church at Rome so that she will be welcomed and helped during her stay at Rome. This however is not the main point of interest to Christians or to the commentaries. The question of greatest interest to many is this: "œWas Phoebe a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea?" Stating the matter more broadly, "œIs there an office of deaconess in the New Testament church?" Many think there is.131

The arguments for such an office, and for Phoebe being the only "œdeaconess" ever named in the New Testament, are few and far from convincing. Nevertheless, I mention them because they are so often and so dogmatically stated by the supporters of this position. First, they inform us that the term used here (diakonon) is feminine in gender and thus best rendered, "œdeaconess." Second, they suggest that this verse, found in 1 Timothy 3, most likely refers to "œdeaconesses":

Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things (1 Timothy 3:11).

Third, they would tell us that such a position was necessary because of the need to minister to women.

Functionally speaking, I would not be very distressed that any church would determine there is such an office as that of "œdeaconess," so long as Paul´s teaching on the role of women132 was not set aside by this practice. I have no problem with women exercising leadership over women or children in the church. But there is a serious problem in the lack of biblical evidence in support of the view of deaconess and the way in which the Scriptures are used. At best, the conclusion that the Bible indicates there is such an office as that of "œdeaconess" should be tongue-in-cheek and admitted as having no compelling evidence in its support. I am inclined to think those who "œsee" such teaching want very badly to find it. It is hardly a position the evidence compels us to hold.

I would therefore wish to offset the confidence of those who believe Phoebe was a deaconess with evidence which strongly points in the other direction, namely that there is no such office, and that Phoebe most certainly was no more than a "œservant" of the church.

(1) The use of the root term strongly argues against a formal office. There are three Greek terms used in the New Testament which share a common root. Altogether these three terms are found 101 times in the New Testament (in the King James Version). Out of these numerous occurrences, the term is rendered "œdeacon" only three times. Apart from this one occurrence in Romans 16:1, the translation, "œdeaconess," would never be considered an option. Even so, "œdeaconess" is the marginal reading of the NASB and the NIV. In the text itself, both versions render the term in question, "œservant," and rightly so, for this is the most natural rendering. Some of those versions which translate more loosely do render the term "œdeaconess." J. B. Phillips, for example, renders it this way. The statistics strongly argue against this.

(2) The offices of elder and deacon are leadership and management positions, and this is precisely what women are forbidden to do by Paul (see 1 Timothy 2:12).

(3) Women were not appointed to oversee the care of the widows in Acts 6; men were. It is often argued that deaconesses are not given authority over men but only over women. They argue that this leadership role is necessary because of the special needs of women, to which women can better minister. This may be true, but when the feeding of the "œwidows" in Jerusalem became a problem, the apostles did not appoint women to oversee this matter; they appointed seven men. If there was ever a case when a deaconess seemed to have been needed, it was at this time. But women were not put in this leadership role, even though the ministry was a ministry to women.

(4) The one verse in 1 Timothy 3 which is used to support the "œdeaconess" position seems rather to argue against this position. 

Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things (1 Timothy 3:11).

None of the terms related to the office or function of deacon are used in this verse. The term is one which can be rendered either "œwomen" or "œwives," as the marginal notes indicate. As the text is laid out, the most logical explanation is that this verse refers to the character of the wives of both elders and deacons. Surely a man´s wife can make or break his ministry in leadership. We would expect to find some reference to the wives of both elders and deacons. Here it is.

If this one verse refers to deaconesses, as some maintain, why are the qualifications for a deaconess so few? Why, when the qualifications for elders and deacons are nearly identical, are the qualifications for a deaconess so different? It is a very long reach to say that verse 11, which is a somewhat parenthetical verse, refers to some new category of office. If this is indeed an office, why is it not clearly identified as such somewhere? And why, if it is an office, in addition to that of elder and deacon, does Paul slight the deaconesses at Philippi by greeting only the elders and deacons (see Philippians 1:1)?

(5) Phoebe´s reception by the church in Rome has nothing to do with her office (of deaconess); she is to be received "œin a manner worthy of the saints" (v. 2). Paul did not seek to set Phoebe apart from or above other saints; he urged the church in Rome to receive her as a saint, not as a deaconess. Leadership has nothing to do with being welcomed into the church and helped by the saints. It has everything to do with being a saint. Paul´s use of the term in question is to characterize Phoebe as a "œservant" and to encourage the church to serve her as well.

(6) Paul´s description of Phoebe´s ministry in verses 1 and 2 is not that of deacon-like duties but that of faithful service. Paul specifically mentions her service to him. Did she serve him as a deaconess? I think not. She simply served.

(7) Ministry in the New Testament is not rewarded by bestowing an office or a title on someone. Ministry is simply service. Why do we think that a person who is faithful in their service deserves an office, as a kind of reward? Why do we equate ministry with an office or a title? This concept is not foreign to the church today, but it was foreign to the church of Paul´s day.

(8) The post-apostolic church fathers were neither divinely inspired nor inerrant in their practices, and thus the existence of deaconesses (or their likeness) in the post-apostolic church is not proof this office has apostolic sanction. Often the writings of the church fathers are cited to show how the early post-apostolic church functioned. I do not doubt the accuracy of their description of how things were, but this does not make it biblical. If church history proves anything, it demonstrates how quickly the church departed from its biblical form and function to that of human design. 

Source: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2329


----------



## Peter (Nov 21, 2004)

The RPCNA has female deacons. I think there is a large movement to do away with the practice though. Interestingly, the issue of deacons has been a point of divisiveness eariler in RP history too. There was great debate over whether there should even be a diaconate. Either way, one point worth noting is that the office of the deacon entails no authority, though Ive learned from this message board baptists often confuddle eldership and deaconship.

I like F.N.Lee's discussion on this topic: dr-fnlee.orr


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> The RPCNA has female deacons. I think there is a large movement to do away with the practice though. Interestingly, the issue of deacons has been a point of divisiveness eariler in RP history too. There was great debate over whether there should even be a diaconate. Either way, one point worth noting is that the office of the deacon entails no authority, though Ive learned from this message board baptists often confuddle eldership and deaconship.
> 
> I like F.N.Lee's discussion on this topic: dr-fnlee.orr



The office of deacon does entail authority, that is why it is unbiblical and dangerous to have women deacons. It is merely a question of where the authority resides, not whether there is authority. The authority of the elders resides in the sphere of shepherding and the Word. The authority of deacon resides in mercy ministry. 

If the deacons have no authority in that sphere, then why have the office?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 21, 2004)

Speaking as a former deacon in the RPCNA, I believe the fundamental weakness in the RPCNA's view of the office of deacon is that it is an office without authority, ie., it is merely administrative in nature. As a result, constitutionally women are permitted to be ordained. This misunderstanding of the office and its authority has opened the door to women becoming church officers. There is indeed some support for barring women from the office, but until the office is reconsidered Biblically as to its authority, women in the RPCNA will have grounds to argue that they are not usurping authority by being ordained as deaconesses.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Speaking as a former deacon in the RPCNA, I believe the fundamental weakness in the RPCNA's view of the office of deacon is that it is an office without authority, ie., it is merely administrative in nature. As a result, constitutionally women are permitted to be ordained. This misunderstanding of the office and its authority has opened the door to women becoming church officers. There is indeed some support for barring women from the office, but until the office is reconsidered Biblically as to its authority, women in the RPCNA will have grounds to argue that they are not usurping authority by being ordained as deaconesses.



So you are saying that the problem is not that the RPCNA has an unbiblical view of who may be a deacon, but it has an unbiblical view of the office itself?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I'm saying both. I think the primary underlying issue of why women are permitted to become deaconesses in the RPCNA is because the RPCNA misunderstands the office of deacon with respect to authority.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 22, 2004)

As far as in the PCA goes, the practice of installing, but not ordaining women deacons goes clearly against the intent of the BCO. To do these end runs around the clear intent of our constitutional standards is very destructive to the unity of our fellowship - even if elders feel justified in doing so. If the BCO is wrong, put forth an overture to change it and engage the church courts. 

For what it's worth, I know of several conservative TE's who I know are well respected by most of us here that, for exegetical reasons do believe that the office of deacon should be open to women (and I know some more progressive TE's that are against women serving as deacons.)


----------



## Peter (Nov 22, 2004)

I'll take these things into consideration. I think Dr Lee argues for a seperate office of the deaconess, distinct from the male office. Visit this site: http://dr-fnlee.org/docs5/wm/wm.pdf

I know of (& was temporarily employed by) this group of German women who called themselves deaconesses. Basically, they were protestant nuns. They lived together, wore funny uniforms, and operated an elderly home, amung other things.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 22, 2004)

Dr. Lee's views on this subject are interesting. I regret that he seems to approve of the term (and office) of deaconess.

Non-ordained widows as a special class who serve the church in the area of mercy, yes; ordained deaconesses, no.


----------

