# Deaconess As Biblical Faithfulness



## N. Eshelman

Last evening at my house a group of us had a great discussion of 'wives' as 'women' in I Timothy 3. We talked about women deacons and our thoughts on them. 

So what do you think?


----------



## AV1611

Women deacons show a denomination's feminist agenda and will lead to women elders. That is how it played out in the C of E.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is going to sound odd but I see deaconesses as faithful to Scripture but not _necessary_ for Women's ministry. The leader of a women's ministry need not be a deaconess. I do believe it is necessary in some areas to have women deaconess's (what we in the ARP call "caretaker deacons") who can perform actions that men, by prudence, cannot. 

As far as the "feminist" call, one need look no further than the RPCNA for proof that it is not always the case, though I grant likely.


----------



## Davidius

I voted "other" because I don't know.


----------



## fredtgreco

No one has ever been able, nor will they be, to explain how someone can be set apart to lead in an area of ministry (mercy and service) without having authority (contra to 1 Tim 2:12). If someone can do that ministry without authority, they don't need ordination.

It is a no brainer.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

*Perhaps not WILL lead to..but "GENERALY LEADS TO"*

I voted:

"Women deacons show a denomination's feminist agenda and will lead to women elders"

While this may not always be the case, church history is full of examples of "denominational slides" where this has been the result. So it seems to be the rule and not the exception....


----------



## Hippo

I see deaconesses as biblical and as such whether it is a slippery slope or not is irrelevant.

Feminism is wrong, but then again so are attempts to deprive women on there God given privilidges in case it may intrude on positions undertaken by men.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

#3
I think it can be #2, but not necessarily. Being unbiblical, it ought to be rejected.

There is a hankering after a specific kind of recognition in ministry that drives this desire. The desire exists, ergo the Bible must be read in such a way that will open the way to fulfill that desire.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Contra_Mundum said:


> #3
> I think it can be #2, but not necessarily. Being unbiblical, it ought to be rejected.



Feminism is unbiblical. 

Deaconesses are unbiblical.

Either way, it is unbiblical!!


----------



## KMK

Is 'unbiblical' the right word? The Bible never really addresses the issue at all. It seems to assume that 'official' deacons shall be men. I am not in support of deaconesses but am uncomfortable with the word 'unbiblical'. Perhaps I need to get over it.


----------



## k.seymore

fredtgreco said:


> No one has ever been able, nor will they be, to explain how someone can be set apart to lead in an area of ministry (mercy and service) without having authority (contra to 1 Tim 2:12). If someone can do that ministry without authority, they don't need ordination.
> 
> It is a no brainer.



I don't know the answer to the thread's question myself, but I have to admit what you say isn't a "no-brainer" to me. I never assumed deacons had authority over anyone. For instance, angels have the position of serving humans but they don't have authority over us. I'm probably just confused because I have never really thought it through before. Also people in the past had servants but the default isn't usually to think that the servants hold a position of authority over those they serve. Of course, Jesus said leaders should be like servants, but that wouldn't prove all servants are leaders.


----------



## fredtgreco

k.seymore said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever been able, nor will they be, to explain how someone can be set apart to lead in an area of ministry (mercy and service) without having authority (contra to 1 Tim 2:12). If someone can do that ministry without authority, they don't need ordination.
> 
> It is a no brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the answer to the thread's question myself, but I have to admit what you say isn't a "no-brainer" to me. I never assumed deacons had authority over anyone. For instance, angels have the position of serving humans but they don't have authority over us. I'm probably just confused because I have never really thought it through before. Also people in the past had servants but the default isn't usually to think that the servants hold a position of authority over those they serve. Of course, Jesus said leaders should be like servants, but that wouldn't prove all servants are leaders.
Click to expand...


I did speak quickly on this. But here is the point. It is not the service itself that is the issue. All Christians are called to mercy ministry. All Christians are called to service. But Acts 6 presumes that someone is directing that effort. The person who directs is called a deacon. If the deacon did not have authority over those involved in the mercy ministry, we would have to suppose that no one but deacons _could perform_ mercy ministry. Otherwise, *why even have deacons?*


----------



## JBaldwin

Women are not given the office of deacon in the Scripture. However, there is evidence that women served in a role very similar to that of the male deacons in the church. While I believe women do not have the authoritative role in the church, I do think it is a grave error to assume that because women have no authority in that area that they are somehow incapable of serving in the church or that they shouldn't be serving in the church. 

Too often leaders who are very correct in saying that women have no leadership role in the church make the mistake of cutting women out of ministry all together. In my humble opinion that is as sinful as a woman serving as a pastor.


----------



## fredtgreco

JBaldwin said:


> Women are not given the office of deacon in the Scripture. However, there is evidence that women served in a role very similar to that of the male deacons in the church. While I believe women do not have the authoritative role in the church, I do think it is a grave error to assume that because women have no authority in that area that they are somehow incapable of serving in the church or that they shouldn't be serving in the church.
> 
> Too often leaders who are very correct in saying that women have no leadership role in the church make the mistake of cutting women out of ministry all together. In my humble opinion that is as sinful as a woman serving as a pastor.



I definitely hear you on that. Women _should_ be in ministry - especially mercy ministry. All Christians should. Just not everyone should be ordained.


----------



## Mushroom

Female deacons are not permitted by scripture, whether the desire for them is a sign of feminism or not is immaterial to me. Benjamite priests were also not permitted by scripture, would their desire to have them been called "benjamitism", or just the effects of the fallen nature and its proclivity for rebellion?


----------



## k.seymore

fredtgreco said:


> I did speak quickly on this. But here is the point. It is not the service itself that is the issue. All Christians are called to mercy ministry. All Christians are called to service. But Acts 6 presumes that someone is directing that effort. The person who directs is called a deacon. If the deacon did not have authority over those involved in the mercy ministry, we would have to suppose that no one but deacons _could perform_ mercy ministry. Otherwise, *why even have deacons?*



Well the way I had read Acts 6 previously was that it saying says that since the needy Greeks were getting the short end of the stick, all the disciples, both Jew and Greek were to gather together. The people were given the authority by the apostles to choose who would be their servants and serve them faithfully and fairly, since the apostles judged it to not be right that they themselves should wait tables at the expense of preaching the word and prayer. It sounded to me like the people tell the deacons who it is that needs something, and the deacons obey them. But... It does speak about management in the requirements of deacons elsewhere in scripture, so I think I can see what you were referring to. As far as the question you asked ("Otherwise, why even have deacons?") the way I would first read that is literally: Why have servants? or Why have table waiters? My first reaction is that the name implies lack of authority, not the fact of authority. They were originally to serve those who needed food. But I think I can now see how the other places where they are mentioned their duties encompass more than this. Thanks for your reply. Like I said, I just hadn't really thought about it much.


----------



## Herald

I answered "other." Female deacons are unbiblical, period. See Fred's post for my reasons.


----------



## AVT

The short answer is that the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon per I Timothy 3 is for men only.

Ecclesiastical authoritative office, in accordance with Scripture and the priority in Creation, is for men only. It is contrary to Scripture for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to be ordained for such authority.

It is the responsibility and authority of Deacons to oversee mercy ministry in the church in such a way as to involve women and men in mercy (diaconal) ministry. Those so involved are not ordained, elected and do not exercise authority.

In accordance with Scripture, it is necessary that women and men be involved in diaconal ministry. The office of "Deacon" is not confused with "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry. For example a paralegal does "legal" work but is not to be confused with an attorney. Even though the paralegal is necessary, knowledgeable, and capable she or he is not licensed, professional standards accountable, or Bar pass certified as is the attorney and is not "set apart" to "pass the bar" and practice law in court.

There is a nonauthoritative "office" of servant widow for women per I Timothy 5. It requires a widow, aged 60, a reputation for serving well, etc. This office is not ordained, or authoritative. It may, be supported (paid) by the church, and vows may be taken for it. It might be termed "deaconess" (my opinion would add if great care is taken to differentiate it from the authoritative office of Deacon.

It is not clear to me whether Scripture permits the office of "servant widow" is to be elected, I need to study that further.


----------



## R Harris

AVT said:


> The short answer is that the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon per I Timothy 3 is for men only.
> 
> Ecclesiastical authoritative office, in accordance with Scripture and the priority in Creation, is for men only. It is contrary to Scripture for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to be ordained for such authority.
> 
> It is the responsibility and authority of Deacons to oversee mercy ministry in the church in such a way as to involve women and men in mercy (diaconal) ministry. Those so involved are not ordained, elected and do not exercise authority.
> 
> In accordance with Scripture, it is necessary that women and men be involved in diaconal ministry. The office of "Deacon" is not confused with "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry. For example a paralegal does "legal" work but is not to be confused with an attorney. Even though the paralegal is necessary, knowledgeable, and capable she or he is not licensed, professional standards accountable, or Bar pass certified as is the attorney and is not "set apart" to "pass the bar" and practice law in court.
> 
> There is a nonauthoritative "office" of servant widow for women per I Timothy 5. It requires a widow, aged 60, a reputation for serving well, etc. This office is not ordained, or authoritative. It may, be supported (paid) by the church, and vows may be taken for it. It might be termed "deaconess" (my opinion would add if great care is taken to differentiate it from the authoritative office of Deacon.
> 
> It is not clear to me whether Scripture permits the office of "servant widow" is to be elected, I need to study that further.



I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?

Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.


----------



## Kevin

The "correct" reply is "women deacons are biblical, and sometimes expedient. However cultural conditions may require the avoidence of this office for a brief time."


----------



## fredtgreco

R Harris said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer is that the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon per I Timothy 3 is for men only.
> 
> Ecclesiastical authoritative office, in accordance with Scripture and the priority in Creation, is for men only. It is contrary to Scripture for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to be ordained for such authority.
> 
> It is the responsibility and authority of Deacons to oversee mercy ministry in the church in such a way as to involve women and men in mercy (diaconal) ministry. Those so involved are not ordained, elected and do not exercise authority.
> 
> In accordance with Scripture, it is necessary that women and men be involved in diaconal ministry. The office of "Deacon" is not confused with "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry. For example a paralegal does "legal" work but is not to be confused with an attorney. Even though the paralegal is necessary, knowledgeable, and capable she or he is not licensed, professional standards accountable, or Bar pass certified as is the attorney and is not "set apart" to "pass the bar" and practice law in court.
> 
> There is a nonauthoritative "office" of servant widow for women per I Timothy 5. It requires a widow, aged 60, a reputation for serving well, etc. This office is not ordained, or authoritative. It may, be supported (paid) by the church, and vows may be taken for it. It might be termed "deaconess" (my opinion would add if great care is taken to differentiate it from the authoritative office of Deacon.
> 
> It is not clear to me whether Scripture permits the office of "servant widow" is to be elected, I need to study that further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?
> 
> Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.
Click to expand...




Kevin said:


> The "correct" reply is "women deacons are biblical, and sometimes expedient. However cultural conditions may require the avoidence of this office for a brief time."



Women deacons are not biblical, and it is in itself a reason not to align with a denomination that compromises on that issue.


----------



## fredtgreco

R Harris said:


> I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?
> 
> Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.



She is a servant, like those in Matthew 20:26; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 23:11; John 12:26; Romans 13:4 (where the magistrate is called a "_diakonos_"). Was our Lord a deacon? Because just a few verses earlier (Romans 15:8) Paul writes:

 le,gw ga.r Cristo.n *dia,konon* gegenh/sqai peritomh/j u`pe.r avlhqei,aj qeou/( eivj to. bebaiw/sai ta.j evpaggeli,aj tw/n pate,rwn( 

namely, that Christ became a "deacon" (or more rightly, servant). Why would Paul change his use of the word in such close proximity, in such a way that also requires exegetical gymnastics around 1 Timothy 3:12 (how does a woman become the husband of one wife?) ?


----------



## AVT

I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?

Scripture doesn't give us much information about Phoebe. There is no mention of her husband and she is described as a "servant." She is commended for her faithfulness. It is quite possible she was of the "servant widow" type of I Timothy 5 and what is said comports with that (widow, faithful service).

If she was "merely a helper," that was important to God speaking through the Apostle Paul and she is commended for it. If she was of the servant-widow office there were specific qualifications, but again this is not the office of Deacon. There are other places where men and women are commended for faithful service...

What is unclear in Scripture is best resolved in favor of what is clear, which is that the office of Deacon is for men only, it has authority and that is rightly exercised over women and men.

Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.[/QUOTE]

I believe there are many wonderful Christians in this denomination and that they get a lot right. 

My understanding is that the issue of ordaining women to authority over men is is causing a lot of "undercurrent concern." It is also my understanding that most congregations in ARP do not ordain women deacons, many are opposed to it. In my opinion, the unresolved stance (let each congregation decide) will only build confusion and division and needs to be resolved for the peace and purity of the denomination... that's only an outsider's opinion. 

Truly, I want you to find the option that would best help you as a congregation to Honor and Glorify God. There certainly are many very good ARP churches and God may be leading you to join and submit there, imperfections notwithstanding.


----------



## Kevin

Brother Fred, it is never a compromise to follow Gods word.


----------



## fredtgreco

Kevin said:


> Brother Fred, it is never a compromise to follow Gods word.



Exactly. How I wish the American church would include 1 Timothy 2:12 in their Bibles. Maybe then there would be less effeminate hand-wringing, and more gospel defending.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

fredtgreco said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Fred, it is never a compromise to follow Gods word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. How I wish the American church would include 1 Timothy 2:12 in their Bibles. Maybe then there would be less effeminate hand-wringing, and more gospel defending.
Click to expand...


That verse comes right after 1 Timothy 2:11 in my Bible, but I suppose many modern egalitarians don't like to read that either!


----------



## Kevin

fredtgreco said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Fred, it is never a compromise to follow Gods word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. How I wish the American church would include 1 Timothy 2:12 in their Bibles. Maybe then there would be less effeminate hand-wringing, and more gospel defending.
Click to expand...


I am not a member of the American Church...

However it does seem to me that Saint Pauls warning to Timothy is that women should not "rule", not that they should not "serve".


----------



## Stephen

fredtgreco said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever been able, nor will they be, to explain how someone can be set apart to lead in an area of ministry (mercy and service) without having authority (contra to 1 Tim 2:12). If someone can do that ministry without authority, they don't need ordination.
> 
> It is a no brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the answer to the thread's question myself, but I have to admit what you say isn't a "no-brainer" to me. I never assumed deacons had authority over anyone. For instance, angels have the position of serving humans but they don't have authority over us. I'm probably just confused because I have never really thought it through before. Also people in the past had servants but the default isn't usually to think that the servants hold a position of authority over those they serve. Of course, Jesus said leaders should be like servants, but that wouldn't prove all servants are leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did speak quickly on this. But here is the point. It is not the service itself that is the issue. All Christians are called to mercy ministry. All Christians are called to service. But Acts 6 presumes that someone is directing that effort. The person who directs is called a deacon. If the deacon did not have authority over those involved in the mercy ministry, we would have to suppose that no one but deacons _could perform_ mercy ministry. Otherwise, *why even have deacons?*
Click to expand...


Fred, I understand your point about deacons having authority. The Scriptures restrict the office of sheperding and authoritative teaching (preaching) to men only. Yes, a person who serves has authority, but what kind of authority? Suppose for the sake of argument that the Scriptures do allow women to serve as deacons, their authority would not be the same as that given to elders. Paul certainly commands women to teach women in Titus 2 and we do have the example of women assisting Paul or Jesus in their ministry, but they are prohibited from exercising the kind of authority that is given to elders.


----------



## Stephen

R Harris said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer is that the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon per I Timothy 3 is for men only.
> 
> Ecclesiastical authoritative office, in accordance with Scripture and the priority in Creation, is for men only. It is contrary to Scripture for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to be ordained for such authority.
> 
> It is the responsibility and authority of Deacons to oversee mercy ministry in the church in such a way as to involve women and men in mercy (diaconal) ministry. Those so involved are not ordained, elected and do not exercise authority.
> 
> In accordance with Scripture, it is necessary that women and men be involved in diaconal ministry. The office of "Deacon" is not confused with "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry. For example a paralegal does "legal" work but is not to be confused with an attorney. Even though the paralegal is necessary, knowledgeable, and capable she or he is not licensed, professional standards accountable, or Bar pass certified as is the attorney and is not "set apart" to "pass the bar" and practice law in court.
> 
> There is a nonauthoritative "office" of servant widow for women per I Timothy 5. It requires a widow, aged 60, a reputation for serving well, etc. This office is not ordained, or authoritative. It may, be supported (paid) by the church, and vows may be taken for it. It might be termed "deaconess" (my opinion would add if great care is taken to differentiate it from the authoritative office of Deacon.
> 
> It is not clear to me whether Scripture permits the office of "servant widow" is to be elected, I need to study that further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?
> 
> Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.
Click to expand...


Randy, that is the question. Romans 16:1 calls her a servant and one who assisted in apostolic ministry. Paul uses the *diakonon* for the word "servant". The current debate on this issue is not whether women should assist in ministry or serve, but if they should be recognized and commissioned in some way as an office.


----------



## Stephen

fredtgreco said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer is that the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon per I Timothy 3 is for men only.
> 
> Ecclesiastical authoritative office, in accordance with Scripture and the priority in Creation, is for men only. It is contrary to Scripture for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to be ordained for such authority.
> 
> It is the responsibility and authority of Deacons to oversee mercy ministry in the church in such a way as to involve women and men in mercy (diaconal) ministry. Those so involved are not ordained, elected and do not exercise authority.
> 
> In accordance with Scripture, it is necessary that women and men be involved in diaconal ministry. The office of "Deacon" is not confused with "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry. For example a paralegal does "legal" work but is not to be confused with an attorney. Even though the paralegal is necessary, knowledgeable, and capable she or he is not licensed, professional standards accountable, or Bar pass certified as is the attorney and is not "set apart" to "pass the bar" and practice law in court.
> 
> There is a nonauthoritative "office" of servant widow for women per I Timothy 5. It requires a widow, aged 60, a reputation for serving well, etc. This office is not ordained, or authoritative. It may, be supported (paid) by the church, and vows may be taken for it. It might be termed "deaconess" (my opinion would add if great care is taken to differentiate it from the authoritative office of Deacon.
> 
> It is not clear to me whether Scripture permits the office of "servant widow" is to be elected, I need to study that further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?
> 
> Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "correct" reply is "women deacons are biblical, and sometimes expedient. However cultural conditions may require the avoidence of this office for a brief time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women deacons are not biblical, and it is in itself a reason not to align with a denomination that compromises on that issue.
Click to expand...


I am not being contrary on this Fred, but you and I are teaching elders in a denomination that has allowed congregations to elect deaconesses. So in your words _you are algined with a denomination that compromises on that issue._


----------



## Virginia Marine

Stephen said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer is that the ordained, elected, authoritative office of Deacon per I Timothy 3 is for men only.
> 
> Ecclesiastical authoritative office, in accordance with Scripture and the priority in Creation, is for men only. It is contrary to Scripture for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to be ordained for such authority.
> 
> It is the responsibility and authority of Deacons to oversee mercy ministry in the church in such a way as to involve women and men in mercy (diaconal) ministry. Those so involved are not ordained, elected and do not exercise authority.
> 
> In accordance with Scripture, it is necessary that women and men be involved in diaconal ministry. The office of "Deacon" is not confused with "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry. For example a paralegal does "legal" work but is not to be confused with an attorney. Even though the paralegal is necessary, knowledgeable, and capable she or he is not licensed, professional standards accountable, or Bar pass certified as is the attorney and is not "set apart" to "pass the bar" and practice law in court.
> 
> There is a nonauthoritative "office" of servant widow for women per I Timothy 5. It requires a widow, aged 60, a reputation for serving well, etc. This office is not ordained, or authoritative. It may, be supported (paid) by the church, and vows may be taken for it. It might be termed "deaconess" (my opinion would add if great care is taken to differentiate it from the authoritative office of Deacon.
> 
> It is not clear to me whether Scripture permits the office of "servant widow" is to be elected, I need to study that further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?
> 
> Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy, that is the question. Romans 16:1 calls her a servant and one who assisted in apostolic ministry. Paul uses the *diakonon* for the word "servant". The current debate on this issue is not whether women should assist in ministry or serve, but if they should be recognized and commissioned in some way as an office.
Click to expand...


Just to add to the discussion, because this subject came up when I was server as a Youth leader in a Church I was erving at overseas... The fact that Phoebe is described as a "helper of many" denotes that she was probably a wealthy person. Many believe she is the one who carried Paul's epistle to the church at Rome. The word "servant" (Gk. "diákonon") is the same word used of any brother or sister in Christ who does a work of service and ministers to others in any way. You can't simply interpret her as one in the office of deacon in the strictest sense. If you applied this logic, then any Christian who ministers to anyone else is a deacon and the whole church is nothing more than a church of deacons. (Note, the same word is also used of Christ.) Phoebe was probably nothing more than a wealthy member of the church in Cenchrea who had the means to minister and serve others in an extended capacity.


----------



## Mushroom

These discussions are silly. Scripture is not unclear on this matter. I personally am ashamed that my own denomination goes off a-handwringing everytime a feminist or some other sort of rebel raises their hackles. If you can't read the scriptures with enough intellect to see that when folks want to be ordained to offices to which they are not qualified it is rebellion rather than a valid issue to rehash for the millionth time, then please go join the PCUSA or some similar joke of a denom, and leave mine alone.

I really can't believe anybody who is qualified to be a teaching elder would even need to consider the question for more than 30 seconds before rejecting it. Such men should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the bleating of recognition hungry she-bears to distract them from the real work of the Gospel. There are vastly more important things to be busy with than assuaging the egos of glory hounds.


----------



## jaybird0827

Option "c" or "3".


----------



## Hippo

Brad said:


> These discussions are silly. Scripture is not unclear on this matter.



I think that scripture is not particlarly unclear on this issue, it is as easy to accuse all who oppose women deacons of mysogeny as it is to accuse all those who support women deacons of feminism.

My own view is that a conflation of the role of deacon and elder is often linked to the opposition of women elders. The office of deacon should not be seen as a stepping stone to being an elder.


----------



## Zenas

Deaconesses are unbiblical but not a sign of feminism. My denomination allows women to be deacons, but I disagree with the practice.


----------



## fredtgreco

Stephen said:


> Fred, I understand your point about deacons having authority. The Scriptures restrict the office of sheperding and authoritative teaching (preaching) to men only. Yes, a person who serves has authority, but what kind of authority? Suppose for the sake of argument that the Scriptures do allow women to serve as deacons, their authority would not be the same as that given to elders. Paul certainly commands women to teach women in Titus 2 and we do have the example of women assisting Paul or Jesus in their ministry, but they are prohibited from exercising the kind of authority that is given to elders.



Stephen,

The question is not just _what kind of authority_ (although that is important), but it is also _over whom_ one has authority. Unless a church prohibits all men from being involved in the work of mercy and service (i.e. diaconal work) any women deacons would have authority over men in the area of mercy service. That is contrary to the clear statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 (which is among the clearest of all statements in the Bible regarding gender).



Stephen said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand I Tim 3. But what exactly is Phebe in Romans 16:1? Was she merely a "helper," or did she have diaconal authority in the church?
> 
> Our congregation is considering 4 denominations to possibly align with, with the ARP being one. However, the issue of women deacons is causing many on the session to veer away from the ARP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "correct" reply is "women deacons are biblical, and sometimes expedient. However cultural conditions may require the avoidence of this office for a brief time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women deacons are not biblical, and it is in itself a reason not to align with a denomination that compromises on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not being contrary on this Fred, but you and I are teaching elders in a denomination that has allowed congregations to elect deaconesses. So in your words _you are algined with a denomination that compromises on that issue._
Click to expand...


I realize that we have some congregations that choose to violate the spirit of our form of government and to flout the Lord's commands. I truly believe that they will have to answer to the Lord for that - not just the practice of having women in authority, but the rank deception that is used to flout the BCO. But that does not mean that we as a denomination compromise. Our BCO is clear. I an say with a clear conscience that it is not the case in my Presbytery. If it was, I would file a complaint.


----------



## Leslie

The scripture does not specifically forbid deaconesses. What is the alternative to having deaconesses? Male deacons do the work, right? At some point, this will lead to repeated helpful contacts between male deacons and emotionally vulnerable widows. It is a set-up for hanky-pank, suspicions or charges of the same, or emotional bondage for the widow(s). It seems to me that this is a camel compared to the gnat of having females in a minor, non-authoritative office.


----------



## fredtgreco

Leslie said:


> The scripture does not specifically forbid deaconesses. What is the alternative to having deaconesses? Male deacons do the work, right? At some point, this will lead to repeated helpful contacts between male deacons and emotionally vulnerable widows. It is a set-up for hanky-pank, suspicions or charges of the same, or emotional bondage for the widow(s). It seems to me that this is a camel compared to the gnat of having females in a minor, non-authoritative office.



Who said that the work of service and mercy had to be performed exclusively by deacons? All of Christ's people are to do that work. The people are merely to be directed by and submit to the authority of those who _lead_ in the work - deacons.


----------



## Stephen

fredtgreco said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fred, I understand your point about deacons having authority. The Scriptures restrict the office of sheperding and authoritative teaching (preaching) to men only. Yes, a person who serves has authority, but what kind of authority? Suppose for the sake of argument that the Scriptures do allow women to serve as deacons, their authority would not be the same as that given to elders. Paul certainly commands women to teach women in Titus 2 and we do have the example of women assisting Paul or Jesus in their ministry, but they are prohibited from exercising the kind of authority that is given to elders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> The question is not just _what kind of authority_ (although that is important), but it is also _over whom_ one has authority. Unless a church prohibits all men from being involved in the work of mercy and service (i.e. diaconal work) any women deacons would have authority over men in the area of mercy service. That is contrary to the clear statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 (which is among the clearest of all statements in the Bible regarding gender).
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women deacons are not biblical, and it is in itself a reason not to align with a denomination that compromises on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not being contrary on this Fred, but you and I are teaching elders in a denomination that has allowed congregations to elect deaconesses. So in your words _you are algined with a denomination that compromises on that issue._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that we have some congregations that choose to violate the spirit of our form of government and to flout the Lord's commands. I truly believe that they will have to answer to the Lord for that - not just the practice of having women in authority, but the rank deception that is used to flout the BCO. But that does not mean that we as a denomination compromise. Our BCO is clear. I an say with a clear conscience that it is not the case in my Presbytery. If it was, I would file a complaint.
Click to expand...


I find it odd that we have a denomination that takes one position and then allows congregations to take another position. This is the problem in the PCA. If we are a Reformed denomination that is subject to authority then we should deal with these matters and not allow deviation. The issue before the PCA regarding deaconesses has come to the assembly before, but the only decision that has been made is that deaconesses are a violation of our standard. We need to address how we deal with a number of congregations that have deaconesses. Some congregations had them from the time they entered the PCA, and yet to my knowlege no ruling has been made against it.


----------



## larryjf

I voted not-biblical, but not necessarily feminism.

I do have to say that i really don't like the idea of "unordained Deaconess"...it would be like having "unordained Elders"


----------



## fredtgreco

Stephen said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fred, I understand your point about deacons having authority. The Scriptures restrict the office of sheperding and authoritative teaching (preaching) to men only. Yes, a person who serves has authority, but what kind of authority? Suppose for the sake of argument that the Scriptures do allow women to serve as deacons, their authority would not be the same as that given to elders. Paul certainly commands women to teach women in Titus 2 and we do have the example of women assisting Paul or Jesus in their ministry, but they are prohibited from exercising the kind of authority that is given to elders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> The question is not just _what kind of authority_ (although that is important), but it is also _over whom_ one has authority. Unless a church prohibits all men from being involved in the work of mercy and service (i.e. diaconal work) any women deacons would have authority over men in the area of mercy service. That is contrary to the clear statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 (which is among the clearest of all statements in the Bible regarding gender).
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not being contrary on this Fred, but you and I are teaching elders in a denomination that has allowed congregations to elect deaconesses. So in your words _you are algined with a denomination that compromises on that issue._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that we have some congregations that choose to violate the spirit of our form of government and to flout the Lord's commands. I truly believe that they will have to answer to the Lord for that - not just the practice of having women in authority, but the rank deception that is used to flout the BCO. But that does not mean that we as a denomination compromise. Our BCO is clear. I an say with a clear conscience that it is not the case in my Presbytery. If it was, I would file a complaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it odd that we have a denomination that takes one position and then allows congregations to take another position. This is the problem in the PCA. If we are a Reformed denomination that is subject to authority then we should deal with these matters and not allow deviation. The issue before the PCA regarding deaconesses has come to the assembly before, but the only decision that has been made is that deaconesses are a violation of our standard. We need to address how we deal with a number of congregations that have deaconesses. Some congregations had them from the time they entered the PCA, and yet to my knowlege no ruling has been made against it.
Click to expand...


Stephen,

I don't disagree at all.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hippo said:


> My own view is that a conflation of the role of deacon and elder is often linked to the opposition of women elders. The office of deacon should not be seen as a stepping stone to being an elder.



Rather than a "stepping-stone" it should be recognized that ALL the offices are found in Christ, and from him are disposed to the apostles. What ordinary gifts remained to the church were then disposed to her ministers, and the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit remanded to the Spirit again.

Such was the recognition of the church during the apostolic days. The duties of "the deacon" were part of the duties of the eldership (and when there are no deacons in a church, they again are put back into the elders' laps; they don't disappear). When those duties became too much for the elders, Acts 6:2, they wisely devolved those particular duties to a sub-office, ala Moses in the wilderness, see Ex. 18:17.

So, the issue does return to the matter of office, and who and what is proper for an office holder. If women are not proper office holders by a divine ordinance--and Christ did not ordain any women, nor did the church see fit to ordain women to help the *widows* in Acts 6--I do not see how anyone can sensibly argue against the plain reading of Paul's description of the office.


----------



## Stephen

fredtgreco said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> The question is not just _what kind of authority_ (although that is important), but it is also _over whom_ one has authority. Unless a church prohibits all men from being involved in the work of mercy and service (i.e. diaconal work) any women deacons would have authority over men in the area of mercy service. That is contrary to the clear statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 (which is among the clearest of all statements in the Bible regarding gender).
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that we have some congregations that choose to violate the spirit of our form of government and to flout the Lord's commands. I truly believe that they will have to answer to the Lord for that - not just the practice of having women in authority, but the rank deception that is used to flout the BCO. But that does not mean that we as a denomination compromise. Our BCO is clear. I an say with a clear conscience that it is not the case in my Presbytery. If it was, I would file a complaint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it odd that we have a denomination that takes one position and then allows congregations to take another position. This is the problem in the PCA. If we are a Reformed denomination that is subject to authority then we should deal with these matters and not allow deviation. The issue before the PCA regarding deaconesses has come to the assembly before, but the only decision that has been made is that deaconesses are a violation of our standard. We need to address how we deal with a number of congregations that have deaconesses. Some congregations had them from the time they entered the PCA, and yet to my knowlege no ruling has been made against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> I don't disagree at all.
Click to expand...


 You and I are on the Overtures Committee so it should prove to be interesting.


----------



## interalia

Fredtgreco, your analysis seems sound, except I see the Bible speaking to the office of deacon requiring _responsiblity_, not accepting _authority_. The crux of the deacon is service, not leadership. Their activities are governed by Elders (or should). That being said, I am no feminist, but I think I might echo Backwoods Presbyterian's sentiments only as it relates to deacons/esses.


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

Leslie said:


> The scripture does not specifically forbid deaconesses. What is the alternative to having deaconesses? Male deacons do the work, right? At some point, this will lead to repeated helpful contacts between male deacons and emotionally vulnerable widows. It is a set-up for hanky-pank, suspicions or charges of the same, or emotional bondage for the widow(s). It seems to me that this is a camel compared to the gnat of having females in a minor, non-authoritative office.



The office of Deacon was established for this very purpose. If we accept this arguement for women deacons then we could turn around and justify women pastors because of a possible "set-up" for "hanky panky". I am afraid that your arguement has no legs.

(Acts 6:1-7)

1 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists,[a] because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. 
7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

(Acts 6:1-7)


----------



## AVT

[/QUOTE]

I find it odd that we have a denomination that takes one position and then allows congregations to take another position. This is the problem in the PCA. If we are a Reformed denomination that is subject to authority then we should deal with these matters and not allow deviation. The issue before the PCA regarding deaconesses has come to the assembly before, but the only decision that has been made is that deaconesses are a violation of our standard. We need to address how we deal with a number of congregations that have deaconesses. Some congregations had them from the time they entered the PCA, and yet to my knowlege no ruling has been made against it.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind our denomination is not really allowing congregations to take another position.

What led to one of the Overtures (#9) for a study committee was a review of Presbytery Records (at our General Assembly level) citing the practice as contrary to our Book of Church Order. Also, complaints were filed in the presbytery to enforce the Book of Church Order on these points.

It might be more accurate to say a few Presbytery majorities are either confused and need guidance or do not have the will to enforce our Constitution. Most are enforcing it. Even some that have not had the majority will to do so are legitimately crying out for help from their peers- a great benefit of being in a "connectional" system. Let's be charitable to our bretheren on this point.

Also, it is my understanding historically that when the RPCES churches joined with us more than twenty years ago, a substantial minority of them had ordained women deacons. The agreement was explicit that they must stop ordaining women... and they in good faith all did. 

There was a less formalized understanding that deaconesses (a unordained office) could exist for a while during transition (sort of a grandfather clause) but that that would eventually go away. Most never did. The agreement was perhaps not explicit enough. Keep in mind most of these churches did have male leadership at the authority head of the Diaconate even if they were blending job functions or confusing ordination with commissioning.

A (very) few more recent churches seem to have gotten in with all sorts of non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian practices- functioning almost completely outside the trajectory of our denomination. I'm not sure how that has happened or how this has been allowed to continue, but we must deal with it now to preserve the peace and purtity of our denomination.


----------



## larryjf

interalia said:


> Fredtgreco, your analysis seems sound, except I see the Bible speaking to the office of deacon requiring _responsiblity_, not accepting _authority_. The crux of the deacon is service, not leadership. Their activities are governed by Elders (or should). That being said, I am no feminist, but I think I might echo Backwoods Presbyterian's sentiments only as it relates to deacons/esses.



In my estimation the office of Deacon is not simply to directly serve, but rather to run mercy ministries and such in the church. Since they run the ministries they do carry authority, though as you mention they are responsible to the Session. The authority of the Deacons does not go to the extent of the Elder, but it certainly exists in the ministries that they oversee.


----------



## Stephen

interalia said:


> Fredtgreco, your analysis seems sound, except I see the Bible speaking to the office of deacon requiring _responsiblity_, not accepting _authority_. The crux of the deacon is service, not leadership. Their activities are governed by Elders (or should). That being said, I am no feminist, but I think I might echo Backwoods Presbyterian's sentiments only as it relates to deacons/esses.




This is my own position on the matter. A deacon or deaconess is under authority and is not permitted to lead or exercise authority, but the problem in the PCA is that we have congregations that have deaconesses (10th Pres. in Philadelphia, Redeemer in NY City, several congregations in N. California Presbytery, and a host of others) and the PCA has never addressed it. Some like 10th in Philadelphia had deaconesses before they were joined and received by the PCA. Should the PCA bring discipline against these congregations, allow them to be ordained without authority, comission them (which some PCA churches have already done) or function as a body of women under deacons? That will be for the General Assembly of the PCA to decide next month.


----------



## Stephen

I find it odd that we have a denomination that takes one position and then allows congregations to take another position. This is the problem in the PCA. If we are a Reformed denomination that is subject to authority then we should deal with these matters and not allow deviation. The issue before the PCA regarding deaconesses has come to the assembly before, but the only decision that has been made is that deaconesses are a violation of our standard. We need to address how we deal with a number of congregations that have deaconesses. Some congregations had them from the time they entered the PCA, and yet to my knowlege no ruling has been made against it.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind our denomination is not really allowing congregations to take another position.

What led to one of the Overtures (#9) for a study committee was a review of Presbytery Records (at our General Assembly level) citing the practice as contrary to our Book of Church Order. Also, complaints were filed in the presbytery to enforce the Book of Church Order on these points.

It might be more accurate to say a few Presbytery majorities are either confused and need guidance or do not have the will to enforce our Constitution. Most are enforcing it. Even some that have not had the majority will to do so are legitimately crying out for help from their peers- a great benefit of being in a "connectional" system. Let's be charitable to our bretheren on this point.

Also, it is my understanding historically that when the RPCES churches joined with us more than twenty years ago, a substantial minority of them had ordained women deacons. The agreement was explicit that they must stop ordaining women... and they in good faith all did. 

There was a less formalized understanding that deaconesses (a unordained office) could exist for a while during transition (sort of a grandfather clause) but that that would eventually go away. Most never did. The agreement was perhaps not explicit enough. Keep in mind most of these churches did have male leadership at the authority head of the Diaconate even if they were blending job functions or confusing ordination with commissioning.

A (very) few more recent churches seem to have gotten in with all sorts of non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian practices- functioning almost completely outside the trajectory of our denomination. I'm not sure how that has happened or how this has been allowed to continue, but we must deal with it now to preserve the peace and purtity of our denomination.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the PCA is not allowing others to take a different position in theory but it is in practice. The PCA has not made a ruling against those who are allowing for this function, so this is confusing and somewhat contradictory. If a presbytery allows a deaconess to assist with the ordination of elders this is a clear violation of PCA standards. If a congregation is ordaining deaconesses this is a violation of our standards. Keep in mind that the Book of Church order is always being ammended or revised, so it is conceivable that the language of men only could be changed. I am not sure that is why Overture 9 was submitted to the Overtures committee.


----------



## Vonnie Dee

Although I have not been "ordained" as a deaconess, I have been married to a deacon. Truth be told, most of the work assigned to deacons gets done by the women of the church. They arrange the schedule and cook the meals for people that are sick or have babies. They arrange child care for moms that find themselves single parents while there husbands travel on business. They often sit with the sick.

Again, I have not been "ordained" as a deaconess. However, was I in charge of these ministries? yes. Did I tell people what to do? Yes. Most of them were other women though because it was women's work. (Don't tell Gloria Steinem I said that).


----------



## AVT

*thoughts on authority of diaconal ministry v office authority*

QUOTE=Vonnie Dee;409882]Although I have not been "ordained" as a deaconess, I have been married to a deacon. Truth be told, most of the work assigned to deacons gets done by the women of the church. They arrange the schedule and cook the meals for people that are sick or have babies. They arrange child care for moms that find themselves single parents while there husbands travel on business. They often sit with the sick.

Again, I have not been "ordained" as a deaconess. However, was I in charge of these ministries? yes. Did I tell people what to do? Yes. Most of them were other women though because it was women's work. (Don't tell Gloria Steinem I said that).[/QUOTE]


Good points and thanks for your service!

No doubt men and women were, are, and need to be involved in "diaconal" ministry. Phebe in Romans 16 is commended for her involvement in "diaconal" ministry as a servant as are many other men and women in various places in Scripture.

John Calvin believed that I Timothy 3 involved qualifications for the wives of _both_ Elders and Deacons- that is they had to be known for hospitalitity (e.g. diaconal ministry). That was because, he reasoned, the wife's character reflected back on the office of the husband.

In like matter, it would be reasonable biblically for the wife of a church officer to be involved in mercy ministry, even in an exemplary way.
Lots of menial tasks, done heartily for the glory of God. God is faithful to reward that.

This is not the same thing as the ordained, authoritative, elected office of Deacon which I understand is charged with the responsibility and oversight of mercy ("diaconal") ministry, among other funtions. It seems to me the Deacons are responsible to oversee, direct and dispose of mercy ministry to make sure it gets done in the church. That will involve many tasks, including the Board of Deacons involving men and women in the body of Christ extending mercy.

We might say the Elders have oversight authority, Deacons have administrative authority (over mercy ministry), and men and women who assist the Deacons have various amounts of task authority. It works like this in the business world, authority is at different levels, the board of directors is ultimately responsible, the executive officers administrate in accordance with the will of the board, and many managers and employees at lower level have task authority, but it is not the same (and is not accountable in the same way) and is not chosen in the same way as the board of directors or the chief executive officers. 

An employee may have a responsibility to file three copies of each incoming order. The employee may have some authority. But if the order is never delivered, the customer will sue the company, ultimately the board of directors, maybe the chief administive officers to recover. They will not sue the employee, even though the employee did all the work in relation to the order.

It's even deeper than that because Scripture is explicit in male leadership for the offices of Elder and Deacon and sometimes, mentions the two offices together (Philippians 1:1), showing they are both authoritative. Not the same amounts of authority or exactly the same kind, but similarl.

What may come out of all this discussion is a greater valuation of the office of Deacon, of ordination of church officers, and of men and women's involvement in mercy (diaconal) ministry. And we do have a beautiful structure in the Church to do that and it is very important we do it for God's Honor and Glory.


----------



## jwithnell

I understand deaconess as a _role_ rather than as an _office_. It comes in two forms, a woman who is unusually gifted in the ability to extend mercy and the wife of a deacon who really needs to have some gifts in this area too. In either case, they need to be working under the authority of the deacons and elders. Having such women in the congregation is especially helpful when needing to assist women (how many of you men really want to help with childbirth issues?) and young children.


----------



## interalia

larryjf said:


> interalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fredtgreco, your analysis seems sound, except I see the Bible speaking to the office of deacon requiring _responsiblity_, not accepting _authority_. The crux of the deacon is service, not leadership. Their activities are governed by Elders (or should). That being said, I am no feminist, but I think I might echo Backwoods Presbyterian's sentiments only as it relates to deacons/esses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my estimation the office of Deacon is not simply to directly serve, but rather to run mercy ministries and such in the church. Since they run the ministries they do carry authority, though as you mention they are responsible to the Session. The authority of the Deacons does not go to the extent of the Elder, but it certainly exists in the ministries that they oversee.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the "run the mercy ministries of the church" (i.e., administer/lead) is an extra-Biblical inference. Not to say it is a bad inferences (I think it is sound), but the emphasis Biblically is _service_. I do not want to be guilty of adding anything extra to the Word. I think we need to recognize and reassess this distinction, or we otherwise delimit the nature of the office of Elder and the role of deacon. I believe too many churches see the diaconate as a lesser "office" to that of the Elder, or even a stepping stone of sorts. Because of that, the maleness of the diaconate is underscored so men have another avenue to "lead" where they may not be qualified as Elders. But the Bible does not teach that...I think we need to be careful.

For the record, I am not advocating the female diaconate, but I am arguing that we should understand the lines Scipture makes and recognize the fact that we ought not base decisions/disctinctions "based on the Bible" that are really only our fallible inferences of what the Biblesays. That is inverted logic and can be dangerous.


----------

