# Office of Deacon... Time for Reformation?



## kceaster

I've been wondering if the whole question of whether or not to allow women to hold this office stems from a very low view of the office?

It seems like men are quite content to be elders, but less content to be deacons, as if that office is lower? The office exists because of the work of Christ on behalf of His bride. Deacons, therefore, do the work of Christ in the Church as well as the elders, just a difference of role and responsibility. But their's is an important work, nonetheless.

Could it be that women are seeking this office because it seems to them like men do not want it?

Any thoughts?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## bookslover

In some cases, that could be true. Too often, the office of deacon is seen as a steppingstone to the office of elder. But, as you say, being a deacon is a separate and legitimate office in its own right - just as biblical as being an elder. In fact, reading Acts, it's possible that the deaconate predates the office of elder.

To me, if a man thinks he's too good to be a deacon, he doesn't deserve to be an elder, given the biblical legimitacy of both offices.


----------



## OPC'n

No woman in my church would ever think of seeking this office. We don't consider it a "lesser" position. It might have less responsibilities than an elder.....


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

The root of this is found in Genesis 3. Whenever a man refuses to take up his God given responsibilities there will be a woman waiting to step in and fill his shoes. This being a condemnation upon both, but very much more so for the man.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

As an FYI, we had a providential replacement article for the 2009 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal (forthcoming in the Fall) in place of another that wasn't coming together in time for deadline. It is on the divine right of the office of deacon and its utility. Author is C. N. (Nick) Willborn (Greenville Seminary).


----------



## kceaster

TranZ4MR said:


> No woman in my church would ever think of seeking this office. We don't consider it a "lesser" position. It might have less responsibilities than an elder.....



Sarah, I really hope that the OPC doesn't have to deal with this any time soon. But, if we don't learn from what's going on in the PCA right now, we may have to.

Our Church because it is a mission work does not have deacons. I hope when we elect them the congregation will fully understand their role and give weight to the office. I fear that many times people look at deacons as property managers and facilities maintenance personnel. It is so much more than that. And I hope that Church members in both the PCA and the OPC will regain a sense of the office and how important it is in the life of the Church.

In Christ,

KC

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## TimV

We don't have any Deacons, since the otherwise qualified guys are baptist, FV, etc..I've been trying to convince them they are robbing the rest of us by not just conforming to some pretty basic rules. Hopefully they'll start to listen. The Elders are really overworked.


----------



## kceaster

NaphtaliPress said:


> As an FYI, we had a providential replacement article for the 2009 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal (forthcoming in the Fall) in place of another that wasn't coming together in time for deadline. It is on the divine right of the office of deacon and its utility. Author is C. N. (Nick) Willborn (Greenville Seminary).



I know Dr. Willborn's passion for this. Do you know whether or not he is planning a larger work, Chris? I encouraged him to revise Lorimer's treatise and publish it, but I don't know if he has actually done any work on it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Some men are deacons, and they know it. And they love it.

They have no "ambitions" for a "higher" office. I've had the privilege to know several of them, I'm even related distantly to one. If there were even a dozen more like them in a single church or denomination, we could scarcely handle the blessing.

They remind me of nothing so much as David's Mighty Men.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Kevin, Nick didn't say and I didn't know to ask; he intimated it was a good length article which has not been published before and he is refining it to run in CPJ 5. The article we had planned was not coming together like he wanted and he offered this in its stead.



kceaster said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an FYI, we had a providential replacement article for the 2009 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal (forthcoming in the Fall) in place of another that wasn't coming together in time for deadline. It is on the divine right of the office of deacon and its utility. Author is C. N. (Nick) Willborn (Greenville Seminary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know Dr. Willborn's passion for this. Do you know whether or not he is planning a larger work, Chris? I encouraged him to revise Lorimer's treatise and publish it, but I don't know if he has actually done any work on it.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


----------



## OPC'n

kceaster said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No woman in my church would ever think of seeking this office. We don't consider it a "lesser" position. It might have less responsibilities than an elder.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, I really hope that the OPC doesn't have to deal with this any time soon. But, if we don't learn from what's going on in the PCA right now, we may have to.
> 
> Our Church because it is a mission work does not have deacons. I hope when we elect them the congregation will fully understand their role and give weight to the office. I fear that many times people look at deacons as property managers and facilities maintenance personnel. It is so much more than that. And I hope that Church members in both the PCA and the OPC will regain a sense of the office and how important it is in the life of the Church.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Our church is a plant church too and we just voted for elders and deacons. My pastor "reminded" us that both were men only position. I hope we don't ever have to deal with wrong theology in the OPC! I left the PCA because of these sort of things among other things......


----------



## Scott1

The way presbyterians understand it, the church is governed by deacons and elders (ministers) by plurality. Lots of unordained women and men assist in many ways.

There's no possible way the officers can do it all, yet their distinctive role and authority is appointed by God and received by their congregation. (This is one reason it is so damaging a very few churches apparently have not been teaching or modeling their confessed and vowed doctrines on this point- ordination, installation).

Something that can be overlooked is that the wives of elders and deacons need to be qualified (e.g I Timothy 3:11) as they both sacrifice and are involved in a support capacity to their husband's office. This role seems to get overlooked.

From what I have seen, there are big differences between congregations. It's something like today reading Scripture Acts 17 how the reactions to the Apostle Paul preaching the Gospel and teaching was so different in Thessalonica from Berea- though they were pretty close geographically to one another. Why were the congregations so different? The people behaved and reacted so very differently.

Most organizations tend to fall into the 80/20 rule- 80% of the work done by 20% of the people. This is true both outside and inside the truth though I have been blessed to see in the PCA a much, much better distribution.

It comes from teaching an all of life discipleship of Scripture. The more the elders and deacons teach that and lead that by example, the more things fall into place, it seems.

I wonder when hearing some of the discussion about "involving women" in the church what is going on. Does the church not have a constant need of unordained women and men to do mercy ministry, help with property stewardship, hospitality, lead small groups, serve on committees? Or is this primarily a complaint about 'title' a resentment of authority, what. Are the church leaders encouraging this kind of culture?

The biblical role is one of suffering servant.

People who don't seek ways to serve and give rather than control or be recognized will not be happy people- it's a life lesson with biblical import. 

The moment the shift goes off of God to self, all sorts of faction occurs and everybody tends to seek out their own happiness rather than being consumed with serving God for the spiritual rewards He gives. Scripture gives us indications people who quietly do things, ordinary things for Him well, with a right heart will be rewarded. For many, but not all women, that will include being a good wife and mother, but it is not limited only to that.

Church leaders, in the ordinary course of things ought pray that their flock will develope a focus on the honor and glory of God, not self, and that as a reflection of that every Christian, will seek out serving others, not being preoccupied with their transient happiness.

I really see that as a matter of growth- and a matter of prayer not only for church leaders, but for church members. That God would see fit to use them for His Honor and His Glory and that they would be consumed seeking after that in this life.


----------



## lynnie

_Could it be that women are seeking this office because it seems to them like men do not want it?_

No.....they are nice hardworking women with servants hearts and the church wants to honor them. Let us not question motives. ( I do not believe in deaconesses btw)

I was in a church with deaconesses and they did the meals after funerals, the fellowship dinners, a pile of stuff for sick people, and every manner of service. They were worked to death. I have a sweet friend now who is a PCA deaconess and they put so much work on this gal at her church that I think they are taking advantage of her.

Instead of calling them deaconesses I think they ought to get paid. 20 bucks an hour would not be too little. But all the churches are broke, so they get a title of honor instead. Maybe I am cynical, but something is wrong somewhere, and it isn't just calling a woman servant a deaconess.


----------



## OPC'n

lynnie said:


> _Could it be that women are seeking this office because it seems to them like men do not want it?_
> 
> No.....they are nice hardworking women with servants hearts and the church wants to honor them. Let us not question motives. ( I do not believe in deaconesses btw)
> 
> I was in a church with deaconesses and they did the meals after funerals, the fellowship dinners, a pile of stuff for sick people, and every manner of service. They were worked to death. I have a sweet friend now who is a PCA deaconess and they put so much work on this gal at her church that I think they are taking advantage of her.
> 
> Instead of calling them deaconesses I think they ought to get paid. 20 bucks an hour would not be too little. But all the churches are broke, so they get a title of honor instead. Maybe I am cynical, but something is wrong somewhere, and it isn't just calling a woman servant a deaconess.



Maybe we need some definitions. There's nothing wrong with women helping the church in this manner but they still don't hold the office of a deacon. I'm willing to learn a better definition of deacon than what I have in my head but I believe the deacon would have control over these activities and delegate work out along with himself doing these duties. Wouldn't this office be more about the authority over the activities than the activities themselves? As far as the woman you speak of not being appreciated by her church, she has taken on an office she shouldn't have so she needs to give it up. She can help the deacon do things for others and if she feels overwhelmed then it's her responsibility to say she cannot take on anymore. We don't need martyrs where none is needed....I hope that doesn't sound cold it isn't meant to sound that way. I often have to tell my mother that very thing.


----------



## Pergamum

I think a big issue here is whether deacon is a role of authority or a role of service. If it is a role of authority, then no questions, it must be male. If it is a role of service, then there might be women in the deaconate while still having male ecclesiastical authority, according to some. How a church defines the role of its deacons will impact whether deacons must be male.


----------



## JBaldwin

kceaster said:


> I've been wondering if the whole question of whether or not to allow women to hold this office stems from a very low view of the office?
> 
> It seems like men are quite content to be elders, but less content to be deacons, as if that office is lower? The office exists because of the work of Christ on behalf of His bride. Deacons, therefore, do the work of Christ in the Church as well as the elders, just a difference of role and responsibility. But their's is an important work, nonetheless.
> 
> Could it be that women are seeking this office because it seems to them like men do not want it?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC




I think this is partly true in some churches and very true in other churches. I've been in one church where the men do use the office as deacon as a stepping stone to becoming and elder. In other cases, the office simply is not well-defined and the work is not getting done, so the women do it. After they've been doing the work for awhile, then they figure they deserve the title that goes along with the office. 

If the men who are gifted to be deacons step forward and do the work the way it should be done, they will find that the women will get behind them and take their lead.


----------



## Mushroom

As a divorced man I am not qualified to hold the office of Elder or Deacon. I would not want to expose the Bride of Christ to unnecessary notoriety. There are plenty of qualified men to fill those offices. But I cringe at the thought of saying I will not serve in my Church unless I receive some type or title of recognition. Where would that attitude arise from but the flesh?

If the motivation to grant women the title of Deacon is based on their resentment of not having it, or that leaders are sorry about that 'plight', then it is a rejection of scripture in accomodation to the world's mores and has no place in the Church. The Lord rewards His own, and those who serve Him in secret are rewarded openly, or don't we believe that?


----------



## Pergamum

divorce does not necessarily disqualify one from office.


----------



## bookslover

Brad said:


> As a divorced man I am not qualified to hold the office of Elder or Deacon.



As Pergamum said, a divorce does not necessarily disqualify a man from holding office. It depends on the circumstances surrounding your divorce. If it was for a biblical reason, I see no reason why you can't hold office.


----------



## Wayne

In 1978 the PCA adopted a study on diaconal ministry: 
PCA Position Papers: Report of the Sub-Committee on Diaconal Ministries (1978)

But I'm reading tonight that it was a 1977 overture from Western Carolina Presbytery that prompted that study. The wording of the overture is interesting, especially in the second "Whereas", which now has me looking for further commentary on this idea that the offices of elder and deacon are derivative of and mirror the two aspects of Christ's ministry. I think this speaks to the OP's points.

*Whereas*, being sufficiently encouraged by the testimony of Scripture in Acts 6:1-6; I Timothy 3:8, 10, 12, etc., that the office and work of the Christian Deacon serves to enhance the ministry of mercy in the public and private ministries and activities of the visible church of Christ; 
*Whereas*, having been impressed with *the dual nature of the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, as He preached the Gospel and went about doing good;* [emphasis added]
*Whereas*, being aware that due to the unwillingness of the flesh, the torpor of the spirit, our own doing good to our neighbor needs constant replenishment in grace, and that our denominational office of Deacon is, for the most part, in a low ebb of fruitfulness for our Lord.
*Therefore*, we do hereby petition this Fifth General Assembly to erect a Committee on Deacons and Their Ministries, as follows:
Purpose.
1. To make a renewed study of the Biblical office of the Deacon.
2. To exhort more prayerful and careful diligence in the election and ordination of qualified deacons by the congregations, and
3. To provide for the denomination-wide education and fellowship of our deacons, and
4. To initiate a series of regional meetings on an annual basis, in order to provide the deacons and pastors who attend with a review of the charge held by our deacons, and the opportunities in the church, the community, and the world, for the extending of the compassion of Christ through His Church, her deacons, and the ministries of those, His deacons.
5. This committee on Deacons and their Ministries shall report to the next General Assembly, togeteher with any recommendations that may seem appropriate.
-----end of overture 6, Minutes of the 5th PCA GA, p. 31-32.----

As I said above, the report was then brought in 1978 and that report is online at 
PCA Position Papers: Report of the Sub-Committee on Diaconal Ministries (1978)

A range of other articles on the office of deacon can be found listed at 
PCA Historical Center: Resources - A Topical Guide to the Colllections and Holdings of the Center


----------



## TimV

> As a divorced man I am not qualified to hold the office of Elder or Deacon.



One could make a case for you having to take an exception to the WCF for holding that belief to be ordained, and in your case, that would make an interesting paradox...


----------



## Mushroom

All off-topic, but to put my brothers at ease who are concerned that I may be denying myself the opportunity to serve in an official capacity, my divorce was not biblical, and I was the offending party. Long in the past, but still and always a fact. So we can dispense with this rabbit trail. Thank you, though, for your well-meant encouragements.


----------



## jogri17

Some persons would make the distinction between the office of deacon and unordained women who are called by local churches to serve in special manners giving her gifts. As long as it is clear that the leadership of the local church (elders and deacons) are men only I do not see why having a special un-ordanined office of woman's minister that specializes in the commitment of women-women discipleship cannot be established at the will of the council. I could be wrong and I am willing to listen to those who disagree.


----------



## Pergamum

Didn't Spurgeon use "Bible Women"?


----------



## The Mexican Puritan

I believe the office of deacon is a most godly and noble one. The deacons at First OPC, Sunnyvale, CA, have helped my family and I when no one else could or would. Anyone who thinks being a deacon is beneath him hasn't a place as a pastor or elder either since he fails to see that he doesn't choose an office. God calls him to that office and if he is abiding in Christ, he obeys without question.


----------



## Wannabee

bookslover said:


> To me, if a man thinks he's too good to be a deacon, he doesn't deserve to be an elder, given the biblical legimitacy of both offices.


Agreed! In fact, he doesn't deserve to be a deacon either.

We have deaconesses in our church, as well as deacons. They didn't before I came, but did after I taught on the church.

Answering the Key Questions About Deacons


----------



## Scott1

Thanks, Wayne.

Helpful insight and history.

I take it the 1977 Overture was adopted and resulted in the 1978 study paper.



> 1977 Overture in PCA about studying office of Deacon
> 
> 
> Whereas, being aware that due to the unwillingness of the flesh, the torpor of the spirit, our own doing good to our neighbor needs constant replenishment in grace, and that our denominational office of Deacon is, for the most part, in a low ebb of fruitfulness for our Lord.



So, more than 30 years ago, it was said that the office of Deacon was not being sufficiently used. And we already have a study committee that studied this. Wow. That may be part of the problem here, one with spiritual (and polity) roots!


----------



## Edward

jogri17 said:


> Some persons would make the distinction between the office of deacon and unordained women who are called by local churches to serve in special manners giving her gifts. As long as it is clear that the leadership of the local church (elders and deacons) are men only I do not see why having a special un-ordanined office of woman's minister that specializes in the commitment of women-women discipleship cannot be established at the will of the council. I could be wrong and I am willing to listen to those who disagree.



Sure, and the PCA book of church order provides for unordained men and women to assist the ordained deacons. 

The wrongdoing comes from one or both of two approaches. First, some are refusing to ordain men to the diaconate, having only the unordained helpers. Second, some are calling the unordained helpers deacons (or in some cases deaconesses.)

The problems can easily be addressed by 1) having an ordained male diaconate, and 2) properly labeling those who would assist them. 

That these simple solutions aren't being used suggests a more sinister agenda at work in the denomination.


----------



## kceaster

I just can't get past the fact that God has constructed the Church in such a way so that it is inescapably tied to the offices of Christ. Christ as prophet is the office of the teaching elder, Christ as priest is in both the offices of deacon and believer, and Christ as King in the office of ruling elder. These three all depend upon each other to form the complete identity of the Church. If one is more prevalent than the other, if one flourishes, but the other languishes, there will be imbalance that will lead to an identity crisis, which will eventually lead to error.

In my humble opinion, the office of deacon and believer is not sufficiently honored and respected. Some men do not necessarily want to be deacons because they do not look at the office in the proper light. If that is the case, it could be that they were never called to that office. But I agree with what was said before, if a man does not want to be a deacon, then there is really no way he is qualified for the office of ruling elder or teaching elder, as both encompass some of the same qualifications and functions. One could really question whether or not he is fulfilling the office of believer, because all believers are called to service in some way. The Church should definitely call men who seem to possess the gifts and qualifications, and there really should be no refusal on the part of the one called.

But as for women, I never desire to have a Church devoid of women. I'm sure there are some men who would wish for that. But we men are so thick headed when it comes to practical "mercies" that we need women in the office of believer to fulfill that role. I question the motives of any woman who wants to have an official title other than believer. If a woman desires the office of deacon or elder, she understands neither of those offices, nor does she grasp the scriptural understanding in order to be qualified. Now, I'm quite sure that there are men who do not have a good understanding of what the Bible says about the offices. But the absence of qualified men does not make women qualified.

It really boils down to Christ and His service. He made Himself lower than any in the Church. There is no office lower in the eyes of man, than what He performed as the sacrifice, once for all, to satisfy divine justice and make peace with God on our behalf. If there is anyone in the Church who desires a title, they completely miss biblical reasons for the offices. It is not exaltation. It is ultimately fellowship in the sufferings of Christ.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TranZ4MR said:


> Maybe we need some definitions. There's nothing wrong with women helping the church in this manner but they still don't hold the *office of a deacon*. I'm willing to learn a better definition of deacon than what I have in my head but I believe the deacon would have control over these activities and delegate work out along with himself doing these duties.



Just to be clear, I've never heard anyone in the PCA argue for ordaining women to an office, including the office of deacon.



Pergamum said:


> I think a big issue here is whether deacon is a role of authority or a role of service. If it is a role of authority, then no questions, it must be male. If it is a role of service, then there might be women in the deaconate while still having male ecclesiastical authority, according to some. How a church defines the role of its deacons will impact whether deacons must be male.



I agree 100%, Pergy. Standardization of definitions might have come from the PCA study committee on the role of women on the church. Yet another reason I believe it should have passed.


----------



## Scott1

Moderators, if this is more appropriate for the Presbyterian Polity forum, please feel free to move this to that.

Here are the 6 or so questions about the office of Deacon that are being presented to us in the PCA as not being clear. They are all answered in our Book of Church Order, and reflect our long held presbyterian biblical doctrine of polity: (constitutional answers in blue)
___________________________________________________________________________

(a) may churches choose not to ordain any male deacons?

 No, unless it is impossible (e.g. a small start-up church) and then the duties fall back on the elders, because this authority requires the ordination of office

(b) may churches choose to commission but not to ordain male deacons?

No, we qualify officers by I Timothy 3 and Titus I, and elect, ordain and install officers with the congregation receiving them by vow as officers God has appointed for them.
In the PCA, we see in Scripture the congregation has a right to confirm the officers who would have authority over them.

(c) may women be commissioned as deaconesses without ordaining them as deacons?

The question assumes 'deaconess' to be the I Timothy 3 authoritative office through which the particular church is governed- that is incorrect, both biblically and in our polity.

(d) may the same constitutional questions, or similar questions, used to ordain deacons be used to commission deacons or deaconesses who are not ordained?

No, the oath of office is specific to the offices of deacon and elder, it is not to be usurped or misrepresented.

(e) may Presbyteries license and ordain men who submit themselves to the BCO but who also believe that women should serve as ordained deacons?

Yes. A Presbytery has right to ordain a person with such views as well as to decline a person with such views after due diligence in examining the deeper theological issues that such a belief might suggest. 

For example if a man believed that a quorum ought to be two rather than three elders and the latter was specified by the BCO, he would not be free to conduct meetings with a quorum of two. (And when caught conducting meetings with a quorum of two, rather than the three required by his constitution and vows, he is not to call for a 'study' committee on quorums, composed of people representing a 'diversity' of views about quorums)

Similarly, if a man believed that women ought be commissioned as 'deaconess' he is not free to refuse to constitute the office of Deacon as basic governance of the church. That would be cause for church discipline, based on his vows.

(f) may churches elect ordained men and commissioned women to serve together in the diaconate?

No, diaconate means a plurality of (I Timothy 3) Deacons.

(g) may churches use the title Deaconess for an elected position of ministry in the church or selected to serve according to BCO 9-7?

No, there is no provision to elect non-officers as if they were officers.

__________________________________________________________________________

In the main, if I am understanding this correctly, what has caused the issue in our denomination is not so much the (vague, broad) topic 'role of women' but the above local church practices. Those practices violate the confession of the denomination, the polity of the denomination and the vows the officers took to uphold it (and implicitly to model and teach it).

There are honestly are some people who are confused about this- it's hard to believe that our basic confessed polity is not understood but there really is some confusion.

There probably are a very very few liberals who disbelief the authority of scripture but frankly, I have never met one in the PCA.

More than that, I have never heard one officer to call for the ordination of women for deacon (That likely would follow if our polity is disobeyed in the above 6 ways and not disciplined, though)

Like any denomination, we have to confront our own sin, pride, misrepresentation among ourselves- these are sins of human beings. That is why a true church, like the PCA has church discipline. Our polity is not "go it alone"- deacon is a high calling office with a specific and essential purpose in governing Christ's church.


----------



## Wayne

Reply to Scott:

It is also interesting to read Warfield's argument for deaconesses in 1889, which you can find among that list of links at PCA Historical Center: Resources - A Topical Guide to the Colllections and Holdings of the Center:

1. Very surprisingly, esp. for an exegete, Warfield admits he only has one shaky text to stand on. Then he proceeds to build his case instead from church history.
2. But of particular interest is the point at which he points to the PCUS (Southern) _BCO_ on page 287 and says "Perhaps the nearest approach to the more formal and ecclesiastical revival of the office among us, in its proper Scriptural sense, has been made by the Southern Presbyterian Church, which sets forth in its _Book of Church Order_, adopted in 1879, that “ where it shall appear needful, the Church Session may select and appoint godly women for the care of the sick, of prisoners, of poor widows and orphans, and in general for the relief of distress.” Here we have the essential features of the office."

[The clairification that this Sessional appointment is to _assist_ the deacons isn't in the PCUS _BCO_ until 1925. The PCA built its _BCO_ on the 1933 edition of the PCUS _BCO_.

But basically Warfield is saying of the 1879 PCUS _BCO_, "This would do quite nicely"

What the PCUS had at that time was nearly identical to what the PCA has had for _BCO_ 9-7 since 1974. See Historical Development of the PCA _Book of Church Order_ : Chapter 9, Paragraph 7 to compare the texts. Note too that the 1867 PCUS draft specifically had deaconesses incorporated, but that feature was deleted in the 1869 draft and did not return to the PCUS _BCO_ until the 1960s.


----------



## kceaster

*Mason....*

That makes me ask, what exactly is a deaconess and why is that being argued for?

Deaconess is a title derived from deacon. Deaconess is the feminine form of deacon, is it not?

In Christ,

KC

P.S. Perhaps this is continuing the trend of useless titles that we see completely covering the world business community. Instead of saying the person in charge of coordinating meals for benevolence, we turn that into a title: Benevolence Meal Coordinator. Once a title, there is importance. Once importance, there is desire for a new title.


----------



## TimV

> Standardization of definitions might have come from the PCA study committee on the role of women on the church.



Mason, after all these years of discussion on this board I still don't see where there's any ambiguity in the PCA BCO. You just can't read it with any amount of concentration and come away confused. You might as well argue for unordained Elderesses and claim lack of clarity in the BCO.


----------



## Scott1

Wayne said:


> Reply to Scott:
> 
> It is also interesting to read Warfield's argument for deaconesses in 1889, which you can find among that list of links at PCA Historical Center: Resources - A Topical Guide to the Colllections and Holdings of the Center:
> 
> 1. Very surprisingly, esp. for an exegete, Warfield admits he only has one shaky text to stand on. Then he proceeds to build his case instead from church history.
> 2. But of particular interest is the point at which he points to the PCUS (Southern) BCO and says in effect "That's what I'm talking about!"
> What the PCUS had at that time was nearly identical to what the PCA has had for BCO 9-7 since 1974. See Historical Development of the PCA Book of Church Order : Chapter 9, Paragraph 7 to compare the texts. Note too that the 1867 PCUS draft specifically had deaconesses incorporated, but that feature was deleted in the 1869 draft and did not return to the PCUS BCO until the 1960s.



Thanks very much Wayne for that great, helpful information!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kceaster said:


> That makes me ask, what exactly is a deaconess and why is that being argued for?
> 
> Deaconess is a title derived from deacon. Deaconess is the feminine form of deacon, is it not?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> P.S. Perhaps this is continuing the trend of useless titles that we see completely covering the world business community. Instead of saying the person in charge of coordinating meals for benevolence, we turn that into a title: Benevolence Meal Coordinator. Once a title, there is importance. Once importance, there is desire for a new title.



Deaconess is a Scriptural and historical Reformed term for females performing diaconal (service, mercy ministries, etc) work within the church. Phoebe is referred to as a deaconess in Romans 16, and in I Timothy 3:11 Paul interjects instructions to "women" when describing the qualifications of deacons. Some argue this is referring to the deacons' and elders' wives, but it is unclear. John Calvin used unordained deaconesses in his church and referred to them as such in the _Institutes_. 



TimV said:


> Standardization of definitions might have come from the PCA study committee on the role of women on the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mason, after all these years of discussion on this board I still don't see where there's any ambiguity in the PCA BCO. You just can't read it with any amount of concentration and come away confused. You might as well argue for unordained Elderesses and claim lack of clarity in the BCO.
Click to expand...


There's no ambiguity with regard to women being forbidden from holding an office - on that count the BCO is clear and there's no disagreement. But what about women as administrators? Treasurers? Coordinators? Or what about leading prayer and songs in worship? These are not addressed in the BCO and are thus unclear. The study committee wasn't intended to address the role of women holding office, which everyone knows is wrong - it was proposed to address these other roles.


----------



## TimV

> There's no ambiguity with regard to women being forbidden from holding an office - on that count the BCO is clear and there's no disagreement. But what about women as administrators? Treasurers? Coordinators? Or what about leading prayer and songs in worship? These are not addressed in the BCO and are thus unclear. The study committee wasn't intended to address the role of women holding office, which everyone knows is wrong - it was proposed to address these other roles.



Or women passing out the bulletin when you walk in the door, etc... but that's not what we're dealing with. What we're dealing with is you guys calling women Deacons and not ordaining men as Deacons, and there's no ambiguity in the BCO about that.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> There's no ambiguity with regard to women being forbidden from holding an office - on that count the BCO is clear and there's no disagreement. But what about women as administrators? Treasurers? Coordinators? Or what about leading prayer and songs in worship? These are not addressed in the BCO and are thus unclear. The study committee wasn't intended to address the role of women holding office, which everyone knows is wrong - it was proposed to address these other roles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or women passing out the bulletin when you walk in the door, etc... but that's not what we're dealing with. What we're dealing with is you guys calling women Deacons and not ordaining men as Deacons, and there's no ambiguity in the BCO about that.
Click to expand...


I disagree, but that's not what the study committee would have addressed anyway.


----------



## Mushroom

Why not join the EPC?


----------



## lynnie

_Originally Posted by Pergamum 
I think a big issue here is whether deacon is a role of authority or a role of service. If it is a role of authority, then no questions, it must be male. If it is a role of service, then there might be women in the deaconate while still having male ecclesiastical authority, according to some. How a church defines the role of its deacons will impact whether deacons must be male._

I think you hit the nail on the head perfectly.

I'm on the side that says the diaconate is ordained and authoritative. But in all the churches I know with deaconesses they are strictly feminine servants like Mom in the home. Not like elders. And so it is not seen as any transgression against scripture and male leadership.


----------



## OPC'n

ColdSilverMoon said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we need some definitions. There's nothing wrong with women helping the church in this manner but they still don't hold the *office of a deacon*. I'm willing to learn a better definition of deacon than what I have in my head but I believe the deacon would have control over these activities and delegate work out along with himself doing these duties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, I've never heard anyone in the PCA argue for ordaining women to an office, including the office of deacon.
Click to expand...


Before I found the OPC, I was in the PCA and we had deaconesses.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TranZ4MR said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we need some definitions. There's nothing wrong with women helping the church in this manner but they still don't hold the *office of a deacon*. I'm willing to learn a better definition of deacon than what I have in my head but I believe the deacon would have control over these activities and delegate work out along with himself doing these duties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, I've never heard anyone in the PCA argue for ordaining women to an office, including the office of deacon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I found the OPC, I was in the PCA and we had deaconesses.
Click to expand...


That may be, but were they _ordained_ to the _office_ of Deacon?


----------



## Wayne

How about a different approach to the question, as per my post above, namely that the offices of elder and deacon are derivative of "the dual nature of the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, as He preached the Gospel and went about doing good." 

Would that necessarily mandate either 
1. male only offices 
and/or 
2. the [spiritual] authority of both offices?

I'm scouting around for commentary that might reflect on this or further unpack the idea.


----------



## OPC'n

ColdSilverMoon said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, I've never heard anyone in the PCA argue for ordaining women to an office, including the office of deacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I found the OPC, I was in the PCA and we had deaconesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be, but were they _ordained_ to the _office_ of Deacon?
Click to expand...



I would assume so if they had that title, otherwise, they would be called the hospitality team like we call ourselves in our church.


----------



## Wannabee

Wayne said:


> How about a different approach to the question, as per my post above, namely that the offices of elder and deacon are derivative of "the dual nature of the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, as He preached the Gospel and went about doing good."
> 
> Would that necessarily mandate either
> 1. male only offices
> and/or
> 2. the [spiritual] authority of both offices?
> 
> I'm scouting around for commentary that might reflect on this or further unpack the idea.



I provided in link in post number 26. This is apparently a denominational issue though, which carries its own particulars. But for some thoughtful commentary on this, the booklet linked is excellent and provides for the role of male and female decons, recognizing it as purely a role of service, with no inherent authority. I'll not argue the point here though, because of the nature of this thread and my lack of involvement in the denom. May God grant those who lead these churches great clarity, wisdom and humility in their pursuit of truth for the glory of God.


----------



## he beholds

I still cannot believe that there is even one PCA church with even one woman called a Deaconess. What is that? The first time I heard that, probably here, I thought it was a lie or rumor. Honestly. The stuff about not ordaining them, but giving them the title, is clearly against our church's rules. There are so many other words that can describe the work of a woman that it makes no sense to me to call them Deaconess. Even simply for the respect of the denomination. 

Again, I am not personally convinced for or against Deaconesses. I know there are Reformed people who are for it, and I think they aren't simply liberals. I just think that we should try hard to follow the authority above us, and the authority above churches is the GA, or the BCO. I cannot see why it is hard to follow that. I am one who agrees that if there is a rule that you are breaking, and feel that to do so is to follow your conscience, then you should find another church who agrees, if for you to remain there causes you to feel as if you are sinning. 

And the point about Calvin having unordained Deaconesses, perhaps that was not against the rules of his denomination...


Wannabee, I am definitely checking out your link!

Also, just a note about the OP, in some of my church experiences, Deacons were blue collar and Elders, white. That was a pet peeve of ours. 
But at our church now, the mix is greater. 

Also, I do not know if I understand scripture or our church's roles properly, but I have never thought of a deacon having any authority over me whatsoever, unless it is regarding the specific project that he is leading. (And even if someone did not have a title, but was in charge of a project, I would assume that person had authority over me regarding that project.)


----------



## kceaster

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Deaconess is a Scriptural and historical Reformed term for females performing diaconal (service, mercy ministries, etc) work within the church. Phoebe is referred to as a deaconess in Romans 16, and in I Timothy 3:11 Paul interjects instructions to "women" when describing the qualifications of deacons. Some argue this is referring to the deacons' and elders' wives, but it is unclear. John Calvin used unordained deaconesses in his church and referred to them as such in the _Institutes_.



The same usage is given of Christ in the chapter before. Does this mean Christ is a deaconess? We can't simply apply an english term to a greek word just because we know Phoebe is a woman. Further, we can't assume that Paul is saying that Phoebe was ordained as a deacon, nor does this passage make 1 Timothy 3:11 point to Phoebe as an ordained female deacon. Was Paul a deacon? According to Rom 15:25 and 2 Cor. 3:6, he would have been. Timothy and Erastus, as well in Acts 19. Jesus calls both himself and his disciples deacons in Luke 22. Peter is talking to the office of believer when he exhorts us to serve (deacon) one another in 1 Peter 4.

The root assumption is that Phoebe was a deaconess, when Paul could have just been referring to her service in the magnitude of it. He did not refer to her like he referred to himself using doulos. He referred to Epaphras and Timothy as the same. Mary was a handmaiden. In another place, Peter, quoting the prophecy of Joel, uses handmaidens. But in this place, he referred to her type of service, In my humble opinion.

After a fashion, all of us are deacons. And for Calvin to use the term deaconess in his Church, he is not speaking of ordained women, but only as women who serve the Church, as obviously serving=deaconing.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott1

> *Wannabee*
> 
> I provided in link in post number 26. This is apparently a denominational issue though, which carries its own particulars. But for some thoughtful commentary on this, the booklet linked is excellent and provides for the role of male and female decons, recognizing it as purely a role of service, with no inherent authority. I'll not argue the point here though, because of the nature of this thread and my lack of involvement in the denom. May God grant those who lead these churches great clarity, wisdom and humility in their pursuit of truth for the glory of God.
> __________________



I realize you are not arguing the point and are only linking to Mr. MacArthur's article about the office of Deacon.

Mr. MacArthur is right about many things, and has a zealousness for the Word which is refreshing. He's "five points' calvinist, a self-described "leaky" dispensationalist, and without a binding confession. Because there is not an external accountability mechanism for his church, like many independents, he can pretty well determine how to run his church.

Not to make light of it, but to illustrate the point, if he said tomorrow he wanted no elder more than 60 years old, that's what would happen at his church.

He's not quite reformed (though heading that way) and certainly not presbyterian.

But his analysis and reasoning here (deacon not really an office, never really was in Acts 6, that it only means "service", etc.) are quirky and do not comport with the historical witness of the church at all.

One of the most concise analysis of the Greek and the scriptural and historical basis for deacons are these:

Deaconesses in the PCA? Green Baggins (Bob Mattes at Greenbaggins)

and Brian Schwertley's excellent historical and biblical summary:http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html

Basically, and this can cause confusion- there never has been any witness for I Timothy 3 women deacons in the Christian church before the modernism/liberalism around 1960.

There was, from time-to-time in church history I Timothy 5 "servant widows" that were called 'deaconess.' Those were 60 year old widows, "put on the list" who vowed to remain unmarried, were under the authority of the church (deacons and elders). The church historically disobeyed the scriptural qualifications from time-to-time (e.g. lowered to age 40) and got into trouble and abandoned the practice.

Today's debate is almost entirely about something that never was, women in an authoritative ecclesiastic position something like "equal partner with men in diaconal ministry." Such unbiblical nonsense is of recent invention.


----------



## SRoper

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Just to be clear, I've never heard anyone in the PCA argue for ordaining women to an office, including the office of deacon.



Well I have heard calls for ordaining women to deacon in the PCA. And while I haven't personally heard PCA officers arguing for ordaining women as elders, it does happen according to several REs and a TE I know.


----------



## Wayne

Jessi:

You said:

"Also, I do not know if I understand scripture or our church's roles properly, but I have never thought of a deacon having any authority over me"

I think this is a big part of the problem--a failure to fully understand the nature of the office of deacon. I will readily admit I'm in need of a refresher course myself. 

Does the office of deacon involve a spiritual authority? I think that is what I was getting at in pointing to the 1977 overture from Western Carolina which pointed out that the offices in the church derive from the dual nature of Christ's earthly ministry--preaching the Gospel and ministering to the physical needs of His people. If the office of deacon is not _merely_ a part of the structure of the Church, but actually should be seen as an outworking of Christ's earthly ministry (& doesn't that sum up all that the Church is to be about?), then doesn't the office of deacon necessarily involve a spiritual authority? I think so, but am digging deeper for greater light (there's a mixed metaphor!). 

One bit of my reading for this week will be G.D. Henderson's _The Scottish Ruling Elder_ (London: Clarke & Co., 1935), which includes a chapter titled "The Elder at the Plate" And no, that's not about baseball, but rather an interesting title descriptive of the office of deacon [i.e., the offertory plate, and by inference, the administration of funds and benevolences]. By contrast, Henderson's title for the chapter dealing specifically with elders is titled "The Elder at Communion". Should make for some interesting reading.


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> _Originally Posted by Pergamum
> I think a big issue here is whether deacon is a role of authority or a role of service. If it is a role of authority, then no questions, it must be male. If it is a role of service, then there might be women in the deaconate while still having male ecclesiastical authority, according to some. How a church defines the role of its deacons will impact whether deacons must be male._
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head perfectly.
> 
> I'm on the side that says the diaconate is ordained and authoritative. But in all the churches I know with deaconesses they are strictly feminine servants like Mom in the home. Not like elders. And so it is not seen as any transgression against scripture and male leadership.



A deacon would be a position of some authority since Paul gives qualifications for it,and these qualifications are for males 

(the Greenbagggins blog post is the BEST short summary of this I have ever found..THANKS!)

Although there does also seem to be a description of one who is a female servant, although this seems to be a description rather than a title.

BUT,

I am sometimes confused because the NT has many such descriptive words and calls people using terms such as "steward," Paul's "co-workers" (the sunergoi), the "fellow slaves" (sundouloi), fellow soldiers, fellow prisoners, and the women among Paul's co-workers, each of which seemed to share a part of the ministry and yet often this sharing of the role most assuredly in some cases was due to Paul's appointment and Paul's authority as they shared a role as part of Paul's apostolic ministry team. 

Many women, such as Mary and Tryphena and Tryphosa, and "beloved Persis" all "worked hard in the Lord" and this in the Pauline vocabulary seemed to indicate that they were invovled in the evangelistic labors in some way. And yet, qhen it comes to "bishops" and "deacons" in Paul's pastoral epistles, the qualifications appear to be male.

So, I still hold the view that elders and deacons are titles of authority and these must be male, and yet women may be assigned underneath this male headship for specific tasks and thus "co-labour" in the Gospel.


----------



## lynnie

Jessi-

( anybody else, feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong)

when you talk about the authority above us in the PCA, there is a bit of a difference between the WCF and the BCO. The WCF is seen as a basic systematic theology of what scripture teaches. To change it can happen, but a change would only happen after great, intense, deliberation (for example, it used to say the Pope was THE antichrist in 1646, but in 1903 that was removed).

The BCO on the other hand is a mix of scriptural understanding and the rules of the house (how many people on a committee sort of thing). When my church particularized ( went from mission status to a full fledged PCA) it was a real awakening to some of us how much rigamarole the BCO had come up with for certain things. They were the traditions of men, and nowhere to be found in scripture ( so much time for this, so many meetings for that). Not that any of it was wrong per se, but it wasn't scripture the way the WCF represents scripture. It was just PCA rules that they thought were the best way to guard the flock ( and generally probably are)

My pastor showed me the BCO amendments section when I asked about the rules....a thick stack of orange pages of amendments over the years. It has been highly amended. It just cannot be classed in the same category with the WCF for doctrine.

Now, I happen to think the BCO on deacons IS scriptural. But you have to understand that elders who make vows to upheld it, at the same time can easily press to amend it. It isn't like pressing to amend the WCF here. If you can change a committee for nominating something from 8 people to five people, well hey, let's change the BCO on deacons. The BCO is far more amendable.

That is the impression I have in my area (I am in Keller's presbytery and have friends at New Life and 10th Pres where there are deaconesses). My church will not have them, but we do NOT look at elders appealing the BCO on this in the same way we look at changing the WCF ( on let's say the Federal Vision and justification). Changing the WCF goes to the heart of orthodoxy, but challenging the BCO is not seen the same way.

Would PCA elders here agree? This is my impression. I wish they would not challenge it on this, and save any challenges for made up rules of man, but I don't think we see it like challenging the WCF.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The *office* of Deacon does carry a degree of Spiritual authority. And this it the main reason why the church has a duty to find and train the right MEN for this office. Paul's list of Deacon qualifications simply underscores this point.

If we understand where the office came from, it should be easy to see that in Christ's church, there may and ought to be active women doing vital important things all over, BUT the *office* of Deacon is a male-position. Prominent women are all over the pages of the Gospels (just one more unique excellence regarding Jesus' kingdom), but they are not numbered among his Disciples.

When did the Deacons appear? When the DUTIES of deaconing needed to be separated from the REST of the Elder's duties (Acts 6:1-7). Where there are no Deacons, those duties belong back in the Elder's laps. Not in the laps of a suitable woman, where no suitable men can be found.

So, the office of Deacon belongs to the office of Elder. Just as the office of Elder belongs to the office of Minister, and the office of Minister to the office of Apostle, and the office of Apostle to the office of Christ.

For this reason, any attempt to *ordain* women to Deacon is only a stepping stone to the introduction of women to the teaching office. _There is no logical stopping point._

In Christ's church, there is no allowance for female officers. MEN didn't make this rule up! Anyone who has a problem with this stance needs to take it up with the King and Head of the church.


----------



## OPC'n

Well said Rev Buchanan! Thank you!


----------



## Wayne

Bruce:

Particular appreciation for this point:

"When did the Deacons appear? When the DUTIES of deaconing needed to be separated from the REST of the Elder's duties (Acts 6:1-7). Where there are no Deacons, those duties belong back in the Elder's laps."


----------



## lynnie

_When did the Deacons appear? When the DUTIES of deaconing needed to be separated from the REST of the Elder's duties (Acts 6:1-7). Where there are no Deacons, those duties belong back in the Elder's laps. Not in the laps of a suitable woman, where no suitable men can be found._

Wow. Believe it or not that is the first time I have heard that line anywhere. I feel like a dope that my mind never articulated it to myself, as when I read it, it is so scripturally obvious. Thank you.


----------



## Scott1

Acknowledging some differences in function between denomination, the spiritual charge for the office of Deacon in the PCA is (not necessarily in any order of priority):

1) overseeing mercy ministry
2) overseeing property stewardship
3) developing a spirit of liberality amongst the congregation

These are all visible leadership roles and ones the training for this office makes clear.

Deacons are examined for "exceptions" to doctrine as are the other officers of the church (elders). That's because there is qualification by scripture, an exemplary (not perfect) life testimony, calling and spiritual gifting. These go with an office, they are not required over every member.

-----Added 6/22/2009 at 03:35:35 EST-----



lynnie said:


> _When did the Deacons appear? When the DUTIES of deaconing needed to be separated from the REST of the Elder's duties (Acts 6:1-7). Where there are no Deacons, those duties belong back in the Elder's laps. Not in the laps of a suitable woman, where no suitable men can be found._
> 
> Wow. Believe it or not that is the first time I have heard that line anywhere. I feel like a dope that my mind never articulated it to myself, as when I read it, it is so scripturally obvious. Thank you.



And from this, precisely we get our doctrine reflected in our Book of Church Order:



> BCO 9-2
> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> In the discharge of their duties the deacons are under the supervision
> and authority of the Session. In a church in which it is impossible for any
> reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the
> ruling elders.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kceaster said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconess is a Scriptural and historical Reformed term for females performing diaconal (service, mercy ministries, etc) work within the church. Phoebe is referred to as a deaconess in Romans 16, and in I Timothy 3:11 Paul interjects instructions to "women" when describing the qualifications of deacons. Some argue this is referring to the deacons' and elders' wives, but it is unclear. John Calvin used unordained deaconesses in his church and referred to them as such in the _Institutes_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same usage is given of Christ in the chapter before. Does this mean Christ is a deaconess? We can't simply apply an english term to a greek word just because we know Phoebe is a woman. Further, we can't assume that Paul is saying that Phoebe was ordained as a deacon, nor does this passage make 1 Timothy 3:11 point to Phoebe as an ordained female deacon. Was Paul a deacon? According to Rom 15:25 and 2 Cor. 3:6, he would have been. Timothy and Erastus, as well in Acts 19. Jesus calls both himself and his disciples deacons in Luke 22. Peter is talking to the office of believer when he exhorts us to serve (deacon) one another in 1 Peter 4.
> 
> The root assumption is that Phoebe was a deaconess, when Paul could have just been referring to her service in the magnitude of it. He did not refer to her like he referred to himself using doulos. He referred to Epaphras and Timothy as the same. Mary was a handmaiden. In another place, Peter, quoting the prophecy of Joel, uses handmaidens. But in this place, he referred to her type of service, In my humble opinion.
> 
> After a fashion, all of us are deacons. And for Calvin to use the term deaconess in his Church, he is not speaking of ordained women, but only as women who serve the Church, as obviously serving=deaconing.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


I'm not saying the Scriptural references to "deaconess" indicate ordination - not at all. But a case can be made for women serving in a formal role as deaconesses of the church. I'm not saying they hold an office - in fact I would argue they do not. Calvin had a formal cadre of deaconesses that were unordained women performing diaconal work. To me this fits the biblical model correctly.


----------



## BJClark

kceaster;




> I fear that many times people look at deacons as property managers and facilities maintenance personnel.



My husband is not a deacon, but he does those things..many of the deacons and elders only go out about once a month to help out on a Saturday, and even then..there are just as many if not more women out there working along side them.


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Scott,

I had not intended to pursue this here, but since you've offered "proof" of a certain position I will make some brief comment.

I have looked through Schwertley's work and am grateful for both the link and his hard work. It provides some weight to the idea that women shouldn't be deacons, but is inconclusive in its historical observation. It also admits that women have been deacons in various locations throughout the history of the church, though he does not admit that they were in the same capacity as men, nor to much extent prior to the latter 4th century. His statement, "Because there is not a shred of biblical or historical evidence to support the contention that women served in the same office as men deacons" is quite audacious. If true, then his argument carries even greater weight. But how "provable" is it? His idea that "women deacons," if they exist, were subordinate to male deacons, especially in light of 1 Tim 5:9ff, bears careful consideration. However, the classification of an "order of widows" has problems of its own, namely that Scripture does not clearly set such a position apart. His treatment of "taken into the number" is taken my many to simply refer to church membership. This fits both contextually and theologically. I cannot say much in regard to the exegesis though. Deacons, on the other hand, are clearly set apart.

Clark, in his quotation under 1 Tim 3, makes too many assumptions and presents personal bias as fact. He has a point to make, but botches it with his authoritative statement that fails to stand up on its own weight. The absence of the possessive pronoun is indeed problematic. He states that translating _gunaikas _as "_their _wives" is not mutilation at all, but that translating it as "women" is. Such a statement isn't even reasonable in light of the grammar. His further assertion that the conduct of wives must be in view here is unnecessary as one of the requirements is that the elders' and deacons' homes are in order. This is a pragmatic imposition rather than a valid interpretation, as his quote of Hendriksen clarifies. His assertion (and Hendriksen's) that the interpretation "women" in light of the placement of _hosautos _(likewise) really may have some validity and bears careful consideration for all who study this issue. There are other statements in this section that are problematic, but I won't belabor the issue here.

I also read most of the first link you provided. He has some good observations, but I find the exegesis to be flawed for many of the same reasons. I have done the the work myself on this and, though I admit that I probably do not have the same ability with Greek, came away convinced that women could be deacons. Obviously I'm in good company. For clarity, it's not a hill I'd die on, because the language can allow for either "women" or "wives." However, grammar in conjunction with context would favor "women" in 1 Timothy 3. Perhaps, if there is a desire to debate the validity we could move that discussion to a new thread. If so, I'd be happy to deal with some of the issues I perceive in how Acts 6:1-7 has been handled in this thread as well.

For now, as I stated earlier, I don't think it would be proper for me to continue to debate that here, as I am not affiliated with this denomination in any way. And, it is highly doubtful that any powers within it really are concerned with what I think - not that I blame them.


----------



## Scott1

Wannabee said:


> Dear Scott,
> 
> I had not intended to pursue this here, but since you've offered "proof" of a certain position I will make some brief comment.
> 
> I have looked through Schwertley's work and am grateful for both the link and his hard work. It provides some weight to the idea that women shouldn't be deacons, but is inconclusive in its historical observation. It also admits that women have been deacons in various locations throughout the history of the church, though he does not admit that they were in the same capacity as men, nor to much extent prior to the latter 4th century. His statement, "Because there is not a shred of biblical or historical evidence to support the contention that women served in the same office as men deacons" is quite audacious. If true, then his argument carries even greater weight. But how "provable" is it? His idea that "women deacons," if they exist, were subordinate to male deacons, especially in light of 1 Tim 5:9ff, bears careful consideration. However, the classification of an "order of widows" has problems of its own, namely that Scripture does not clearly set such a position apart. His treatment of "taken into the number" is taken my many to simply refer to church membership. This fits both contextually and theologically. I cannot say much in regard to the exegesis though. Deacons, on the other hand, are clearly set apart.
> 
> Clark, in his quotation under 1 Tim 3, makes too many assumptions and presents personal bias as fact. He has a point to make, but botches it with his authoritative statement that fails to stand up on its own weight. The absence of the possessive pronoun is indeed problematic. He states that translating _gunaikas _as "_their _wives" is not mutilation at all, but that translating it as "women" is. Such a statement isn't even reasonable in light of the grammar. His further assertion that the conduct of wives must be in view here is unnecessary as one of the requirements is that the elders' and deacons' homes are in order. This is a pragmatic imposition rather than a valid interpretation, as his quote of Hendriksen clarifies. His assertion (and Hendriksen's) that the interpretation "women" in light of the placement of _hosautos _(likewise) really may have some validity and bears careful consideration for all who study this issue. There are other statements in this section that are problematic, but I won't belabor the issue here.
> 
> I also read most of the first link you provided. He has some good observations, but I find the exegesis to be flawed for many of the same reasons. I have done the the work myself on this and, though I admit that I probably do not have the same ability with Greek, came away convinced that women could be deacons. Obviously I'm in good company. For clarity, it's not a hill I'd die on, because the language can allow for either "women" or "wives." However, grammar in conjunction with context would favor "women" in 1 Timothy 3. Perhaps, if there is a desire to debate the validity we could move that discussion to a new thread. If so, I'd be happy to deal with some of the issues I perceive in how Acts 6:1-7 has been handled in this thread as well.
> 
> For now, as I stated earlier, I don't think it would be proper for me to continue to debate that here, as I am not affiliated with this denomination in any way. And, it is highly doubtful that any powers within it really are concerned with what I think - not that I blame them.



Joe,

If you would like to start a thread on this particularly, the material and assertions in Mr. Schwertley's paper, that would be fine.

I do not believe your summary of what Mr. Schwertley's writes(20+ pages with much documentation) is accurate. For example


> It provides some weight to the idea that women shouldn't be deacons, but is inconclusive in its historical observation.


 He does come to a clear historical conclusion, in this paper, based on evidence.

and your opinion here


> However, the classification of an "order of widows" has problems of its own, namely that Scripture does not clearly set such a position apart


 would certainly be worth discussing, in light of both the historical church witness and scripture itself. 

While I'm not able to translate Greek, your assertion


> He states that translating _gunaikas _as "_their _wives" is not mutilation at all, but that translating it as "women" is.


 is certainly at odds with Mr. Mattes careful review of the Greek and since it was not translated the way you imply it would be at odds with the KJV, NIV or ESV in the mind of the main bible translations, as well.

But if you would like to discuss Mr. Schwertly's paper particularly in a thread here, please start that. 

Let's not just dismiss all Mr. Schwertly's work with a few statements- and we'll invite some help with people familiar with the Greek translations.


----------



## kceaster

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I'm not saying the Scriptural references to "deaconess" indicate ordination - not at all. But a case can be made for women serving in a formal role as deaconesses of the church. I'm not saying they hold an office - in fact I would argue they do not. Calvin had a formal cadre of deaconesses that were unordained women performing diaconal work. To me this fits the biblical model correctly.



As I've already made the case for the usage of the word, there is no one in the Church who is female who could not be considered a deaconess by the witness of the NT. Any woman who served would be deaconing, and therefore a deaconess. Any man who serves would be a deacon, as well. That takes away any title or formal role as it is fulfilled by all who serve.

So how can you say there is a formal role, if everyone is to deacon?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Scott,

Perhaps that would be a good idea, but I don't have the time at the moment to compile a good start to the thread. For clarity, the quote regarding "mutilation" of the text was his quote of Clark, not his own statement. As he sees women as a valid interpretation and views them as a third category (order of widows) he's actually more in line with me than Clark.  As for what translations agree with my assertion (though I'm hardly alone), I only know of the Douay Rheims (1899)- The women in like manner: chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 
(1Ti 3:11)


Blessings,


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wannabee said:


> I also read most of the first link you provided. He has some good observations, but I find the exegesis to be flawed for many of the same reasons. I have done the the work myself on this and, though I admit that I probably do not have the same ability with Greek, came away convinced that women could be deacons. Obviously I'm in good company. For clarity, it's not a hill I'd die on, because the language can allow for either "women" or "wives." However, grammar in conjunction with context would favor "women" in 1 Timothy 3. Perhaps, if there is a desire to debate the validity we could move that discussion to a new thread. If so, I'd be happy to deal with some of the issues I perceive in how Acts 6:1-7 has been handled in this thread as well.



For what it's worth, Calvin interprets I Timothy 3:11 as "women," even though he views the office of Deacon as one for men only.


----------



## kceaster

*Joe...*



Wannabee said:


> Dear Scott,
> 
> I had not intended to pursue this here, but since you've offered "proof" of a certain position I will make some brief comment.
> 
> I have looked through Schwertley's work and am grateful for both the link and his hard work. It provides some weight to the idea that women shouldn't be deacons, but is inconclusive in its historical observation. It also admits that women have been deacons in various locations throughout the history of the church, though he does not admit that they were in the same capacity as men, nor to much extent prior to the latter 4th century. His statement, "Because there is not a shred of biblical or historical evidence to support the contention that women served in the same office as men deacons" is quite audacious. If true, then his argument carries even greater weight. But how "provable" is it? His idea that "women deacons," if they exist, were subordinate to male deacons, especially in light of 1 Tim 5:9ff, bears careful consideration. However, the classification of an "order of widows" has problems of its own, namely that Scripture does not clearly set such a position apart. His treatment of "taken into the number" is taken my many to simply refer to church membership. This fits both contextually and theologically. I cannot say much in regard to the exegesis though. Deacons, on the other hand, are clearly set apart.
> 
> Clark, in his quotation under 1 Tim 3, makes too many assumptions and presents personal bias as fact. He has a point to make, but botches it with his authoritative statement that fails to stand up on its own weight. The absence of the possessive pronoun is indeed problematic. He states that translating _gunaikas _as "_their _wives" is not mutilation at all, but that translating it as "women" is. Such a statement isn't even reasonable in light of the grammar. His further assertion that the conduct of wives must be in view here is unnecessary as one of the requirements is that the elders' and deacons' homes are in order. This is a pragmatic imposition rather than a valid interpretation, as his quote of Hendriksen clarifies. His assertion (and Hendriksen's) that the interpretation "women" in light of the placement of _hosautos _(likewise) really may have some validity and bears careful consideration for all who study this issue. There are other statements in this section that are problematic, but I won't belabor the issue here.
> 
> I also read most of the first link you provided. He has some good observations, but I find the exegesis to be flawed for many of the same reasons. I have done the the work myself on this and, though I admit that I probably do not have the same ability with Greek, came away convinced that women could be deacons. Obviously I'm in good company. For clarity, it's not a hill I'd die on, because the language can allow for either "women" or "wives." However, grammar in conjunction with context would favor "women" in 1 Timothy 3. Perhaps, if there is a desire to debate the validity we could move that discussion to a new thread. If so, I'd be happy to deal with some of the issues I perceive in how Acts 6:1-7 has been handled in this thread as well.
> 
> For now, as I stated earlier, I don't think it would be proper for me to continue to debate that here, as I am not affiliated with this denomination in any way. And, it is highly doubtful that any powers within it really are concerned with what I think - not that I blame them.



I would have a hard time with the interpretation of "women" in 1 Tim 3. It makes no sense. Let me paste the whole text here with women instead of wives.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 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. *Women* likewise must be dignified, 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 deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

So, Paul starts by addressing the qualifications of deacons. It is clear here that the deacon of whom he speaks is a formally chosen person because they are to stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, it should be clear that not everyone can be a deacon. And by that, Paul means not everyone can serve in the capacity as deacon. It should be noted that there is not one place in the NT where anyone is discouraged from serving in the Church except for the places that talk about these qualifications and the certain restrictions Paul places upon persons in corporate worship. That means that for both the elder and the deacon, there is a formality, and a particular role they are to fill that is set apart from everyone else.

Notice that Paul does not differentiate between male deacons and female deacons, which is probably why most translators would use "wives" and not women. Since Paul did not directly address men or brothers, why would he switch gears here and talk to female deacons? Additionally, the word here is exactly the same usage Paul writes in Ephesians 5:25. If we could follow the same rules, Paul would be saying, "Husbands, love your women." 

Because there is no good way to differentiate between wife and woman, we must allow other Scripture to speak more clearly. The very next verse will suffice. Literally, "Deacons, they are of one wife (or woman), husband." If Paul is differentiating, why would he not mirror the statement that female deacons should be the wife of one man? Further, He goes on to say that the deacon should rule well over their house. Are female deacons to rule over their house?

I agree that the text may be translated in different ways, but, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. It should be abundantly clear that Paul is talking about men here, and not women holding the office that not everyone can hold. If it is restrictive in the sense that not everyone can be a deacon, then it must restrict the office to men. That is really the only way these verses may be read.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Kevin,

I don't think you've grasped the argument. For instance, your example from Ephesians 5 is very clear because of the possessive pronoun. 1 Tim 3 has no such qualifier. There's not even an article. In fact, though "wives" may make sense to you by simply looking at your Bible, you'll note that "their" is italicized, revealing that it was inserted by the translators (The ESV doesn't do this, but the NKJV and NASB do). Though we differ in our perception contextually, grammatically "wives" is perhaps the most difficult interpretation rendered.


Blessings


----------



## kceaster

ColdSilverMoon said:


> For what it's worth, Calvin interprets I Timothy 3:11 as "women," even though he views the office of Deacon as one for men only.



Calvin's Commentary says:

_*Likewise the wives*_ He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others.

*Let the deacons be *Since he mentioned wives, he lays down the same injunction about deacons as he had formerly down about bishops; namely, that each of them — satisfied within having but one wife — shall set an example of a chaste and honorable father of a family, and shall keep his children and his whole house under holy discipline. And this refutes the error of those who understand this passage as referring to domestic servants.

-----Added 6/22/2009 at 07:39:17 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> Dear Kevin,
> 
> I don't think you've grasped the argument. For instance, your example from Ephesians 5 is very clear because of the possessive pronoun. 1 Tim 3 has no such qualifier. There's not even an article. In fact, though "wives" may make sense to you by simply looking at your Bible, you'll note that "their" is italicized, revealing that it was inserted by the translators (The ESV doesn't do this, but the NKJV and NASB do). Though we differ in our perception contextually, grammatically "wives" is perhaps the most difficult interpretation rendered.
> 
> 
> Blessings



I do realize that gunaikas is not articular here. But it doesn't really need to be. Speaking to women with even further restrictions does not make sense.

Male deacons are to be dignified, not double-tounged, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience, tested, found blameless, husband of one wife, managing their children and household well.

Paul would then say that women are to have all these qualities except they may obviously be wife to more than one husband, and further than their male counterparts, they are not to be slanderers, and they must be faithful in all things?

Also, a 3rd person possessive pronoun is not needed either, because it is clear from the surrounding context what Paul is talking about. Again, since he has not spoken specifically about men or brothers, and he does put the restriction on the husband and not the wife, how may we translate it any other way unless there is good and necessary reason to.

And wives may well be the more difficult interpretation to your thinking, but given the surrounding context with Paul speaking about women in the chapter before and in chapter 5, it does not make sense for him to exalt a woman to a particular and special place, a place that may not be held by just anyone, given that he has already told Timothy to instruct them to learn quietly with all submissiveness, not permitting them to teach or exercise authority over a man. It is contradictory at best.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wayne

Since youse guys have brought up I Timothy 3, here is a tantalizing snippet from Warfield, in his article arguing _for_ an office of deaconess. I find this quote to put Warfield's whole argument in a very curious light, as he finds himself forced to admit that he has fallible church history alone to rely on to advance his argument:

----begin quote----
"We are glad to see that the latest Presbyterian student of ecclesiastical polity, Dr. Thomas Witherow, of Londonderry, although only a few years ago (1886) he was inclined to see deaconesses in the “ women” of 1 Tim. iii. 11, now accords with us in finding indication of the existence of women-deacons in the New Testament only in Romans xvi. 1 : 'I commend unto you Phebe our sister, who is a deaconess of the church in Cenchreæ.' This is no doubt a narrow, not to say a precarious foundation on which to build much of an ecclesiastical structure."
----end quote----

So where might we look for a fuller treatment of Warfield on 1 Timothy 3 and why he concludes as he does. Moreover, why in the face of a "precarious foundation" does he forge ahead?


----------



## Mushroom

So we should give these women the title of servant, to be consistent with the Greek. Oh, waitaminnit! We are all already servants if we are Christians! So they already have that title! Problem solved!

Man, that was easy... next issue?

Man, am I smokin' or what?


----------



## Curt

Brad said:


> So we should give these women the title of servant, to be consistent with the Greek. Oh, waitaminnit! We are all already servants if we are Christians! So they already have that title! Problem solved!
> 
> Man, that was easy... next issue?
> 
> Man, am I smokin' or what?



I assume that there are some folks who will ask what you are smokin'.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

kceaster said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, Calvin interprets I Timothy 3:11 as "women," even though he views the office of Deacon as one for men only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin's Commentary says:
> 
> _*Likewise the wives*_ He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others.
> 
> *Let the deacons be *Since he mentioned wives, he lays down the same injunction about deacons as he had formerly down about bishops; namely, that each of them — satisfied within having but one wife — shall set an example of a chaste and honorable father of a family, and shall keep his children and his whole house under holy discipline. And this refutes the error of those who understand this passage as referring to domestic servants.
> 
> 
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Maybe we have different translations? Mine definitely says "women," though Calvin's comments are the same.


----------



## he beholds

lynnie said:


> Jessi-
> 
> ( anybody else, feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong)
> 
> when you talk about the authority above us in the PCA, there is a bit of a difference between the WCF and the BCO. The WCF is seen as a basic systematic theology of what scripture teaches. To change it can happen, but a change would only happen after great, intense, deliberation (for example, it used to say the Pope was THE antichrist in 1646, but in 1903 that was removed).
> 
> The BCO on the other hand is a mix of scriptural understanding and the rules of the house (how many people on a committee sort of thing). When my church particularized ( went from mission status to a full fledged PCA) it was a real awakening to some of us how much rigamarole the BCO had come up with for certain things. They were the traditions of men, and nowhere to be found in scripture ( so much time for this, so many meetings for that). Not that any of it was wrong per se, but it wasn't scripture the way the WCF represents scripture. It was just PCA rules that they thought were the best way to guard the flock ( and generally probably are)
> 
> My pastor showed me the BCO amendments section when I asked about the rules....a thick stack of orange pages of amendments over the years. It has been highly amended. It just cannot be classed in the same category with the WCF for doctrine.
> 
> Now, I happen to think the BCO on deacons IS scriptural. But you have to understand that elders who make vows to upheld it, at the same time can easily press to amend it. It isn't like pressing to amend the WCF here. If you can change a committee for nominating something from 8 people to five people, well hey, let's change the BCO on deacons. The BCO is far more amendable.
> 
> That is the impression I have in my area (I am in Keller's presbytery and have friends at New Life and 10th Pres where there are deaconesses). My church will not have them, but we do NOT look at elders appealing the BCO on this in the same way we look at changing the WCF ( on let's say the Federal Vision and justification). Changing the WCF goes to the heart of orthodoxy, but challenging the BCO is not seen the same way.
> 
> Would PCA elders here agree? This is my impression. I wish they would not challenge it on this, and save any challenges for made up rules of man, but I don't think we see it like challenging the WCF.



I understand that the BCO is not Scripture and can thus be modified. The problem is, people are disobeying it, without modification. Again, if the elders feel that it is a sin to remain in a church that forbids women deaconesses, their only righteous recourse is to: obey it whilst working for change, OR leave the church. (If to remain cause them to feel that they are sinning.)
I think another option is to put your opinions beneath that of an entire denomination and live peaceably. (If you don't think it is a sin to belong to a church which prevents women from being deaconesses.)



ColdSilverMoon said:


> I'm not saying the Scriptural references to "deaconess" indicate ordination - not at all. But a case can be made for women serving in a formal role as deaconesses of the church. I'm not saying they hold an office - in fact I would argue they do not. Calvin had a formal cadre of deaconesses that were unordained women performing diaconal work. To me this fits the biblical model correctly.



I mean no disrespect, but how does one genuinely reconcile these two? If in our church Deacon is a ordained role, then in our church, Deacon is an ordained role. 

I understand the desire to have what was appropriate in the Bible. A female servant, or deaconess, was certainly appropriate. What is not agreed upon in the PCA is whether this was a title or a description. But since the PCA uses this as a title, I really believe to be honest, we cannot call women servants Deaconesses or deaconesses. I think we could call them servants, which should satisfy everyone since it is definitely one of the meanings of the word in the Bible, but it will not be confused with the ordained role in the PCA of Deacon.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

he beholds said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean no disrespect, but how does one genuinely reconcile these two? If in our church Deacon is a ordained role, then in our church, Deacon is an ordained role.
> 
> I understand the desire to have what was appropriate in the Bible. A female servant, or deaconess, was certainly appropriate. What is not agreed upon in the PCA is whether this was a title or a description. But since the PCA uses this as a title, I really believe to be honest, we cannot call women servants Deaconesses or deaconesses. I think we could call them servants, which should satisfy everyone since it is definitely one of the meanings of the word in the Bible, but it will not be confused with the ordained role in the PCA of Deacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've hit on a key point in this argument, Jessi: semantics. The BCO does not prohibit unordained deaconesses from performing diaconal work, yet some people cannot distinguish the ordained office of Deacon from the unordained position of deaconess. The word itself, though biblical, is at least part of the problem people have with deaconesses.
Click to expand...


----------



## kceaster

ColdSilverMoon said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, Calvin interprets I Timothy 3:11 as "women," even though he views the office of Deacon as one for men only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin's Commentary says:
> 
> _*Likewise the wives*_ He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others.
> 
> *Let the deacons be *Since he mentioned wives, he lays down the same injunction about deacons as he had formerly down about bishops; namely, that each of them — satisfied within having but one wife — shall set an example of a chaste and honorable father of a family, and shall keep his children and his whole house under holy discipline. And this refutes the error of those who understand this passage as referring to domestic servants.
> 
> 
> 
> KC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe we have different translations? Mine definitely says "women," though Calvin's comments are the same.
Click to expand...


I'm confused. Your's says _*Likewise the women*_? Whether it is wives or women, the comments are the same. Calvin, here, definitely believes Paul is talking about the wives of deacons, not women deacons, right?

In Christ,

KC

-----Added 6/22/2009 at 09:45:28 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> I think you've hit on a key point in this argument, Jessi: semantics. The BCO does not prohibit unordained deaconesses from performing diaconal work, yet some people cannot distinguish the ordained office of Deacon from the unordained position of deaconess. The word itself, though biblical, is at least part of the problem people have with deaconesses.



I'm not Jessi, but something here sticks out like a sore thumb. You're assuming that there is an unordained position of deaconess, aren't you? Where is that in the scriptures? Granted diakonos is used in a variety of ways, but I can't see how it creates a tertium quid. It should either speak of the office of deacon, or the general office of the believer who is serving. The only place where this is remotely possible is if you consider Phoebe to be an unordained deaconess. And the Bible simply does not say that she was ordained or not ordained. It simply says she was a servant whom Paul is commending.

How is there an unordained office of anything? As I pointed out before, women can be called deaconesses if that is the term you want to use, but EVERY woman who serves the Church in any capacity would be a deaconess. There is no precedent in Scripture for us to unofficially but officially give someone a position like that.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott1

> John Calvin
> Commentary on I Timothy 3
> 
> 8 Likewise the deacons There is no reason why the diversity of interpretations should lead us to entertain any doubt. It is certain that time Apostle speaks of those who hold a public office in the Church; and this refutes the opinion of those who think that domestic servants are here meant. As to the view given by others, that it denotes presbyters who are inferior to the bishop, that is without foundation; for it is manifest from other passages, that the term bishop belongs alike to all presbyters. 6363 “Que le nom d’Evesque estoit commun a tons prestres. et qu’entre prestre et evesque il n’y a nulle difference.” — “That the term bishop was common to all presbyters, and that there is no difference between presbyter and bishop.” All are constrained to acknowledge this; and more especially a passage in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus proves clearly that this is the meaning. (Titus 1:7.) It remains to be stated that we understand “the deacons” to be those who are mentioned by Luke, (Acts 6:3,) and who had the charge of the poor. But those who wish to have a more full account of the duties of deacons may consult the Institutes. 6464 See Calvin’s Inst. of the Christian Religion, vol. 3.
> 
> Grave, not double-tongued The first four virtues, with which he wishes them to be endowed, are of themselves sufficiently well known. Yet it ought to be carefully observed that he advises them not to be double-tongued; because it is a vice which it is difficult to avoid in the discharge of that office, and yet ought, more than anything else, to be kept at a distance from it.
> 
> 9 Holding the mystery of faith As if he had said, “Holding the pure doctrine of religion, and that from the heart, with a sincere fear of God;” or, “Being well instructed in the faith, so as not to be ignorant of anything which it is necessary for Christians to know.” He gives to the sum of Christian doctrine the honorable appellation of a mystery; as indeed God, through the gospel, reveals to men on earth a wisdom which angels in heaven behold with admiration, and, therefore, we need not wonder if it exceed human capacity.
> 
> Let us therefore remember that it ought to be embraced with the deepest reverence; and because we could never, by our own strength, ascend to such a height, let us humbly entreat God to impart it to us by the Spirit of revelation. On the other hand, when we see wicked men either ridicule those doctrines or have no relish for them, let us acknowledge that it is owing to the grace of God that those things which have been hidden from others are in our hearts, and before our eyes, as Moses says, (Deuteronomy 30:11.)
> 
> Thus he wishes that deacons should be well instructed in “the mystery of faith;” because, although they do not hold the office of teaching, yet it would be exceedingly absurd to hold a public office in the Church, while they were ill informed in the Christian faith, more especially since they must frequently be laid under the necessity of administering advice and consolation, if they do not choose to neglect their duties. It is added, in a pure conscience, which extends to the whole life, but chiefly that they may know how to obey God.
> 
> 10 And let those be first tried He wishes that they who are chosen should not be unknown, but that their integrity should be ascertained, like that of the bishops. And hence it is evident, that they are called blameless who are not stained by any marked vice. Besides, this trial is not for a single hour, but consists in long experience. In a word, when deacons are to be ordained, the choice must not fall at random, and without selection, on any that come to hand, but those men are to be chosen who are approved by their past life in such a manner that, after what may be called full inquiry, they are ascertained to be well qualified.
> 
> 11. Likewise the wives He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others.
> 
> Let the deacons be Since he mentioned wives, he lays down the same injunction about deacons as he had formerly down about bishops; namely, that each of them — satisfied within having but one wife — shall set an example of a chaste and honorable father of a family, and shall keep his children and his whole house under holy discipline. And this refutes the error of those who understand this passage as referring to domestic servants. 6565 “Des serviteurs domestiques, et non pas des diacres de l’Eglise.” — “To domestic servants, and not to the deacons of the Ch



Mr. Calvin says:

1) Deacons are a I Timothy 3 ordained authoritative office, like bishop (elder)
2) v. 11 pertains to the wives of both deacons and elders (NOT women deacons)
[not the imagined modern/revisionist interpretation of women deacons.]

It is misinformation to say Mr. Calvin saw Scripture to say deacons are any "helpers", and that Deacon is not an authoritative office.

Mr. Calvin had deaconess at Geneva, "of two sorts"- the ordained authoritative office of I Timothy 3 and the I Timothy 5 "servant widow" model who were under the authority of the deacons and elders

Mr. Calvin would not even recognize the arguments being made now for deacon being any helper, and interchangeable male or female because that is a distortion of what he believed Scripture teaches.


----------



## kalawine

Contra_Mundum said:


> Some men are deacons, and they know it. And they love it.
> 
> They have no "ambitions" for a "higher" office. I've had the privilege to know several of them, I'm even related distantly to one. If there were even a dozen more like them in a single church or denomination, we could scarcely handle the blessing.
> 
> They remind me of nothing so much as David's Mighty Men.



Amen to that! I had a conversation with one of our deacons recently (our finest in my opinion). I told him how impressed I am with his role and how seriously he takes it and how well he does his job as deacon. He told me that the elders years ago told him that he might become an elder some day after he had served as deacon for a while. He shook his head and said, "Naw. I'm no teacher and I never will be. That's not my calling." He also doesn't see himself as a ruling elder. It's very refreshing to see a man in the calling the Lord has for him with no (as you said) "ambitions" for a "higher" office.


----------



## Wannabee

Yea, I went to Calvin right away and saw that he is pretty clear on his position in regard to 1 Tim 3. Pressing this into the qualifications for elders doesn't really work grammatically either though, even if it did mean wives. That's part of the problem with the interpretation.


kceaster said:


> Also, a 3rd person possessive pronoun is not needed either, because it is clear from the surrounding context what Paul is talking about. Again, since he has not spoken specifically about men or brothers, and he does put the restriction on the husband and not the wife, how may we translate it any other way unless there is good and necessary reason to.
> 
> And wives may well be the more difficult interpretation to your thinking, but given the surrounding context with Paul speaking about women in the chapter before and in chapter 5, it does not make sense for him to exalt a woman to a particular and special place, a place that may not be held by just anyone, given that he has already told Timothy to instruct them to learn quietly with all submissiveness, not permitting them to teach or exercise authority over a man. It is contradictory at best.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Obviously it's not that clear, or there wouldn't be good scholars, and good pastors, debating it. Consider something from more of an applicational perspective. Where, in all of Scripture, does anyone account to God for the faithfulness of another human being? It simply does not happen. Elders give account for the souls they shepherd (Heb 13:17). But not even a husband is accountable to God for the soul of his wife. You may argue it by inference, but not clear biblical dictate. To say that one person's qualification is based on the faithfulness of another is really countering the Gospel itself. Furthermore, we will have to disqualify Hosea immediately. I know this argument isn't air tight, but it does bear consideration.

Something else to consider - I understand your argument and agree that it makes sense. It's tenable. But, from both context and an exegetical standpoint, I don't think it's correct. I used to hold your position for the very reasons you gave, until I worked through it more thoroughly. Of course, there is room for error for both of us. But consider carefully that you state that I don't make sense, while I state that you do. Who understands both sides of the argument better? As you know, this is key in a discussion like this. It isn't conclusive, but should be taken into consideration.

For clarity, I do not see the deacon role as having any inherent authority. It is strictly service, but may gain authority as it is delegated by and under the oversight of an elder. This, as has been stated, has bearing on one's position. And I don't see the deacon role as preparation or training for the elder position. It may be, but I don't perceive it as having that function. 


Your "contradictory at best" friend,


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> Obviously it's not that clear, or there wouldn't be good scholars, and good pastors, debating it. Consider something from more of an applicational perspective. Where, in all of Scripture, does anyone account to God for the faithfulness of another human being? It simply does not happen. Elders give account for the souls they shepherd (Heb 13:17). But not even a husband is accountable to God for the soul of his wife. You may argue it by inference, but not clear biblical dictate. To say that one person's qualification is based on the faithfulness of another is really countering the Gospel itself. Furthermore, we will have to disqualify Hosea immediately. I know this argument isn't air tight, but it does bear consideration.



I'm not sure I understand how that relates to the subject at hand. You may be making an excellent point, but I do not know where you're going with it.



> Something else to consider - I understand your argument and agree that it makes sense. It's tenable. But, from both context and an exegetical standpoint, I don't think it's correct. I used to hold your position for the very reasons you gave, until I worked through it more thoroughly. Of course, there is room for error for both of us. But consider carefully that you state that I don't make sense, while I state that you do. Who understands both sides of the argument better? As you know, this is key in a discussion like this. It isn't conclusive, but should be taken into consideration.



To put it better, I was not saying that you don't make sense, I was referring to how I am interpreting the passage. It does not make sense to me to put women in place of wives. It's like a record skipping a beat. And since the only reference in the NT that we have of diakonos is in reference to a woman (Phoebe), it seems a stretch to take Paul's instructions and gather a male/female dichotomy within the diaconate, since every other place besides Romans 16:1 seems to refer to the masculine, not the feminine.



> For clarity, I do not see the deacon role as having any inherent authority. It is strictly service, but may gain authority as it is delegated by and under the oversight of an elder. This, as has been stated, has bearing on one's position. And I don't see the deacon role as preparation or training for the elder position. It may be, but I don't perceive it as having that function.



Yes, I would agree to your latter remarks. But as to the former, why would the commissioning of deacons in Acts 6 not mark out a pivotal point in the early Church? This coupled with the fact that Paul is now instructing Timothy to seek out and test those who are qualified to serve? If there is no special office and no derived authority from the offices of Christ, why would examination be necessary? Why the qualifications? Why does he need to rule his house well? Why does he need to be blameless? Isn't it because he is to serve the Church as Christ served?




> Your "contradictory at best" friend,



I was referring to the argument, not to you Obi Wan... 

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Kevin,

There was a time I remember discussing differences with you with a different tone. I was just reflecting on God's grace in showing me my own pride and how much it is a blessing to be able to have an amiable and charitable disagreement. 

The first paragraph you see I have a valid point, but don't see its relevance. It is relevant because, if interpreted "wives," you are stating that the deacon's qualification is based on the faithfulness of his wife. All the qualifications are character based, including keeping his home in order and being a one woman man (which deals with his wife). But if his wife must be faithful as well, then his faithfulness is based on his wife's faithfulness. There is obviously some tension here.

As far as making sense, I see a certain incongruity in either translation. On one hand, it does seem to skip a beat a little, though I would simply state that it adds clarity. On the other hand (yours), it gives qualifications for the wives of deacons, but not elders. And there is absolutely nothing grammatically to apply this to elders. There is definitely a skip in logic there.

Evem the Romans 16 passage has deacon as masculine. It's only feminine in context. the word "deacon" is never feminine in Greek. This is key, for it shows that it can be used in reference to women, according to context.

I think Acts 6 is somewhat pivotal. It sets elders aside as those who must minister in the Word and in prayer, and deacons as those who will support them by picking up the work that will distract them from their role as shepherds. The authority is in the elders. The privilege and responsibility of the diaconate is equally set forth, but is a different role. Those serving in the church in an "official" capacity must exhibit the character qualifications that the church, as a whole, should be emulating. 

Christ served with authority, as a shepherd. That's the elder's role. It is a servant role, with authority. The deacon position shows no authority in Scripture. If it holds authority then it is delegated authority from the elders, with their oversight. I know of no biblical mandate that states that deacons have any inherent authority (other than to accomplish their service, which is obviously limited to the task at hand).


Blessings,


----------



## TimV

> The BCO does not prohibit unordained deaconesses from performing diaconal work, yet some people cannot distinguish the ordained office of Deacon from the unordained position of deaconess.



I could say that the BCO doesn't prohibit unordained elderesses from preforming elderish work, and that would make as much sense as your statement.

Sorry Mason, but your digging your feet in when you said a couple months ago that when the BCO says that if it's impossible to ordain Deacons..etc...the Elders have to do the work of Deacons allows you to claim that your personal belief that you would be hurting some woman's feelings by ordaining male Deacons makes it impossible for you to ordain male Deacons is a parody of clear and consistent reasoning. 

Your loyalty to your church is commendable, and you're a great asset to this board, but on this subject you've got blinders on


----------



## Edward

he beholds said:


> Also, just a note about the OP, in some of my church experiences, Deacons were blue collar and Elders, white. That was a pet peeve of ours.
> But at our church now, the mix is greater.



At our church, lawyers may be the largest subgroup (or perhaps second behind 'businessmen'). Several dentists, a couple of pilots, a couple of guys in oil and gas, a couple of guys who have handy man businesses (self employed blue collar?), a civil engineer. The diaconate is overwhelmingly white collar.


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> Dear Kevin,
> 
> There was a time I remember discussing differences with you with a different tone. I was just reflecting on God's grace in showing me my own pride and how much it is a blessing to be able to have an amiable and charitable disagreement.



Yeah, I too am glad for God's grace in changing a heart like mine.



> The first paragraph you see I have a valid point, but don't see its relevance. It is relevant because, if interpreted "wives," you are stating that the deacon's qualification is based on the faithfulness of his wife. All the qualifications are character based, including keeping his home in order and being a one woman man (which deals with his wife). But if his wife must be faithful as well, then his faithfulness is based on his wife's faithfulness. There is obviously some tension here.



Okay, that makes it more clear. The only thing I would say to this is that the wives of deacons and elders always play a factor in the qualification of the man. It is inescapable, really. The two are one flesh. How effective can a man be in his office if his wife is not dignified? If she slanders or drinks too much?



> As far as making sense, I see a certain incongruity in either translation. On one hand, it does seem to skip a beat a little, though I would simply state that it adds clarity. On the other hand (yours), it gives qualifications for the wives of deacons, but not elders. And there is absolutely nothing grammatically to apply this to elders. There is definitely a skip in logic there.



I really don't see it as a skip in logic when you look at all the other places in which Paul instructs the Church about women. Some of these things are just common sense. You would never want an unrepentant gossip to be so closely attached to the eldership. Doesn't that go without saying? The reason why I believe it is added here is because the deacon oversees the physical needs of the poor and needy. There needs to be much discretion in that. It would be seriously detrimental if the wife of a deacon went around divulging the intimate details of peoples lives.



> Evem the Romans 16 passage has deacon as masculine. It's only feminine in context. the word "deacon" is never feminine in Greek. This is key, for it shows that it can be used in reference to women, according to context.



I realize it has a masculine ending. But I'm not so sure that it is feminine in context. This is the only place it happens. I don't think that we could say definitively. I will reiterate what I said before. I don't believe that Paul is calling Phoebe a deaconess as much as he is describing the kind of work she has done in the Church. I think Paul is showing her quality of servanthood, not giving her a title. Jesus used the same word to show us the ultimate servanthood. He could have used bondslave, but He chose deacon. And because He did, tells us that there are two kinds of deacons. Those men appointed in the Church, and the in the general sense of deaconing, all believers.



> I think Acts 6 is somewhat pivotal. It sets elders aside as those who must minister in the Word and in prayer, and deacons as those who will support them by picking up the work that will distract them from their role as shepherds. The authority is in the elders. The privilege and responsibility of the diaconate is equally set forth, but is a different role. Those serving in the church in an "official" capacity must exhibit the character qualifications that the church, as a whole, should be emulating.



I won't quibble too much except to say that the authority of any office is a derived authority and that the offices reflect Christ and His offices.



> Christ served with authority, as a shepherd. That's the elder's role. It is a servant role, with authority. The deacon position shows no authority in Scripture. If it holds authority then it is delegated authority from the elders, with their oversight. I know of no biblical mandate that states that deacons have any inherent authority (other than to accomplish their service, which is obviously limited to the task at hand).



You would have to look at the offices of Christ and also look at the OT priesthood in order to glean all that the Reformed would be saying about the office of deacon. We should be able to see the Church in all of Scripture so that we know how it is to be ordered now that Christ has been fully revealed. After all, how would we understand the priesthood of believers if we didn't first understand the priesthood of Israel?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Kevin,

I want to reiterate, you have very good points. I just don't think they are as good, as clear and as submissive to Scripture. I see some imposition here.


> The only thing I would say to this is that the wives of deacons and elders always play a factor in the qualification of the man. It is inescapable, really. The two are one flesh. How effective can a man be in his office if his wife is not dignified? If she slanders or drinks too much?


Agreed. But it's not necessary to cover that with a specific clause on the faithfulness of the wife because it's already been covered. His home is to be in order. Simply put, it's not in order if she's doing those things. But, the fact is, and many are going to squabble over this, she doesn't even have to be saved. His children must be reverent and his home must be in order. As you stated, we look at the OT examples, and it's clear in the OT that the wife of the priest or prophet had nothing to do with his calling. It was based solely on God's election. Why would this change now? Why is the faithfulness of the deacon based on the faithfulness of his wife? What's the OT basis that you derive this from? I would say that the OT reveals just the opposite. But that the NT qualifications for elders and deacons state that his house must be in order and that he must have a good testimony and be blameless. It's already dealt with very well, so why this sudden shift that really does not fit will with how God relates to accountability? This is why there's a skip in logic; and the grammar issue.

Phoebe is inconclusive. I think it gives some weight to my position, but is not necessarily helpful for the reasons you give. My point was that she is shown to be a servant and it's a masculine word used for a woman. It merely relays the possibility, setting aside any argument that it CANNOT refer to women.

I don't know that I agree with your statement about Christ and His offices. Where does Scripture say that? What's the hermeneutic principle by which this is derived? While I agree that we are all doing the work of the Savior, we are all priests (as Peter attests), we are all servants, we are all to love others, etc., I don't see this as requiring an office to do so. There seems to necessarily be some incongruity in your logic here, unless I'm missing something.

Also, I came to this conclusion kicking and screaming. But I simply had to deal with what, upon careful analysis, seemed to be a much better understanding of the text. As an aside - it's interesting to note that one man on this board accused me of being afraid of something in regard to my perceptions on gender roles. It was a silly statement at the time. Yet now I find myself on the other side of the fence. I wonder what he would think of that.


Blessings,


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> Agreed. But it's not necessary to cover that with a specific clause on the faithfulness of the wife because it's already been covered. His home is to be in order. Simply put, it's not in order if she's doing those things. But, the fact is, and many are going to squabble over this, she doesn't even have to be saved. His children must be reverent and his home must be in order. As you stated, we look at the OT examples, and it's clear in the OT that the wife of the priest or prophet had nothing to do with his calling. It was based solely on God's election. Why would this change now? Why is the faithfulness of the deacon based on the faithfulness of his wife? What's the OT basis that you derive this from? I would say that the OT reveals just the opposite. But that the NT qualifications for elders and deacons state that his house must be in order and that he must have a good testimony and be blameless. It's already dealt with very well, so why this sudden shift that really does not fit will with how God relates to accountability? This is why there's a skip in logic; and the grammar issue.



I guess the question could be why does Paul deal with women at all? Why does he speak things specifically to them and not just let the other places in which he writes to be their guide? There are many general rules of conduct by which we could roll up all his specific teaching under an umbrella like "keep your house in order." 1 Cor. 10:31 is such a place. Whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God. That would mean that you don't gossip, that you are chaste, etc. I can't tell you why he says these specific things other than that the Holy Spirit obviously wants to impart this specifically to women.

I'm not in agreement with you that the deacon's faithfulness is dependent upon his wife. Time will tell. It is for him to begin the office and be "qualified" (which no one actually is), but not for his continued faithfulness in the office.

And I would point to the office of King in the OT as an example for why there is a connection between the man and his wife that is crucial. Obviously, if your wife is not on the same page, you will not rule effectively. 



> Phoebe is inconclusive. I think it gives some weight to my position, but is not necessarily helpful for the reasons you give. My point was that she is shown to be a servant and it's a masculine word used for a woman. It merely relays the possibility, setting aside any argument that it CANNOT refer to women.



I don't disagree that diakanos can refer to women, but that doesn't mean it is a title or a position. As it is clear from Jesus' words, we are all to be deaconing in His Church. But then we have Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3 that obviously show that there is an office of deacon.



> I don't know that I agree with your statement about Christ and His offices. Where does Scripture say that? What's the hermeneutic principle by which this is derived? While I agree that we are all doing the work of the Savior, we are all priests (as Peter attests), we are all servants, we are all to love others, etc., I don't see this as requiring an office to do so. There seems to necessarily be some incongruity in your logic here, unless I'm missing something.



That would be the hermeneutic that makes me Reformed, covenantal. The WCF is pretty clear in its treatment of the offices of Christ and how the Church is to emulate them.

R.B. Kuiper argues that the believer, in some way, holds all the offices of Christ in miniature. He reasons that because the Holy Spirit was poured out at Penecost to fulfill Joel's prophecy that in a sense, all believers are prophets. And I believe you already see the priesthood. And the kingship comes directly from John's Revelation that Christ has made us kings and priests to our God. Kuiper also states that Peter sums it up by saying that we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that we should show forth the praises of Him who has called us out of darkness into light. A royal, kingly priesthood is to foretell the glories of Christ. I can see how that would encompass all three of Christ's offices.



> Also, I came to this conclusion kicking and screaming. But I simply had to deal with what, upon careful analysis, seemed to be a much better understanding of the text. As an aside - it's interesting to note that one man on this board accused me of being afraid of something in regard to my perceptions on gender roles. It was a silly statement at the time. Yet now I find myself on the other side of the fence. I wonder what he would think of that.



And I can assure you that not only am I being careful about the interpretation of this, but that I am also resting the in careful analysis of a host of good men. If I don't understand it completely, I am willing to submit to other men who are many times the theologian I am.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

A home in good order is well defined in Ephesians 5:22-6:9; also known as "the household code." It's stated in shorter form in Colossians, and throughout Scripture. The _shema _is a good example of the man of the house pursuing this. These are the things that lend to order in the home and respectful children. 

Christ's offices, as you have related them, are inherent in being Christian. This does not point to a specific position in the church though. We are all to be carrying on the work of Christ on earth until His return. And, I know you're being careful. We all are. And we all rely on good men, and different men at different times. And I know that my view stands against some very strong tradition. Ultimately, however, we answer directly to God for how we handled Scripture and how faithful we were to Him, not theologians, divines or certain confessions. And my view is within confessional limitations, if not the WCF. This is why I attempted at first to avoid debate in this thread, because the OP was related to a denomination that does ascribe to the WCF. I hope I have not been too much of a distraction from your original intent. May God encourage us where we are correct in our understanding and open our eyes to see where we err, for the glory of Christ.


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> A home in good order is well defined in Ephesians 5:22-6:9; also known as "the household code." It's stated in shorter form in Colossians, and throughout Scripture. The _shema _is a good example of the man of the house pursuing this. These are the things that lend to order in the home and respectful children.
> 
> Christ's offices, as you have related them, are inherent in being Christian. This does not point to a specific position in the church though. We are all to be carrying on the work of Christ on earth until His return. And, I know you're being careful. We all are. And we all rely on good men, and different men at different times. And I know that my view stands against some very strong tradition. Ultimately, however, we answer directly to God for how we handled Scripture and how faithful we were to Him, not theologians, divines or certain confessions. And my view is within confessional limitations, if not the WCF. This is why I attempted at first to avoid debate in this thread, because the OP was related to a denomination that does ascribe to the WCF. I hope I have not been too much of a distraction from your original intent. May God encourage us where we are correct in our understanding and open our eyes to see where we err, for the glory of Christ.



You haven't strayed at all. These are all things to be wrestled with as it comes to good order and government in the Church. And I think you'd agree, we need to always be reforming. Reforming, not revolutionizing, right? And although we differ, I really do respect the fact that you should be convinced in your own mind. Because I do not judge you as you are a servant, just as I am.

I am satisfied with the OP and the discussion we have had because it does clearly show, through difference of opinion, we do need to think about the office of deacon, and take it seriously; and we need to allow the Spirit to guide us into truth, and where necessary, reform our thinking.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

You're a dear brother, Kevin. Thank you.


----------



## GTMOPC

In my limited experience (mostly in congregational churches) I have observed that women tend to slip into completing the deacons tasks because they have a Martha mentality. Those who are most comfortable with Biblical submission see no shame in doing the grunt work of the deacon and do it for the sake of Christ's church and nothing more while the ambitious men are abusing the responsibility of the position to get a foothold in the eldership.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

TimV said:


> The BCO does not prohibit unordained deaconesses from performing diaconal work, yet some people cannot distinguish the ordained office of Deacon from the unordained position of deaconess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say that the BCO doesn't prohibit unordained elderesses from preforming elderish work, and that would make as much sense as your statement.
> 
> Sorry Mason, but your digging your feet in when you said a couple months ago that when the BCO says that if it's impossible to ordain Deacons..etc...the Elders have to do the work of Deacons allows you to claim that your personal belief that you would be hurting some woman's feelings by ordaining male Deacons makes it impossible for you to ordain male Deacons is a parody of clear and consistent reasoning.
> 
> Your loyalty to your church is commendable, and you're a great asset to this board, but on this subject you've got blinders on
Click to expand...


Thank you for the kind comments, Tim, and I could certainly say the same of you.

In this case you have to understand there are two different issues:

1. Can women serve as deaconesses in an unordained capacity? and
2. Are churches required to ordain male deacons?

I was referencing the first point in the quote above. On point 1 there is virtually no disagreement that unordained deaconesses are allowed. Calvin didn't believe in ordaining women to the office of deaconess, but he had a formal group of deaconesses serving with ordained male deacons. This a pattern often repeated throughout church history. In the complaint filed against the NY Metro Presbytery, the idea of having deaconesses was not the issue - it was their failure to ordain male deacons, which brings us to the second point.

The second point is the real issue in the case of Redeemer and some other churches. That second point is what I was referencing in our previous discussion: the BCO clearly allows churches to not ordain deacons for any reason. We can debate why the word "impossible" is there, but the fact is there is no absolute requirement to ordain deacons the way there is to ordain elders. That's why some churches do not ordain any deacons, but do commission men and women to assist the Session in their diaconal work. 

So my quote above addresses the issue of deaconesses, but not the issue of dispute in the PCA, which is the failure to ordain deaconesses.


----------



## he beholds

ColdSilverMoon said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BCO does not prohibit unordained deaconesses from performing diaconal work, yet some people cannot distinguish the ordained office of Deacon from the unordained position of deaconess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say that the BCO doesn't prohibit unordained elderesses from preforming elderish work, and that would make as much sense as your statement.
> 
> Sorry Mason, but your digging your feet in when you said a couple months ago that when the BCO says that if it's impossible to ordain Deacons..etc...the Elders have to do the work of Deacons allows you to claim that your personal belief that you would be hurting some woman's feelings by ordaining male Deacons makes it impossible for you to ordain male Deacons is a parody of clear and consistent reasoning.
> 
> Your loyalty to your church is commendable, and you're a great asset to this board, but on this subject you've got blinders on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for the kind comments, Tim, and I could certainly say the same of you.
> 
> In this case you have to understand there are two different issues:
> 
> 1. Can women serve as deaconesses in an unordained capacity? and
> 2. Are churches required to ordain male deacons?
> 
> I was referencing the first point in the quote above. On point 1 there is virtually no disagreement that unordained deaconesses are allowed. Calvin didn't believe in ordaining women to the office of deaconess, but he had a formal group of deaconesses serving with ordained male deacons. This a pattern often repeated throughout church history. In the complaint filed against the NY Metro Presbytery, the idea of having deaconesses was not the issue - it was their failure to ordain male deacons, which brings us to the second point.
> 
> The second point is the real issue in the case of Redeemer and some other churches. That second point is what I was referencing in our previous discussion: the BCO clearly allows churches to not ordain deacons for any reason. *We can debate why the word "impossible" is there, but the fact is there is no absolute requirement to ordain deacons the way there is to ordain elders. *That's why some churches do not ordain any deacons, but do commission men and women to assist the Session in their diaconal work.
> 
> So my quote above addresses the issue of deaconesses, but not the issue of dispute in the PCA, which is the failure to ordain deaconesses.
Click to expand...


I actually do not think the word "impossible" leaves much room for debate in a church of however many thousand like yours. I cannot imagine that you don't have even one man who is willing and able to serve in such a way. I mean, should the rest of the denomination be praying for your church? Is it like that? 

And just in case you misunderstood my earlier post, which you said was an issue of semantics, I still don't see why your church insisted on calling the women deaconesses, rather than any other, non-controversial, title. I think that it is only semantics because of Redeemers and others refusal to accept the standards of our denomination. It is not the denomination playing word games. Nor am I advocating word games. I think I am advocating for more integrity in the language and submission to the denomination.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Mason,

Neither of the two polity positions that you state above are not supported by the PCA's BCO. There's no statement in the BCO that permits the commissioning of deaconesses. The BCO clearly lays out only two offices: elder and deacon. Commissioning is never mentioned in BCO 9-7, nor is the title of deaconess. If you think that the BCO should allow this approach, then I suggest that your presbytery put forth an overture to add this to the BCO. To act otherwise in hopes of remaining below the radar is not honest.

The sense of BCO 9-1 and 9-2 is that churches *must* ordain deacons just as it must ordain elders. This is not optional. Nor are there substitutes allowed for deacons, as 9-2 makes it clear that if "it is *impossible* for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders." The word impossible seems clear enough, and even if impossible, the duties do not devolve to a group of unordained people.

The 36th GA refused to accept the practice of not ordaining deacons in favor of commissioning women and men as substitutes. It did this in the context of the review of presbytery records. The practice of not ordaining deacons, but instead commissioning substitute men and women violates the BCO and should properly be subject to judicial action. This subject came out in the discussion last week between TEs Duncan and Keller (your pastor, I believe), and the practice was not condoned by either. Redeemer, in fact, ordains deacons just as they should. TE Keller clearly expressed his strong view that the BCO must be honored in the PCA. I suggest that you follow your pastor's lead.


----------



## Scott1

> *Reformed Musings*
> 
> This subject came out in the discussion last week between TEs Duncan and Keller (your pastor, I believe), and the practice was not condoned by either. Redeemer, in fact, ordains deacons just as they should. TE Keller clearly expressed his strong view that the BCO must be honored in the PCA



I was surprised to hear that while this kind of public discussion is going on, in fact the church has not been ordaining and installing deacons. The church bulletin lists the head of the diaconate, a woman, and lists the deacons mostly, if not entirely, women.

If this is not true, that the church is and has been electing, ordaining and installing deacons per their Book of Church Order, please correct this. I wish it were not true. Really.

But that is what is so egregious here, and what has triggered the complaint filed. It really is hard to believe after all this time that a church is refusing to ordain and install deacons as per the Book of Church order, as that is part of our constitution and the vows officers take to uphold it.

But my understanding is that while maintaining a public posture in some circles of "A woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do," there has been a refusal to ordain and install men as deacons.

That puts a whole new light on "a woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do" when you eliminate ordained office.

Let alone what it does to the high calling of the office of Deacon, and the peace and purity of Christ's church.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

he beholds said:


> I actually do not think the word "impossible" leaves much room for debate in a church of however many thousand like yours. I cannot imagine that you don't have even one man who is willing and able to serve in such a way. I mean, should the rest of the denomination be praying for your church? Is it like that?
> 
> And just in case you misunderstood my earlier post, which you said was an issue of semantics, I still don't see why your church insisted on calling the women deaconesses, rather than any other, non-controversial, title. I think that it is only semantics because of Redeemers and others refusal to accept the standards of our denomination. It is not the denomination playing word games. Nor am I advocating word games. I think I am advocating for more integrity in the language and submission to the denomination.



Jessi, 

"For any reason" modifies impossible. So it doesn't matter what the reason is - if it's deemed impossible by the church, then it's impossible. It's not playing word games - deaconess is a biblical and traditional term, not one simply made up to cause controversy.



Reformed Musings said:


> Mason,
> 
> Neither of the two polity positions that you state above are not supported by the PCA's BCO. There's no statement in the BCO that permits the commissioning of deaconesses. The BCO clearly lays out only two offices: elder and deacon. Commissioning is never mentioned in BCO 9-7, nor is the title of deaconess. If you think that the BCO should allow this approach, then I suggest that your presbytery put forth an overture to add this to the BCO. To act otherwise in hopes of remaining below the radar is not honest.
> 
> The sense of BCO 9-1 and 9-2 is that churches *must* ordain deacons just as it must ordain elders. This is not optional. Nor are there substitutes allowed for deacons, as 9-2 makes it clear that if "it is *impossible* for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders." The word impossible seems clear enough, and even if impossible, the duties do not devolve to a group of unordained people.
> 
> The 36th GA refused to accept the practice of not ordaining deacons in favor of commissioning women and men as substitutes. It did this in the context of the review of presbytery records. The practice of not ordaining deacons, but instead commissioning substitute men and women violates the BCO and should properly be subject to judicial action. This subject came out in the discussion last week between TEs Duncan and Keller (your pastor, I believe), and the practice was not condoned by either. Redeemer, in fact, ordains deacons just as they should. TE Keller clearly expressed his strong view that the BCO must be honored in the PCA. I suggest that you follow your pastor's lead.



There are plenty of practices in churches throughout the PCA that are not explicitly endorsed by the BCO. If the BCO had to explicitly support every action taken by a church, there would be global paralysis within the PCA. So the position of unordained deaconess is no different from any other unordained position granted to women in that they are not explicitly condoned by the BCO. 

I certainly agree that the BCO should be honored. While Pastor Keller may not advocate not ordaining male deacons at his church, he voted for a resolution that condoned such a practice by other churches. Redeemer technically ordains its male deacons, but it's a default title - as far as I know, there is no formal ordination ceremony. I understand the argument against the practice of Redeemer and other churches with regard to deaconesses, but I don't think an iron-clad case can be made against it based on the BCO. While their practice isn't the norm, it is acceptable, in my view.


----------



## Webservant

Contra_Mundum said:


> Some men are deacons, and they know it. And they love it.
> 
> They have no "ambitions" for a "higher" office. I've had the privilege to know several of them, I'm even related distantly to one. If there were even a dozen more like them in a single church or denomination, we could scarcely handle the blessing.
> 
> They remind me of nothing so much as David's Mighty Men.


I love being a deacon. I couldn't care less whether or not I am nominated to be an elder. In fact, I would probably decline. I couldn't ask anyone to vote for me if *I* wouldn't vote for me .


----------



## Reformed Musings

Mason,

TE Keller made it clear that Redeemer does ordain men as deacons. I take him at his word. I can only assume that you misunderstand the situation. Maybe it would be best if one of your elders spoke for your church's official position.

As for the BCO, I will address that when I get home tonight.


----------



## Scott1

> Redeemer Presbyterian Church
> web site
> June 24, 2009
> 
> 
> Diaconate...
> 
> 
> How do I get in touch with the Diaconate?
> 
> The Diaconate serves those in crisis or challenging situations within the Redeemer congregation only.
> 
> If you are in need of practical help please call the Diaconate Message Helpline listed below, and the deacon or deaconess on call will return your call within 36 hours. You will be asked some basic questions that we ask everyone who calls for assistance so that we can assess how to best help. The information you share with us will be kept confidential. Please keep in mind, due to limited resources, the Diaconate cannot take on all requests for assistance.
> 
> Diaconate Helpline: (212) 726-1334
> 
> For other inquiries please contact:
> 
> Jenny Chang, Director
> [email protected]
> (212) 808-4460 x1407


.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Reformed Musings said:


> Mason,
> 
> TE Keller made it clear that Redeemer does ordain men as deacons. I take him at his word. I can only assume that you misunderstand the situation. Maybe it would be best if one of your elders spoke for your church's official position.
> 
> As for the BCO, I will address that when I get home tonight.



Bob,

I've never claimed to be an official spokesman for the church. I also said they do ordain deacons, though I wasn't aware of a formal ordination ceremony. I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy?


----------



## SemperEruditio

Reformed Musings said:


> Mason,
> 
> TE Keller made it clear that Redeemer does ordain men as deacons. I take him at his word. I can only assume that you misunderstand the situation. Maybe it would be best if one of your elders spoke for your church's official position.
> 
> As for the BCO, I will address that when I get home tonight.



The men are ordained but no one lays hands on them to ordain them and the women are not ordained and no one lays hands on them either. That is what was clear at the Duncan-Keller debate. Unfortunately it was clear as mud to me what then classifies as being ordained which I think is a BCO issue.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Frank,

That was my read as well. Forgive me if it sounded like I agreed with Redeemer's procedures concerning deacons. I certainly do not. But at the same time, I do believe that TE Keller was being open and straightforward in his views. He was clear that if the PCA declared that laying on of hands were required for ordination, he would happily comply.

-----Added 6/24/2009 at 06:30:11 EST-----

Rich,

Thank you for your selfless service to the Church.


----------



## Scott1

One can only ask, where have the many ruling elders on session been on this? 

Now, we have "ordination" without laying on of hands! 

Next we'll find out installation is without the congregation taking vows to receive the officers God has appointed for them- something like installation is a light refreshment reception after the service.

These are spiritual doctrines we're talking about here. They are supposed to be being taught from the pulpit.

This is demeaning to the office of Deacon, the doctrine of ordination, installation, and the polity of governance of the particular church through deacons and elders.

Where has the presbytery been on this?


----------



## Mushroom

Another greivous facet of this debate is the absence of concern the men in leadership are exhibiting toward the women given under their charge. The desire on the part of women to hold office in the Church is contrary to scripture and is a form of disobedience and rebellion. We are all subject to these passions, but they are always sin. Rather than love them by patiently showing from scripture why this is inappropriate and encouraging our sisters to follow the insructions of the Word, they are giving them the impression that these desires for recognition are good and acceptable. That's not shepherding, that's accomodating a spirit of rebellion, regardless of the professed motives.

That does peeve me a good bit, considering I have 3 daughters who need to be cared for and protected as weaker vessels rather than enticed with unbiblical 'ego trinkets' to lay aside the scriptures and revel in titles of recognition. These fellows are well-spoken and versed in the vernacular of christianity, but are promoting and supporting ungodliness among the flock. Smells very much to me like wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## tgoerz

ColdSilverMoon said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deaconess is a Scriptural and historical Reformed term for females performing diaconal (service, mercy ministries, etc) work within the church. Phoebe is referred to as a deaconess in Romans 16, and in I Timothy 3:11 Paul interjects instructions to "women" when describing the qualifications of deacons. Some argue this is referring to the deacons' and elders' wives, but it is unclear. John Calvin used unordained deaconesses in his church and referred to them as such in the _Institutes_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The context suggests Phoebe is a "servant" of the church. In this context, the term is not usually viewed as a technical or official term. It is noteworthy that the ESV, NIV and NASB all render 'diakonon' as servant not deacon.
> 
> In 1Tim, the word is 'gunaikas'...women or wives. Either way, the context refers either to the wives of the deacons or women who assist the deacons.
> 
> If you want to argue "unclear", than how can you make the case for it being "deacon"?
> 
> I rather agree with Lig Duncan that if Paul EVER intended to make the case for women deacons, he could have employed a technical term for deaconess, but he does not.
> 
> 
> The REAL question should be "what kind of deaconesses, or female diaconal assistant, does the NT authorize and the best testimony of church history and historic Reformed polity confirm?"
Click to expand...


----------



## kceaster

tgoerz said:


> The context suggests Phoebe is a "servant" of the church. In this context, the term is not usually viewed as a technical or official term. It is noteworthy that the ESV, NIV and NASB all render 'diakonon' as servant not deacon.
> 
> In 1Tim, the word is 'gunaikas'...women or wives. Either way, the context refers either to the wives of the deacons or women who assist the deacons.
> 
> If you want to argue "unclear", than how can you make the case for it being "deacon"?
> 
> I rather agree with Lig Duncan that if Paul EVER intended to make the case for women deacons, he could have employed a technical term for deaconess, but he does not.
> 
> 
> The REAL question should be "what kind of deaconesses, or female diaconal assistant, does the NT authorize and the best testimony of church history and historic Reformed polity confirm?"



Tim, the way you quoted, it looked as if I posted those words. I believe it was Mason who provided the quote you responded to. Perhaps Mason would like to respond?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## brianeschen

ColdSilverMoon said:


> "For any reason" modifies impossible. So it doesn't matter what the reason is - if it's deemed impossible by the church, then it's impossible. It's not playing word games - *deaconess is a biblical* and traditional *term*, not one simply made up to cause controversy.


Actually, Pastor Duncan rightly pointed out that deaconess is not a biblical term. It did not come into usage until after the canon was closed. It should be noted too that Pastor Keller agreed with this.


----------



## Wannabee

brianeschen said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For any reason" modifies impossible. So it doesn't matter what the reason is - if it's deemed impossible by the church, then it's impossible. It's not playing word games - *deaconess is a biblical* and traditional *term*, not one simply made up to cause controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Pastor Duncan rightly pointed out that deaconess is not a biblical term. It did not come into usage until after the canon was closed. It should be noted too that Pastor Keller agreed with this.
Click to expand...


And, though we hold to the position of "deaconess" being biblical, the term simply doesn't exist in Greek. It's always masculine and can only be considered to refer to a woman when context demands it.


----------



## tgoerz

Yes, Kevin....I meant to quote Mason.

My cut and paste got a little sloppy. =)


----------



## brianeschen

Wannabee said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For any reason" modifies impossible. So it doesn't matter what the reason is - if it's deemed impossible by the church, then it's impossible. It's not playing word games - *deaconess is a biblical* and traditional *term*, not one simply made up to cause controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Pastor Duncan rightly pointed out that deaconess is not a biblical term. It did not come into usage until after the canon was closed. It should be noted too that Pastor Keller agreed with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, though we hold to the position of "deaconess" being biblical, the term simply doesn't exist in Greek. It's always masculine and can only be considered to refer to a woman when context demands it.
Click to expand...

From what I recall in the discussion between Duncan and Keller, deaconess was used in the Greek language, but not until after the canon was closed.


----------

