# Deaconesses Poll



## N. Eshelman (Nov 6, 2009)

Considering the discussion about Redeemer's practice, I am wondering if there are PB members who believe in 'women deacons'. I have a couple of questions to help shed everyone in the discussion: 

What have you read for/against it? 

For those who do believe in women deacons: What are your main biblical and theological arguments for it?

For those who do not believe in women deacons: What are the best texts/arguments that you have against it?


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 6, 2009)

nleshelman said:


> Considering the discussion about Redeemer's practice, I am wondering if there are PB members who believe in 'women deacons'. I have a couple of questions to help shed everyone in the discussion:
> 
> What have you read for/against it?
> 
> ...



You might want to clarify your poll.

For Ordained Women Deacons
For Commissioned Women Deacons
Against all Women Deacons....

Something to that affect. But that might be more than you are looking for...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2009)

No.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 6, 2009)

I was thinking 'as the office of deacon'.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 01:41:25 EST-----

Also, could the 'yes' people give some of their arguments.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 6, 2009)

After having studying this carefully first biblically, then in terms of the witness of church history- the basis answer I would say, by clear and convincing evidence is "NO."

A few reasons:

1) Acts 6, by analogy, establishes a leadership, qualified office of deacon- all men
2) The priority in creation would ordinarily tend toward this, by the nature of leadership and authority- a reflection also of the home
3) I Timothy 3 lays out very specific qualifications for the office of deacon which both explicitly and implicitly qualifies not only men as deacon, but their wives. It makes sense that married deacon's wives would also need some examination due to the confidences of the office of deacon (and elder)
4) Deacons and elders are spoken of as leadership in a normative way in Philippians 1:1
5) The witness of church history for I Timothy 3 deacons as men is virtually unanimous before "modern" scholarship circa 1960

Having said all that, there have been, off and on, I Timothy 5 servant widows who sometimes were called 'deaconess.' The practice fell into disuse and was abandoned, because the church failed to follow the scriptural qualifications (e.g. 60 year old widow, destitute) and tried lowering to age 40 and triggered social problems in the church. Mr. Calvin had these in Geneva but he makes very clear in his writings "deacons of two different sorts" (I Timothy 3 v. I Timothy 5). But they were never confused or interchanged as they are in the modern debate with the I Timothy 3 authoritative office.

While I wouldn't say the case is beyond reasonable doubt that men are qualified as I Timothy 3 deacons, it's at least a "clear and convincing case." It would be unwise on any doctrine, especially one as vital as governance of Christ's church to go against the clear and convincing testimony of Scripture.

In a generation that has a problem with authority outside of one's self, where men do not want the burden of leading and serving, women do not want the burden of following and helping, and children do not want to obey their parents, it works well in practice to see men leading. It provides a "safe" environment for men, women and children- but that is only an observation based on practice, I would not equate that as a sufficient basis for Christian belief and practice. Pragmatism is not the standard (but perhaps is a benefit, a blessing derived from obedience).

(I would be in favor of following I Timothy 5 for an office of servant widow- remember that is women, 60 years old, vow to remain unmarried, destitute financially, exemplary life pattern characteristics, etc. This model has nothing to do with what is being promoted by the esteemed Pastor in New York or others in the current debate- they are promoting something totally different- demeaning of the office of deacon)


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 6, 2009)

Simply put, I believe the Scriptures allow for women deacons, but not ordained or commissioned. In other words, they have gifts common to deacons, serve alongside the deacons, but they are not ordained, nor do they serve in a position of authority. They are appointed by the deacons to the work. 

This might shock some of you, but I believe women can also have pastoral gifts, but again, they do not preach, they are not ordained, nor do they have any authority, but they can exercise these gifts among the women.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 6, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Does the Bible "allow" offices it doesn't "command"? It reminds me of something Gillespie said within the context of the subject of worship.
> 
> "How absurd a tenet is this, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that which God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?"



Josh, I wrestled with this some when selecting the word 'allow'. If it were a command, then congregations would be required to have them- most who defend women deacons will not say that each congregation is required to have them, but they are allowed to have them in the deaconate. That is why I chose the word.


----------



## jawyman (Nov 6, 2009)

I personally believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear as to the qualifications for the office of deacon. It is difficult to get around the masculine pronouns of the Greek as well as having only one wife. This is an age-old argument and the liberal church will twist Scripture to say what they want it to say rather than what it really says. Some use Gal. 3:28, Acts 16:14-15, and Acts 2:17 just has some examples to support women clergy, so they will twist Scripture again to support the notion of deaconesses. This is just my  worth.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 6, 2009)

jawyman said:


> I personally believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear as to the qualifications for the office of deacon. It is difficult to get around the masculine pronouns of the Greek as well as having only one wife. This is an age-old argument and the liberal church will twist Scripture to say what they want it to say rather than what it really says. Some use Gal. 3:28, Acts 16:14-15, and Acts 2:17 just has some examples to support women clergy, so they will twist Scripture again to support the notion of deaconesses. This is just my  worth.



I agree however, the masculine pronouns in greek, if at least one man is being described --> there could be 100 women, if one man is among them being described, it would still be a masculine pronoun. So that isn't really a quality argument.


----------



## MarieP (Nov 6, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> After having studying this carefully first biblically, then in terms of the witness of church history- the basis answer I would say, by clear and convincing evidence is "NO."
> 
> A few reasons:
> 
> ...



Wanted to say I agree with the arguments against deaconesses, but I disagree with an office of "servant widow" Although the idea of having a "widow's list" is something that I'd be for!

Another argument I've heard against the office of deaconess is that there surely were women who were qualified in the early church to take care of the widows! And yet no women were chosen.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 6, 2009)

I think it's obvious how I answered this one...


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 6, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I think it's obvious how I answered this one...



Why is it obvious? I am in a denomination that has had women deacons for 121 years- and I answered 'no'.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 6, 2009)

> *MarieP*
> Wanted to say I agree with the arguments against deaconesses, but I disagree with an office of "servant widow" Although the idea of having a "widow's list" is something that I'd be for!



You're right about the "widow's list."

Widows have always had a special place in God's Word and have presented particular challenges to the church. In many generations and in many cultures widows were very vulnerable (still can be). 

If they did not have provision from their husband, and had no means to support themselves, the church "put them on the list" as "widows indeed." This meant the church was taking financial support on for them.

Looking back at church history, it appears that the widows were often required to devout themselves to service work in the church in return for becoming a public charge of the church. Paul establishes a minimum of 60 years because re-marriage and family are not likely to be major distraction they would be, understandably so, for younger women.

These truly needy women, who would not re-marry and thus have support of a husband served as servants "deaconess" in the church. In effect, it was a paid position, sealed by vows (among them not to re-marry) and might be considered an office of sorts. It appears that through all of church history, until modern revision starting about 1960, this was the scriptural basis foronly model looked to for what were, from sometimes called 'deaconess'.

If you are interested in reviewing this more, Brian Schwertley has an excellent paper on this, from both the standpoint of Scripture and church history.
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html

In Mr. Calvin's time, it appears that while the church was not completely following I Timothy 5 qualifications, these serving women were under vows not to marry, were indeed destitute, and very clearly under the authority of the (men) deacons and elders. They were not interchangeable with men as deacons. It was nothing like the present debate, which is demeaning of the office of deacon.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 6, 2009)

nleshelman said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's obvious how I answered this one...
> ...




Same here, except the number of years is smaller.


----------



## TaylorWest (Nov 6, 2009)

Context is King!

Is it wrong under current PCA BCO language? Yes, not permitted.
Is it wrong to consider it an authoritative office? Yes, under any biblical standard.
Is it wrong to call women who are appointed to help the male deacons fulfill their obligations deaconesses? No, Scripture itself does so.

The rub here for me is the desire to appease feminists (both male and female feminists) by granting a title indicating an authoritative status to those who should be in submission. 

Since, in the US at least, the term deacon carries with it a connotation much narrower than in the ancient Greek, who really thinks of the word 'servant' when they hear the term, it seems we have to be much more careful with it. 

Maybe it would help if we dropped the term altogether and just used the word 'Servant' to refer to the office of deacon. A bunch of the troubling issues could be avoided. And I dare say, we might not hear such a clamor for women to be granted the honor of such a title. 

In any case, women should not be serving on the Board of Servants along side men, making the decisions with men, in cases dealing with oversight issues. Should they be consulted concerning those cases? Certainly, where appropriate, but not making the decisions.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 6, 2009)

nleshelman said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's obvious how I answered this one...
> ...



Well, given the recent thread on deaconesses and Redeemer, I thought my position was pretty clear. I am for deaconesses...


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 6, 2009)

> *TaylorWest*
> Is it wrong to call women who are appointed to help the male deacons fulfill their obligations deaconesses? No, Scripture itself does so.



One reason I think it unwise to use this term within our presbyterian polity is that both unordained men and unordained women help the deacons. Our polity sets up more or less of a parity of both men and women doing this and does not confer title.



> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and
> ...



It's not a case of women getting a title for assisting, and men not- the idea being that one doesn't need (or expect) title for serving.

It also does not seem wise to create a culture in the local church where service of every sort demands title. And remember, in PCA polity, at least, these are men and women appointed by the session to help the deacons.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 6, 2009)

The Missus informs me that the ironclad answer is "No," and for perfectly reasonable grammatical reasons.

You see, "women" is a noun, whereas "female" is an adjective.

A noun is not meant to modify a noun, so saying "women deacons" is nonsensical.

If the survey said "female deacons," that would be another matter. 

I still would vote no.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 6, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> The Missus informs me that the ironclad answer is "No," and for perfectly reasonable grammatical reasons.
> 
> You see, "women" is a noun, whereas "female" is an adjective.
> 
> ...



I fixed it just for you, Mr. Picky.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 6, 2009)

Everyone's a critic.


----------



## jawyman (Nov 6, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> > I personally believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear as to the qualifications for the office of deacon. It is difficult to get around the masculine pronouns of the Greek as well as having only one wife. This is an age-old argument and the liberal church will twist Scripture to say what they want it to say rather than what it really says. Some use Gal. 3:28, Acts 16:14-15, and Acts 2:17 just has some examples to support women clergy, so they will twist Scripture again to support the notion of deaconesses. This is just my  worth.
> ...



I guess this is why I don't chime in very often on the board anymore. I admit I did not have the Greek text in front of me, but based off most English translations "man or husband of one wife" is used as a qualification to either the office of elder or deacon. The Scripture state clearly the qualifications for church offices and the liberal denomination use passages that have nothing to do with the qualification. It is my opinion that the office of deaconess is unbiblical and the liberals will twist this how they want to get what they want regardless of the truth of Scripture.


----------



## Skyler (Nov 6, 2009)

The answer is obviously "maybe".


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 6, 2009)

I'm opposed to the idea of deaconettes. I mean female deacons.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 6, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > *TaylorWest*
> > Is it wrong to call women who are appointed to help the male deacons fulfill their obligations deaconesses? No, Scripture itself does so.
> 
> 
> ...



It should be noted that the mere appointment by the Session of assistants to the board of deacons is NOT the point of controversy.

We're not talking about 'assistants to the deacons' but full members of diaconate boards, who are all but ordained deacons, and are female. The language and prescriptions of the BCO are VERY clear, and are being skirted (pun fully intended) by those who elect by congregational vote and then 'commission' deacons and deaconnesses rather than elect and ordain deacons and then have the Session appoint helpers to the diaconate.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 6, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> The Missus informs me that the ironclad answer is "No," and for perfectly reasonable grammatical reasons.
> 
> You see, "women" is a noun, whereas "female" is an adjective.
> 
> ...



Tell the missus to get an unabridged dictionary and look it up.  The term "women" can also be an adjective Women Definition | Definition of Women at Dictionary.com (see, I can split hairs with the best of 'em).


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 6, 2009)

> (I would be in favor of following I Timothy 5 for an office of servant widow- remember that is women, 60 years old, vow to remain unmarried, destitute financially, exemplary life pattern characteristics, etc. This model has nothing to do with what is being promoted by the esteemed Pastor in New York or others in the current debate- they are promoting something totally different- demeaning of the office of deacon)



To this, I would agree. Widowed, 60+ years, destitute, godly, OK. 

Otherwise, no.


----------



## William Price (Nov 6, 2009)

No.


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 6, 2009)

TaylorWest said:


> Context is King!
> 
> Is it wrong under current PCA BCO language? Yes, not permitted.
> Is it wrong to consider it an authoritative office? Yes, under any biblical standard.
> ...



Really? I'd be interested to know what passages you are thinking of here. If you're referring to Romans 16:1 then I think there are a few things we should keep in mind.

As we all know, the word used in that passage can either be translated as "deacon" or "servant". This has been exploited by proponents of deaconesses for a long time, but the problem is the Greek word there (diakonos) is used in many different ways throughout the New Testament. 
John uses it in his gospel when speaking of Christ's first miracle at the wedding. The people who bring him the containers of water (which Christ later turns to wine ) are called _diakonos_. Paul also uses this term just a few chapters before Romans 16:1 when he discuss the government, in Romans 13:4 Paul says that the ruler is "God's _diakonos_ for your good." Even in Romans 15:8, Paul says "For I tell you that Christ became a _diakonos_ to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness..." In all of these cases we see inspired authors using the word _diakonos_ in a way that no one would translate as deacon. Does anyone argue that the servants at the wedding were deacons? Or the government? Or even Christ? In my mind, to translate the same word that Paul has been using to mean servant, and translate it as deaconess, is stretching things quite a bit. 

*Note: I am an uneducated lay-person and I wrote this without any of my reference materials around me, so if anyone sees an error please forgive me and feel free to correct it! *


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 7, 2009)

Hey, I was originally ordained by a group with women pastors and presidents of seminaries!  The issue of "female deacons" was a no brainer for them . . . as long as they were not baptized as infants.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Nov 7, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> > I personally believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear as to the qualifications for the office of deacon. It is difficult to get around the masculine pronouns of the Greek as well as having only one wife. This is an age-old argument and the liberal church will twist Scripture to say what they want it to say rather than what it really says. Some use Gal. 3:28, Acts 16:14-15, and Acts 2:17 just has some examples to support women clergy, so they will twist Scripture again to support the notion of deaconesses. This is just my  worth.
> ...



Does the wording in Greek still say "husband of one wife"? Would that be more clear than using a pronoun like "he"?


----------



## LeeJUk (Nov 7, 2009)

Yes


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 7, 2009)

One problem we will face in greater measure in coming days is the increasing adoption of trajectory hermeneutics by putatively "evangelical" seminary profs. I keep hearing William J. Webb's book _Slaves, Women and Homosexuals_, cited as "suggestive," "hermeneutically nuanced," and the like. Webb says that the moral commands of the bible were, being a significant improvement over the surrounding cultures, relevant to the Christians who lived at that time, but possibly not for modern Christians. This approach allows interpreters to claim that they are being "biblical" while standing 180 degrees opposite clear prohibitions in Scripture.

A more modest step in the same direction was the kind of argumentation regarding women made by my friend (and former parishioner) David Scholer. David's temporizing approach to the issue was the fig leaf countless evangelicals used to claim that they were "biblical" while promoting the ordination of women.

I don't expect it to make many inroads in places like the PB. However, even though Webb comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is a cross-cultural prohibition, this "modification" (actually abandonment) of analogia fidei will continue to bedevil us as our society continues its pell mell flight to radical egalitarianism.

The older I get, the scarier these modern "modifications" seem to me. I am grateful for the work of groups like the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and denominations that stand "contra mundum."


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 7, 2009)

> *DMcFadden *
> 
> I don't expect it to make many inroads in places like the PB. However,



And based on the promises of God Word, I can assure you, it won't make any "inroads" with God.

This makes more clear why there will be a full accounting by every person on the day of judgment (believers and nonbelievers alike), and a complete revelation of what we spent our time thinking, saying and doing while on earth.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 7, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> One problem we will face in greater measure in coming days is the increasing adoption of trajectory hermeneutics by putatively "evangelical" seminary profs. I keep hearing William J. Webb's book _Slaves, Women and Homosexuals_, cited as "suggestive," "hermeneutically nuanced," and the like. Webb says that the moral commands of the bible were, being a significant improvement over the surrounding cultures, relevant to the Christians who lived at that time, but possibly not for modern Christians. This approach allows interpreters to claim that they are being "biblical" while standing 180 degrees opposite clear prohibitions in Scripture.
> 
> A more modest step in the same direction was the kind of argumentation regarding women made by my friend (and former parishioner) David Scholer. David's temporizing approach to the issue was the fig leaf countless evangelicals used to claim that they were "biblical" while promoting the ordination of women.
> 
> ...



The main thing that brought me out of the PC(USA) was the realization that the same hermeneutic that was used to defend and promote homosexual ordination was used to defend and promote women's ordination.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 7, 2009)

...add to that NT Wright's NPP and all the other 'theologians' cheering about the 'inclusiveness' of their god, and we are in an age of rejection and self-justification disguised in obfuscation.


----------



## Nathan Riese (Nov 7, 2009)

I'm writing an exegesis paper of 1 Timothy 3:11 right now.

It's not possible on the basis of this passage to allow deaconesses. there's no proof. The only reason to allow them would be if you believed it was sin _not to allow them_, in which case there is no conclusive exegesis for that. Therefore, since we know that male deacons are conclusively inclusive in this text, but that deaconesses are inconclusively inclusive, and there is no reason to believe it would be a sin to not include deaconesses, one runs a risk of sinning by allowing deaconesses (if, in fact, it is wrong to allow deaconesses) and one does not run a risk of sinning by not allowing deaconesses. Therefore, the most expedient thing to conclude is to not allow deaconesses. *In my humble opinion*. this is just my very own conclusion for my personal beliefs.

In other words...there is no reasonably conclusive exegesis allowing deaconesses, so why push for their allowance if it isn't sin to not allow it, but it might be sin to allow it?


----------



## TaylorWest (Nov 7, 2009)

*Phoebe (a Deaconess?)*



Hamalas said:


> TaylorWest said:
> 
> 
> > Context is King!
> ...



Romans 16:1 is not so easy. I haven't totally studied it yet, but I find it very interesting that Paul way of commending Phoebe is very similar to the way he commends other servants who deliver letters to the churches. It seems that Phoebe is the one by whom Paul sent this letter. Is she an officer, no, but she is not simply a woman who donated time and money to the cause. See 1 John as well for how the letter carriers are commended.


----------



## Edward (Nov 7, 2009)

Nathan Riese said:


> In other words...there is no reasonably conclusive exegesis allowing deaconesses, so why push for their allowance if it isn't sin to not allow it, but it might be sin to allow it?



Because we have to conform to the culture or we we won't be popular with the folks whose opinions matter to us?


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 7, 2009)

TaylorWest said:


> Romans 16:1 is not so easy. I haven't totally studied it yet, but I find it very interesting that Paul way of commending Phoebe is very similar to the way he commends other servants who deliver letters to the churches. It seems that Phoebe is the one by whom Paul sent this letter. Is she an officer, no, but she is not simply a woman who donated time and money to the cause. See 1 John as well for how the letter carriers are commended.



Also, note that both Nero (Romans 13:4) and Jesus (Romans 15:8) are called servants (_diakonos_) in the same part of the same letter. I'm pretty sure neither served as a deacon of a local congregation.


----------



## David J Houston (Nov 7, 2009)

*..*

I'm leaning towards saying no at the moment but I just finished reading through the late Edmund Clowney's _The Church_ in the _Contours of Christian Theology_ series and I remember him making a case for deaconesses that found it's main support coming from Romans 16:1. I know he was one of Keller's profs so maybe we know where he's getting it from?


----------

