Woman deacons?

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
We visited a church last year for a few months or so and really enjoyed many things about the church, especially the Sunday School class we attended where they went through an RC Scroul video series. We were uneasy about a few things, one of them being that they had all men elders, but a man or a woman could be a deacon.

Since I just couldn't bring myself to rejoin the church we'd left several years or so back, I'm back searching for another church to attend. Since the church we'd visited last year was one of my favorites, I thought I'd check into why they allow women to be deacons. I visited their website, found their church constitution where it talked about qualifications for becoming a deacon, then I wrote the church an email talking about this part of their church constitution and asked for additional information about their biblical reasons for allowing women to be deacons. The church secretary wrote me back and said that she had forwarded my email to the pastors.

Anyway, while I'm waiting, I'm just wondering if there is any biblical justification for allowing women to be deacons? What's the strongest argument in favor of allowing them to hold the position?

Any thoughts?

Another question: If one of the main negatives of a church was that they allowed women to be deacons, would this in an of itself be enough to keep you from joining?
 
...Another question: If one of the main negatives of a church was that they allowed women to be deacons, would this in an of itself be enough to keep you from joining?

I that was the main negative, I'm sure I could find some other reasons. :lol:

Then again, if that were the only negative...well that one's basic enough that I'd find it hard to believe there weren't some others beside. It's just hard to imagine a church that got everything else right and mess up with women deacons. Can it be done??
 
I that was the main negative, I'm sure I could find some other reasons. :lol:

Then again, if that were the only negative...well that one's basic enough that I'd find it hard to believe there weren't some others beside. It's just hard to imagine a church that got everything else right and mess up with women deacons. Can it be done??
You know, brother, its so easy for me to look at a church and see its negatives and dwell on them. No church is perfect, so I'm going to resist getting into this church's negatives.

I've got a theory, though, about this church's negatives. If I took the negatives I could find about the church and put them on one side of a balance, then had the church look at me and put my negatives on the other side, I know which side of the balance would move in the downward direction.

Anyway, is there any way to justify from the scriptures having women as deacons?
 
Very good article. All members of the church should be active in the ministry of the body whether men or women. The question is are the women functioning as deacons at this church ordained or not ordained as deacons.
:ditto:
 
Very good article. All members of the church should be active in the ministry of the body whether men or women. The question is are the women functioning as deacons at this church ordained or not ordained as deacons.

In the article I found this which may shed some light on the question:

"The practice of the Presbyterian Church in America may come close to what the Bible teaches. Only men are ordained to the office of deacon. The elders are encouraged to 'select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.' The church permits congregations to commission women to the ministry of deaconess. At places like Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, deaconesses carry out service identical to that of the deacons. Apart from ordination, the only difference between them is that some diaconal needs call for uniquely masculine or feminine ministry."

Also, on their website that the women are referred to as "deaconesses" and listed separately on the website as seen here:

http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=13
 
In the article I found this which may shed some light on the question:

"The practice of the Presbyterian Church in America may come close to what the Bible teaches. Only men are ordained to the office of deacon. The elders are encouraged to 'select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.' The church permits congregations to commission women to the ministry of deaconess. At places like Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, deaconesses carry out service identical to that of the deacons. Apart from ordination, the only difference between them is that some diaconal needs call for uniquely masculine or feminine ministry."

Also, on their website that the women are referred to as "deaconesses" and listed separately on the website as seen here:

http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=13

Is this true of the PCA? I assumed it was the PCUSA.

I cannot think of any biblical reason that would allow for deaconesses that would not also allow for elderesses. For that reason I would be wary of attaching my self to that body because it might be on a slippery slope.
 
This is not a "slippery slope". I know in the PCA that is the way that the issue is usually framed, but I don't buy it.

In the ARP we have had (unordained) deaconesses for years with it NOT leading to a movement to ordain women to the eldership.

I am convinced that the debate in the PCA is a result of influence on the Presbyterian church by American Baptist culture. Since Baptists (ordinarilly) conflate the office of elder and deacon the pop christian view (default position) is that the offices are more similar then they are different.

This is NOT the traditional Presbyterian view. Since we see the office of deacon as (primarily) an office of service and not leadership, women are not (ipso facto) excluded.

By the way if they are not deaconesses, what do you call those single women who devote their lives to missions as nurses, teachers, etc?
 
I believe the RPCNA has allowed woman deacons for well over a century. I'm not sure there is really a slippery slope here.
 
In the ARP we have had (unordained) deaconesses for years with it NOT leading to a movement to ordain women to the eldership.

Really? Why then does the ARP position paper Women in the Life of the Church state that "The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church discussed and debated [the ordination of women to all offices] with vigor from the 1960's until the early 1980's."?
 
I believe the RPCNA has allowed woman deacons for well over a century. I'm not sure there is really a slippery slope here.

As one who has served as a deacon in the RPCNA, I can testify that, sadly, there is indeed a "Christian feminist" wing in the RPCNA. Brian Schwertley has shown that the 19th century movement to ordain women deacons in the RPCNA (which also occurred at the rise of the temperance movement) did in fact lead to a 20th century movement to ordain women elders in the RCPNA, which was thwarted in large measure by J.G. Vos. But the effects of feminism within the RPCNA remain a source of great concern for many.

Brian Schwertley, A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons:

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Covenanter), 1888

The first Presbyterian denomination in the United States to ordain women as deacons was the RPCNA This decision was the result of an R.P. church's decision to elect a woman, Miss McConnell, to the diaconate. The congregation, located in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, referred the matter to the Pittsburgh Presbytery which passed the matter on to the Synod of 1888. The decision of the McKeesport congregation is recorded in the R.P. magazine Our Banner by the Ladies Missionary Society of the North Cedar congregation. Note the postmillennial enthusiasm implied in their statement.

The McKeesport congregation recently at an election for elders and deacons, elected to the latter a lady, Miss McConnell. The question is referred to Synod for its decision. At the December meeting of the North Cedar L.M.S., the following resolution was adopted: We, as the Ladies' Missionary Society of North Cedar R.P. congregation, send congratulations to Miss McConnell on her election to the office of Deaconess by the McKeesport congregation, urging her conscientious acceptance and faithful performance of the duties of that office; while we hope that the Synod of the R.P. Church will lay no obstacles in her way, and pray that the glories of the millennial morning may be withheld from us all until our Church can glory in her Deborahs, Huldahs, Annas, and Phoebes as her Deacons. [77]

These women are apparently saying that the beginning of the millennium should be postponed until the church allows women to be deacons. This statement reflects the "reforming" spirit of nineteenth century American evangelicalism.

The motion to ordain women as deacons was passed by a four-fifths vote. The R.P. seminary in Pittsburgh unanimously supported the motion. Some prominent R.P. seminary professors argued for women deacons at Synod and were instrumental in bringing about the almost unanimous vote. Dr. James Kennedy was on the committee on discipline which recommended to Synod that the motion be approved. "Your committee would reply that such ordination is in our judgment in harmony with the New Testament and with the constitution of the Apostolic church." [78] Some of the dissenters' names are listed in the Minutes of Synod for that year.

The motion under discussion at the hour for recess was taken up, and the item, as amended, was adopted. D. S. Faris asked leave to enter his dissent from the decision of Synod because the step was taken without due deliberation. D. C. Faris, Isaiah Faris, and J. C. K. Faris joined in this dissent. R. J. McCracken also offered his dissent from this action, as it is a departure from the law and order of the church and contrary to the word of God. J. F. Crozier, with elders Joseph Wallace, John E. Willson, and Robert McIsaac placed their names on record as dissenting from this decision. [79]

In order to understand how the RPCNA made such a quick and radical departure from hundreds of years of past church practice we must consider the Synod's decision in its historical context. The movement among Presbyterians in American and in Scotland to ordain women as deacons reached its peak during the 1880s. The movement in the PCUSA, led by B. B. Warfield, to introduce women into the diaconate reached its peak from 1888 to 1890. The PCUSA, unlike the RPCNA, was very cautious regarding the matter, took its time deliberating, and the motion was not approved at that time. Why was the ordination of women as deacons so popular among a number of Presbyterians during the 1880s? Romans 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 have been in the Bible since the first generation of Christians. Why the 1880s—not the 1580s, 1680s or 1780s? There is no reason to believe that the biblical exegesis done in the 1880s was superior to Calvin's, Knox's, Rutherford's, Gillespie's or Alexander Shield's.

The reason that many Presbyterians wanted to open the office of deacon to women had very little to do with the biblical evidence, which is lacking, and very much to do with the cultural climate at that time. There were a number of trends during the nineteenth century which placed women into the forefront of church activism: revivalism and its emphasis on human innovations for results (e.g., altar calls, women preachers), theological deterioration among congregationalists, the holiness or "second blessing" movement, the shift toward sentimentality and the feminization of Christianity, the fact that women composed most of the church members during the nineteenth century (in many areas women "constituted three-quarters of those joining some of the major churches" [80]), the prominent role that women had in the social reform movements (especially among abolitionist and temperance groups), the de-emphasis on theology and the emphasizing of experience, and the rejection of the regulative principle in favor of pragmatism. Church historian Mark A. Noll says of this period:

In the early nineteenth century, women remained the majority of those who adhered most closely to the churches. And it was at this point that changing social conditions and new theological emphases began to offer them more opportunities for public ministry. A more fluid social setting on the seaboard as well in the thinly populated regions newly opened to settlement and the rhetoric of democracy from the Revolution both served to advance women in the public practice of religion. In many areas of the country it soon became conventional to look upon women as the prime support for the nation's republican spirit. Mothers, it was thought, were the ones who could most effectively inculcate the virtues of public-spiritedness and self-sacrifice that were essential to the life of the republic. And such notions were increasingly linked to the idea that women had a special capacity for the religious life, as individuals who could understand intuitively the virtues of sacrifice, devotion, and trust that were so important to the Christian faith. [81]

Nineteenth century feminism was the direct result of women's involvement in the various reform movements coupled with the decline of biblical theology in America.

Intense female involvement especially in the areas of temperance (liberation from the bondage of drink) and abolition (liberation from the bondage of slavery) seemed almost naturally to spill over into growing concern for liberation from the social bondage of women themselves. The religious factor in that move was always prominent. The first formal call for fuller women's rights in society, including the right to vote, was issued from Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848, when active abolitionists, men and women, white and black, issued an appeal for the public rights of women. Conveners of the meeting were Lucretia Coffin Mott (1793-1880) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), both of whom had long been nurtured in centers of religious reform, Mott having served as an "acknowledged minister" in the Society of Friends and Stanton having taken a more conventional path through evangelical nurturing to social reform. [82]

In 1853 the first formal ordination of a woman as a preacher occurred in America. Antoinette Brown was ordained to the ministry of a congregational church. In 1859 the first book to defend a woman's right to preach was published. The book, written by Phoebe Worral Palmer (1807-1874), was entitled The Promise of the Father. Mrs. Palmer, like modern feminists, based her argument on Galatians 3:28 and Joel 2:28. Mrs. Palmer was a product of the holiness-second blessing "revivalism." [83] While many Presbyterians were not taken in by revivalism, many were involved in the reform movements. The various revivals in the nineteenth century and the "outward" success of many reform movements became equated in many Presbyterian minds with the dawn of postmillennial glory. Covenanter D. P. Willson equated the freeing of slaves and the larger role of women with the postmillennial hope.

In all this organizing, Christ Jesus is the Head, the Head of the body, the church, and in him there is neither bond nor free, there is nether male nor female, "we are all one in Jesus Christ." It took long years and much counsel to realize the first declaration.... The second declaration is realized as a fact today, but hardly fully as a doctrine; the last is coming.... And the working forces of God's people shall yet bring this rebellious and suffering world into the peace of God, under Christ our Lord. [84]

Since women were becoming more educated and were actively involved in the reform of society, and were even speaking effectively to large groups and holding positions of authority within reform societies, why withhold the office of deacon? While there is no question that pro-deacon Presbyterian church leaders attempted to prove from Scripture that women should be deacons, it was the "spirit of the age" which led them in the pro-women deacon direction to begin with. To get an idea how far the RPCNA was infected with "Christian feminism," listen to these comments by R.P. pastor Thomas Wylie:

We have had theorizing enough. Now let the exemplification go on. Christians love and treat their children alike in the family, public school, Sabbath school, and many of the privileges of the church. Why stop, when in Christ Jesus there is neither..."male nor female," &c.

As I have always striven to be in the vanguard in every moral and beneficial reform, I hope and pray for the time when nothing but physical or moral deficiencies will exclude women more than men from any position in church or state which they are found qualified to fill, and I hope that our church will "mount higher," until she at least awards to our brave missionary, Miss Wylie, of Latakiyeh, the position she richly deserves. I have seen some women in the pulpit, and could not raise any valid objection to any but one, and that one was one of the most noted women in the country, a leader in the temperance movement. But as she was an accomplished barrister, she acted and treated her subject in such a political and lawyer-style and spirit, that I thought such a one should not be allowed to speak in church, or usurp authority, but learn piety at home.

So we see that Paul is right yet, that while in some cases one rule will apply, in others it should not be enforced. [85]

Wylie hopes for a time when women can hold "any position in the church." Of all the women he has seen in the pulpit he only objects to one. The apparent reason is that she presented herself too forcefully. She preaches like a man. He apparently thinks that Paul's injunction that "women are to remain silent in the church" applies only in "some cases" but not in others.

The contention that ordaining women to the diaconate was more a product of the sprit of the times rather than an outgrowth of careful exegetical considerations is supported by an eyewitness and participant at the R.P. Synod of 1888, the Rev. D. S. Faris. In an article entitled "The Female Deacon and the Sentimental Overflow of Synod" Faris documents that what occurred at the Synod of 1888 was a rush to judgment based on sentimentality and an "overflow of enthusiasm."

...I wish to state those facts which, to my mind, prove that Synod reached its conclusions, not by means of deliberate and sober examination of the whole subject in all its bearings, but by "sentimental overflow." This word "overflow" was used by Dr. Kennedy himself to designate Synod's method of dealing with the subject. The Synod was borne along by the wave of popular sentiment, and did not act like a deliberative and judicial body. The only scholarly and effective argument in the case was that of Dr. Stevenson. The argument consisted, first, of a construction of certain passages of the New Testament, and second, of an argument based on allusions to the matter in the early fathers. No one was prepared to answer the patristic argument, on the spur of the moment; yet as Dr. Kennedy admitted, this line of argument is worthless, unless a foundation can be found for it in the word of God. The Doctor went about establishing the Scriptural foundation, evidently not with the deliberation and research of a scholar and a theologian, but as one borne along by the tide of sentimentalism. His first statement was that the direct Scriptural proof was wanting; but there are important things that are and must be taken for granted. He said that there is no direct proof that women were baptized or admitted to the Lord's table. This has always been taken for granted, and women's rights to these privileges have never been questioned. So, he said, women have been found doing work belonging to the deacon's office, and therefore we ought to presume that they were ordained. The Doctor in the rush of the overwhelming tide forgot the account of the baptism of Lydia and her household, recorded in Act 16:15. He would not have made such a mistake, if he had been following the matter in a cool, deliberate desire to obtain the truth. He knew better as soon as he had time to think, but he made his argument under the influence of what he himself called an "overflow," and not as a person searching and expounding the word of God deliberately....

Prof. Willson gave us no argument, but intimated, that from a thorough examination of the matter as a theologian, he had views that corresponded to the sentiment of Synod. He was surprised at the unanimous report of the committee, and equally surprised at the mind of the large part of Synod. The Professor should have given us the benefit of his theological researches, but contented himself by saying that he had heard no argument on the other side. Thus he brushed away what had been brought from the word of God, which seemed to demand some answer; and under the influence of the overflow, the Synod was willing to take for granted that the Professor was right, without hearing his reasons or exercising their own private judgment in the case. A few of us were not ready to vote for a measure which, to Presbyterians generally, will seem to be an innovation, at least without time to make up our minds prayerfully and carefully.

Another evidence of the overflow of enthusiasm, was the form in which the committee presented the matter at first, substantially as follows: "That we find nothing in nature nor in the word of God, to prevent a woman from holding the deacon's office." The second member of the committee was Dr. Kennedy, a well-known scholar and theologian, and would have known better than to have agreed to such a report, if at all sober and in his right mind. But being carried away by the enthusiasm in the committee, he agreed to it, and after the prelatical form of it had been objected to by myself, tardily found objections to the negative form of the report of his own committee. The Synod then changed it into the positive form, substantially as follows: "That we find it is agreeable to nature and the word of God that a woman should be ordained to the office of deacon."

Another fact showing the undeliberative character of the proceeding, was the statement by some of the advocates of the measure, in reply to the ground taken by Dr. George, that no authority is conferred in ordination to the office of deacon, but there would be in ordination to that of elder or preacher, and that authority on the part of woman is usurpation, that they were willing for woman to have her equal place with man in all offices, both in church and state. Thus no provision was made against the pressing of the matter further, in future, and the tide rushed onward overflowing the more cautious ground occupied by a few. Doubtless this flood-tide, if it be not checked, will carry women into all places of authority in church and state. Again, I would mention an argument of some one on the majority side, that it was necessary for us to take this step now, so as to continue to lead the churches in reform as heretofore. Reflection ought to convince such enthusiasts that leadership is not desirable unless in a Scriptural progress, and this ought to be first determined in a deliberate and constitutional manner. [86]

Faris's comments reveal a number of troubling things regarding the debate at Synod to ordain women as deacons. Faris reveals that there were members of Synod that wanted to open all church offices to women. This indicates that the feminist rhetoric of the preceding thirty years was having an effect on some members of Synod. (We can reach no other conclusion, considering the overwhelming and very clear scriptural evidence against women being pastors or elders in the church.) Other members of Synod argued that women should be ordained as deacons so the R.P. Church could lead other churches in the cause of reform. This supports the view that the popularity of putting women into the ordained diaconate was not based on a new, clearer, more objective understanding of Scripture, but was a direct result of the nineteenth century reform movements, especially the new Christian feminism. The fact that the R.P. committee which recommended women deacons to Synod originally rejected the regulative principle in favor of a "prelatical" argument further indicates that the motivating factor for ordaining women as deacons was not in the first place Scripture but was the cultural environment. These men had good intentions and believed they were doing a good thing for society and the church but in reality they were just following the latest "evangelical" [87] fad.

Faris's warning that "this floodtide, if not checked, will carry women into all places of authority in church and state" has to a large extent already taken place. The sentiments of R.P. pastors such as Thomas Wylie who wanted to open all church offices to women apparently was held by a number of R.P. pastors. Even as late as 1938-39 there was a concerted effort to ordain women as ruling elders.

The Synod of 1938 appointed a Committee on Ordination of Women Elders, which reported to Synod the following year. The committee report recommended the ordination of women to the ruling eldership. Philip W. Martin and Johannes G. Vos responded with a paper entitled "Are Women Elders Scriptural?" etc. [88]

J. G. Vos, who was an excellent scholar and highly respected within the denomination, was largely responsible for stopping the effort to ordain women to the eldership at that time. The present movement within the RPCNA to open all church offices to women is led by Faith Martin. This movement is a product of the feminism of the nineteen sixties and seventies.


Another interesting aspect of the Synod of 1888 from a constitutional point of view is "that the Synod...made an addition to the constitutional law of the church, without overture, and thus the rights of the sessions and the people have been invaded." [89] In order for a change to the constitution of the church to be made, a motion must be approved at Synod and then sent to the sessions for approval. If less than two thirds of the sessions approve of the change the constitution remains unchanged. The new constitution of the RPCNA, which was sent down in overture and approved in 1945, did state that: "Both men and women are eligible for the office of deacon." Thus, from 1888 to 1945, a period of 57 years, the ordination of women as deacons was a violation of the R.P. Church's own constitutional law. [90] Why did the Synod of 1888 refuse to send their approval of the ordination of women as deacons down to the sessions for approval? We know that it was not a mere matter of oversight on their part for the Rev. D. S. Faris brought the issue up twice in articles published in the denominational magazine. There is the possibility that the ordination of women as deacons, while popular among a majority of ministers at Synod (23 R.P. churches were not represented at the 1888 Synod), was not popular at the local session level. There is no way, however, at the present time to determine the cause of the 1888 Synod's usurpation of the sessions' and people's rights.
 
Really? Why then does the ARP position paper Women in the Life of the Church state that "The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church discussed and debated [the ordination of women to all offices] with vigor from the 1960's until the early 1980's."?

There was a movement to ordain (key word) women to the office of elder as a part of a larger leftward shift NOT because of women serving as UN-ordained deaconesses. This movement was defeated in the early 80's and has not been revived since.
 
In the article I found this which may shed some light on the question:

"The practice of the Presbyterian Church in America may come close to what the Bible teaches. Only men are ordained to the office of deacon. The elders are encouraged to 'select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.' The church permits congregations to commission women to the ministry of deaconess. At places like Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, deaconesses carry out service identical to that of the deacons. Apart from ordination, the only difference between them is that some diaconal needs call for uniquely masculine or feminine ministry."

Also, on their website that the women are referred to as "deaconesses" and listed separately on the website as seen here:

http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=13

That statement in bold is highly debatable.

The PCA Book of Church Order authorizes Sessions to "'select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, ..."

It does not authorize the Session to bestow any title of "deaconess" upon these female assistants.

In fact for a Session to do such a things create great confusion within the congregation. How does the Session propose referring to non-ordained male assistants?

Places like Tenth seem to be skating on very thin ice. Redeemer NYC seems to have gone even farther in their egalitarian ways. From their web site:

What is the Diaconate?

The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated and elected into the office by the Redeemer members, exists to express in practical ways Christ's command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves. We offer help to those in crisis or challenging situations by assessing their needs and working together to find solutions.

Again, how does one differentiate between the office of deacon as defined by the PCA and the office of "deacon" as defined by Redeemer?
 
You know what I mean.:handshake:

I am having a hard time following this thread. Probably because of the word 'ordain' that is thrown around in regards to deacons. Are you saying that anyone who serves Christ the way the Bible teaches has to have a title?
 
I am having a hard time following this thread. Probably because of the word 'ordain' that is thrown around in regards to deacons. Are you saying that anyone who serves Christ the way the Bible teaches has to have a title?

No.

The office of Deacon is distinct from the office(s) of Elder. An elder rules the the flock and sheperds it. Thus an elder can only be (in my opinion) a man. A deacon cares for the physical needs of the flock and can be a man or a woman.

In some (most?) cases women who are called to and serve as a deaconess are not ordained. This is normally done to distinguish the role of the sexes in this office. For instance (male) deacons may sometimes teach, and serve on committees of presbytry or synod. Although this does not make them "functionally equivalent" to elders the often function with elders. A (female) deaconess would not serve in this way.

Deaconesses are used on mission fields & at home to work in a serving capacity that is "official". Most women who serve the body as SS teachers, bible study leaders, hospitality & benevolence workers are laywomen. Jast as is the case with most men who do this work. That is as it should be.

However the church has always recognised and called men and women to serve in an "official' capacity as deacons. in my opinion the office of deaconess is a NT office and has clear scriptural support. Thus it can NOT be a "slippery slope" since the scripture allows it.
 
No.

The office of Deacon is distinct from the office(s) of Elder. An elder rules the the flock and sheperds it. Thus an elder can only be (in my opinion) a man. A deacon cares for the physical needs of the flock and can be a man or a woman.

In some (most?) cases women who are called to and serve as a deaconess are not ordained. This is normally done to distinguish the role of the sexes in this office. For instance (male) deacons may sometimes teach, and serve on committees of presbytry or synod. Although this does not make them "functionally equivalent" to elders the often function with elders. A (female) deaconess would not serve in this way.

Deaconesses are used on mission fields & at home to work in a serving capacity that is "official". Most women who serve the body as SS teachers, bible study leaders, hospitality & benevolence workers are laywomen. Jast as is the case with most men who do this work. That is as it should be.

However the church has always recognised and called men and women to serve in an "official' capacity as deacons. in my opinion the office of deaconess is a NT office and has clear scriptural support. Thus it can NOT be a "slippery slope" since the scripture allows it.

My mother is a deaconess at a PCUSA church but was not aware that it was practiced in the PCA as well. Perhaps that is the Presbyterian norm. It's just that I have never heard of it before.

So anyone who is a servant or a minister in any 'official' capacity is a deacon? If so, what is the difference between serving in an 'official' capacity as opposed to an 'unofficial' capacity?

The only reason some men are 'ordained' deacons is to distinguish the roles between between the sexes? If so, what are the different sex roles within the diaconate?
 
Ken,

Deaconesses are not the Presbyterian norm. Personally, I don't know how one could get around 1 Tim 3:8-13, especially verse 12 - "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." You would have to go through some serious hermanuetical gymnastics to say that women can be Deacons. Then to say that it is an "unordained" office is even more of a brain teaser. There is nothing in Scripture allowing for an "uordained" office.

It kind of reminds me of folks who try to get around speaking in tongues and giving prophecies (revelation with a small "r" versus the big "R" of Scripture).
 
Ken,

Deaconesses are not the Presbyterian norm. Personally, I don't know how one could get around 1 Tim 3:8-13, especially verse 12 - "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." You would have to go through some serious hermanuetical gymnastics to say that women can be Deacons.

And then, wouldn't it be possible, nay, probable, that those same hermanuetical gymnastics be used to justify elderesses? Thus the 'slippery slope'?
 
And then, wouldn't it be possible, nay, probable, that those same hermanuetical gymnastics be used to justify elderesses? Thus the 'slippery slope'?

Since the Scripture refer to "deaconesses" but not "elderesses" I would say, no.
 
In fairness to those who hold that women can be deacons, there is a difference in the structure of the qualifications for elder and deacon. The best arguments made for female deacons don't apply to female elders.

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

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. Their wives 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.

It is perhaps strange that the character of the man's wife should be examined in the case of the deacon but not the elder. However, I find it more strange to think that Paul is talking about deaconesses for one sentence and goes back to talking about deacons.
 
Women Can't Speak in Church

I'm pretty sure you're right. Women are to be silent in church and definitely can't teach men. They can teach Sunday school as long it's only kids.

The women in our church are never aloud to talk. They must submit to their husbands. If they are widows or old maids, they are encouraged to submit to the older women in church as well as the men.
 
I think this sheds light on me as to why some churches will allow for women elders. Eventhough I disagree with a female elder, the argument would probably go something like this:

Chris- hmmm, so you're an elder huh?
Susie- yep, I am
Chris- are you married to one wife according to the scriptures?
Susie- nope, one husband.
Chris- the bible says you must be married to one wife implying you must be male to qualify
Susie- let's crack the bible open a bit;
Phoebe was a deacon wasn't she?
Chris- yep
Susie- was Phoebe wrongfully or rightfully a deacon?
Chris- er, rightfully?
Susie- the same qualification of being married appears in the verse for the qualifications of the deaconate, What do you think of them apples?
Chris- er, let me go post something, brb

lol, a little humour but anyway, does anyone have an idea how to reconcile this. I'm opposed to females taking either potion, originally because I saw it clear, but I would still like to see how to reconcile this anyway.

:detective:
 
Women Can Lead Men...Outside the U.S.

Frank,

Let me confuse you more...

Women can lead men...in Africa, on the mission field, outside the U.S. Heck, they can be senior pastors and start their own church!

Why is it that they can't do that in the U.S.?
 
lol, a little humour but anyway, does anyone have an idea how to reconcile this. I'm opposed to females taking either potion, originally because I saw it clear, but I would still like to see how to reconcile this anyway.

:detective:

Try this on for size...

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples [unto them], and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve (diakoneo) tables.

The job of deacon arose to allow the elders to dedicate themselves to the Word and prayer.

Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The elders asked for seven men to be over the distribution of alms of the church to the poor. And that's what they did...

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

So we have the example of the early church establishing an 'office' of deacon filled with men of honest report, full of the Spirit, and wise.

Also, if women are not to be in authority in the church, then they should not be deacons because deacons are over the distribution of funds.

As I stated above, all Christians are supposed to be deacons in character, but only wise, Spirit filled men of good report are to be placed in the 'office' of deacon to be over the distribution of funds. In my humble opinion, of course.

Phoebe, God bless her, was a true deacon in character, as we all should be, but that does not mean she should be installed into the office of deacon.
 
My mother is a deaconess at a PCUSA church but was not aware that it was practiced in the PCA as well. Perhaps that is the Presbyterian norm. It's just that I have never heard of it before.

So anyone who is a servant or a minister in any 'official' capacity is a deacon? If so, what is the difference between serving in an 'official' capacity as opposed to an 'unofficial' capacity?

The only reason some men are 'ordained' deacons is to distinguish the roles between between the sexes? If so, what are the different sex roles within the diaconate?

It is not the Presbyterian norm and it has been the source of some controversy in the PCA.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top