Excerpt from the book edited by Dr. Steve Woods
Should Women Be Ordained As Deacons?An Exegesis of the Holy Scriptures in Examination of the Propriety of the Ordination of Women as Deaconsby the Rev. Stephen R. Woods, D.Min., Th.D.Introduction: Let me say at the outset that this treatise is not intended to offend anyone, nor is it intended to undermine any legitimate role of women in the church. Women are vitally important to the church. This kind of exegesis, by its very nature and regardless of which side of the issue might be here represented and espoused, will seem polemical. I fear it must be so, but may the reader bear in mind always that that which is sought by the writer, by the grace of God, is merely to express the truth of Scripture and to keep our denomination accountable to the infallible and fully authoritative Word of God.
The question as to whether or not it is appropriate to ordain women as deacons has been one that has arisen in recent decades in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and has been discussed in the courts of other Presbyterian denominations as well.
Gordon H. Clark wrote:
The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, "All Synods ... may err, and many have erred." Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/reviews/journal.asp?ID=016a.html)
There was, of course, a time when such a practice would never have been entertained for a moment in the ARP Church, which has always professed to maintain the infallibility, and the final authority of Holy Scripture. However, some have more recently voiced a desire that the ARP Church needs to get more in step with the world, and with sundry denominations which seem to revere the Holy Writ ever less. It is my contention, and I trust, the contention of all ARP elders, that we are duty bound to follow the Scripture and not the world.
It is for this reason, among others, that this matter is so vitally important. It is simply not enough to remand the matter back to the lower church courts, as was done in the past by the ARP Synod. At its June, 2000 meeting, the ARP Synod elected to defeat a Memorial which would have eliminated the practice of ordaining women to the diaconate, and also elected not even to refer the matter to their Synod Committee on Theological and Social Concerns for study.
Does the ordination of women to the diaconate represent a vestige of liberalism within the ranks of the ARP and other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations which profess to hold to Biblical inerrancy? This question must be answered. It is time to put on the whole armor of God, and stand firmly against any liberalistic syncretization in the ARP Church. Some may, of course, disagree with my position on this issue. As this debate will continue, may they, as well as those who would agree, be encouraged to make known their views in writing. This issue should not be "personal" and all should feel free to speak out in a spirit of Christian love without the need to be at all fearful. Thus, debate on the merits of the Biblical issue is encouraged.
Dr. J. Gresham Machen wrote these sobering words:
Modern liberalism in the Church, whatever judgment may be passed upon it, is at any rate no longer merely an academic matter. It is no longer merely a matter of theological seminaries and universities. On the contrary, it (is an) attack upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith ... It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men. (J.G. Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 17, 79).
Thus, as we who truly love and respect the Word of God continue to consider this issue, it is incumbent upon us to seek not the direction of the world and its institutions, but rather to seek to determine the meaning of the Bible in this regard, and then simply to abide by the Word. Our duty is clear ... crystal clear. We must abide by what the Word says; not what we think it ought to have said, and not by any other supposed authority; I hope that all involved in this discussion would agree upon that premise.
Moreover then, we must be doers of the Word of God, and not hearers only. We must have the courage of our convictions, and our convictions must be based upon the Word of God ... it does not matter what the cost of obedience is. Romans 12:1 tells us that total commitment is our reasonable service. Thus, may it never be otherwise. That is our duty to our sovereign God.
To be sure, we must bear in mind that the Scripture is a consistent whole. No part of it may be set at odds with any other part, for all parts are true and correct. Further, to disobey the Word for the sake of some misconceived notion of pragmatism is simply sinful, and such disobedience must not be either tolerated or tacitly approved in the Church.
Let us, then, consider the precious Word of God in a spirit of true Christian love for all our brothers and sisters ... not in a spirit of tolerant sentimentality (which is often mistaken for true Christian love), or in a prideful spirit, but rather in a spirit of true Christian love, for theological and ecclesiastical error serves none of us; and thus, the eradication of error lovingly serves all of us.
An Examination of Scripture:
First, it would be well to consider the teachings of the Word of God through the Apostle Paul with regard to the proper roles for women in the church.
1.Timothy 2:11 -- Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
It is obvious from this text that the roles of men and women in the family and in the church are to be different. Both genders have important roles to play, but those roles are not the same. Clearly, the men are to assume the roles of leadership. It is their duty and their responsibility, and God has equipped them for it. Thus, the Bible, here, and in many other texts as well, entirely rejects the postmodern philosophical and epistemological ideas of egalitarianism. Just a few verses later, the Apostle says beginning with 1.Timothy 3:10:
3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
In 1.Timothy 3:11, the Greek word gune (goo-nay’ ... Strong’s #1135) is here translated as wives, but could possibly be translated less specifically as simply women. Which way is correct? Of the five most popular English translations of the Bible in Protestant churches, three translate here as wives while two translate as women. The King James, New International, and New King James versions translate gune as wives, while the New American Standard and New Revised Standard versions translate it as women.
Now, if the appropriate translation is simply women, then this single verse of Scripture would seem to indicate that women might be ordained as deacons. However, if the more specific translation of wives is demanded, then the question is entirely settled at this juncture; women may not be ordained as deacons.
What clues do we have then to help us ascertain which translation is appropriate? It is not enough to say that a fair conclusion may be drawn simply because a majority of popular translations say wives, but this does point to some uncertainty most particularly in modern times regarding this question. Let us then look at some clues which will guide us to the appropriate translation:
1. The linguistic context demands a translation of wives. In the following verse (1.Timothy 3:12), gune is used again and obviously means wife. Therefore, it is likely that wife is the intended translation in verse 11. Additionally, the Greek word andres is used in this passage and is translated appropriately as husband. To my knowledge, during all the discussions in which I have been involved on this issue, no one has ever suggested that andres should be translated simply as man (as would be allowable in common koine Greek usage), for indeed, the passage would make no sense at all, and would even seem (in the latter case) to powerfully diminish the sanctity of the marriage covenant itself! There is, then, no cause or reason at all to attempt to translate gune merely as woman in this passage. Rather, there is every indication that the passage should be rendered exactly as the KJV, NIV, and NKJV render it, and thus, women may not be ordained to the diaconate according to this Biblical standard.
2. Also, it is impossible for a woman to satisfy the conditions imposed upon deacons in verse 12. Those who favor the ordination of women generally argue that in 1.Timothy 3, there are qualifications given for male deacons, and then qualifications given for female deacons (due to the presence of the Greek phrase hosautos in verses eight and eleven). Under this construction, verse 12 must apply to female deacons only or it must apply to all deacons, both male and female; for it cannot be restricted under the hos autos construction, to only male deacons (by those who favor the ordination of women), for the reason that it appears in the second set of qualifications which must include the women (There is no hosautos at the beginning of verse 12 to set off another separate group). To be sure, a woman may not be the husband of one wife, nor is she allowed to rule her house, as the headship of the household is clearly the responsibility of the husband (see Ephesians 5:22-24; 1.Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16). Therefore, under the hosautos grammatical construction, women may not be ordained as deacons.
3. Note that, if both male and female deacons are in view in this passage (i.e., 1.Timothy 3), that the qualifications for male and female deacons are different, and it seems extremely unlikely that these qualifications should differ substantially. Moreover, it is my contention that this new translation of verse 11 fails to consider the overall context of Paul’s remarks beginning back in chapter two where the women are not allowed to teach nor to usurp authority over the men. This conflicts with the charge to deacons to rule their houses well. Indeed, one must have authority over the household in order to rule it well.
In addition, although there are some exceptions, the great reformed theologians in past centuries seem to have had no trouble whatsoever in interpreting this verse in agreement with our contentions here. But for the record, I will select one who wrote prior to the King James translation of gune as wife, and for whom English was not even a first language. John Calvin wrote concerning 1.Timothy 3:11 the following:
He means the wives ... of deacons ..., for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others. (Calvin’s Commentaries)
There are many other linguistic and theological authorities which may be quoted in support of this position. Here is a very abbreviated list:
Matthew Henry cites "wives" as the appropriate translation of "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 (Comm. 6:657).
Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, recognized scholar in Biblical languages, writes that "wives" is the appropriate translation in I.Tim.3:11.
Dr. Jay P. Green, Greek scholar and author of the Interlinear Greek/English New Testament, translates "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 as wives, and not merely women.
The Very Reverend Dr. H.D.M. Spence, with his associates, Joseph S. Exell and P.J. Gloag, editors and authors of the respected Pulpit Commentary Series, wrote that "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 refers to the "wives of both deacons and elders."
Dr. Marvin R. Vincent, Koine Greek scholar and author of Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, categorically translates "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 as "wives." (This is significant in that our opponents on this issue have exhaustively cited A.T. Robertson, who does indeed render the translation of "women" for "gune" in the referenced verse).
Dr. John Gill rendered the appropriate translation of "gune" in I.Tim.3:11 as definitely "wives."
David Guzik rendered "wives" in I.Tim.3:11.
Alexander Strauch, in his recent book on the subject of ordained church leadership (Biblical Eldership, An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Lewis and Roth Publications. 1995, p.279) wrote: "Deacons must meet specific qualifications that are similar to those required of the overseers ... Because of the way they serve the congregation, they must be men in whom the saints have confidence and trust. In order to do their work effectively, the deacons must be men of proper moral and spiritual character."
John Nelson Darby wrote, "The apostle next points out to Timothy the qualities necessary for a bishop or a deacon, as well as for the wife of the latter.* [* So it would read in English, but I see no reason why it should not apply to the elders’ (bishops') wives. It runs really thus, “In like manner the] deacons .... In like manner the] wives.” (This reference to the hosautos [i.e., "in like manner" trans.] construction is much more reasonable and appropriate)
The revered 1599 Geneva Study Bible says that "gune" means "the wives of pastors and deacons."
1056AD Church Constitution: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved ..."
The Peoples New Testament Commentary agrees with the 1599 Geneva Bible and with Rev. Dr. Spence, rendering "the wives of deacons and elders."
Dr. Charles Ryrie rendered "wives" for "gune" here, commenting that "if Paul had a different group in mind in verse 12, he would have finished the qualifications for deacons before beginning the qualifications for deaconesses."
G. Campbell Morgan agreed, writing, "the deacons must be men" with respect to the ordained office.
There is a great deal of evidence here from able Biblical scholars which runs contrary to the present policy of Churches and denominations which allow the ordination of women to the diaconate.
Authority:
Some may say, ordaining women deacons can be justified because the deacons have no authority in the church, as authority resides only in the Session. Notwithstanding our other Scriptural arguments, this argument must also fail.
Brian Swertley wrote:
While it is true that deacons are not pastors or ruling elders and do not vote with the session, they still have an ecclesiastical authority in the church that is clearly forbidden to women. The deacons are the financial officers of the church. The collection of tithes and the management of God's money is in itself an authoritative function forbidden to women. The collection of tithes and the management of church funds has always been restricted to men. In the old dispensation the Levites held this responsibility; in the synagogue, the chazanim; and in the Christian church, the deacon. … The deacons are the leaders, organizers, financial decision makers and ordained authoritative church officers whom God has appointed over this ministry. (http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm#Ordination)
Consider the Standards of the ARP church. I quote to you from the ARP “Form of Government” concerning the ordination of deacons. I quote the “Charge to the Congregation” as it is to be stated by the presiding officer, who says these words when deacons are ordained:
Do you, the members of this congregation, acknowledge and receive these fellow members as deacons, and do you promise to give them all the honor, obedience, encouragement, and assistance in the spirit of love to which their office, according to the Word of God and the Constitution of this Church entitles them? (1997; P.190).
The members of the congregation must answer affirmatively to this question. Note the congregation declares both obedience and assistance to ordained deacons. Thus the deacons do have explicit authority in the church under our own Form of Government. Otherwise, obedience to deacons would not be required of those in the congregation, and therefore, the ordination of women deacons in the ARP Church clearly violates 1.Timothy 2:12 -- But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.
Some have said that, although deacons do make everyday decisions concerning certain secular affairs of the church, they have no authority because they report to the Session, wherein a higher authority in the local church exists. Again, this contention must fail. A simple example serves to illustrate the reason. A captain in the army has authority over sergeants (and corporals and privates, etc.), even though the captain must report to generals (or colonels or majors, etc.). The captain still has real authority. A private who disobeys his captain will surely find out about that authority! Similarly, deacons do have authority in the church, even though a higher authority does exist which is superior to them in role. Moreover, the ARP Standards should not be changed with regard to the charge to the congregation cited above which calls for the deacons to receive obedience and assistance, and because women may not usurp authority over the men, then these deacons, to whom obedience is rightly due, must be men.
Interestingly, ARP Standards have not always allowed the ordination of women to the diaconate. Although I am uncertain with regard to the exact year that women were first allowed to become ordained as deacons in the ARP (It was around 1970), the ARP Standards from the years 1908, 1953, 1955, 1958, and 1964 (These are the specific editions that I have reviewed) (Constitution of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church: Section on Government: 1953; pp. 34-35: and 1955 and 1958 Constitutions; p. 17, [and 1964 reprint of 1958 Constitution] pp. 34-35; and the Constitution of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod of the South: Section on Government: 1908; p. 23) clearly call for ordained deacons in the ARP Church to be men only. Is it not at least possible that the advent of feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s influenced our denomination to liberalize its Standards in the way that it has? For our opponents in the ARP Church to say that the issue was debated and decided in 1971, and therefore, need not be debated again, indeed assumes not only that the correct decision was made in 1971 (which we contend was not the case), but also that the reasoning employed prior to that time which forbad the ordination of women to the diaconate (a condition that had existed for almost 170 years!!!) was in error. Was this "Synod of the Seventies" indeed wiser than its predecessors in the ARP Church?
There is yet another reason why the argument to ordain women deacons must fail. You see, we believe that the Presbyterian form of church government is the correct one according to the Holy Writ. I think we are right on this point ... but what if we are in error and the Congregationalist view is correct? Southern Baptists, for example, see deacons as the ruling officers of the church (clearly having authority), whereas the ordained ministers are the only elders (i.e., presbyters or bishops). If they are correct regarding church government, and women might in fact be biblically ordained as deacons, then women deacons would have authority in their church, and this would clearly be an error and in direct opposition to the teachings from the Word. None of us would deny that Southern Baptists are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and that the Southern Baptist church is a true church, though we would surely disagree with many of them on certain issues. Would we set an example for them, our brothers and sisters in Christ, whereby they would be encouraged by us to err in this way from the Word of God?
Potential Counter-Arguments Treated:
Some additional potential counter-arguments have been put forth in favor of ordaining women as deacons. One has said, “If Deborah could be a Judge of Israel, why can our ladies not be deacons?” If this argument were valid, women should be allowed to hold any office in the church! The Scripture does not preclude a woman from serving as an Old Testament Judge of Israel, but it does preclude her from serving as an ordained deacon (or elder) in the church.
A second counter-argument has been put forward which posits that the Greek verb "authenteo" in 1.Timothy 2:12 must be construed to be limited to a specific kind of authority, namely, judicial/governing authority in the church, and then further, this counter-argument contends that only elders possess this particular kind of authority. Although the scope of authority which Paul had in view may be limited, it is clear that authority resides in deacons from our own Standards. Morever, there is no warrant for this kind of specific restricted definition either from the context or from the literal meaning of the word itself. It simply means “to usurp authority” (Strong’s #831) or “to exercise authority” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Jay P. Green, Sr., p. 641). Paul is clear. It is therefore my earnest contention that women may not “exercise authority” over the men; thus a woman deacon, who is given authority over men in the church who hold no ordained office, holds that authority and therefore that ordained office in error according to 1.Timothy 2:12.
Another argument goes like this: “We just do not have enough men willing to serve as deacons, and therefore, our women must serve.” However, this is pragmatism, and it is not based upon the Word of God which admonishes us against such pragmatic attitudes. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12). It is granted that the men of the church today need to be more committed to it, but this does not justify the violation of the Word of God with respect to its policies concerning ordination.
Yet another contention is that the Greek Word diakonos is used to describe Phebe in Romans 16:1. In common usage, diakonos may be translated as deacon or servant. Of our five most popular translations of the Bible into English, only one, the NRSV contains the translation of diakonos here as deacon. The other four (KJV, NIV, NASV, and NKJV) appropriately translate diakonos here as servant. The reason seems clear. There is no mention of officers, offices, or ordination in the church in Romans 16:1, and there would be no reason or need to “assume” such a meaning, especially in the light of a preponderance of Scriptural evidence which militates against such a reading as that which is contained in the NRSV.
The earliest reference to the diaconate outside of the New Testament is found in Hermas’ (ca. 90-150 A.D.) Similitudes 9-27 as he refers to deacons as "such as have been set over inferior ministries" (Samuel Miller, An Essay in the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church, New York, 1831, p. 221, emphasis added). It is important to note the similarity of language between Hermas’ "set over" and the request of the apostles in Acts 6:3 to choose men to "appoint over." It is the language of presidency of leadership. This is more explicit in Origen (ca. 185-254 A.D.): "The Deacons preside over the money tables of the church." Elsewhere he uses manage (ibid., p. 221, emphasis added). It is also noteworthy that Eusebius (d. 380 A.D.), Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.), Jerome (345-419 A.D.) and other ancient fathers saw Acts 6:1-4 as the institution and inception of the New Testament diaconate (ibid. pp. 222ff.). Irenaeus was first to do so (C.R.C., Report 32, p. 501).
Calvin quotes the Apostolic Canons (XL, Fulton, Index Canonum, pp. 93f.; McNeill, Institutes, p. 1073, f. n.) in his Institutes, Book IV, ch. IV, sect. 5: "We decree that the bishop have in his power the affairs of the church. For if the souls of men (which are more precious) have funds, so that on his authority all things may be distributed to the poor through the presbyters and deacons, and be administered with fear and all carefulness" (emphasis added).
The ancient period gives clear testimony to the fact that the office of deacon was viewed as one of authoritative leadership in temporal service. [from http://www.opc.org/GA/GA_papers.html (There are two papers at the bottom of the page about women in office and the second one has a long section devoted to the question of women deacons. Be encouraged to peruse this link for a very thorough and sound exegesis regarding this question.)]
Certain early church fathers have been cited as approving of the ordination of women deacons. Although there may be such citings, be reminded that their works are not fully authoritative, and that those works were written by men who may err. To be sure, the works of all the ante-nicene and post-nicene fathers are quite voluminous, but when I surveyed those works, I found the following quotations which lend credence to the position that the ORDAINED deacons must be men, and underscoring the fact that the ORDAINED deacons have authority in the Church. Here is just a sampling of that study:
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ ... And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments ... Fare ye well in the Lord Jesus Christ, while ye continue subject to the bishop, and in like manner to the presbyters and to the deacons.” – Ignatius (Epistle to the Ephesians).
Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Let the laity be subject to the deacons ... THE DUTIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FLOCK: Ch. 6: Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Ye presbyters, be subject to the bishop; ye deacons, to the presbyters; and ye, the people, to the presbyters and the deacons. ... I salute the sub-deacons, the readers, the singers, the doorkeepers, the laborers? (Ignatius -- Philadelphian Epistle)
Those, then, also now, who have exercised themselves in the Lord’s commandments, and lived perfectly and gnostically according to the Gospel, may be enrolled in the chosen body of the apostles. Such an one is in reality a presbyter of the Church, and a true minister (deacon) of the will of God, if he do and teach what is the Lord’s; not as being ordained by men, nor regarded righteous because a presbyter, but enrolled in the presbyterate because righteous. And although here upon earth he be not honored with the chief seat, he will sit down on the four-and-twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Apocalypse. (Clement of Alexandria)
He was one of the seven deacons who were appointed in the Acts of the Apostles. (Tertullian; showing that those seven who were given authority – appointed over the business -- were considered to be Deacons)
But when persons in authority themselves  I mean the very deacons, and presbyters, and bishops  take to flight, how will a layman be able to see with what view it was said, Flee from city to city? ... Exercise the mystery of Christ, O deacons, with purity; therefore, O ministers, do the commands of your Master; do not play the person of a righteous judge; strengthen your office by all things, as learned men, looking upwards, always devoted to the Supreme God. Render the faithful sacred ministries of the altar to God, prepared in divine matters to set an example; yourselves incline your head to the pastors, so shall it come to pass that ye may be approved of Christ. (Tertullian)
... deacons, who had been twice married, and thrice married, began to be allowed to retain their place among the clergy. If also, however, any one who is in holy orders should become married, Callistus permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as if he had not sinned. (Hippolytus)
This warning, indeed, our presbyters and deacons ought to have given you, that they might cherish the sheep committed to their care, and by the divine authority might instruct them in the way of obtaining salvation by prayer. (Cyprian)
Cyprian to the whole people, greeting. Although, dearest brethren, Virtius, a most faithful and upright presbyter, and also Rogatianus and Numidicus, presbyters, confessors, and illustrious by the glory of the divine condescension, and also the deacons, good men and devoted to the ecclesiastical administration in all its duties, with the other ministers, afford you the full attention of their presence, and do not cease to confirm individuals by their assiduous exhortations, and, moreover, to govern and reform the minds of the lapsed by their wholesome counsels, yet, as much as I can, I admonish, and as I can, I visit you with my letters. (Cyprian)
The following is a list of presbyters and deacons from the 3rd Century:
Alexander, presbyter, Arpoocration, presbyter, Dioscorus, presbyter, Agathus, presbyter, Nemesius, presbyter, Dionysius, presbyter, Longus, presbyter, Silvanus, presbyter, Eusebius, presbyter, Perous, presbyter, Apis, presbyter, Alexander, presbyter, Proterius, presbyter, Paulus, presbyter, Nilaras, presbyter, Cyrus, presbyter.
Ammonius, deacon, Ambytianus, deacon, Gaius, deacon, Macarius, deacon, Pistus, deacon, Alexander, deacon, Dionysius, deacon, Athanasius, deacon, Agathon, deacon, Eumenes, deacon, Polybius, deacon, Apollonius, deacon, Olympius, deacon, Theonas, deacon, Aphthonius, deacon, Marcus, deacon, Athanasius, deacon, Commodus, deacon, Macarius, deacon, Serapion, deacon, Nilus, deacon, Paulus, deacon, Romanus, deacon, Petrus, deacon. (Presbyters and Deacons at Alexandria, 3rd Century) ... at ALEXANDRIA, 24 deacons are listed and they all have male names; also at MAREOTIS (20 deacons listed, all male names) The odds of this occurring by happenstance are an amazing one in two to the 43rd power, which is an astronomically small probability.
Finally, pragmatism has been raised as a justification for the ordination of women to the diaconate. Some would argue that, because women have already been ordained as deacons in their church, that the practice must now be perpetuated. However, when pragmatic traditions lie contrary to Scripture, those traditions must be abandoned. What must be done with women who already hold the ordained office of deacon? Well, to be true to the Word of God, they ought to resign that office immediately. However, whether they resign or whether they do not, what ought to be done seems clear enough. May the Church never recognize pragmatic considerations as authoritative, but rather may it always recognize the Holy Writ as its authority in all matters about which it speaks.
An Actual Example:
One text in Scripture gives us an example of the actual selection of deacons for the ministry. In Acts 6:3, seven men were appointed as deacons and no women were appointed. This certainly, again, lends credence to the belief that women were not to be ordained in this way, but men only. Had it been allowable to ordain women, it is interesting that no women were so chosen. Even if it were conceded that it would be allowable to ordain women here, the odds that all selected would have been men, given seven selections and two genders, are 1/128, or 127 to one (that is, less than a one percent chance that this would happen the way that it did).
Some might argue that these seven men were not appointed to be deacons, but it is clear that they generally served the function of deacons in the Presbyterian system today. Note that they were appointed over the business affairs of the ministry for the expressed purpose that the apostles could better be devoted to prayer and the ministry of the Word, that is, preaching and teaching. As they were “appointed over the business,” it is clear that a certain kind of authority was vested in them, although they served under the direction of the apostles themselves.
Our Sister Denominations:
Most would agree that the two denominations which are most closely akin to the ARP doctrinally are the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).
Allow me to quote an excerpt from the cogent arguments offered on this subject from the OPC web-site:
The Office of Deacon
1. Biblical
Is the office of deacon open to women? Admittedly this is a difficult question to settle exegetically but not, we think, impossible. Therefore we offer the following considerations in support of the position that Scripture does not authorize the ordination of women deacons.
a. Acts 6:1-6 records the first official appointment, not of deacons in the sense of that office mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:8ff., but of those who were to oversee the distribution of what was given to meet the needs of the church’s poor in Jerusalem. The difference between the Seven and the later deacons appears from the fact that at least two of the former (Stephen, 6:7ff., and Philip, 8:Sff., 26ff., 21:8) continued to carry on substantial word-ministries, the kind of ministry apparently excluded from the activity assigned to the latter. The apostolic appointment of the Seven seems to have been a temporary, ad hoc arrangement, which nonetheless quite properly guided the church "analogically" in the later development of the diaconate.
In the light of the preceding paragraph it would be precarious to draw a conclusion from the exclusively male character of the Seven to the exclusion of women from the diaconate. At the same time, however, we should not overlook or minimize the authority vested in the Seven (and hence, eventually, in the diaconate). Specifically, they were entrusted with authoritative oversight of distributing to the poor; in that sense they were overseers (v. 3 "appoint over" A.V.).
b. Philippians 1:1 ("the overseers and deacons")â€â€ÂÂthe only New Testament passage where the two offices are paired in a single phraseâ€â€ÂÂsays nothing directly about the issue of women deacons. It is worth noting, though, that no conclusions ought to be drawn from either this pairing or the respective designations concerning the authority of each office, either absolutely or relative to the other. There is to be sure, no New Testament instance of elders being called "minister" or "servant" (diakonos), but Christ himself is so designated (Rom. 15:8; cf. Matt. 20:28) as is Paul, as an apostle, repeatedly (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:6; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25). Conversely, as we noted, in the light of Acts 6 deacons can be viewed as overseers. Certainly the eldership, in view of its assigned responsibility for the ministry of the word, has a certain priority or leading function in relation to the deed/mercy ministry of the diaconate. But, we submit, it would have been entirely in keeping with New Testament teaching for the elder also to have been called a diakonos (after all, "minister of the word" has become a customary description of some who occupy this office, cf. Acts 6:4); nor would there have been anything inappropriate in the occupant of the office of mercy being designated by episkopos. An element of authority resides in the office of deacon; authority, oversight, in that sense, "rule" is at issue for the office of deacon as well as the office of elder.
c. Romans 16:1, 2 and 1 Timothy 3:11 are the two passages usually appealed to as referring specifically to (official or ordained) women deacons. Careful exegesis of the two passages in context, however, shows that such a reference is by no means certain nor, in the case of 1 Timothy 3:11, more likely; the result in each case is an exegetical standoff.
In the case of the Romans 16:1, 2, taken by itself, diakonon, applied to Phoebe, is naturally, perhaps even more likely read as a fixed or official designation. (To observe that such a reading would hardly be questioned if the person referred to were a male is gratuitousâ€â€ÂÂmale deacons are clearly mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, while this would be the only reference, without any other New Testament support, to a woman deacon.)
But there is nothing in the passage that demands an official sense. Nor is there anythingâ€â€ÂÂin either the syntax or the reference to Phoebe as prostasis - that makes it unnatural to take diakonos here in the less specific, nonofficial sense it has elsewhere in the New Testament. The view of Cranfield, for instance, that a general reference here is "perhaps just conceivable" is too grudging as well as exegetically unwarranted; such a reference is quite natural. It should be noted that in only three out of thirty New Testament uses of diakonos is the official sense clearly warranted (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12).
In 1 Timothy 3:11 the perennial debate, going back at least to the Greek Fathers, is whether "women" (gunaikas) refers to (a) women deacons (deaconesses) or (b) deacons’ wives. That all the women in the congregation are in view, as sometimes proposed, can be dismissed, since the immediate context is concerned with special or particular groups within the church.
In favor of (a), apparently the view inclined to, more or less decisively, by the majority of modern scholars, and against (b) are the following arguments:
(1) the adverb "likewise," "similarly" (hosautos) repeated from verse 8, points to a new category or class of officials, as does the list of qualities parallel to those in verses 8-10;
(2) if deacons’ wives were in view, we should expect an article (tas) before "women," or at least the pronoun "their" (auton);
(3) to single out deacons’ wives while making no mention of overseers wives would be very strange;
(4) although the New Testament does not know the technical term "deaconess" (diakonissa), this verse, together with Romans 16:1, hints at that office, alluded to already in Pliny’s letter to Trajan (A.D. 112) and firmly in place in the church’s life by the third to fourth centuries.
In favor of (b) and against (a) are the following considerations:
(1) to interrupt a description of the qualifications for (male) deacons (verses 10, 12) by injecting qualification for women deacons would be awkward and unlikely; much more plausible, despite (2) above, is that the "women" of verse 11 have some auxiliary or dependent identity in reference to deacons, most likely, that of being their wives;
(2) if Paul had wished to introduce a separate class of women deacons it would have been easy for him to make that clear by introducing tas diakonous either directly after or instead of "women;"
(3) that Paul would mention the wives of deacons but not of overseers may be explained by the likely suppositions (1) that, like deacons themselves, their wives would be younger and therefore relatively unknown and their lives subject to more intensive scrutiny, and (2) that by virtue of the differences between the two offices deacons’ wives could be more directly and extensively involved in the official activities of their husbands than would be the case with overseers’ wives;
(4) later in the letter a lengthy section is devoted to ordered women workers or ministrants in the church (the "enrolled widows" in 5:9-16); note the similarity between the requisite qualities in 3:11 and those for older women in Titus 2:3, where there is no question of women deacons;
(5) the most likely antecedent to the eventually emergent office of deaconess is the order of widows;
(6) "if some women were deacons, further qualifications would be unnecessary" (Gordon H. Clark, The Pastoral Epistles, The Trinity Foundation, 1983, p. 61).
A perusal of these two sets of arguments reinforces the aptness of Kelly’s remark that 1 Timothy 3:11 "contains a puzzle which will probably never be solved to everyone’s satisfaction"; neither set is decisive.
d. For both passages, then, the issue of women deacons will have to be settled by other relevant considerations, if present, from their immediate and wider contexts. The context of Romans 16:1, 2 appears to provide nothing pertinent; the description of Phoebe as a diakonos remains ambiguous. But the immediate and larger context of 1 Timothy 3:11 definitely weighs against a reference to women deacons.
Our reasoning is as follows. As shown above (III B), Paul’s exclusion of women from the eldership in 1 Timothy 2:12 rests, not on a presumed constitutional inability of women to teach or exercise authority but on the unique, covenant-based analogy between the family and the church ("God’s household" 3:15). The structure of authority in the home and in the church mirror each other; the headship of elders in the church answers to the headship of father (and husband) in the family.
The question, then, is this: is the diaconate, too, an office from which women are excluded by the church-family analogy? Is the point of that analogy special office as such or only the office of elder? Put another way, does the exercise of authority over men prohibited to women in 2:12 only have in view the offices of elder or the office of deacon as well?
At least three contextual considerations favor the more comprehensive exclusion.
(1) The requirements for overseer (verses 1-7) and deacon (verses 8-10, 12, 13) are linked in a parallel fashion. "Likewise" (hosautos, verse 8) functions to reinforce that parallel, but the parallel itself, as the large degree in overlap of specific requirements for each office shows, does not depend on it. Philippians 1:1 (the "overseers and deacons," distinguished within the congregation as a whole) underscores this parallel. By virtue of the parallel, then, if women are excluded from the one officeâ€â€ÂÂunless there be some offsetting consideration(s)â€â€ÂÂthey are excluded from the other.
(2) More pointedly, the parallel is made explicit on the issue of authority. In verses 4, 5 and 12â€â€ÂÂnote in virtually identical language; the parenthetical comment of verse 5 applies equally, following verse 12, to deaconsâ€â€ÂÂa requirement for both the deacon as well as the elder is that each must manage/lead/rule (proistemi, cf. 1 Thess. 5:12) his own family if he is to take care of God’s church. Certainly the sphere of ministry assigned to each is different, nonetheless there is a parallel between the authority of the eldership and that of the diaconate.
Further, the rationale for that parallel authority is also made explicit. It lies in the analogy between family and church. In both instances, for the deacon as well as the elder, at issue, by analogy, is the authority of headship in the home, the authority of the father/husband. In that light, the parallel requirement that the overseer/deacon, if married, be "the husband of but one wife" (vss. 2, 12) is a further argument against women deacons.
(3) What in effect is the topic sentence for the entire section (2:1-3:16) is found in 3:15: "how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household." The location of this paragraph sentence, occurring immediately after the qualifications for deacons, confirms that the family-church analogy, as that analogy involves the exclusion of women from special office, still controls the argument to that point. The exercise of authority over men prohibited to women in 2:11, apparently, includes the office of deacon as well as that of overseer.
Nothing in this section of the text offsets these three observations, unless we insist, without adequate warrant as we have seen, that 3:11 by itself demands a reference to women deacons.
To resist this conclusion and seek to maintain a place for women in the diaconate, we wish to observe, seems to have some unanticipated consequences, least of all acceptable to the advocates of this view. If we hold that women may be deacons but not elders, the question is inevitable: why does the family-church analogy function to exclude women from the office of elder but not from special office in general? The answer to this question cannot now be found in the idea of office as such but will have to be sought instead in the difference, in content, between the two offices. That, in turn, (1) will involve recourse in some form to the sexist view that constitutionally women do have the capacity for deeds of mercy but not for the presumably more demanding task of expounding and teaching the word of God, and so (2) will also result in a devaluation of the diaconate as lower or less important.
Within the broader controlling context, then, 1 Timothy 3:11 does not refer to women deacons. There is some merit to the suggestion (cf. Fairbairn) that Paul is deliberately vague or general in his reference to "women;" in view are both the wives of deacons who were sometimes associated with their husbands in diaconal activities as well as other women who, without being set apart officially, were entrusted with various kinds of diaconal service (perhaps best expressed in the translation "deaconing women"), especially, in view of the greater separation between the sexes in the culture of that day, among women.
If this treatment of 1 Timothy 3:11 in its broader context is sound, then the passing, ambiguous reference to Phoebe as diakonos in Romans 16:1 must give way to that more substantial New Testament teaching that women are not to serve in the office of deacon.
... The issue of women deacons is a difficult one to resolve exegetically. But the relevant New Testament data do fix the coordinates of a trajectory pointing to the conclusion that women are not to be ordained as deacons. Nor does the New Testament make provision for a separate office of deaconess in parallel with the elders and deacons.
The Church Historical a. The nature of authority in the diaconal office The purpose of this section of the report is to set forth selections from church history on the nature of the diaconal office as it concerns authority. The question before us is whether or not the diaconal office bears the authority which Paul expressly forbids women to exercise in 1 Timothy 2:12.
(1) Ancient and medieval period The earliest reference to the diaconate outside of the New Testament is found in Hermas’ (ca. 90-150 A.D.) Similitudes 9-27 as he refers to deacons as "such as have been set over inferior ministries" (Samuel Miller, An Essay in the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church, New York, 1831, p. 221, emphasis added). It is important to note the similarity of language between Hermas’ "set over" and the request of the apostles in Acts 6:3 to choose men to "appoint over." It is the language of presidency of leadership. This is more explicit in Origen (ca. 185-254 A.D.): "The Deacons preside over the money tables of the church." Elsewhere he uses manage (ibid., p. 221, emphasis added). It is also noteworthy that Eusebius (d. 380 A.D.), Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.), Jerome (345-419 A.D.) and other ancient fathers saw Acts 6:1-4 as the institution and inception of the New Testament diaconate (ibid. pp. 222ff.). Irenaeus was first to do so (C.R.C., Report 32, p. 501).
Calvin quotes the Apostolic Canons (XL, Fulton, Index Canonum, pp. 93f.; McNeill, Institutes, p. 1073, f. n.) in his Institutes, Book IV, ch. IV, sect. 5: "We decree that the bishop have in his power the affairs of the church. For if the souls of men (which are more precious) have funds, so that on his authority all things may be distributed to the poor through the presbyters and deacons, and be administered with fear and all carefulness" (emphasis added).
The ancient period gives clear testimony to the fact that the office of deacon was viewed as one of authoritative leadership in temporal service.
Neither the OPC nor the PCA allows the ordination of women to the diaconate, and I commend them for their positions. The Form of Government of the OPC clearly states this position as follows:
Chapter V., paragraph 2.: Our Lord continues to build his church through the ministry of men whom he calls and endues with special gifts for teaching, ruling, and serving. Some of these special gifts can be most profitably exercised only when those who possess them have been publicly recognized as called of Christ to minister with authority. It is proper to speak of such a publicly recognized function as an office, and to designate men by such scriptural titles of office and calling as evangelist, pastor, teacher, bishop, elder, or deacon. ...
Chapter XXV., paragraph 1.: Every congregation shall elect ruling elders and deacons, except in extraordinary circumstances. Those elected must be male communicant members in good and regular standing in the church in which they are to exercise their office. (From: The Form of Government, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2000 edition, last revised 1995)
Upon inquiry to the PCA regarding this issue, they sent me the following statement:
Women, like men, are created in the image of God. In the PCA we have a national organization known as Women in the Church (WIC) which functions under the aegis of the committee of Christian Education and Publications. The PCA has consistently held the distinction between office and function. The office of ordained elders and ordained deacons are reserved for qualified men only. We believe this is a Scriptural teaching – specifically, in the Old Testament the office of the priesthood was open only to the Aaronic line of men. Others, including other Levites were not permitted to exercise this office. In the New Testament, the apostles were appointed by Christ, and they in turn appointed elders, who were qualified men, to the office. Women may teach and assist the officers by exercising all kinds of functions. But the authoritative roles of elders and deacons in the body of Christ are reserved to men.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, therefore, we shall not relent in our entreaty to the ARP Synod to, at least, consider the overwhelming weight of Biblical evidence against the propriety of the ordination of women as deacons. Even if some of you still have some doubt, consider this: Is it worse to omit to do something which may, by some slim possibility, be permissible; or is it worse to insist overtly upon doing something that is probably forbidden by the Word of God?
Gentlemen, the latter error is far worse than the former. Respect for the Word of God must guide us such that we will not engage in practices that are as very highly questionable as the ordination of women to the diaconate. Regrettably, the position of the ARP Synod (at its 2000 meeting) to allow individual Church Sessions to continue to decide whether to ordain women or not, has remained unchanged, and the Synod further voted not to refer the matter to its Committee on Theological Concerns even for study.
Let us not suffer from the same kind of pragmatism that has infected so many other denominations. Pragmatism serves no purpose but to place us on the slippery slope of apostasy. Our tradition must be a tradition that adheres to the Bible as the final authority in all matters about which it speaks. We must not and cannot recognize any practice that arise purely out of pragmatic concerns.
Many, of course, say that we should tolerate the ordination of women out of love for them, and because we wish never to give any offense to anyone for any reason. However, gentlemen, this kind of tolerance is far from loving, and in fact, does not exhibit Christian love for our ladies at all ... quite the opposite. To tacitly encourage our ladies to accept roles for which God has not prepared them is most unloving, and we must not do it. Tolerance of any unbiblical practice is not an exemplification of Christian love. Paul told us to speak the truth in love. Love entails the speaking of the truth.
True love does not cower from the truth, but rather declares it openly. True Christian love must not be confused with liberal tolerant sentimentality which most often turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to sin and error, and is far from Christian in its essence. All are benefitted when error is exposed and eradicated. We must hear the Word in order to know the difference between truth and error, but being right is not enough. We must be doers of the Word and not hearers only. Bear in mind that it is the truth that we must seek.
This writer surely realizes that there will be those who disagree, and I have invited them and I continue to invite them to make their views a matter of record, and to enter the debate on this issue. Perhaps through that refinement, God will grant us His grace and His wisdom and will show us an ever more nearly complete picture of His truth. It is not my intention here to attack anyone or to try and impugn the motives or attitudes of anyone involved (Some have apparently gotten that impression and I wish to completely allay that suggested concern ... I love the Word of God and I love His Church; we will not always agree in our interpretations, but we can disagree in Christian love for the whole Body of Christ). It is however my intention to focus attention on this issue which I believe is an important one for us today in the Church.
Thus, I call upon the Church to have the courage to stand where the Scripture stands, to speak where it speaks, and to be mute where it is mute, regardless of what anyone might think about that. We must, therefore, forbid the ordination of women as deacons.
The Rev. Stephen R. Woods, D.Min., Th.D.
|
 |
