Women Serving the Church as Deacons: Conclusion.

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

In conclusion, the following points are helpful to keep in mind:

1. An Elder and a Deacon have different roles and responsibilities in the church.
2. The office and title of Deacon does not imply the gender of the office-holder; therefore, the use of any term other than Deacon to title an ordained officer of the church who serves the church in the areas of "the ministry of mercy, the finances and property of the congregation, and such other tasks as are assigned to them by the session" is unbiblical and ought not to be used in any biblically organized church.
3. Because of the differences between the two church offices of Elder and Deacon, women may serve the church as ordained Deacons, but cannot serve as Elders.
4. Ordination is an act of the church recognizing that God has set apart a person for particular work in the church.
5. The qualifications for ordaining a person to a particular office are defined and limited by what the Scriptures teach about a particular office.
6. More work needs to be done to develop a biblical view of different types of authority within the church besides the teaching authority that comes with the office of Elder.
7. Different types of authority in the church must be taught and preached to church members at appropriate times so that church members can vote with biblical discernment in Elder and Deacon elections.
8. Teaching on different types of authority in the church may also have a positive effect on how the church understands congregational prayer, singing presenters, etc. as part of the worship service.
9. Although the work of Small Committee demonstrated that it is possible to believe that the seven men of Acts 6:1 - 7 were the first Deacons and maintain that Phoebe was a Deacon because of the nature of the church transitioning from the Apostolic period to the post-Apostolic period, the most consistent position of the office of Deacon recognizes the men of Acts 6:1 - 7 as holding a special office which led into the Deaconate. The office of the seven corresponds to the relationship between the office of Apostle and the office of Elder.
10. The texts cited in RP Testimony 25.8 must include a reference to both Phil. 1:1 and Rom. 16:1 - 2 to help future RP members and teachers understand the distinction between the office of Elder and Deacon is a biblical teaching and not a pragmatic compromise to the culture.

Women Serving the Church as Deacons: Brief Response to Christian Adjemian.

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

The pastor of First Reformed Presbyterian Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Dr. Christian Adjemian wrote a paper titled "On Women Deacons" last revised December 2008. Dr. Adjemian's paper appears to argue for the unique office of Deaconess, which Rev. Backensto's paper demonstrates is an unwarranted position. I have also demonstrated, that the office of Deacon has a categorically different type of authority than the office of Elder; therefore, Rev. Adjemian's comments about deacons not having authority in the church misses the point of having two church offices. The Deacon has authority in the church, but it a different type of authority than an Elder.

Many of his other comments, especially about structure, are very helpful. His sixth section answers many typical objections about the role of women in the church very well, with the exception of Deacons and church authority.

Women Serving the Church as Deacons: What are the Biblical Historic Origins of Women Deacons in the Church?

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

At the RPCNA Synod meeting of 2015 the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRef) asked the RPCNA two questions:

1. What are the historical origins of women deacons within the church?
2. Does the adopted report of Synod 2002 over-state its argument when it cities 1 Timothy 3:11 as the "clearest and most decisive text" for answering the question of women deacons?

I am not going to restate the paper; however, I thought I would highlight some important points mentioned in the paper by the Interchurch Committee. The report highlighted that the position of the RPCNA, currently, is that Acts 6 primarily does not categorically describe the origin of the office of Deacon. The report then refers the CanRef churches to Dr. Wayne Spear's book, Covenanted Uniformity in Religion. In the book, Dr. Spear has a section on how the Assembly debated the relationship between the office of Deacon and the events in Acts 6. Two minority views were formed on the issue. Presumably, however, the majority view was that Acts 6 was the creation of the diaconate. I have the book, but have not read it yet. The story does not end there, however. Out of these two minority views a committee formulated a two point response to the minority's arguments. Those two points — reported on by December 19, 1643 — read as follows:

1. The office of a deacon is perpetual in the church. I Tim. iii. 8, Rom. xii. 8. 2. It hath been debated in the committee whether it pertain to the office of deacon to assist the minister in preaching of the word, and administration of the sacraments; but it was not determined upon, but referred to the judgment of the Assembly.

The report then discusses some historical issues surrounding the debate. Apparently, a statement was adopted later in the Assembly which says:

The scripture doth hold out deacons as distinct officers in the church. Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8 Whose office is perpetual. Acts 6:1 ‐ 4 To whose office it belongs not to preach the word, or administer the sacraments, but to take special care in distributing to the necessities of the poor.

Notice how the Assembly's adopted position used Acts 6. The Assembly only used Acts 6 to establish the Deaconate as perpetual office in the church, but not as the origin of the office and not to show that the office of the Deacon was distinct from the office of Elder.

In addition, the 2015 report cities two writings published in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter magazine in 1888. The RP Archives has all the issues of this publication available for download. The two issues of particular interest are the October and November editions (pgs. 394 - 396; 424 - 448 of the pdf). In the November issue a committee of Synod known as the Small Committee published a detailed statement to explain the Synod's actions. Two other articles can also be found: one article expresses a dissenting opinion from the 1888 vote; and the other article is a transcript of the opening lecture given by Prof. D. B. Willson to start the academic school year at RPTS in 1888 on the question, "Should a Woman Be Ordained a Deacon?"

The work of the Small Committee is presented in three points:

1. "The institutions and provisions of the apostolic church were not all formally introduced at once, but from time to time, as they were found necessary to the comfort and edification of her members." — The Committee notes that the context of the need in Acts 6:1 - 7 was specifically to a certain group (Hellenists) and that the election was targeted to elect people within that group. The Small Committee agreed that by the time Paul wrote to the church in Philippi the office of Deacon was "recognized as a divine and permanent institution in all the churches."
2. "That the offices in the New Testament church are indicated both by official names given to the office‐bearers, and also by terms descriptive of their work." — New Testament words are used in two senses – the ordinary and the appropriated. In the New Testament church, the various names for office-bearers can only be determined by a careful study the context. "In its primary and ordinary signification the term rendered deacon simply means one who renders a service to another, and both it, and verb formed from it, are often used in this sense . . . But in time it has come to be chiefly used as a designation of a church office‐bearer, and though as a substantive it is not used of the seven (Acts 6:1 - 7), yet as a verb it is employed to express the nature of their work, 'to serve tables' (diakonein trapezais). We find this to be the case when we come across the word pastor, elder or deacon in an epistle, though no one is named specifically, we understand such persons exist in the congregations addressed. Hebrews 13:17 is such an example. Romans 12:6 - 8 presents us with “the several office‐bearers in the church are wholly designated by their work . . . Among these, ‘ministry’ (diakonia), the deacon’s work and office, is in its operations doubly described as ‘giving with liberality,’ and ‘showing mercy with cheerfulness.’ Therefore, when either the term deacon is used in connection with the church and her work, or when the work proper to the deacon’s office is clearly referred to, it is reasonably certain that a church officer is intended."
3. "That how far any ordinance or institution is to be enjoyed or exercised by members of the church, can only be learned by subsequent facts, not from the account of its first institution." — As a general rule, all members of the church enjoy all of the rights and privileges unless otherwise excluded from those same rights and privileges. The 2015 paper gives two examples of this idea outside of considering the office of Deacon: Baptism; the Lord's Supper. If we based our practice only on the sacraments when they were first given women would be excluded from receiving both New Covenant sacraments. Considering the practice of the administration of baptism, we have no example of women receiving baptism until twenty years after Jesus' ascension when Paul baptizes Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14 - 15). The Lord's Supper has a very similar pattern, Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 11:28 may prohibit women from the Table. However, the practice of this sacrament in Acts 1:14 - 2:42 demonstrates that Mary and other women were with the Apostles during Sabbath Day services and we can infer that the women were included because the text does not say anything about the women being excluded from the Table later in the passage. With these two examples demonstrating the rule being considered, we can now observe how the Small Committee applied this rule to the question of women Deacons. The Committee believed that the Acts 6 men were Deacons, but argued that this evidence alone does not exclude women from the office based on how the Deaconate was created. The new institution was adapted to the needs of the church when they appeared. After Acts 6:1 - 7 we have this new office created because of a need. Based on the Committee's second point, do we find in the rest of the New Testament any examples of women doing the work or being called Deacons in relation to a visible church and meeting the qualifications to be a Deacon? The paper says that if the second and third points are true of women then "they must be admissible to that office [the Deaconate]." It is at this point that the 1888 paper brings in Phoebe. Phoebe is a member of the church at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1); she is commended by Paul (Rom. 16:1) "to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (Rom. 1:7); she is called "a servant (διάκονον = deacon/servant) of the church at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1). The 2015 paper makes the observation that the Greek word διάκονον cannot mean Deaconess because the word is common gender, meaning that Paul did not intend to distinguish Phoebe's servant status on Phoebe's gender. The Committee concludes this third point by saying,

Now, we hold, that the word deacon is here used of Phoebe, not in its  primary or ordinary sense, but in its appropriated sense of a church officer, because she is spoken of in church relation. Had it been ‘a servant of God,’ or ‘a servant of the Lord,’ it would have proved nothing as to her holding office, because these expressions are applicable to all who are of the household of faith. But we are not aware that ‘servant of the church,’ or any similar expression, is ever used of persons except in official positions.

The 2015 report adds four additional examples of third point being demonstrated throughout the Bible as a type of short hand for other offices of official authority in the church:

1. Prophets and teachers at Antioch (Acts 13:1).
2. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor‐teachers in Ephesus (Eph. 4:11 - 16).
3. Moses was a servant in his house, no doubt referring to his official position in Israel, the Old Testament expression of the church (Heb. 3:5 - 6).
4. Paul assures Timothy that the church is the pillar and the ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Therefore, when Paul calls Phoebe a Deacon of the church of Cenchrea he must mean that she was an office-bearer based Paul's speech patterns in other writings. When Paul adds that "she has been a patron of many and of me also" (Rom. 16:2), the word translated "patron" is used to mean those who go before or are over others in any work. Paul uses this same word in 1 Tim. 3:3 - 4 to describe the qualifications of an overseer ruling their house. It was not uncommon for Paul to send "messengers of the church" (2 Cor. 8:16 - 24) to raise or distribute money.

The Small Committee summarized its entire argument by saying,

The principle is plain. To a woman belong all corporate rights in the church unless specifically excepted, as is the case as regards the ministry and eldership, whilst it cannot be shown that the deaconship is excepted but the contrary is established. In fact her rights here are fuller and plainer than her right to the Lorde’s table.

The Small Committee's conclusion has been the RPCNA position as of 1888 on women serving as ordained Deacons in the visible church, with some clarification and additional insight by the 2015 Interchurch Committee of the RPCNA.

On the second question, asking about if the 2002 report over-stated the importance of 1 Timothy 3:8 - 12 as "the clearest and most decisive text" on women serving as Deacons? The Committee points out that this question must assume that Acts 6:1 - 7 is of the exact same importance to the CanRef churches about women Deacons as they are accusing the RPCNA of attaching to 1 Timothy 3:8 - 12. The difference between the two churches on this issue is that the RPCNA is acknowledging that the church was in a period of development during the days of the Apostles, and when all the Apostles died new revelation in the areas of doctrine and practice stopped. The church had all she needed until Christ's second coming. The CanRef churches, then, are not willing to acknowledge any period of development in doctrine and practice once church institutions and ordinances were first instituted. The report stresses that while Elders are necessary for the being of congregations the Deaconate is only necessary for the well-being of congregations. The distinction explains why Paul only wrote to Titus about the qualifications for one office instead of two. Since Paul's words to Timothy are fuller than they are to Titus the statements of the 2002 report are entirely justified.

This paper was adopted with the larger report by an overwhelming majority of Synod. That does not mean that this issue is resolved within the RPCNA. The vote only meant that nobody wanted to change our current position in a discussion with another church.

Overall, I am pretty happy with this response. The paper does seem to say that Acts 6:1 - 7 is not the institution of the Deaconate at the beginning, but then this distinction becomes lost when the paper discusses the work of the Small Committee and the paper never quite recovers the distinction afterwords. While I am glad that it defended the 2002 report, as I have already noted, I believe that the 2002 report does not give enough weight to Paul's commendation of Phoebe. I found the work of the Small Committee very helpful, but it does need some of the improvements that I have mentioned earlier in the current post. Although, even the Small Committee's work is currently being ignored in the RPCNA discussions on this issue so any reference to the work is appreciated. Rev. Bruce Backensto was the primary author and should be congratulated for his research and writing on this issue.

Women Serving the Church as Deacons: What is Ordination?

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

I have heard that some people in the RPCNA would be fine with women serving as Deacons if the church did not ordain them. This position is, at best, a half-way house which avoids the entire basis of Presbyterianism. A Presbyterian form of church government is never practiced because it works efficiently. Ask any Presbyterian Elder how efficient the last session, Presbytery, or Synod meeting went and I am sure the question will either cause him to chuckle or sigh.

Historic Presbyterianism exists because the churches that organize themselves this way believe the Scriptures require a Presbyterian form of church government. As a consequence of this belief, all parts of how the church functions in its various offices need to be based on the Bible or they need to be abandoned. When the church expands into new areas of the world, Presbyterianism ought to go along with the spread of the Gospel regardless of the surrounding culture's form of government. The Gospel is counter-cultural and Presbyterianism is a good and necessary consequence of what the Bible teaches. Therefore, Presbyterianism ought to be part of any church planting work that happens. The RP Testimony says in chapter 25.7:

Christ has appointed in His Word a particular form of government for the visible church. It is government by elders (Greek: presbyters) and is therefore called presbyterian. Each congregation should be ruled by a session of ordained elders, elected by the membership of the congregation.
Acts 15:22; Acts 14:23; Acts 13:1 - 4; Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2 Cor. 8:19; 1 Tim. 3:1 - 7. (See Testimony, chap. 31, par. 3; and Directory for Church Government, chap. 3, sect. I and II, and chap. 4.)

As a result, a good question to ask is what is ordination? The RP Testimony says in chapter 25.8:

The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation.
1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6.

Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters in his book How Jesus Runs the Church provides three observations about ordination in chapter 4 (pgs. 107 - 108):

1. We see in Scripture examples of ordination to the offices of both deacon and elder. In Acts 6, the Seven were set apart to the work to which the church had called them. Barnabas and Saul are ordained by the church at Antioch to the ministry of the Word (Acts 13:2).
2. In both Acts 6 and Acts 13, the men who ordain these men are themselves elders of the church. We also read of Paul reminding Timothy of Timothy's ordination (1 Tim. 4:14).
3. Ordination is a public indication that the man being ordained is called of God to this particular ministry.

It must be noted, in observation three, that Dr. Waters disagrees with both the current position of the RPCNA, Dr. Strimple, and myself about qualified women serving as Deacons. Waters's disagreement about women being able to serve as Deacons affects his observations on ordination. Dr. Waters makes his disagreement with Dr. Strimple clear in footnote 84 (pg. 113) by saying that Waters's arguments against B. B. Warfield's editorial "Presbyterian Deaconesses" also apply to Strimple's arguments. Dr. Waters does, however, note that both Warfield's article and Strimple's article have respective differences in presentation. Ironically, though, Waters's then makes the observation that while there were women in the early church who served as Deacons that these women did not have teaching authority in the church. However, if he actually understands Dr. Strimple's paper then Waters ought to understand that Dr. Strimple's position about the Diaconate means that both the men and women called and ordained to be Deacons do not have any teaching authority in church (see quote below). Dr. Waters's comment does not assure me that he has a correct distinction of the offices of Elder and Deacon. In spite of this disagreement, I do find Dr. Waters's observations helpful. Dr. Waters also disagrees with Dr. Strimple about Acts 13:2.

Dr. Strimple provides the following set of considerations about ordination:

One may well say on the basis of the Biblical evidence that ordination appoints one to a ministerial office and function with authority to perform it. The undersigned [Bob Strimple] has no quarrel with such a definition. But it is a leap of logic to say that that office and that function in the case of the deacon involves the kind of teaching and ruling authority which the apostle rules out for women. That is what must be established, and we must not beg that question.
It should be noted, for example, that just two pages later (on p. 328) the Committee says: "Our conclusion ... is that I Corinthians 11:5, 13 imply that in some form public prayer and prophecy by women was an accepted practice in the churches known to Paul." In this way the Committee itself reminds us that we must be very specific as to precisely what kind of teaching and exercise of authority is forbidden to women by Paul's instruction in I Timothy 2:12. ...
John Owen is another who makes the distinction between the elders' authority and the deacons' authority clear, although his point seems to have been missed by the Committee, which quotes him with approval (p. 336) as though supporting its position: "This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office, it gives authority with respect unto the special work."...
It seems to the undersigned [Bob Strimple], however, that in view of what has been seen regarding the analogical relationship between the Seven and the later deacons, and the fact that ordination in the N.T. church was not narrowly restricted to ordination to the office of elder (see Acts 13:3), there is no reason not to ordain deacons, as long as ordination is not misunderstood as in itself investing the recipient with spiritual rule in the church.

Therefore, if the church correctly understands what ordination means then qualified women can be ordained to the office of Deacon based on the Bible's distinctions between the offices of Elder and Deacon.

Women Serving the Church as Deacons: What Could Qualifications for the Position of Elder and Deacon Say about the Two Offices?

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

The one passage we need to consider is 1 Timothy 3:1 - 13 because this passage explains the qualifications for both Overseers and Deacons. The passage can further be divided into two lists; verses 1 - 7, and 8 - 13. Paul produced another parallel list for the office of Overseers, but Paul calls the office Elder, in his letter to Titus that is in Titus 1:5 - 16. Paul is giving these lists of qualifications to the second generation of leaders in the church after Christ's first coming. An important side point is that Paul is addressing us in these verses, he is passing on the instructions about how the church ought to function in the inter-advent age between Christ's two comings. In verse 1 and verse 8 we should notice how Paul introduces each list. Verse 1 says:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

Verse 8 says:

 Deacons likewise ...

There are similarities between the qualifications for both offices, but there are also some differences. Paul lists 15 qualifications, and reasons for some of those qualifications, for anyone who desires the office of Overseer. Paul lists 11 qualifications for those desiring to be Deacons.

Here are the 15 qualifications for Overseers:

1. Must be above reproach (v. 2).
2. The husband of one wife (v. 2).
3. Sober-minded (v. 2).
4. Self-controlled (v. 2).
5. Respectable (v. 2).
6. Hospitable (v. 2).
7. Able to teach (v. 2).
8. Not a drunkard (v. 3).
9. Not violent but gentle (v. 3).
10. Not quarrelsome (v. 3).
11. Not a lover of money (v. 3).
12. He must manage his own household well (v. 4).
13. 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 (vv. 4 - 5)?
14. He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil (v. 6).
15. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil (v. 7).

Here are the 11 qualifications for Deacons:

1. Must be dignified (v. 8).
2. Not double-tongued (v. 8).
3. Not addicted to much wine (v. 8).
4. Not greedy for dishonest gain (v. 8).
5. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience (v. 9).
6. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless (v. 10).
7. Their wives likewise must be dignified (v. 11).
8. Not slanderers (v. 11).
9. But sober-minded (v. 11).
10. Faithful in all things (v. 11).
11. 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. (vv. 12 - 13).

I do want to consider two points of difference between these lists. First, let us consider verse 11. Verse 11 lists four qualifications; however, unlike the list for Elders, this list is directed to the wives of deacons. The translation of verse 11 as directed towards wives, as opposed to women, is an instance of the translation committee choosing to add their interpretation to Paul's word beyond the interpretation that is required when translating a text into another language. The word, gunaikas, may mean either "women" or "wives".

Dr. Strimple's minority report makes it clear that the majority of the OPC committee wanted to consider the translation choice to be "an exegetical stand-off" but Dr. Strimple makes an argument that this conclusion is reached too quickly and shows why Paul's use of language must mean that verse 11 is directed to women without reference to their marital status. One of Dr. Strimple's arguments is that, while English translations either use an article ("the") or a possessive pronoun ("their"), the use of either an article or pronoun is not justified by the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:11 in any known manuscripts.

Why are women even being considered by Paul in verse 11, with reference to Deacons, but Paul does not consider traits of a Elder's wife? Many of the qualifications directed towards women in verse 11 are repeated earlier with respect towards the qualifications for Elder, but they are not directed towards a specific gender. I know that Elder's wives share, in as much, of the ministry as Deacon's wives merely on the level of providing support and encouragement behind closed doors.

Therefore, I agree with Dr. Strimple when he says in the New Horizons article,

The [majority] Committee suggests that the wives of the deacons had a part in the work of their husbands in a way in which the wives of the overseers did not.... [This] concedes the crucial point which I believe must be emphasized concerning the important difference between the office of overseer and the office of deacon, and how the difference makes it appropriate that the office of deacon (but not the office of elder) be open to qualified women as well as to qualified men!

While I do agree with Dr. Strimple's interpretation of 1 Tim. 8 - 12 as referring to men and women Deacons, I do disagree with Dr. Strimple's particular outline of Paul's thought. Dr. Strimple says that the structure of the passage can be broken up into three categories of Deacons:

1. The teaching in verses 8 - 10 is directed towards both male and female Deacons.
2. Verse 11 is particular to female Deacons.
3. Verse 12 is particular to male Deacons.

My own outline of verses 11 - 12 is that both these verses are using the analogy of how family life in a home ought to look for the purpose of teaching both candidates and voters in a congregation what a Deacon should look like based on what situation God has placed them in at a current point in a candidate's life. The advantage that my interpretation has is, against Dr. Strimple's outline, is that my outline allows single people to still apply Paul's teaching to their situation in their lives — if they are running for a church office, and it does not limit the teaching in verse 11 to only females and verse 12 for male candidates for office. See the Report of the Committee to Respond to Communication #01 - 3 in RPCNA Synod minutes 2002 for more information.

The second point of difference between both lists is verse 2; particularly that Elders must be able to teach. Paul's instruction in 1 Tim. 3:2 comes after Paul's teaching in 1 Tim. 2:12 about how are not women to teach men. The context of Paul's letter is important to remember — an older pastor passing on instruction to a younger pastor about qualifications for two church offices in the following years after Paul dies. Paul does not list a qualification for a Deacon as being able to teach.

Paul is not addressing Timothy about home life or general schooling methods. If Paul were addressing general schooling concerns, outside of the church, I must ask the question why Paul commends Timothy for the faith that both Timothy's grandmother and mother had if they did not actually teach their faith to young Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5)? Paul should have berated Timothy's education, or simply remained silent on the issue, if Paul thought, under the inspiration of the Spirit, that women ought never to teach men under any circumstances the Scriptures.

Two additional passages that also show women being involved in teaching outside of the context of public worship - Titus 2:3 - 5, and Acts 18:24 - 26. While the Titus 2 passage ought not be controversial, because almost all men do not object to women teaching other women the Bible, the point is that women should be encouraged to teach, at the very least, other women. Acts 18, however, is where both Priscilla and Aquila instruct Apollos in the way of God more accurately. Apollos's instruction was probably done in private, but involved both a wife and husband.

The office of Deacon does involve teaching, but it does not confer the same teaching responsibilities as the office of Elder. If a Deacon preaches on a Lord's Day without being, at least, under the care of presbytery to teach I would object to the sermon, because Paul teaches that preaching responsibilities only are a part of the office of Elder. It would not matter if the Deacon were male or female. The person is "out of their bounds" because their current office does not include teaching as a qualification and responsibility of the office of Deacon.

I also, therefore, agree with Dr. Strimple when he makes the following observation in his New Horizons article,

The leading cause of this loss [of women deacons] of the N.T. understanding has been "colored by the work of the overseer" in the thinking of the church ... [t]he solution to all such derailed thinking is to seek a more accurate biblical understanding of the deacon. The important difference with regard to the nature of the authority exercised between the elders and the deacons would seem to be underscored in the greeting of Philippians 1:1 by the use of the, not merely different, but contrasting titles: "the overseers" and "the servants."

The RP Testimony in chapter 25 articles 9 and 11 also makes this distinction between the office of Elder and Deacon:

The responsibility of the elders is in teaching and ruling. Although all elders are to be able to teach, the Scripture recognizes a distinction in these functions. All elders are equal in the government of the Church. This office is referred to in Scripture by two terms used synonymously: elder, and bishop or overseer.
1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 5:17; Acts 20:28; Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:28; Titus 1:7.

The diaconate is a spiritual office subordinate to the session and is not a teaching or ruling office. The deacons have responsibility for the ministry of mercy, the finances and property of the congregation, and such other tasks as are assigned to them by the session. Other officers mentioned in the New Testament were commissioned uniquely during the apostolic age for the establishment of the Church.
Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:8-13.

I may have a disagreement with the Testimony's use of Acts 6:1 - 7 as a proof-text. If the intention of the Testimony is to teach that Acts 6:1 - 7 shows the establishment of the office of the Diaconate then I must disagree with the reference. There is, however, another possibility. Acts 6:1-7 can be understood, in the words of Dr. Strimple, to be "the record of the first official appointment of those who would oversee the distribution of that which was given to help meet the physical needs of the church's poor, which record quite properly guided the church 'analogically' in the later development of the Diaconate." For more on this view read the section of Dr. Strimple's minority report about Acts 6.

Women Serving the Church as Deacons: Qualified Women Serving as Deacons Clarifies both Church Offices.

 The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

As I understand Dr. Strimple's argument, Dr. Strimple is only making the following point: Paul calls Phoebe a deacon of the church, therefore we should allow qualified women to also serve the church in the office of Deacon. This simple point changes the whole nature of the discussion. The question I run into usually is: ought women to be deacons? However, if Paul recognizes Phoebe as a office-holder in Romans 16:1 - 2 the actual question changes. The better question is: how does a Deacon differ from an Elder in the church?

That's the big question for the RPCNA. Is a Deacon a stepping stone to becoming an Elder, or is a Deacon a distinctly different office? It is only when the two offices are not distinct that the issue of Phoebe can lead to women pastors. An example of how these two offices can become fuzzy is when we believe that the men chosen in Acts 6 were Deacons.

In recent church news, for example, the Roman Catholic Church's discussion about women serving as Deacons is more complicated than the discussion needs to be because the Roman communion has a liquid distinction between the offices of Deacon and Priest. A lot more has been written about the Roman communion's continual need to have an ongoing earthly Priesthood.

Women Serving the Church as Deacons: Romans 16:1 - 2 and Synonymous Parallelism?

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

----------------

One comment about my first post was a helpful question about my fourth point of exegetical arguments in favor of women serving the church as Deacons. The question was, if it is possible that Paul's words about Phoebe in Romans 16:1 - 2 are an example of Semitic parallelism? For the sake of having the translation in front of us let us look once again at Dr. Strimple's translation of Romans 16:1-2:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever manner she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.

Let us consider the definition of Semitic parallelism, so that we can understand the question. According to Louis Berkhof, in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation (a free pdf is available here), on pages 63-64 parallelism is when "in two lines or members of the same period, thing for the most part answer to things, and words to words." Parallelism can be further divided in three or four different groups, depending on who is counting. The most likely type of parallelism being asked about in Romans 16:1-2 is synonymous parallelism, which is one idea repeated in different words. Two further examples of this type of parallelism are synonymous parallelism between similar ideas (Ps. 24:2; Job 6:5); or synonymous parallelism that demonstrates an identity between words (Prov. 6:2; Ps. 93:3).

The question is asking if Paul is repeating the same thought about Phoebe in Romans 16:2 ("... she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.") as he already said in Romans 16:1 ("who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea ...")? The implication of this question is, Paul may simply only writing in verse 1 about Phoebe being a servant, as opposed to a deacon, and repeats the idea of Phoebe's service in verse 2.

However, let us consider another writing of Paul to help us understand the relationship between Romans 16:1 and 16:2. In Paul's letter to the churches in the region of Galatia, Paul writes in 5:25:

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

Is Paul's language about  "... keep in step with the Spirit ..." repeating the same idea as "... live by the Spirit"? No. In verse 25, Paul starts with a indicative ("If we live by the Spirit ...") and then gives the churches an imperative ("... let us also keep in step with the Spirit."). The ideas are different. There is a relationship between both of Paul's ideas though. The imperative can only happen if the indicative is true. We can only keep in step with the Spirit if we live in the Spirit. It is important to note that the word "also" highlights that the thought Paul is communicating is a thought of progression, not a thought of repetition.

In Romans, likewise, Phoebe's office in the church of Cenchrea of deacon and then her service to many in that church demonstrates a progression of thought about Phoebe. In Romans, Paul uses the word "also" again like he did in the letter to the churches of Galatia. Unfortunately, right now, I do not know Greek, so please feel free to provide feedback if this argument does not reflect how Greek works.

Since this question focuses on the fourth exegetical argument, it should be noted that this argument builds on the previous three arguments being true. Dr. Strimple's fourth argument is not built on a house of straw, but I do believe that the argument for this passage being a Semitic parallelism could lose sight of the context of the letter to the Romans. While Paul's mind is Semitic, Paul's audience would be primarily Greek. I am sure the Greek audience was familiar with the Psalms, etc. as a part of their new faith, but I do wonder how probable it is that Paul would be using Hebrew poetry to address a Greek audience in a letter addressed to the church in Rome?