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.