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: 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.

Jesus' Authority as God and Jesus' Authority as Mediator: Symington

For several years I have been trying to understand the history of the doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. One issue that continues to crop of in the literature is how to understand Christ in relation to the Church and Christ in relation to the created order.

This distinction was important during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1643-1653), the killing times in Scotland (1660-1688), and in the Reformed Presbyterian Church's witness though writers such as William Symington.

I hope in a future post to address this distinction as the Westminster Assembly was confronted with the issue.

More recently, this distinction has appeared, throughout the years, in the debate over Two Kingdom theology. Dr. Darryl Hart and Dr. R. Scott Clark have been redirecting any opposition at Two Kingdom theology to an essay written by Dr. David McKay in The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear. I intend to write a future post about how to understand Dr. McKay's essay in the future, but for now I want to highlight a very helpful, modern day explanation of this distinction that Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre give in their book William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters on pages 210-212:

Before examining the main content of Symington's work, one important clarification should be made. It is a matter of clarification which Symington sought to establish in the opening pages of his book [ed., Messiah the Prince]. Specifically, we must have clearly fixed in mind a distinction between Jesus' authority as God—an authority which He always enjoyed over all things—and His authority as our Savior. By His very nature, Jesus always was God. To bring about our salvation, however, Jesus had to become a man. It is in Jesus' becoming a man that He took up the responsibilities and prerogatives of a Priest, a Prophet, and a King. We should have it clearly in mind that Symington was writing, in this book, about the royal authority Jesus obtained as our Incarnate Savior. This is an aspect of His authority distinct from that which He always enjoyed as the Creator God.

This might seem a confusing distinction to make, but it is a biblical distinction that needs to be upheld.Just as it is hard to comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man, similarly it is difficult to comprehend how Jesus can be at once both eternally sovereign (as Creator) and yet also to have needed to obtain sovereignty (as Savior). Yet such distinctions are taught to us by Scripture, and are important to have in mind as we approach Symington's book. ...

[T]he same Jesus, who as Creator always held sovereignty over us, now takes on mediatorial kingship as well for the purposes of our salvation.

In the case of Jesus, we might speak of the first kind of authority—His eternal sovereignty as God—as His natural dominion. It was Jesus who made all things, and having made everything, Jesus naturally owns all things. Simply because of who Jesus is (His nature), He has sovereign authority over everything. Paul wrote about this kind of authority held by Jesus in his epistle to the Colossians:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col.1:16-17; cf. Ps. 24:1-2).

As the Creator God, Jesus always had absolute authority over all things. Just as there was never a time when He was not God, there was never a time when Jesus was not King, in this sense. Symington refers to this authority of Jesus the Creator God as His essential, or what we here have termed His natural dominion.

The second king of authority Jesus held, however, is something which He had to obtain as part of His work of salvation. It is what Symington calls His mediatorial dominion. As a man, Jesus took "the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7). In respect to His humanity, Jesus was not (at first) revealed as a king, but a servant. Nevertheless, from that position of servanthood, Jesus went on to be exalted to a throne: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9).

Peter also preached about this authority Jesus received as our incarnate Savior in Acts 2. Using one of David's Psalms (Ps. 110) as a preaching text, Peter proclaimed,

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne...David...saith himself [of Jesus], The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:30-36; cf., Isa. 9:6).

Jesus was exalted to a throne and endowed with titles of sovereignty. Peter is clear to indicate these privileges as being "new" acquisitions—authority ascribed to Jesus at a specific point in time and in specific connection with His work as our Savior. This is a second kind of authority obtained by Jesus in specific connection with His work of salvation. [A]lthough Jesus already held natural authority over the creation, in His love He went further to obtain for Himself mediatorial authority for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the effectiveness of our redemption.

Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre's reference to Symington's establishment of this distinction in the opening pages of Messiah the Prince must be a reference to pages 4-5:

The sovereign authority of Christ may be viewed either as necessary, or as official. Viewing him as God, it is necessary, inherent, and underived: viewing him as Mediator, it is official and delegated. It is the latter of these we are now to contemplate. The subject of our present inquiry is, the MEDIATORIAL DOMINION of the Son; not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which, by the authoritative act of the Father, he has been officially invested as the Messiah. It is that government, in short, which was laid upon his shoulders—that power which was given unto him in heaven and in earth.

It is also helpful, when addressing this distinction, to note that Symington had to defend Christ's mediatorial authority (as Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre use "authority" instead of Symington older term "dominion") over the Nations against contemporaries in Symington's time who contended that Christ only had natural dominion over the Nations. Symington's lengthy defense of his position can be found on pages 192-230 of the edition of Messiah the Prince that I have linked to earlier in this post.