Two NAPARC denominations asked questions of the RPCNA’s Interchurch Committee regarding doctrinal differences, including the practice of women deacons, while considering a stronger ecclesiastical relationship with the RPCNA. Here is one response of the Interchurch Committee regarding questions about women deacons.

Both denominations, while not coming to agree with RP practice, see the RPCNA as seeking to follow Scripture rather than social trends, etc. One of the denominations has subsequently voted to establish stronger ties with the RPCNA, and the other is considering it.

We are encouraged by our common commitment to the Reformation principles of salvation and church polity. It is with respect to the grace-filled questions and pursuant conversation concerning women in the office of deacon that we offer this study with the prayer that God will be honored by it as we proceed into formal ecclesiastical fellowship.

Your committee asked two primary questions:

1. Would you be able to enlighten us on the historical origin of female deacons within the RPCNA?

2. With respect to a statement in the adopted report of the 2001 RPCNA Synod that cites 1 Timothy 3:11 as the “clearest and most decisive text for the question of women deacons”: Is this not overstated?

Origin of Deacons

As you point out, the RPCNA does not agree with John Calvin’s understanding of 1 Timothy 5:9-10 “that Paul was referring to a special order of widows who would function as a second office of deacons.”¹ Furthermore, you are correct in noting that we do not describe categorically that the origin of the office of deacon is primarily to be found in Acts 6.²

Perhaps Dr. Spear’s recently published Covenanted Uniformity in Religion sheds some light on this matter. The section on deacons in the chapter, “The Church and Its Officers,” indicates there was debate as to how Acts 6 informs the reader concerning deacons. There were two minority points of view expressed in the Westminster Assembly. Some understood “while Acts 6 spoke of church officers called deacons…the situation at the time was extraordinary, and deacons were not ordinary officers of the church.”³ The second minority view maintained “the seven men…did not serve as officers…but were essentially assistants to the apostles.”⁴ Due to the debate over the minority’s points, a committee formulated two statements reported on Dec. 19, 1643:

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.⁵

Because in the years the Westminster Assembly met it was the responsibility of the civil magistrate to care for the poor, some delegates viewed the diaconal work mentioned in Acts 6 as only temporary until the magistrate took seriously his responsibility for the poor. This position was rejected, perhaps because of the Scottish delegate, George Gillespie, who is recorded as arguing, “The magistrates lookes to them [the poor] not as the distressed members of Christ. Human charity and christian charity [are] very different.”⁶ Therefore, Acts 6:1-4 was added to the list of verses offered as biblical warrant for the permanence of the deacon’s office.

That the essential work of the deacon was debated indicates the presence of Anglican delegates who understood the office of deacon as a stepping stone to the priesthood. Gillespie, borrowing from Peter Lombard, maintained in a passing remark in his assertion, “that there are two sacred offices that are perpetual in the church, deacons and elders. He contrasted the two orders: ‘the administration of deacons is exercised about things bodily; the administration of elders about things spiritual. The former about goods; the latter about the government of the church.’”⁷ Gillespie’s two-office position is the position of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).⁸ Here is the statement adopted by the Westminster divines:

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.⁹

The Westminster Assembly voted by one in favor of having women deacons. It is unclear exactly what that vote meant; nevertheless, it demonstrates the lack of clarity with respect to what the Bible teaches on the matter of women serving as deacons. Spear’s discussion of this indicates the vote concerned the question of the special office of deaconess as developed by Calvin.¹⁰

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America adopted the position of the Westminster Assembly as set forth in the Form of Church Government concerning deacons; i.e. the office is perpetual, given to mercy matters, and for men only. It was not until 1887 that a congregation within the RPCNA called a woman to serve as a deacon alongside men.¹¹ The author of the first article written given to the discussion of the congregation’s election of a woman deacon, Rev. D. S. Faris, writes at the outset, “I do not, at present, ask leave to have a hearing, in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter, on the question of female deacons because the decision of Synod was certainly wrong.”¹² Curiously enough, at the close of the article Faris writes, “Now, I do not affirm that the Synod is certainly wrong, but I do charge the majority with undue haste in rushing to a decision which is an innovation upon our customs and constitution as received from the Church of Scotland; and upon mature reflection, feel bound to add the additional reason of dissent, that the Synod, by not overturing the matter, has violated the rights of the sessions of the people.”¹³

What was it that moved Rev. Faris to remove the statement, “the decision of Synod was certainly wrong”? In the body of the article, Faris writes, “The only scholarly and effective argument in the case was that of Dr. Stevenson. The argument consisted, first of a construction of certain passages of the New Testament, and second, of an argument based on allusions to the matter in the early fathers.”¹⁴ Apparently, Synod did not wish to discuss “allusions to the matter in the early fathers” because unless a scriptural defense of the practice could be demonstrated, it did not matter what early fathers taught on the issue. The Bible is recognized as the only infallible rule for faith and life. It was admitted “that direct Scriptural proof was wanting; but there are important things that are and must be taken for granted.”¹⁵

While Stevenson mistakenly argued there is no proof of women participating in the sacraments of baptism [he forgot Acts 16:15] and the Lord’s supper [he is accurate]; nevertheless it is commonly accepted that women partake of the sacraments. He points out that women are found doing the work that belongs to the office of deacon; therefore, they must have been ordained to that office. Stevenson cited the modern translations of 1 Timothy 3 where the qualifications for church officers are listed. Verse 11 reads, “Even must their wives…” in the King James Version, while modern translations read, “Women in like manner must…”

Faris says Professor Willson “intimated, that from a thorough examination of the matter as a theologian, he had views that correspond to the sentiment of Synod.”¹⁶ Finally, Synod adopted the following statement on the matter: “That we find it agreeable to nature and the word of God that a woman should be ordained to the office of deacon.”¹⁷

Certainly, if this is the end of the argument for the justification of women being ordained to the diaconate, we ought to relinquish our present position in favor of the one advocated by nearly all of our fellow Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. It is in the November 1888 issue of the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter that the work of a small committee to draw up a statement of the grounds on which Synod arrived at the conclusion, “That such ordination is, in our judgment, in harmony with the New Testament, and with the constitution of the apostolic church” is recorded.¹⁸

Three points were to be kept in mind in answering the question regarding women deacons. First, “That 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.”¹⁹ Clearly the commission of the apostles and the requisite gifts were all provided, but only as they were required. The Word was preached to the world, both Jews and Gentiles, and congregations were organized with elders (teaching and ruling) and deacons were added to oversee the temporal affairs of the house of God. The yoke of the ceremonial law was removed in due time. “The apostles seem to have followed the guidance of providence, as well as of the Spirit, in giving the church a full organization.”²⁰

This was true of the Old Testament laws and provisions as well. One example is the synagogue that developed because it became more and more difficult “to wait on the temple service…yet it was sanctioned by priests, prophets, and by our Lord himself.”²¹ Apparently synagogues had deacons who “had charge of the property, opened the doors and conducted strangers to seats, and attended generally to the comfort of the assembly, as well as being almoners and managers of the funds. And the sexes sat apart, separated by a partition of some height, female officers were required for one side of the house, to attend to the comfort of the worshippers and preserve order.”²² It may be in light of this strict separation of the sexes that led Paul to admonish the women to keep silent in church and ask questions outside of the worship service.

As for the committee’s understanding of Acts 6:1-4, we read:

Nor is the supposition by some of our best writers at all unreasonable, that even before the choice of the seven (Acts 6), one side of the great multitude of believers then in Jerusalem (the Hebrew), had, after the example of the synagogue, parties already acting as deacons in taking care of their poor; while the Hellenists, being comparative strangers, had none, and therefore their poor were neglected. And favoring this idea is the fact that all the seven have been taken from the party that had complained. And this, putting them on equal footing with the Hebrews, perfect harmony was restored. The church as yet, however, was in a very inchoate state, and we cannot, at that early period, expect to find about her institutions all the completeness afterwards sustained. Certain it is, however, that the deacon’s office came ultimately to be recognized as a divine and permanent institution in all the churches, and therefore, Paul addresses the church at Philippi as consisting of saints, bishops and deacons.²³

The second point that must be kept in mind is: “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.”²⁴

New Testament words are used in two senses—the ordinary and the appropriated. “The terms overseer or bishop, elder, pastor, and deacon are now mostly used as official names for office-bearers in the church. To know in which sense, primary or appropriated, any one of these terms is employed in the original of the New Testament can only be determined by a careful study of 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 the 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), yet as a verb it is employed to express the nature of their work, ‘to serve tables’ (diakonein trapezais).”²⁵ 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.”²⁶

The third point: “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.”²⁷ It is understood that all members in the church enjoy all the rights and privileges unless otherwise excluded. For instance, women were not circumcised in the Old Testament; therefore, one would expect that women would be excluded from baptism. Throughout the ministry of John and Jesus there is no record of a woman being baptized, so one is tempted to think women are not to be baptized. At Jesus’ ascension, with the call “to repent and be baptized,” no women are recorded as being baptized. It is not until 20 years later that we have the case of the baptism of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:15). When Paul institutes the Lord’s supper he enjoins, “Let a man examine himself,…” which could be interpreted as prohibiting women from the Table. From Acts 1:14, “All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers,” we infer that women were included in Acts 2:42: “And they [men and women] devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayer.” Therefore, women surely enjoyed the Lord’s supper. Further, we understand there is neither male nor female, but we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28).

The small committee demonstrates how these principles apply to the issue of women deacons. Acts 6 shows that the seven deacons were all males; nevertheless, this “does not necessarily exclude females from the office, inasmuch as the institutions of the New Testament were, to some extent, adapted to circumstances as they arose.”²⁸ When this is coupled with the second principle, i.e., “if we find both the name and the work, and the qualifications proper to the deacon’s office predicated of women, and that clearly in church relations, they must be admissible to that office.”²⁹ Finally, because “the privilege of holding and exercising the deacon’s office, not being in the case of women one of the things excepted, their right thereto is as plain, and even plainer, than to many other things which we freely accord them.”³⁰ Keeping these points/principles in mind we consider Romans 16:1-3 with respect to Phoebe. Clearly she is a member of the church at Cenchrea and she is preparing to visit Rome. Paul commends Phoebe “to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (Rom. 1:7) “a servant (dia,konon = deacon/servant) of the church at Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1). She is not a “deaconess” because the word in the Greek is the common gender—it does not distinguish gender. The word “deacon” as used in this verse may apply to either men or women.

“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.”³¹This certainly is the case with prophets and teachers at Antioch, and with apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers in Ephesus. Moses was a servant in his house, no doubt referring to his official position in Israel, the Old Testament expression of the church. Paul assures Timothy that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth; therefore, for Phoebe to be a deacon of the church of Cenchrea, it follows she was an office-bearer, i.e. the office of deacon. Paul writes of Phoebe, “she has been a patron of many and of me also” (Rom. 16:2). The term translated “patron” (prosta,tij) is used of those who go before or over others in any work. “Its (prosta,tij) force can be seen in the fact that it is twice used by Paul in describing the qualifications of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:3-4), as ‘one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity,’ as every father and head of family should.”³²

It was not uncommon for Paul to send “messengers of the church” (2 Cor. 8:16-24) to raise money or distribute money. In commending Phoebe as a deacon in a sister church, Paul is not simply speaking of any “servant” of the Lord or himself; she is an official deacon of the church.

Next our attention is turned toward a passage where the qualifications are found for women deacons. Paul writes to Timothy instructions as to how to behave in the house of God.

Paul first instructs him as to how bishops should be qualified, then, in five particulars, the necessary qualifications which deacons should possess, (1 Tim. 3:8-10) and then (v. 11) adds, as in the authorized version, “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” This would, at first sight, appear as an additional qualification which the deacon should possess, but though usually interpreted, there are no grounds for understanding the passage in that sense, because, first, the character of a man’s wife is never given as a qualification for his holding office in the New Testament church. If it had been so, it would be of special importance in the case of a bishop, and yet in his case nothing of the kind is ever hinted.³³

Second, it is pointed out that the word “their” is not in the Greek text, which means that the word translated “wives” (gunai/kaj) is more commonly translated “women” because it ought not to be understood as related to the male deacons whose qualifications are also given. Third, grammatically the whole passage forbids the idea of “wives.” Bishops, deacons and women are linked together by the use of w`sau,twj “likewise” in 1 Timothy 3:8, 11.

As Alford remarks, “gunai/kajv here, marked off by hosautos, must be an ecclesiastical class, and can hardly be other than deaconesses, ministrae, as Pliny calls them in his letter to Trajan, such as Phoebe was at Cenchrea.³⁴

Another reason why gunai/kaj is not “wives” is seen in the fact that domestic duties are not listed as qualifications in verse 11 for females, as they are in verse 12 for males—the husband of one wife and managing their children and household well. Furthermore, in verses 8-10 qualifications for deacons are cited, then in verse 11 qualifications for females are cited and in verse 12 for males who are married are cited. It is worth noting that the four qualifications listed for females—dignified, not slanderers, sober-minded, faithful in all things—parallel those listed in verses 8-10—dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, hold fast the mystery of the faith.

It only follows that such women who are qualified to be called as deacons in the church of God would be ordained just as those men who are qualified to be called as deacons in the church of God. Once a person, male or female, is duly elected and found qualified to the office of deacon in the church, their ordination merely sets those persons apart and officially declares them an office-bearer in the church. “To a deacon-elect, duly qualified and approved, belongs the right of ordination. But a woman may be a deacon-elect, duly qualified and approved. Therefore, to a woman duly elected to deacon’s office, and qualified and approved, belongs the right of ordination.”³⁵

While there may be many practical advantages for having women deacons, pragmatics is not the basis of the argument; it is a derivative of the propriety of having female deacons. Hence, the sum of the argument is stated in the following quote:

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.³⁶

Now to address the NAPARC church’s question about whether saying that 1 Timothy 3:8-12 is “the clearest and most decisive text for the question of women deacons,” is overstated.” Presumably, the fact that Acts 6:1-4 calls attention only to “seven men, full of the Spirit” being set apart to “serve tables” makes this passage the “clearest and most decisive text for the question of women deacons.” However, this mitigates against the clear teaching of the New Testament that order in the visible body of Christ (the church) underwent progress in its development.

We agree that with the death of the apostles and the close of the canon, biblical apostles ceased to exist. Certainly the progression was from apostles to elders, ruling and preaching/teaching (1 Tim. 5:17) or shepherding/teaching (Eph. 4:11) and to deacons as the temporal needs of the visible church grew beyond the ability of the elders to manage. Paul writes Timothy a letter which, among other things, is to instruct the people of God associated with him “how one ought to behave in the household of God” (1 Tim. 3:15). Paul writes in chapter 2 how men are to pray (interestingly, with holy hands lifted) (v. 8) and how women (here gunaik is not translated “wife” but “women” and rightly so) are to refrain from teaching and exercising authority over a man. As Paul moves to the establishment of offices within the household of God, he begins with the office of overseer/bishop/elder as we would expect. Without elders there is no visible church, according to Presbyterian and Reformed polity. It is in the qualifications for the eldership that we find the outworking of Paul’s words in 2:12 prohibiting women (not wives) from exercising authority over men or teaching in the church. Paul then turns to the qualifications for deacons (servers). Just as there are qualities those who desire the office of overseer must manifest, “likewise” deacons manifest specific qualities so congregants will know those who are suited to be called to serve in the office of deacon. In verses 8-10 general qualifications are cited, then in verse 11 Paul writes “gunai/kaj wsau,twj – women likewise (“their” is not in the Greek text, thus mitigating against understanding gunai/kaj to mean “wives,” as well as when viewed in light of 1 Tim. 2:15’s use of gunai/kaj) and presents a list of qualifications that almost mirror those found in verses 8-10 (observe the absence of specifically “domestic/wifely/motherly” qualities). He moves forward in verse 12 to speak of qualifications specific to male deacons as noticed by his reference to the male being a “one-woman man.” Polygamy was an issue in Paul’s day; therefore, both for elders and deacons, men must have only one wife.

Where else does Paul present us with the qualifications for the two offices the church enjoys today than in 1 Timothy 3:1-13? When Paul instructs Titus, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,” he is only concerned to list the qualifications for elders because deacons are not necessary for the organization of congregations. Hence, it is in the fuller passage of Paul’s words to Timothy enjoining him how we are to live in the household of God that we find the “clearest and most decisive text for the question of women deacons.”

______________________________________________________