On Women Deacons
Why A Little Strength Is Publishing About Women Deacons
At the 2025 Synod of the RPCNA, it was announced that a change to our Testimony would be submitted to our 2026 Synod. The change would remove our Testimony’s teaching that women as well as men may be deacons. Many congregations in the Atlantic Presbytery either have women deacons now or had them in the recent past, so this proposed change should be of interest to us.
Among conservative Presbyterian churches, the RPCNA is unique in having women deacons. Being unique is nothing new for us. We were unique from our organization in 1798 in opposing slavery and staunchly opposing all racialist ideologies. We were alone in criticizing the 1787 American Constitution for being a completely secular basis for government. Today, we are nearly unique in practicing exclusive Psalmody. In 1888, our Synod concluded that the Bible allows for women to be deacons, the point of uniqueness now being contested among us.
Those who are against ordaining women as deacons have made their arguments known more often in recent years than those who are for it. Our aim is to subject the arguments of a book and a paper against ordaining women deacons to a more searching criticism than they have yet received.
The book is Brian Schwertley’s 1998 book on women deacons, and the paper is one submitted to synod from David Merkel and Chris Villi. Both Brian and David came into the RPCNA through the Broomall congregation while Bill Edgar was its pastor. Bill, lead author of our reviews, remains on good terms with both Brian and David. We agree that the issue of women deacons is important, but that it is not a central doctrinal issue. In fact, in Presbyterian church government, congregations can be organized without any deacons at all.
The editors of A Little Strength believe that our church practice of ordaining elected and qualified women as deacons is biblical. We would be happy to convince doubtful readers of the same. Women deacons have been a source of strength, not weakness, to our churches. Even if you are not convinced, we aim to achieve at least this: an acknowledgement by all that the RPCNA ordains women to the diaconate for Biblical and theological reasons.
– The Editors
Why Review a 1998 Book?
The 2023 Synod of the RPCNA received a lengthy paper from two men entitled “Women and the Diaconate.” The Synod committee appointed to review and evaluate the paper recommended that the 2025 Synod remove the words “Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon” from the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony (25.8, p 87). The moderator ruled that proposed major changes require a year’s notice, so this recommendation will likely be considered by the 2026 Synod.
The paper “Women and the Diaconate” quotes many writers, but Brian Schwertley’s 1998 book Women Deacons is quoted in nine different places. Since the 2022 paper makes considerable use of Schwertley’s book, A Little Strength plans to review several aspects of Schwertley’s book in this and coming issues.
Note: Who is Brian Schwertley? He came into the RP Church through the Broomall congregation, where he and his family were members for some years. The Atlantic Presbytery licensed him to receive a call, and the Southfield, Michigan RPC called him as its associate pastor for church planting in Lansing, Michigan. When Southfield’s senior pastor died, there was a quarrel over whether Brian would succeed him. The Great Lakes Gulf Presbytery tried to resolve the quarrel, but Brian and part of the congregation withdrew. Since then, Brian has lived in several states with a variety of ecclesiastical connections. He now resides in Texas.
Book Review, Part I:
A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons
by Brian M. Schwertley, 1998
The Bible tells the Church how to govern itself. Teaching and ruling elders, also called overseers (bishops in KJV) or pastors, have collective authority over the church under Christ. The elders as a group form the Session. Under the Session, deacons handle church finances and care for the needy. I Timothy 3 lists the qualifications for a deacon. It also lists the qualifications for an overseer, while Titus 1 lists the qualifications for an elder. However, as Acts 20:17, 28 and Titus 1:5, 7 make clear, elders and overseers are the same men. Overseers do not rule elders. And Philippians 1:1, “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons” makes it clear that there are only two continuing church officers, overseers (elders, pastors) and deacons.
After the Apostolic Age, the Church unfortunately slid quickly into Roman hierarchical rule. Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to Rome to be executed (c. 115 A.D.), wrote to a church: “Let the laity be subject to the deacons: the deacons to the presbyters: the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father” (quoted Schwertley, p 9). In time, the Church added further layers of hierarchy: metropolitans and patriarchs in the East, with archbishops, cardinals, and the pope in the West. To deacons were added sub-deacons. It was not until the Reformation in the 1500s that Reformed churches returned to rule by elders meeting as local Sessions, regional Presbyteries composed of many Sessions, and national Synods made up of many Presbyteries.
The office of deaconess appears clearly in Canon 19 of the 321 A.D. Council of Nicaea: regarding [heretical] Paulinists who want to join the Catholic Church, the Council decreed, “Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.” Elsewhere we find that the special job of the deaconess was to minister to women. By about the year 700 A.D., with the rise of nunneries ruled by a Mother Superior, the office of deaconess died out. Where did the office of deaconess come from in the first place?
To answer that question, Schwertley begins his book with history, as his book title, A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons indicates. Readers should immediately be alert: it looks like Schwertley will be reading Scripture through the eyes of later church sources, that is, through the eyes of what is usually called Tradition. What if one went about a study of church offices in Schwertley’s quasi-Roman Catholic way? Like Catholics and the Episcopal Church, you would put bishops atop elders, where Ignatius put them in 115 A.D., and explain away references in Acts and Titus that show elders and bishops being the same men.
The earliest source Schwertley references does not reveal anything at all about where the later deaconesses came from. The Didache 1 instructs, “Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons, men meek…” The Greek word translated “men” is the word for male, in agreement with I Timothy 3:8-10, 12. Schwertley’s off-target further comment is, “The placing of deacon alongside of bishop…indicates that very early in the church deacons had authority.” What? Paired titles do not imply authority. If they mean anything about authority, the commonly paired titles “parents and children,” “husbands and wives,” or “masters and slaves,” suggests that the first one named has authority and the second one named does not.
The matter of authority, who has it and who does not, is very important to Schwertley. If women deacons have authority in the church, then they will have authority over men. He refers often to Paul’s rule, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over a man” (KJV, I Timothy 2:12). However, the verb translated “usurp authority” appears only once in the NT and its meaning is uncertain, with translations varying. Therefore, one should hesitate to make that verse a broad statement of women never allowed to have authority over any man in any circumstance. The verse might mean that Paul will not permit a wife to bully her husband, especially not in public, in which case the translation of the KJV, with its verb “usurp” is probably close to its meaning.
Schwertley’s view of female authority reveals a major reason he disagrees with the RPCNA on women deacons. Like Ignatius, he thinks that deacons have authority over the laity. However, the Greek word diakonos itself points to deacons not having authority. The word originally meant “waiter,” or more generally servant.2 Waiters and servants do not have authority! The 1806 RP Declaration and Testimony, as amended in its 1911 printing, explicitly denied that deacons have authority as elders do: “The deacon has no power except about the temporalities of the church” (XXIII:3). The 1980 Testimony of the RPCNA states the same. “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” (Testimony 25:11).
After the Didache, Schwertly next cites Pliny the Younger’s charming letter to Emperor Trajan, written in 113 A.D. Pliny reports how he dealt with people accused of being Christians, executing some for being stubborn. He asks Trajan for advice on what more to do. To learn what Christians teach, Pliny reported, he interrogated by torture two women slaves called ministrae, Latin with the same range of meaning as the Greek diakonos. Being slaves, these two women were suitable for torture, and having an office, they presumably knew what Christians teach. Pliny concluded Christians do not believe anything alarming. Concerning this letter, Schwertley concludes, “This instance sheds no light on whether deaconesses are patterned after Paul’s order of widows in I Timothy 5:9-12 or held the same office with male deacons” (p 8). Yes, it does! Pliny’s letter shows that the church did have women called ministrae, that is, diakonoi. He does not identify them further as widows but as slaves, and Governor Pliny knows that they are central enough to church life to be worth torturing for information.
By the time Schwertly gets to Cyprian (250 A.D.), he observes that deacons had evolved into assistants to bishops. At this point in history, deacons ruled alongside presbyters under a bishop. Long before 250, of course, the Church had left behind simple rule by elders. Leaving aside other early century writings that Schwertley discusses briefly, we move to his treatment of Romans 16:1-2 and I Timothy 3:11.
From Corinth in 57-58 A.D., Paul wrote to the church in Rome: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (Greek, diakonos) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well” (Romans 16:1-2, ESV). Schwertley comments: “There is no question that her activities sound similar to the activities of deacons” (p 98). Yes, they do. Furthermore, he admits that Paul gave her “an official sounding introduction.” Yes, he did, especially by identifying her as a diakonos of the church at Cenchrae,3 not the more general “diakonos of the Lord.” And, finally, it seems unlikely that Phoebe on her way to Rome on business is an aged widow whom the church needed to support financially (I Timothy 5:9). On the contrary, Paul writes, "she has been a patron of many and of myself as well." Paul's description of Phoebe as a "patron" puts her in the same category of woman as those noted in Luke 8:3, who provided for Jesus out of their means. Phoebe is not just unlikely to have been poor; Paul says flatly that she is a woman of means. But, Schwertley continues, Phoebe had to be a widow deaconess over 60 years old, not a deacon. Why? Because later church history does not write specifically about women deacons, only about deaconesses several centuries after Paul introduced Phoebe to the church in Rome! As Schwertley comments, when responding to B.B. Warfield and other 1800s scholars who believed that Phoebe held the office of deacon, it is “very unlikely” that women deacons vanished not to be “properly restored until the nineteenth century” (p 31). Of course, any believer in rule by bishops could write the same thing about elders ruling as equals vanishing, not to be restored until the sixteenth century. However, our authority is the Bible, not later church history.
Paul’s introduction of Phoebe to the church in Rome supports understanding I Timothy 3:11 as referring to woman [deacons] rather than to old widows with no children to support them. What about I Timothy 3:11 being “wives,” as the KJV translates? Schwertley rightly rejects this translation because the “women” are introduced with the same word, “likewise,” that introduced deacon qualifications. The word “women” should be translated “women.”
Writing about 390 A.D., the universally respected John Chrysostom, ignored by Schwertley, commented briefly on I Timothy 3:11: “‘Even so must the women be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.’ Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.”4 That’s it. I Timothy 3:11 deals with women deacons, later called deaconesses. Chrysostom does not think it necessary to discuss the idea that the “women” were wives of deacons, as per the KJV.
In his subsequent sermons on I Timothy 5, Chrysostom does not mention what work aged widows did for the church. Why? Paul’s topic in that chapter is financial support: first, family should support poor widows; second, young widows should remarry; third, worthy older widows who had done past service should be enrolled for church support; fourth, elders who labor in word and doctrine are worthy of “double honor,” that is, financial support.
If the women of I Timothy 3:11 are not the wives of deacons, who are they? They are women deacons. The qualifications for the women [deacons] are the same as for deacons, except for one thing, the necessity of the deacons being husbands of one wife and ruling their children and households well, required in the next verse, I Timothy 3:12. To require women [deacons] to rule their own households well would indeed contradict the Bible’s teaching on the relationship of husbands and wives, with a husband being the head of his wife (I Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23). Therefore, Paul gives qualifications for deacons, then similar qualifications for women [deacons], and concludes with one final qualification for deacons: they must rule their own houses well.
The strongest case Schwertley makes for his view that the later deaconesses stem from the indigent aged widows of I Timothy 5 is contained in a chart (pp 116-117), where he compares the qualifications for elders and deacons from I Timothy 3 with those for widows over sixty from I Timothy 5. He nicely shows the similarity for all three. However, these qualifications are ones all Christians should aim for, so not much can be concluded from their similarity.
In this discussion we are asserting that 1 Timothy 3:11 refers to women deacons. As can be seen above, the later Council of Nicaea speaks of something closely related but still slightly different: the unordained deaconess. In the second half of the 19th Century, the RPCNA, along with scholars like B.B. Warfield, a famous defender of orthodoxy, concluded that Phoebe was a deacon, not a deaconess. The later feminine “deaconess,” a new word, was needed when deacons began to preach in the quickly developing church hierarchy. Then, still later, some in the Church looked to the widows of I Timothy 5 to account for the existence of deaconesses.
Schwertley discusses what deaconesses did in the Eastern Church until they faded away. One might conclude from his discussion that every church should aim to have a women deacon or two. Why? There are some things that women need other women to help them with, so a church with all men elders and all men deacons can be lacking in available care for women.
In a later article, this writer intends to give some attention to the reasoning given in the decidedly conservative Presbyterian and Covenanter and the avowedly more progressive Our Banner in support of Synod’s 1888 ruling that women could be deacons, thus responding to Schwertley’s second main thesis, that the RPCNA acted in 1888 from illegitimate Christian feminist motives. A still further article may deal with the issue of ordination, which Schwertley also takes up, denying that it is ever proper to ordain a woman.
I do not recommend that you try to find a copy of Brian Schwertley’s book, A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons. It can be hard to find. If you do find one, read cautiously. Schwertley cherry picks his sources, omitting the careful and respected preacher John Chrysostom, for example. Buttressed by his quasi-Catholic approach of starting with post-apostolic documents and then looking at the Bible, his dogmatic certainty can carry along the unwary to his preordained conclusion.
– Bill Edgar
Footnotes:
1 Didache is the usual shorthand reference to The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a book lost until it was rediscovered in Constantinople in 1873. It is a compendium of rules and procedures, early but not apostolic.
2 Generally, the Christian Church did not use pagan or Jewish religious terminology. Instead, it adapted ordinary Greek words for its needs. It used “ekklesia,” an assembly of people, for “church,” and “apostolos,” meaning messenger, for the Apostles. The Greek “diakonos,” a server, named an office so unique to Christianity that translators of the Bible into English do not translate it. When it refers to a church officer, they just use the word “deacon.” Attempts to find qualifications and duties of deacons from the Temple Levites or synagogue officers are therefore misguided. Thinking that deacons are just New Testament “Levites” commits the frequent error that the ancient Church called “judaizing.”
3 Cenchrae was the eastern port of the city of Corinth. Goods would land at Corinth from the Gulf of Corinth, be transported a short distance over land to Cenchrae, and then loaded onto ships there for further destinations.
4 “Deacon” in NT times was like the English word “servant,” used equally of men and women, or like the word “server” in a restaurant. Sometime before the year 390 when Chrysostom preached, the Church re-framed the common gender noun “deacon” as a masculine noun, and it called a female deacon a “deaconess,” a word appearing nowhere in the New Testament or contemporary Greek sources.
Book Review, Part II:
A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons
By Brian Schwertley, 1998
In his book on women deacons, Schwertley uses a quasi-Roman Catholic approach. First, he studies post-apostolic church sources. Then he uses that “tradition” to inform his interpretation of the Bible. Schwertley omits contrary evidence, like the preacher John Chrysostom’s commentary on I Timothy. Nevertheless, Schwertley gives his readers interesting sources to consider as he argues his case that ancient deaconesses originated with the indigent, over 60-year-old widows of I Timothy 5 rather than from the women of I Timothy 3:11.
Schwertley’s accusatory historical account of the 1888 RPCNA acceptance of women deacons is less well done. In fact, it is poorly done. Schwertley asserts, “The reason that many Presbyterians wanted to open the office of deacon to women had very little to do with the biblical evidence, which is lacking, and very much to do with the cultural climate at the time” (Schwertley p. 54). It was “the spirit of the age (p. 57).” True, Christian women in the 1880s were publicly active in reform organizations like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). True, women outnumbered men in many churches. True, Wyoming in 1869 had given women the vote in political elections. However, correlation is not causation. A similar charge could be made against Schwertley himself: he rejects women deacons because he rejects the “cultural climate” of his time, “the spirit” of our age.
To wit: some in our day oppose women deacons, not because of the biblical evidence, or because women deacons have caused problems in our Church, but in reaction to the secular feminism of our age. From 1890 until 2000, RPCNA leaders voiced almost no opposition to women deacons. But as secular feminists multiplied their absurd excesses and liberal Protestant churches put women and gays in their pulpits, opponents of women deacons reacted against the feminist spirit of the age. Does that accusation sound fair? It might to some people. With the terms reversed, it is the charge that Schwertley makes against the 1888 Synod (see Matthew 26:52). However, “spirit of the age” explanations are not determinative. The issue is, “What does the Bible say?”
Does Schwertley have evidence for a “spirit of the age” influencing Synod in 1888? Yes, sort of. He devotes over two pages to quoting the Rev. D. S. Faris in opposition to Synod’s decision. Faris voted with the minority twenty per cent. Schwertley also quotes an outlier, the Rev. T. P. Wylie, the lone voice in the Synod who hoped women would soon be preachers. Wylie left the RPCNA in 1891 to join the Presbyterian Church, a fact Schwertley neglects to tell his readers.
But did anyone write reasons for supporting Synod’s 1888 decision? Yes. Does Schwertley quote them, or at least summarize their reasoning? No. The Rev. D. B. Willson, President of the RP Seminary, wrote his reasons for supporting women deacons in the avowedly conservative The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter. The Rev. James Kennedy, an eminent scholar and theologian as Faris called him, wrote in the avowedly more progressive Our Banner. So did the eminent Philadelphia pastor, the Rev. T. P. Stevenson. All three men wrote long articles. Later in his book, Schwertley argues piecemeal with Willson’s interpretations of relevant Bible passages, but he never deals with his argument head-on. As for Kennedy, who was on the Synod Judicial Committee that recommended approval of women deacons, Schwertley virtually ignores him, as he does Stevenson.
Schwertley writes like an old-fashioned Marxist historian who knows that class interests always determine what people think and do, so there is no need to hear what they say! However, a writer who attacks the teaching of his own church in print should respect the former generation with whom he disagrees to this extent at least: interact with what men like D.B. Willson, James Kennedy, and T.P. Stevenson wrote. Schwertley neglected to do that, only quoting their antagonist D.S. Faris at length. All in all, Schwertley’s historical account of why the RP Synod of 1888 approved women deacons is more than disappointing. It is historical malpractice.
Happily, the Rev. Bryan Schneider has made a good start in remedying Schwertley’s prejudicial omissions. In the May/June 2025 issue of the RP Witness, he summarized some of the reasoning of Willson and Kennedy. No, they were not suffering from “the overflow of sentimentalism,” Faris’ colorful characterization of Synod’s 1888 decision. Yes, they emphatically rejected any notion of women preachers. Yes, they argued from Scripture, not relying on later Christian history to tell them how to interpret the Bible. I encourage readers to read Schneider’s article. (Schneider includes the complete texts of the articles by Willson, Kennedy, Stevenson, Faris, and Wylie, in the October 2024 Gentle Reformation (https://gentlereformation.com/2024/10/23/women-and-the-deacons-office/).
Besides omitting discussion of Willson, Stephenson, and Kennedy’s stated reasons for approving women deacons, Schwertley makes a further historical error. He claims that the “slippery slope” of women deacons leading to women preachers almost happened in the Covenanter Church in the late 1930s. No, it did not. The RP Church then had three offices, Minister of the Word, Ruling Elder, and Deacon. In the 1930s, it was proposed that women be elders in emergencies, that is, when there were no men qualified to be elders and women elders could keep a congregation from being disorganized. No one proposed that women be Ministers of the Word. Schwertley credits J.G. Vos as “largely responsible” for stopping that idea. Hardly. Until April 1941, Vos was a young missionary in Manchuria and had not yet begun writing Blue Banner Faith and Life that later established his reputation as a theologian. Vos’s opposition was only one voice among many, including some women, who wrote in the weekly Covenanter Witness many crushing criticisms of the report recommending that women be allowed to be elders. The 1940 Synod voted 28 for, 41 against, with 33 abstaining, to allow women to be Ruling Elders in emergencies, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to make such a change. That vote ended the matter of women being elders in the RPCNA from 1940 until now. (See William J. Edgar, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 1920-80, pp. 105-07. See also the 7/9/2019 article by Kyle Borg, “A Brief (Maybe Incomplete) History of Women in the RPCNA” at https://gentlereformation.com/2019/07/10/a-brief-maybe-incomplete-history-of-women-in-the-rpcna/) No Presbytery and no Synod of the RPCNA has ever considered having women Ministers of the Word, now called teaching elders to emphasize their equal ruling authority with ruling elders.
Why did the Synod in 1888 not send its decision allowing women deacons down in overture to the sessions and elders? Schwertley admits he does not know. He uncharitably, and implausibly, suggests a reason: supporters of women deacons feared it might not pass in overture. Uncharitable because, without evidence, he attributes a deliberately high-handed and unconstitutional action to the Synod. Implausible because the decision passed Synod by a four-fifths majority, which means that many ruling elders as well as ministers voted for it. It would likely have passed in overture. A more probable reason than the one Schwertley suggests is this: not too many years earlier, after a long fight, the RPCNA, by overture, had approved having deacons instead of trustees. Women had been trustees. It did not seem like a big deal for women to be deacons.
Women deacons were approved by overture in 1980 as part of the new Testimony. This reviewer was present at the late 1970s Synods that approved the 1980 Testimony chapter by chapter. He does not recall objections to women deacons. Objections came later – as reaction to modern secular feminism? – so a Synod committee reported to the Synod of 2002 affirming the Church’s teaching. (That committee was appointed in 2001 to respond to Communication #01-3 from the Great Lakes/Gulf Presbytery, which had studied a 1999 paper from the Southfield, Michigan RPC where Mr. Brian Schwertley was at the time an Associate Pastor. The Southfield paper used the book by Schwertley that we are reviewing, a book Schwertley published that publicly opposed the teaching of the church whose teaching he had sworn to uphold.) There was a spirited debate at the 2002 Synod, but no one felt strongly enough to have his dissent recorded. At that same Synod, one man recorded his dissent about a feature of the new Book of Discipline (2002 Minutes of Synod, p. 67); seventeen men signed a dissent from a decision about days of creation (Minutes, op. cit., pp. 138-39); and two men wrote dissents against Synod’s decision allowing the use of alcoholic wine in communion (Minutes, op. cit., pp. 146-47).
What has happened since 2002? First, some men read Schwertley’s book and found it persuasive, as Bryan Schneider writes was true of himself. Second, the ravages of modern secular feminism and the sexual revolution have grown worse. The same tune continues: any job a man does, women should do also, like being Ministers of the Word. “Sex positive” feminists write approvingly of pornography. More support gay “marriage,” with some gay couples using surrogates to have children. Many, but not all, feminists support the “transgender” agenda. And so on. Feminism grows worse, leading to ever greater and appropriate reaction against it. Third, perhaps the thrill of proving older men wrong could be at work. As Schneider notes, there has been an uncharitable tone in the criticism of the 1888 Synod. The Rehoboam temptation is always with us (see I Kings 12:1-15 and the oft-ignored command in Leviticus 19:32).
In a third review of Schwertley’s book, this reviewer intends to consider what Schwertley writes about the meaning of ordination. Then it will be time to turn attention to the 2022 paper by Merkel and Villi that recently brought women deacons to the attention of the Synod for a second time in the last twenty-five years. Finally, attention is owed to the report written by the study committee, chaired by Nathan Eshelman, assigned to evaluate the Merkel-Villi paper. That committee has announced its intention to ask the Synod to delete the statement in the 1980 RP Testimony approving women deacons.
– Bill Edgar
Book Review, Part III
A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons
By Brian Schwertley
Having discussed Schwertley’s quasi-Catholic approach of beginning with post-apostolic church practice (Tradition) and then using those eyeglasses to read the Bible, and having criticized his inadequate account of the 1888 Synod ruling to allow women deacons, we turn now to a third portion of his argument, the matter of ordination. A problem here is that there is no settled precise Reformed doctrine of ordination. Neither the Westminster Confession of Faith nor its Catechisms nor the Testimony of the RPCNA define what ordination means. Certain documents describe a procedure for ordination, but not a doctrine of ordination.
The Roman Catholic Church, in contrast, has a full-blown account of ordination. Their Sacrament of Holy Orders is explained in full in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 383-399). What is ordination? “Today the word 'ordination' is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination (p. 384).”
All Protestants, however, deny that ordination to any church office is a sacrament. What is it? While Schwertley refers to The Second Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland, approved in the year 1578 by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he does not quote from it. Here are the sections relevant to a discussion of the ordination of deacons and their duties:
3.4 This ordinary and outward calling has two parts: election and ordination… The qualities, in general, requisite in all them who should bear charge in the kirk, consist in soundness of religion and godliness of life, according as they are sufficiently set forth in the word.
3.6 Ordination is the separation and sanctifying of the person appointed of God and his kirk, after he is well-tried and found qualified. The ceremonies of ordination are fasting, earnest prayer, and imposition of hands of the eldership.
8.2 The office of the deacons so taken is an ordinary and perpetual ecclesiastical function in the kirk of Christ. Of what properties and duties he ought to be that is called to this function, we remit it to the manifest scriptures. The deacon ought to be called and elected as the rest of the spiritual officers, of the which election was spoken before.
8.3 Their office and power is to receive and to distribute the whole ecclesiastical goods unto them to whom they are appointed. This they ought to do according to the judgment and appointment of the presbyteries or elderships (of the which the deacons are not), that the patrimony of the kirk and poor be not converted to private men’s uses, nor wrongfully distributed.
Note the limited scope of the diaconal role according to The Second Book of Discipline: deacons handle the church’s finances, receiving and distributing them. They do so under the authority of the elders.
After referring to The Second Book of Discipline, Schwertley then quotes later writers, such as John Owen (1616-1683) – “Ordination in Scripture compriseth the whole authoritative translation of a man from among the number of his brethren into the state of an officer of the church” (Schwertley p 134), and Owen again on the deacon, “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 unto the special work…” (Schwertley, p. 140). The “special work,” of course, is the collection and disbursement of monies under the rule of the elders.
Schwertley quotes a Committee of the Westminster Assembly of Divines – “Ordination, for the substance of it, is the solemnization of an officer’s outward call, in which the elders of the church, in the name of Christ, and for the church, do, by a visible sign, design the person, and ratify his separation to his office; with prayer for, and blessing upon, his gifts in the administration thereof. Acts vi. 3, 6, Numb. viii. 10-19, Acts xiii. 1-3.” He also quotes other authors at length, the Southern Presbyterian writer James Henley Thornwell and the Baptist theologian Augustus H. Strong, but they add little more to the discussion.
Based on the above citations, Schwertley abruptly asserts that deacons, although they are not pastors or elders and do not vote on the session, “still have an ecclesiastical authority that is clearly forbidden to women (p. 140).” Why can’t women deacons properly handle money? Because, Schwertley asserts, controlling money belongs to husbands. In families, a husband as head of his wife controls the money. She can, of course, “communicate her desires and concerns” to her husband (p.140). Sometimes deacons advise members how to handle their finances. Thus, Schwertley argues, deacons do have authority, and they do teach, so it is wrong to ordain women as deacons – even though The Second Book of Discipline and our Standards, along with many other Presbyterian authorities, teach that deacons do not have ruling or teaching authority.
Of course, Schwertley acknowledges, it is permissible for a woman such as Priscilla to teach a man in private. “[Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Per Schwertley, it is not okay for a woman deacon to instruct a man about his finances, presumably also in private, because she would be “a publicly ordained church officer” (p 147), but it was fine for Priscilla and her husband to instruct Apollos about the Gospel message.
So, here we are. The 1578 Second Book of Discipline, and our standards, teach that deacons do not exercise ruling or teaching authority. Schwertley asserts they are mistaken because deacons do teach and exercise authority when they collect and disburse money, and when they give financial advice. Advice, of course, is always just that, advice. Collecting and disbursing money, under the rule of the elders, is the work of a servant, that is, of a deacon. Schwertley is mistaken. Deacons do not exercise authority in the church, and therefore women as well as men may properly be ordained as deacons.
Long Postscript
Scripture should be read in the context of Scripture. Which Scriptures are the best context in which to consider the issue of women deacons?
Answer One: Verses chosen by Brian Schwertley that refer to men and women. His verses are:
“For the husband is the head of the wife” – Ephesians 5:23.
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” – I Corinthians 14:33b-35.
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” – I Timothy 2:11-12.
Answer Two: Verses chosen by 2002 Committee of Synod:
“The broad context of I Timothy 3:11 is Paul’s speaking about the church in terms of a household. This is generally recognized…The clear point is that the church mirrors the family in its structure and function.” The discussion then continues along the lines of the analogy between household and church, concluding, “Overall, it seems to us that the balance comes to rest in favor of women participating in the work of the diaconate by ordination” (2002 Minutes of Synod, pp. 118-120).
Answer Three: The whole Bible, including changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, chosen by the Judicial Committee of the 1888 Synod.
There is continuity between the Old Covenant mediated through Moses, and the New Covenant mediated through Jesus Christ. There is also discontinuity. The Covenant of Grace is differently administered “in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel.” “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (WCF 7:5-6). Some discontinuities concern women.
First, consider how prominent women are identified under both covenants. In the Old Testament Deborah the judge is introduced as “the wife of Lapidoth” (Judges 4:4). Huldah the prophetess is “the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe” (II Chronicles 34:22). Miriam the prophetess is “the sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20). But in the New Testament, women are often not introduced as a wife or sister. Women disciples traveled with Jesus and helped with him with their money, one identified by her husband and two just named (Luke 8:1-3). Paul and companions stayed with Lydia (Acts 16:12-15). Paul had many women companions, helpers, and friends (Romans 16:1-16, Philippians 4:1-3). Women were the first witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-10, John 20:1, 11-18). Women were present in Jerusalem at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1). Some are identified by their connection to a man, but many are not.
Second, a more significant difference in the New Covenant than naming is this: the covenant signs are the same for men and women. Under the Old Covenant, only men were circumcised. In the New Covenant women as well as men are baptized (Acts 8:12). Under the Old Covenant, there was a separate Court of the Women at the Temple. Under the New Covenant, men and women worship God together in the assembly of the saints. They equally partake of the Lord’s Supper. Even though a husband is the head of his wife (no change here, a Creation ordinance), a believing wife makes her children holy, even if her husband is an unbeliever, just as a believing husband makes his children holy, even if his wife does not believe (I Corinthians 7:14). Under the New Covenant, men and women have equal standing before God, and equal responsibilities, rights, and privileges, unless the Scriptures teach otherwise.
Under the New Covenant, as James Kennedy for the 1888 Committee wrote: “The church of the New Testament is a corporate institution, and all her members have all corporate rights and privileges, unless when specially exempted” (Signed, “Committee of Synod,” Our Banner, November 1888, p 376). What “rights and privileges” are specifically restricted to men? Only men may be elders and preachers, something that the 1888 Synod Committee asserted unequivocally and that the RPCNA has taught and practiced ever since. There is no similar restriction on women being deacons, an office of serving, not ruling. Furthermore, in I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1-2, there is substantial evidence that the New Testament church had women deacons, just as the church had deaconesses for many later centuries.
– Bill Edgar
Merkel-Villi Paper on Women Deacons, Synod Paper 2022-1
Part I:
Critique of Introduction
The Synod committee appointed to evaluate the Merkel-Villi paper and make recommendations to the Synod wrote an incomplete review of the Merkel-Villi paper. This review aims to supplement the work of that committee without interacting directly with its work.
Merkel-Villi begin their paper with a two-page introduction, which lays the foundation for their study and conclusions. Their introduction has four main points: their THESIS (women should not be deacons), their METHOD (whole Bible approach), their INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLE (continuity between the Old and New Covenants), and their HYPOTHESIS (male-only Levites should lead us to expect male-only deacons).
A. Merkel-Villi's THESIS: There are four views on women and the diaconate. 1) Men and women equally deacons; 2) Deacons and deaconesses are two separate offices; 3) Women may be non-ordained assistants to male deacons; 4) No place for women in a diaconal office. The RPCNA holds the first of these four views, but it lacks clear Scriptural warrant to do so. It should stop ordaining women as deacons.
Evaluation: Merkel-Villi state their thesis clearly.
B. Merkel-Villi's METHOD: The whole Bible should be consulted when deciding the issue of women deacons, especially since only a few verses mention deacons, Philippians 1:1, I Timothy 3:8-13, and arguably Romans 16:1. Acts 6:1-3 uses the verb form of the noun deacon, but not the word “deacon.”
Evaluation: True, the few deacon passages should not only be exegeted well, but also considered in the context of the whole Bible.
C. Merkel-Villi's INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLE: The continuity between the Old and New Covenants (Latin “Testaments”) provides clear direction on the issue of women deacons. Under the Old Covenant, men led and held all offices. A few women held the irregular offices of judge and prophet, but this happened “sometimes to show that the men were not stepping up to their responsibilities.” Deacons continue the office of the all-male Levites of the Old Testament. The principle of “Male headship” was established at Creation.
Long Evaluation and Critique:
1. In stating that Reformed hermeneutics assumes continuity between the Old and New Covenants unless specifically stated, Merkel-Villi dismiss the meaning of the words “Old” and “New.” They write: “Reformed hermeneutics demands the assumption of continuity between Old and New Covenants in the absence of a clearly communicated change (i.e. abrogation or fulfillment)” (p. 3, citing Louis Berkhof). The footnote continues that the continuity between circumcision and baptism means that infants should be baptized. Correct. The footnote fails to note an obvious and pertinent discontinuity. Under the Old Covenant only males were circumcised. Under the New Covenant males and females are baptized equally. What might that imply? Merkel-Villi do not ask that question. The equal baptism of boys and girls, men and women (Acts 8:12), seems to have escaped their notice.
2. On the relationship between the two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace, Merkel-Villi bypass the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The “…covenant of grace…was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb…Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper….(7:4-6).”
For the last one hundred years Reformed theologians have often stressed the continuity between the Old and New Covenants to combat the Dispensationalist heresy of Darby and the Scofield Bible (1909), which lost sight of the one Covenant of Grace governing all of God’s relationships with man since the beginning: same God, same human nature, same moral law, same salvation by faith, same Covenant of Grace – continuity! However, the Bible emphasizes the newness of the New Covenant more than it explicitly teaches continuity. “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers” (Jeremiah 31:31-32). The writer to the Hebrews explains. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). You cannot put new wine into old wineskins, Jesus said (Mark 2:22). John in his Prologue wrote, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin devoted one chapter to the similarities and one chapter to the differences between the Old and the New Covenants (Institutes of the Christian Religion, chapters 10-11). No, Reformed hermeneutics does not demand the assumption of near total continuity between a now obsolete and vanishing Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The continuity that the Westminster Standards teach is the continuity of the one Covenant of Grace operating in both of its applications, the temporary Old Covenant and the permanent New Covenant.
3. From ancient times, the church has had to fight the temptation to “Judaize” the faith, that is, to bring Jewish laws and ways into the New Covenant era. Requiring circumcision for salvation was early Judaizing. The Council of Jerusalem responded that circumcision is unnecessary for salvation (Acts 15, Galatians 2). In doing so, the Council put not only Jews and Gentiles, but also men and women on an equal footing when receiving the covenant sign of baptism. Paul wrote about circumcision no longer being necessary. “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:24-28). In the parallel passages of Colossians 3:11 and Romans 10:12, Paul omits “male and female,” perhaps because in those places he was not writing specifically about circumcision, a visible covenant sign only males could receive.
For its first thousand years, the Church did not use musical instruments in public worship services because using them would Judaize the church’s worship. We do not call our pastors and elders “priests.” Priests offering animal sacrifices for sin represented Israel to God. Christ is now our permanent High Priest, having once for all offered himself as our sacrifice for sin. The office of priest has ended. Since the Old Covenant priesthood has ended, the office of Levite has also ended. Understanding the New Covenant office of deacon as continuing the Old Covenant office of Levite is a Judaizing mistake, like the mistake of calling teaching elders priests.
4. New Testament writers never use Old Testament terminology for its life together, except for “elder,” an office that predates the Old Covenant! Before God established his covenant with Israel, Moses spoke to Israel’s elders before going to Pharaoh. “Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel” (Exodus 4:29). During the era of the Old Covenant, the office of elder continued. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them….’” (Numbers 11:16) Elders continued while Israel had kings. While Saul was king, “Samuel did what the Lord commanded and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling and said, ‘Do you come peaceably?’” (I Samuel 16:4). (See also Deuteronomy 21:19, I Samuel 8:4, and I Kings 20:7.) In the New Covenant era, when the necessity of circumcision was debated in Jerusalem, elders helped make the decision. “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this issue” (Acts 15:6).
Elders do not continue the Old Covenant priesthood in their “preaching and shepherding,” as Merkel-Villi write. They predate the priesthood and continued alongside the priesthood. Attributing to the elders of the church priestly functions is a Judaizing mistake and could lead to calling teaching elders “priests,” as the Roman Catholic Church does.
[Side Note: Some early Christians such as Justin Martyr (100-165) taught that the Church has replaced Israel. By the Fourth Century, that replacement theology developed into a one for one replacement practice from Israel to the Church. Replacing both the Temple altar and pagan altars too, churches began to have stone altars, often enclosing the bones of martyrs. The Lord’s Supper became the Mass, understood as a sacrifice. Presbyters turned into priests, and deacons replaced Levites as aides to the priests. Reformed theology, on the other hand, teaches fulfillment theology, with Gentiles grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17) in the New Covenant People of God. The Church is built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles with Jesus Christ the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The Church is the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16-17). The conversion of the Gentiles brings the renovation and expansion of David’s kingdom (Acts 15:13-18).
Old Testament Scriptures prophesied the addition of Gentile believers to Israel, not Israel’s replacement. “Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush—“This one was born there,” they say. And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. The Lord records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there” (Psalm 87:4-6; See also Zechariah 8:20-23).
With the Old Covenant fulfilled, there is no further need for a physical Temple, priests, animal sacrifices, or Levites. Elders from before the Old Covenant continue as officers under the New Covenant, with deacons a new ministry of service.]
5. New Testament vocabulary for church life exhibits sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant People of God in their government and worship. No New Testament officer is ever called a “priest” or a “Levite.” The church does not meet in a “temple.” The body of believers is the Temple in which the Spirit dwells. Believers meet for worship as the “ecclesia,” a word taken from Greek political life. “Episkopos,” “pastor,” and “apostolos” are likewise ordinary Greek words given technical meanings by the church. “Deacon,” finally, is an ordinary Greek word for table servant.
6. Who were the Levites whom Merkel-Villi mistakenly view as precursors for deacons? The Levites were a tribe settled in their own cities throughout Israel, made up of men, women, and children. From the tribe of Levi came the priestly family of Aaron. Both the Levites and the priests were hereditary and temporary.
What was the job of the Levites? Firstly, God accepted the tribe of Levi in the place of the firstborn of all Israel (Numbers 3:11-13), a place that foreshadowed Christ, “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Now that Christ has come, that foreshadowing is finished. Levite men guarded and moved the tabernacle as it went through the wilderness (Numbers 3). They aided the priests in sacrifice. They played the instruments and sang during the Temple services. They handled the Temple’s money. Scattered throughout Israel, the Levites helped teach God’s law. At least once, they translated the Law of Moses as Ezra the scribe read aloud to the people (Nehemiah 8:7). Now that Christ has come and poured out his Spirit on the whole church, appointing elders and teachers, this task of the Levites has also ended (Acts 2:38, I Peter 3:15, Ephesians 2:10-15). All believers are priests (I Peter 2:5, 9, Revelation 5:10). Temple worship with its sacrifices has ended, and ended also are the human offices of priest and Levite. Others besides Merkel-Villi have tried to account for the office of deacons by tying them to Levites, but deacons are not Levites. Deacons are a new office in the New Covenant, serving alongside the old office of elder.
What was the calling of the men appointed to serve in Acts 6? It was to provide daily provision of food for the Greek-speaking Jewish widows in the Jerusalem Church. The Tribe of Levi had no such calling. In fact, God told Israel to provide food to the Levites to support them. “And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household. And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you” (Deuteronomy 14:26-27). Were Levites told to do acts of mercy as deacons do? No. The Old Covenant Levites who held a hereditary office, and New Covenant deacons ordained individually by the elders of a church, do not hold the same, or even a similar, office. The fact that the Levites were all males – but the tribe of Levi included women and children also – is irrelevant as to who may be deacons.
7. Another discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments is that women are more prominent in the New Testament than in the Old. Ruth and Esther are rare examples of OT female heroes, as are the prophetesses Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah, and Huldah. Merkel-Villi omit Miriam when they name OT women prophets. She certainly does not fit their notion that God chose a few women as judge and prophet because men were “not stepping up to their responsibilities.” Miriam’s brothers were Moses and Aaron!
Women in the OT almost always appear as wives and sisters. Deborah is the wife of Lapidoth (Judges 4:4), and Huldah is identified as the wife of Shallum (II Chronicles 34:22). Miriam the prophetess is the “sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20). Esther is the wife of Ahasuerus. Ruth is first the wife of Chilion and later becomes the wife of Boaz.
However, in the New Testament women accompanied Jesus and his disciples on their travels, some giving financial support, and only one is named as someone’s wife (Luke 8:1-3). Women were the main witnesses of Jesus’ crucifixion, death, and burial and the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27-28, Mark 15-16, Luke 23-24, John 19-20). Paul had many women associates and friends (Romans 16, Philippians 4:2-3), and he and his companions lived with Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16:14-15). Fewer than half the women named in the New Testament are identified by their husbands, brothers, or fathers. Given the prominence of women helping in the ministries of Jesus and Paul, one might expect to find evidence for women deacons in the New Testament since deacons have a helping role. And there it is, in I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1.
8. Given the relative prominence of women in the New Testament, their equal standing with men in being baptized and partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and their role as helpers to both Jesus and Paul, one needs clear New Testament teaching that they should not be deacons. There is clear teaching that only men can be elders, as the RPCNA has always taught and practiced. There is no such clear teaching for only male deacons.
By using the now ended Old Testament all-male priests and all-male Levites to form their expectation of all-male deacons, Merkel-Villi prejudice their reading of evidence for women deacons in the New Testament. Given their Introduction, it is telling that they nevertheless conclude that women deacons are “possible,” even though they do not think women deacons are “plausible.”
9. Finally, what is this “male headship” Merkel-Villi cite as established at Creation? The term “male headship” does not appear in Christian writing until after 1970, first from George Knight III and then Wayne Grudem and the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Yes, a husband is head of his wife (Ephesians 5:23). The man was created first (Genesis 2, I Timothy 2:13). God created the woman to be the helper of the man (Genesis 2:18), the most basic help being that only together can they bear children and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). However, no creed has defined “male headship” or spelled out either its extent or limitations. The term is merely a recent neologism coined to oppose modern secular feminism.
D. Merkel-Villi's HYPOTHESIS: The two regular ecclesiastical offices of priest and Levite continue, by and large, in the offices of pastor and deacon. The priests and Levites in the OT were males. Therefore, “…one would not expect to find ordained women deacons in the New Covenant era.” (p. 3). “The ordination of women officers requires an explicit and clear NT command indicating a change in the structure of the offices. As will be seen, there is no such command in the NT” (p. 3).
Medium-length Evaluation and Critique:
No. The claimed expectation is beside the point for elders, who are not priests and do not continue the priestly office. The expectation is unwarranted for deacons, who are not tribal hereditary Levites and have a different primary calling than helping the priests at the Temple with animal sacrifices. Elders predate the Old Covenant, and deacons are new in the New Covenant. The Merkel-Villi emphasis on male priests and Levites, along with a one-sided emphasis on the continuity between the Old and the New Covenants, sets their study of women deacons off on the wrong foot from the beginning. Even so, they conclude that women deacons are “possible.”
Under the New Covenant, as James Kennedy for the 1888 Committee wrote: “The church of the New Testament is a corporate institution, and all her members have all corporate rights and privileges, unless when specially exempted” (Signed, “Committee of Synod,” Our Banner, November 1888, p 376). What “rights and privileges” are specifically restricted to men? Only men may be elders and preachers. There is no similar restriction on women being deacons, an office of serving, not ruling. Furthermore, in I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1-2, there is substantial evidence that the New Testament church had women deacons, just as the church had deaconesses for many later centuries, a fact well documented in Brian Schwertley’s book Women Deacons. Yes, women as well as men may be deacons.
-- Bill Edgar
Merkel-Villi Paper on Women Deacons, Synod Paper 2022-1
A Critique, Part II
After their introduction, Merkel-Villi proceed to look at relevant NT verses on the diaconate.
Acts 6:1-6 (pp. 4-5)
Merkel-Villi note correctly that the noun “deacon” does not appear in Acts 6. The seven males with Greek names chosen to help serve the Hellenistic widows have no title. The verb translated “serve” is a cognate of the noun “deacon.” The stated qualifications of these men, however, are the same common-sense qualifications of elders and deacons later given in I Timothy 3. The Apostles prayed and laid hands on these seven men, an act reminiscent of Moses choosing seventy men from among the existing elders in Israel to help him judge the people (Numbers 11:16-30). The appointment of the Seven serve in Luke’s history of the early church to introduce the evangelists Stephen and Philip, Stephen the first Christian martyr and Philip the first preacher to non-Jews.
At the beginning of the church on the Day of Pentecost, the Apostles ruled the church. However, elders soon joined them. When believers in Antioch around 45 A.D. sent famine relief to the church in Jerusalem, it went “to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30). Notably, the aid did not go to the deacons but rather “to the elders.” As the Rev. James Kennedy wrote in 1888, “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” (Our Banner, November 1888, p 374).
Merkel-Villi make several errors when discussing Acts 6. Error One. Merkel-Villi write that with the seven men, “the Levitical/diaconal office expanded from Jews to Gentiles” (p. 5). No. The widows they served were “Hellenists,” Greek-speaking Jews from the Jewish diaspora who lived in Jerusalem. Error Two. The term “Levitical/diaconal” office for the Seven is incorrect. The job of the Seven was to distribute food to widows. Levitical men had no such responsibility. They themselves were the recipients of support.
Since the title “deacon” is absent from Acts 6, and elders rather than deacons later receive aid from Antioch, and the job of the Seven is not Levitical, it is unwarranted to conclude that Acts 6 requires that deacons always and everywhere be male.
I Timothy 3:11
Merkel-Villi begin by quoting Peter DeJong: “if this were a completely unambiguous text, the issue would be settled once for all” (p. 5). They then cite different interpretations of the verse. Again, they make some mistakes.
Mistake One. They ask, if Paul meant that the women in I Timothy 3:11 were deacons alongside the men, why did he use the term “women?” Merkel-Villi write, “There would be no better place to use a technical [term] than in the description of the office and its qualifications, yet the word is conspicuously absent” (fn. 35 p. 6). No, the word “deaconess” is not conspicuously absent in I Timothy 3:11. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, “deaconess” did not yet exist as a Greek word. “Deacon” was a common noun like our word “servant,” applying equally to men and women. And, in context, the word “women” is short for “women [deacons]” by a simple ellipsis.
Mistake Two. Merkel-Villi wonder why Paul writes nothing about women raising their children well, as is written of men in verse 12. “…[V]erse 12 applies an additional command specifically to men, but verse 11 does not say anything specific to women that has not already been stated in verses 8-10 (p 8).” They miss the reason why Paul says nothing about the women of verse 11 raising their children well. God put fathers in charge of training their children (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21).
An Omission. Although Merkel-Villi give many interpretations of I Timothy 3:11, they omit discussing a near certainty: the church in Ephesus already had elders and deacons when Paul wrote his letter. Paul regularly appointed elders in churches he founded (Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17). By the time Paul wrote to Timothy, “deacon” had acquired its technical meaning of a church officer (Philippians 1:1). Therefore, Timothy and the church would understand that “likewise the women” meant “likewise the women [deacons].” Paul’s instructions about elders and deacons warned against a mistake churches often make, of electing to office the biggest givers, the best educated, or the high born rather than people with godly character.
Like Brian Schwertley, Merkel-Villi neglect John Chrysostom of Antioch (c.347-407 AD), one of the most reliable ancient Bible expositors. About I Timothy 3:11, Chrysostom wrote, “‘Even so must the women be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.’ Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.” That’s it. I Timothy 3:11 deals with women deacons, called “deaconesses” by the time Chrysostom wrote. Notably, he does not think it necessary even to reject the later idea that the “women” were wives of deacons, as per the KJV.
Among early church writers, Chrysostom is not alone in understanding I Timothy 3:11 as referring to women deacons. Much earlier than Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215 AD) wrote in passing, "We also know the directions 'about women deacons' (peri diakonōn gunaikōn) which are given by the noble Paul in his second [sic] letter to Timothy" (Stromata 3.6.53). Clement does not use the later word “deaconess,” but refers to deacons who are women. The word “deaconess” had likely not yet become common when Clement wrote.
A third writer, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458 AD), in his Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11 observes that Paul’s requirements for female deacons are the same as for male deacons. “‘In the same way, women’ that is, the deacons (diakonous), ‘are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.’ What he directed for the men, he did similarly for the women. Just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for the women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. And as he commanded the men not to drink much wine, so he ordered that the women should be temperate.”
Finally, in rejecting the possibility of women deacons, Merkel-Villi give undue weight to I Timothy 2:12. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet (ESV).” Many Greek words are translated in various passages into English by the one word “authority.” The Greek word in I Timothy 2:12 is used only once in the NT, which means that we cannot be certain of its meaning. The KJV probably translates better. “I do not suffer a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man.” In that case, I Timothy 2:12 would match the household instructions given in Ephesians 5-6, that wives should be subject to their own husbands. I Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket statement about no woman ever having authority over any man, as in ordering male servants what to do as women often did in ancient households. Furthermore, a woman duly elected and ordained a deacon would not be usurping authority. As a deacon, she would not even possess authority! The diaconate is an office of service restricted to the realm of financial matters.
I Timothy 5:9-10
Centuries after Paul wrote, some thought that the existing deaconesses in their day were the over-sixty-year-old widows of I Timothy 5. However, I Timothy 5 mentions nothing about whether these old widows were to do any work. Paul’s topic in chapter 5 is financial support, who should receive it. First, families should support their poor widows; second, young widows should remarry; and third, worthy older widows who had done past service should be enrolled for church support. I Timothy 5:17-18 continues the theme of financial support. The elders who labor in word and doctrine are worthy of “double honor,” an idiom meaning that they should be paid.
The charts of qualifications for various offices on pp. 13-14 are interesting, but they prove nothing. What is required of elders, deacons, women, and widows meriting church support is simply good Christian character. The one exception is the requirement for men, both elders and deacons, to rule their own households well.
Romans 16:1-2
Merkel-Villi note the range of translations and interpretations of this verse concerning Phoebe. Schwertley’s discussion is superior, so I would refer the reader to my comments on this verse in his book. As Schwertley correctly observes, the verse reads like a commendation of an officer of the church in Cenchreae on a mission to Rome.
Phoebe is a deacon, not an ill-defined “servant,” and not an old and lacking means widow over sixty setting off on an arduous journey to Rome. Phoebe was likely well off and not poor at all.
Pliny’s Letter 112 A.D.
The Merkel-Villi dismissal of Pliny’s 112 AD letter to Emperor Trajan because it is not in the Bible is wrong-headed. Bible commentators regularly make use of extra-biblical writers, Josephus, for example, to help understand certain things in the New Testament. In their history section Merkel-Villi themselves quote non-biblical sources.
Pliny writes of two women ministrae, who were slaves. He tortured them to find out what Christians teach. “Ministrae” in Latin had the same range of meaning as “deacon” had in Greek. Pliny’s use of the term clearly points to his belief that as “ministrae,” that is “deacons,” these women would know what Christians teach. Pliny would not expect mere slaves, who did servants’ work, to know what Christians taught. Pliny wrote about women deacons whom he had tortured.
Synthesis of Scriptural Testimony
Merkel-Villi's discussion of continuity-discontinuity is again unsatisfactory. Their account of the changes from Old to New Testaments in a long footnote (fn. 95, p. 18) does not assess the possible implications of baptism (for both men and women) replacing circumcision for men only. Nor do they assess the possible implications of the Lord’s Supper being open to all versus the limitation that Jewish women were restricted to the Temple Court of the Women and could not directly observe the sacrifices. They correctly note no need for priests, with the Church having only elders, forgetting that they had earlier argued for a priest-elder continuity at the start of their paper. They call Acts 6, where the noun “deacon” does not appear, clear; and they call Romans 16:1-2, where the noun “deacon” does appear, unclear. The synthesis discussion is unsatisfactory.
The Testimony of Church History
This section has some interesting information. In fn. 101 (p. 19), we learn that Ambrosiaster (c. 370 AD) objected that the Montanists who began in the mid-100’s used I Timothy 3:11 “to assert that women ought to be ordained as deaconesses.” Montanus announced the imminent return of Christ and sought to recover the gifts of the Spirit of I Corinthians, but in most respects he was orthodox. Late in life, the church father Tertullian joined the Montanists. Were the Montanists just continuing an existing practice of ordaining women deacons? Interesting that they used I Timothy 3:11 to explain why they did so.
As Merkel-Villi state, what can be said about church history is that the record is unclear about the diaconate office. Though one thing is clear about early post-Apostolic church offices: the church quickly adopted a Roman hierarchical church government. Consider what Ignatius wrote about the year 115 AD. “Let the laity be subject to the deacons: the deacons to the presbyters: the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father” (quoted Schwertley, p 9). Sadly, ancient church rules on church officers provide an unreliable guide to biblical church practice, which is why we are Presbyterian rather than Episcopal.
Conclusion
All four positions about the women of I Timothy 3:11 are possibly correct, Merkel-Villi write. They follow that observation with a probability argument, concluding, “it is not advisable to ordain women to the diaconate” (p. 27). They buttress their conclusion with a chart of relevant biblical references and whether it is possible/plausible to read each of them as supporting any of the four views on women and the diaconate. The winner: “non-ordained diaconal assistant” (p. 28). They continue with a warning against “the danger in minimizing the significance of ordination” (p. 30). (On ordination: see my discussion of ordination in Part III of my review of Schwertley’s book.) They raise the specter of women ordained as deacons leading to women ordained as preachers (p. 30-31), never mind that after 137 years the RPCNA has not done so.
Unlike Schwertley, Merkel-Villi do not start with church history. However, their one-sided focus on the continuity of the Old and New Covenants colors their reading of the New Testament, making it nearly inevitable that they will conclude that Phoebe being a deacon is “implausible.” “Implausible” as a criterion for what the Bible teaches is not biblical exegesis. It verges towards the “what seems reasonable to me” criterion for accepting what the Bible teaches, a dangerous mindset for people reading the Bible. All in all, the Merkel-Villi paper fails to make a persuasive case against the present teaching and practice of the RPCNA. That practice should be continued.
– Bill Edgar
Review
of
Synod committee paper
will go here
Author on this page
Bill Edgar is a retired pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia) and the author of the following books:
Chutzpah Heroes: Thirteen Stories About Underdogs with Wit and Courage
History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 1920-1980: Decade by Decade
7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On
All books are available from both Crown & Covenant and Amazon and other online vendors.
A Little Help?
The Editors do not sell individual subscriptions to A Little Strength. Our goal is to publish with as little labor and financial overhead as possible. Yet mailing paper copies to Atlantic Presbytery churches and maintaining a website aren't free. If you have found A Little Strength to be interesting and profitable,
would you consider sending a contribution?
Make your check out to Elkins Park RPC, designated for A Little Strength,
and send it to the treasurer, at the church's address:
901 Cypress Ave, Elkins Park, PA 19027.