Volume 9: Issue 1 | January 2026
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
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
What Do Mothers Give Babies During Church Services?
What are Covenanter mothers feeding infants these days to keep them quiet during church services? Some forty years ago (cerca 1925 --ed.) it was mainly soda crackers. How do I know? I was church janitor. And that was before the days of the vacuum sweeper, too. Other, earlier reports tell of a piece of fried bacon rind, with a string tied to it, in case the baby swallowed it abruptly. What serves this important need now? Crackers - soda or graham - or cookies, marshmallows, candy, bread? No. Believe it or not, the old-fashioned pacifier.
As I noticed these artificial stoppers being used by young mothers to hush babies at church I asked cautiously whether it was proper now? Does it not distort the child's mouth? Does it not cause buck teeth? No. The consensus of medical opinion now has removed older fears and the style now is to tease the wee with a rubber pacifier. If the infant drops it and the pacifier rolls to the floor three pews ahead, recover the fumble, and wipe it off, then stick the cork back in Oscar's mouth. Baby smiles again through tear-stained eyes and, “On with the sermon.”
For generations the Covenanter Church was more or less immune to the disrupting noise from children. A pastor did not mind the howls and clatter any more than a storekeeper minds the noise from his cash register when he rings up a sale. Today's squalling infant is tomorrow's elder, deacon or contributor. Ministerial qualifications included a lung-power adequate for out-shouting a church full of unhappy babes. In those days, even when a mother finally took an older child out for his larrupin', the ears of all the congregation were attuned to the racket outside the open windows, wondering if Matilda would give the brat “forty stripes save one,” or less.
We have become modernized now. Nursery groups safely out of earshot shepherd the troublemakers until church is out. Some churches maintain square, soundproof studios where mothers and babes sit behind glass. The sermon is piped in by an amplifier. To the infants this experience cannot be much different from the outlook of a goldfish.
Another question is suggested by this nonsense:
What are pastors in the Covenanter Church feeding the adults in church services to keep them quiet?
Peter wrote, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” I Peter 2:2. The writer of Hebrews encouraged a more adult diet: “For everyone that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” Hebrews 5:13,14
Beware of pacifiers! I speak in a figure, but, ministers and people, beware of spiritual “pacifiers!” One of our ministers aptly described a most prevalent vice of modern Protestant churches when he said that people are guilty of the “lust for inspirational sermons.” I heard a dramatic orator from the Southern Presbyterian Mission in Formosa give a sermon in Karuizawa, Japan, which he prefaced by saying to us: “If you are lookin' for one of those back-scratching preachers, you can go.” Surely these remarks did not mean that the speakers oppose preaching comfort and peace to troubled hearts, for both men gave much comfort to their hearers. It is rather the vice of some church members expecting, and of ministers yielding to their expecting, a diet of continual, sweetened milk-sermons. Systematic doctrine, theological exposition, sermons on Covenanter principles, sermons which attack the sins of the hearers bluntly, sermons which disturb and warn us: these messages are often resisted by Covenanter adults as “too deep,” “too uninteresting,” “too old-fashioned.” Many people are looking only for selfish comfort instead of seeking God's glory, so what they want to hear is the humanistic sort of sermons which give them a Readers' Digest success story that sends them out ready “to lick the world.” Because this “lift” is not based on deep repentance and a fresh vision of God's holiness, the emotional stimulation soon fades away under life's daily tensions.
“Pacifiers” are sermons which are fun to suck, but never bring Christians a real, lasting nourishment. The prophet warned, “They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace” Jeremiah 6:14. Nobody welcomes the surgeon's knife, and faithful pastors can wield it only after an agony of self-crucifixion and fear. Without it, however, we let hideous sins within our hearts go on festering and unhealed until a faithful Christian, pastor or believer, dares to apply to us faithfully the whole counsel of God. After all, only the Holy Spirit is capable of doing this spiritual surgery right, so let us ask His emergency operation now. Do we want a “pacifier” or true Peace?
– Samuel E. Boyle
Covenanter Witness
4/15/1964, p 249
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
Family Prayers
In Christian monasteries, monks commonly stopped whatever they were doing to pray at set times. According to the Benedictine Rule, monks prayed seven times a day, using Psalm 119:164 as a guide. “Seven times a day I praise you.” The Protestant Reformation, among other goals, aimed to move daily prayers from monasteries into families.
An August 24, 1647, act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland gave instructions about Family Worship. A few sentences from their instructions: “First, Prayer and praises performed with a special reference, as well as to the public condition of the kirk of God and this kingdom, as to the present case of the family, and every member thereof. Next, reading of the scriptures, with catechizing in a plain way…. The head of the family is to take care that none of the family withdraw himself from any part of family worship.” “These exercises ought to be performed in great sincerity, without delay, laying aside all exercises of worldly business or hinderance….” Church elders should make sure that their members observed Family Worship.
The spread of literacy in Scotland pushed by John Knox after 1559, Bible translations into the common languages of the people, the dropping price of Bibles thanks to the printing press and cheaper paper, and the first Scottish Psalter of 1564 made it possible for families to obey the Church’s Family Worship instructions. Of course, even the illiterate could gather for prayer, which is why Family Worship was often called Family Prayer.
Families draw near to God in daily Family Worship. “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you (James 4:8).” Our Christian faith is a communal faith as well as personal one. How should it be done in today’s families? The same way as hundreds of years ago! Eat dinner together, move to the living room, sing a Psalm, read a chapter, and kneel for prayer with the head of household praying. Others may also pray. Family Worship should be a family habit, and everyone living in a house should be there.
Two things can be added as seems advisable: a brief discussion of the Word read or sung, and learning the Westminster Shorter Catechism. However, Family Worship should not become tedious, just as it should not be observed in a perfunctory way. It should last no more than quarter of an hour.
The main benefit of Family Worship is drawing near to God. However, there are other advantages to the habit of Family Worship. After drawing near to God, it becomes easier to confess faults to one another and to let go of grudges, so that resentments do not grow over time. Discussions of plans also becomes natural in such a setting.
A question one might ask: why kneel for prayer? Kneeling is awkward. It is also humbling! We are body and soul, and the posture of our body reflects and influences our soul. Because pride is such a danger, we constantly need to humble ourselves, kneeling before God daily (Psalm 95:6). King Solomon knelt before the people when he dedicated the Temple in prayer (II Chronicles 6:13). Daniel knelt daily in prayer (Daniel 6:10). After his farewell words to the elders of Ephesus, Paul knelt with them and prayed (Acts 20:36). There are more such biblical examples.
There are other times each day when believers should specially remember the Lord, but the foundation time is Family Worship. Some believers are Christmas and Easter Christians. Others are Lord’s Day only Christians. All families should aim to be every day of the week Christians, beginning with daily Family Worship.
– Bill Edgar
Money Can't Help
Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death. – Proverbs 11:4
In Psalm 90, as Moses meditates on life’s shortness, he asks God, “Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you (Psalm 90:11)?” Death is the debt owed to God’s justice, not to nature. Since God made man in his image, to be loved and to love forever, death is not “a part of life,” as materialists prattle, attempting to quiet their own fears. Because of sin, death unnaturally ends life, so that ever since sin entered the world, “It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment (Hebrews 9:27).”
When one stands before God’s appointed judge (Acts 17:31), riches will not help. In this life, riches command respect, buy the best lawyers, and may even bribe the judge. But in the day of wrath, riches will not sway the Judge, nor remove the sting of God’s wrath. The only help in the day of wrath is righteousness. If God is for us, then who will be against us (Romans 8:31)? The second death will not hurt us, so the judgment presaged by the first death will not alarm the righteous, whose goodness will deliver them from death.
Here the proverb ends, but since “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)” and “there is none that does good, no, not one (Romans 3:10, Psalm 14:1),” the proverb provokes a deep and serious question. How can anyone be righteous before God and survive his judgment? If animal sacrifice is the answer, then Jews, Christians, and everyone else are in great danger. Jewish animal sacrifices ended when Rome destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D., and wherever news about Jesus Christ has gone, animal sacrifices for believers and non-believers alike have ceased. Nevertheless, the Bible assures us often that God mercifully forgives sin, or how could anyone stand before him (Psalm 130:3-4)? Only by the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The news about Christ, proclaimed by the Church since the Day of Pentecost, announces the victory of the Son of David over sin and death. As the Hebrew scriptures prophesied, Jesus voluntarily died on a cross, the Lamb of God given for the sins of his people. The King of kings is also God’s priest and final sacrifice. After three days, he rose to life again, appearing to many chosen witnesses; after 40 days, he ascended to heaven to rule all nations for the sake of his Church. At the Resurrection, he will return as judge and savior, with forgiveness for all who have repented and believe in him. When we are united to him by faith, God counts our sin to him and his righteousness to us. Yes, righteousness, not ours, but Christ’s imputed righteousness received as a free gift by faith alone, delivers from death on the day of wrath, when riches will be of no use.
– Bill Edgar
The Lord of the Rings
by J.R.R. Tolkien
A Fourth Reading
I first read Tolkien’s Middle Earth epic at age twenty. The book was popular at my college, so as our family drove through the soaring peaks of the Rocky Mountains, I went to Middle Earth. Half-way through the book, I concluded Tolkien must be Christian. There was genuine good and evil, love and sacrificial heroism, and repeated hints of a hidden hand guiding events to a good end. Much later I learned that Tolkien had been a close friend of C.S. Lewis.
Three years later, I read The Lord of the Rings again. With Gretchen, my bride of two months, we had moved to Pittsburgh. Two weeks before classes began at the RPTS, I read Tolkien a second time. Again, Middle Earth enthralled me. I came to meals bleary-eyed and silent. Had we known what was in store for us as missionaries to the island of Cyprus, Bilbo’s warning to his nephew should have warned us. “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
As we raised our five children – now there’s adventure, raising children – we read them Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. The book, and Peter Jackson’s 2001-2003 movie version, held our imaginations strongly enough that years later, I called Gretchen “Sam” for the year we spent in Beaver Falls. Gretchen had left the Shire (grandchildren!) to join me on a year’s adventure.
This past summer, I read the trilogy a fourth time. This time reading Tolkien, I could put the book down and eat dinner without my head being in Middle Earth. What did I notice this time besides a great story? Five things.
1. Tolkien’s writing at the beginning is light and fun, almost conversational. It suits life in the peaceful Shire where the story begins. But when Frodo, along with Sam, Pippin, and Merry, leave the Shire, Tolkien’s style becomes darker and even a little old-fashioned, suggesting the world of danger, magic, and wonder that Frodo and his friends entered have entered outside the Shire. At the end, when they return home, the language becomes more downhome again but not like at the beginning: the four Hobbit adventurers know now the danger and thrill of war.
2. Tolkien almost never used words with a French or Latin or Greek source. He wrote with simple Anglo-Saxon or Germanic words. In this way, Tolkien was like Winston Churchill, the great master of spoken English. Churchill always used short, Anglo-Saxon words. No one ever missed his meaning. The best preachers do the same. Preachers who connect with their hearers’ hearts and move them towards faith and new life in Christ speak like Tolkien wrote. They never use the language of theology textbooks full of Latinate words.
3. Knowing how Tolkien hated allegory, I kept an eye out for it. Wasn’t there! Neither were biblical turns of phrase; I found but two. About to enter forbidding Fangorn Forest, the fearful dwarf Gimli says to his elf friend Legolas, “Where you go, I will go,” an echo of Ruth’s pledge to her mother-in-law Naomi (Ruth 1:16). And as the Steward of Gondor readies things to burn his son Faramir and himself to death, “like the pagan kings of old,” Gandalf said, “the houses of the dead are no place for the living.” At Jesus’ tomb, the angel said to the women, “Why do you seek the living among the dead” (Luke 24:5)?
4. Sauron the Enemy has only one eye, which he must turn this way and that. He can fasten his attention on only one thing. He lacks the wide vision two eyes give. Likewise, only one thing matters to him: power. He cannot think anyone could want anything else. The one eye and his failure to think anyone might destroy the One Ring blind him to Frodo’s arrival at Mount Doom, where the Ring will be destroyed. Does Sauron suggest an Islamic understanding of Allah, a deity of power eternally alone, unlike the three-in-one God of the Bible, in whom love dwells from all eternity? Allah may be merciful, but he never sacrifices himself for his people. They obey! “Islam” in Arabic means “Submission,” which alone brings Peace. Sauron would never sacrifice himself for his slaves. Gandalf, Aragorn, and even Boromir sacrifice themselves for their friends. “Greater love has no man than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
5. Tolkien gives his readers the internal thoughts of Sam, and in a limited way of Gollum, but of no one else. Sam, not Frodo the ring bearer, or Aragorn the king, or Gandalf the wizard is the hero of the book, a hobbit like Tolkien’s readers. Their work done, Frodo and Gandalf depart Middle Earth. Aragorn reigns as a distant king providing safety and justice for Middle Earth, including the Shire. But Sam, Frodo’s loyal “man” in the English tradition, lives out his days in happiness with Rosie and their children. He lives in peace with his own vine and fig tree and potatoes.
In the last seventy-five years, only the Bible has had more readers than The Lord of the Rings. What might that mean? I hope it means this: that our hearts, especially in what was once Christendom, still know that reality is the world of the Bible, a world of wonder as well as good and evil. The West cannot go back to paganism. It also cannot believe nothing, which kills quickly. In the world God made, people long for him and for salvation from evil, a salvation that comes only from sacrifice. Even those people who superstitiously never open a Bible – atheists can never be too careful – have read The Lord of the Rings and in its mythology caught a glimpse of reality.
– Bill Edgar
Authors in this issue
Sam Boyle was a speaker at a White Lake Reunion in the 1930s before going to China as a missionary. In the 1960s, he preached frequently for Broomall RP Church when they were without a pastor.
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.
Mark Your Calendars
We note, for your calendars and prayer, upcoming events of interest to Atlantic Presbytery:
Please contact Kyle and Violet Finley, Atlantic Youth Coordinators (atluth@gmail.com) for more information if interested in the youth events.
Retreats and conferences are usually for grades 7-12 unless otherwise indicated.
St. Lawrence Presbytery Winter Youth Retreat
January 16 - 18, 2026 (MLK weekend)
Grades 7-12
Central New York. Exact Location and details TBD.
Middle school and high school students, save the date for this winter retreat in central NY! The St. Lawrence Presbytery is our close neighbor, and White Lake camp and our fall retreat are joint ventures with these folks, so this retreat is a great opportunity to meet up with camp and retreat friends. We'll pass along further info/registration as it becomes available.
MLK 20's and 30's Retreat
Jan 16-18 (MLK weekend)
Ridgefield Park, NJ
Speaker: Andrew Kerr
Topic: Minding the Gap – Merging Expectation and Experience in a Disillusioned World
This is self-organized by some young people who have aged out of our presbytery youth retreats. We've encouraged them to organize this retreat and are helping spread the word. Here is the blurb Willow Jessop sent out:
The conference is geared toward those in their upper 20s and in their 30s who have aged out of most other retreats. (We would encourage those younger to attend the Purdue CORPS Winter Conference https://purduecorps.org/wc/ that’s happening the same weekend, but anyone 18+ in the area who can't manage to make it out to Indiana is welcome to join us at Ridgefield Park for the weekend!) The team consists of Wren Jessop, Rachel Ritter, Evan Ritter, and Wesley Dahar. The cooks for the weekend will be Elise and Andres Canales. Any questions can be directed to me at willowjessop@gmail.com. Please see the attached flyer and our RSVP link here: https://forms.gle/BH9vrrimWdzbFu2z6 . Registration closes Jan 9.
Atlantic Presbytery Theological Foundations Weekend (TFW)
February 13 - 15, 2026
High school juniors through age 23
Riverside, RI
Right here in our presbytery; please save the date! TFW is intended to give folks of upper high school and college/career age an opportunity to do some theological "heavy lifting" on a variety of topics, while enjoying fellowship together. This has been a wonderful weekend the last few years – great teaching, good food, and young people who are glad to be together in both substantial and fun ways. We will follow up again later when registration opens, but for now go ahead and mark your calendars.
Spring Atlantic Presbytery Meeting
March 20 - 21, 2026
Ridgefield Park RP Church
RPCNA Synod
June 16-19, 2026
Indiana Wesleyan University (Marion, IN)
White Lake Camp
Prep Week July 18 - 25, 2026 for counselors and staff
Kids & Teen July 25 - July 31, 2026
White Lake Family Camp July 31 - August 7, 2026
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.