In addition to these elements
of liberty, which particularly concern us in our individual lives, Christian
liberty includes liberty of conscience in the face of tyrannical ecclesiastical
organizations. Some years ago a young
man presented himself to a Presbytery for ordination. As he was known to believe that the boards
and agencies of that church were infiltrated with modernism, he was asked if he
would support the boards regardless of what they did. When the young man declined to make any such
blind promise, the Presbytery refused to ordain him. Dr. Gordon H. Clark. Essays on Ethics and Politics. John Robbins, ed. (Jefferson:
Trinity Foundation, 1992). P. 21.
Should Women Be
Ordained to the Church Office of Deacon?
A Response to the ARP
The Reformed view of Scripture is
that Scripture and Scripture alone is the final authority in all matters of
faith, practice and controversy in the local church or session, the presbytery,
and the general assembly. It is easy to
prove this by the fact that the Westminster Confession of Faith says so in the
very first chapter:
WCF 1.8 The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the
native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek
(which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the
nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and
providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all
controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But,
because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have
right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of
God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the
vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God
dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and,
through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF 1:8 WCS)
WCF 1.9 The infallible rule of interpretation of
Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question
about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but
one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
WCF 1.10 The supreme Judge, by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be
examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy
Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
(WCF 1:9-10 WCS) [See: Westminster
Confession of Faith, Chapter 1].
In a recent inquirers class which
I attended, the lead pastor or teaching elder, Dr. Neil Stewart, told me in a
private conversation that he agreed with me that women should not be ordained
as deacons. That being said, he claimed
that the other side has convincing arguments, and that they would win the
debate with me should I try to argue with them.
I would like to accept that challenge.
To Dr. Stewart, I challenge him to prove me wrong or produce someone
else who can prove me wrong when I say that the Bible unequivocally denies the
ordination of women to any church office whatsoever, including the of office
deacon.
I am aware that there are
differences of opinion among various denominations on the issue. However, denominations and opinions are
irrelevant when they are not the final authority. The first thing that I notice is that
everyone has a different opinion in defining the office of a deacon. The argument from the other side that women
should be ordained as deacons leans heavily into equivocation on the
definitions of various church offices.
Their other arguments depend on bad biblical exegesis and the highly
controversial “science” of textual criticism.
The principle of the analogy of faith, however, requires that the plain
passages of Scripture must prevail over arguments from silence and tendentious
arguments which assert the consequent in the premise.
This discussion will be brief but
to the point. Additionally, I will
respond to an article posted by Thomas Schreiner at the Gospel Coalition. The article can be read here: Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes. You might ask, why does it matter? That answer to that question should be
obvious. However, since some will say it
is not obvious I will state the issue clearly.
All of the doctrines of the Bible fit together in harmony. There are no contradictions in the Bible
because God is Logic (John 1:1). Does
God breathe out irrational propositions that do not agree with other
propositions in the Bible? Does God breathe
out confusion in the Bible? The Bible is
the written word of God. Once we begin
to question one principle of the Scriptures, the rest begins to collapse as
well. Liberal activists infiltrate
conservative churches with an agenda.
Their mode of operation is called utilitarianism. The end justifies the means. These activists have no problem with outright
lying, equivocation, dissimulation or relativism. Their agenda is to muddy the waters so that
once they have a foothold a further compromise can be gained. Often this takes several generations to take
hold. Even in the Bible we see a cycle of
good kings and bad kings in the nation of Israel. (See 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles
KJV).
Many mainline Reformed
denominations have gone liberal for good reason. Once a seed is planted that produces bad
fruit, it later produces a harvest of entirely bad fruit. I grew up in Florida. To illustrate this point from an agricultural
point of view, citrus grove and cattle ranches are an important part of the
Florida economy. When citrus canker
infects an orange grove the entire grove must be pulled up by the roots and the
trees must be burned to prevent the spread of the disease to other citrus
groves. A few years ago there was a
scare about mad cow disease that infects the brains of bovines. Once a herd is infected the entire herd has
to be quarantined and put down to prevent the spread of the disease. Obviously, that approach does not work with
Evangelical and Reformed churches and denominations. That being said, we must take a stand when
compromise enters a local session or congregation. Once the disease takes hold in one session or
presbytery, the next thing is that the entire denomination or general assembly
is infected with the divisive heresy. As
the Scripture says, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. (1 Corinthians 5:5-6; Galatians 5:7-9 KJV).
My first point will be to define
the office of a deacon as it is defined in the Bible. There are those who will argue that the
deacon is not a teaching office or an office that asserts authority over men. But the biblical evidence for that argument
is weak at best and based on asserting the consequent at worst. According to the apostle Paul, the
qualifications for the office of an elder and a deacon are exactly the same
qualifications regarding the biological gender of the person taking the office:
A bishop then
must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . . (1 Tim. 3:2 KJV)
Let the deacons
be the husbands of one wife . . . (1 Tim. 3:12 KJV)
According to the principle of the
plain text of Scripture being the primary source of biblical authority and
interpretation of the text, then it should be obvious to everyone that however
we define the offices of elder and deacon, both offices require male leadership
as the qualification. However, the
naysayers, in this case Thomas Schreiner, try to flip the script and proclaim
the exact opposite using obscure biblical references and a questionable
exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:1-15.
I will skip over the definition
of a teaching elder since that is not in dispute here. Teaching elders must be apt to teach and
preach the word of God. There is another
issue here that I cannot delve into in this discussion. That issue is the presbyterian church office
of “ruling” elder. I see no such office
mentioned in the text. Of course, the
dispute over different kinds of church polity or church government. The most basic forms of church polity are
congregational, associational, presbyterial, and episcopal. I am committed to the presbyterian form of
church government as it is expressed in the Westminster Standards: The Westminster Confession of Faith, the
Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism.
That being said, church officers, presbyters and synods can and often do
err:
WCF 31.4 All synods or councils, since the
Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.
Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be
used as a help in both. (WCF 31:4 WCS)
[Westminster
Confession, Chapter 31].
What exactly is the office of a
deacon according to the Holy Scriptures.
The definition of the office of deacon cannot be divorced from the very
first appointment of deacons in the church after the inauguration of the New
Testament church on the day of Pentecost.
After Jesus ascended into heaven on the fortieth day after His
resurrection, the disciples and the apostles who were gathered in the upper
room to choose another apostle to replace Judas Iscariot and to discuss the
promise given by Jesus. (Acts 1:1-4,
8-15). Ten days later on the day of
Pentecost the Holy Spirit came to empower the New Testament church to be
witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8; 2:1-42). The
first thing that happened after Peter’s sermon was that 3,000 of the Jews
gathered for the feast of booths on the day of Pentecost were converted by the
Holy Spirit, baptized by water, and added to the church (Acts 2:41). The next thing that happened is that those
who gladly received the message of the Gospel continued hearing the Old
Testament Scriptures preached and taught in conjunction with the breaking of
bread or the sacrament of the Lord’s supper or the table of the Lord. (Luke 24:27; Acts 2:14-36; Acts 2:35, 42). The text here does not say who administered
the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. However, we can infer from the evidence that
the apostles administered both and that due to the huge numbers of
persons—namely 3,000 new converts—that there must have been some delegation of
the administration to the other disciples and the lesser apostles. There is no mention of women being involved
in the administration of either of the two sacraments here.
The next problem for those who
advocate for women being ordained to the office of the diaconate is that the
very first ordination service of deacons exactly specifies who was chosen to be
deacons:
Wherefore,
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the
Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will
give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And
the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of
faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon,
and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the
apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts
6:3-6 KJV)
One would think that if the
apostles had intended to ordain women as deacons of any kind whatsoever that we
would see a prescription for the ordination of women deacons in the
Scriptures. But we see none of that and
for good reason. There were no women
ordained to the diaconate in the New Testament church as recorded in Scripture. Of course, this is an argument from silence,
according to the other side.
Thomas Schreiner, for example
says:
. . . another argument in support of female deacons
is from silence, but it’s an important one. The argument goes like this: If the
reference is to the wives of deacons, why does Paul omit a reference to the
wives of elders, particularly since elders exercise pastoral oversight and
overall leadership in the church? It would seem the character of the wives of
elders would be even more important than the wives of deacons—and thus focusing
on the wives of deacons, but not on the wives of elders, is strange. Yet if the
reference is to female deacons, we have an elegant explanation for why the
wives of elders aren’t mentioned—for the wives of deacons aren’t included
either. In other words, Paul isn’t referring to wives at all, but to female
deacons. (Does
the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes).
Although this paper is not about
Bible translations or the reasoned eclecticism approach to textual criticism,
the thrust of Schreiner’s argument for the ordination of women to the office of
deacon is derived from the New International Version of the Bible:
The issue is
addressed directly in only two verses (Rom. 16:1; 1 Tim. 3:11), and the meaning
of both is disputed. The disagreement surfaces in English translations. Romans
16:1 in the NIV reads, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the
church in Cenchreae.” The CSB translates the same verse, “I commend to you our
sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.” (Ibid.).
The other argument that Schreiner
proposes is based the fact that the Greek verse leaves out the pronoun that the
women were the wives of the deacons, but this is assumed from the both the text
and the fact that in the Scriptures there is not a single instance of females
being ordained or having hands laid upon them in an ordination service as noted
above in Acts 6:3-6. It is an historical
fact that Schreiner’s position has never been taken by any of the Reformed
denominations prior to recent times when the cultural accommodation of the
liberals had infiltrated mainline Reformed denominations in the 20th
century. The only exception that I was
able to find was the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, which affirmed
women as deacons in 1888 according to Bryan Schneider at the Gentle Reformation
blog. (Women
and the Deacon’s Office). According
to the history given by Schneider, one activist congregation decided to push
the issue by ordaining one single woman to the office of the diaconate. ( See:
An
Extremely Brief History).
As stated by Dr. Gordon H. Clark the
issue of ordination of women to the office of deacons is that it is an issue of
women being in authority over men in the church:
To quote, the
Form of Government, V, 5 says, “The formal steps by which a young man becomes
an ordained minister....” It does not say “a young person,” and it does not say
“a young man or woman.” Since even a few years ago, no one advocated the
ordination of women, this reference to a man rather than a woman was neither
emphasized nor repeated. At V, 8, the Form of Government simply says, “The
qualifications of both teaching elders and ruling elders....” “Laymen, ordained
to the eldership” is another phrase. It is also said that these elders have “a
certain ruling or governing authority.” The section on deacons is not so
explicit. Had women been envisioned as possible candidates it would have had to
be explicit. The Report takes the position that Scripture allows the ordination
of women as deacons but prohibits their ordination as elders. If this were the
Reformed Presbyterian position, the Form of Government would have had to state
the difference explicitly, clearly, and emphatically. It does not do so. What
is explicitly said is, “The minister shall then propound to the elder- or
deacon-elect the following questions: See Section 3 of this chapter.”
Thus, pastors,
elders, and deacons all take the same vows, with the one exception that pastors
assent to question 8; while other ministers-not pastors, elders, and
deacons-assent to question 9. None of these nine vows explicitly mentions
authority to teach. But if this authority is assumed for an elder, it is also
assumed for a deacon, because ruling elders, deacons, and non-pastoral
ministers are treated as a single class. Then further, in V, 9, d, upon the
ordination of a deacon, the minister says, “We give you the right hand of
fellowship to take part of this office with us.” Note that this is not an
ordination of deacons-elect by previously ordained deacons, with the idea that
then elders are ordained by elders. Such might indeed greatly distinguish elders
from deacons. It is the minister who says to the deacon-elect, “We give you the
right hand of fellowship to take part of this office with us.”
But the
clinching formula is that which the Form of Government imposes on the
congregation: “Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this
brother as a ruling elder (or deacon) and do you promise to yield him all that
honor, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord to which ... the Constitution
of this Church entitles him?”
At this point it
seems proper to conclude that the Report bases its thesis on a mistaken view of
Reformed Presbyterian government. The Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical
Synod does not distinguish between an elder and a deacon by the latter’s lack
of ecclesiastical authority. On the contrary, it explicitly asserts this
authority. The application to women-in the light of Scripture yet to be
discussed-is automatic. Ignoring our constitution the Report continues, “If
this distinction is maintained, there need be no question of setting women in
authority over men by ordaining them as deacons.” But if this unconstitutional
distinction were maintained, there would be no need or reason to ordain either
men or women deacons. Ordination is induction into an authoritative order.
This now returns the discussion from the ordination of women as deacons to
the fundamental question of ordination. (Dr.
Gordon H. Clark, The
Ordination of Women).
To be fair, Gordon Clark did
accept that there could be a ministry of deaconesses as long as it was not an
ordained office in the church. That’s
because, as he argued in the paper, the deacons do exercise authority by
administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.
This is the issue that essentially troubles
me about the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Like the RPCNA, the ARP affirms women not as
a special category of lay ministry called deaconess but as a lifelong appointment
to the office of the male diaconate, leaving the decision to each local session
or congregation. (See: FORM
OF GOVERNMENT of the ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 2023, section
8.4. P. 42). Anyone wishing to join an ARP congregation
that affirms women to the male office of the diaconate is required to agree to
at least several vows. The foremost vow
that troubles me is:
Congregational
vows to deacons:
“Do you, the
members of this congregation, acknowledge and receive these fellow members as deacons,
and do you promise to give them all the honor, encouragement, and assistance in
the spirit of love to which their office, according to the Word of God and the Standards
of this Church, entitles them?” (Synod 2021)
[See: FORM OF GOVERNMENT of the ASSOCIATE REFORMED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 2023, P. 48
When a congregation votes on any
particular issue, the vast majority of the time is simply a rubber stamp of
what the church officers have already decided.
That’s because if half of the congregation approves by a voice vote, it
is a done deal and there can be no dissent from the floor or any discussion,
particularly in very large churches. So,
for all practical purposes most sessions are run by an authoritarian style of
leadership. (See: Imperious
Presbyterianism, by Kevin Reed). In
order to become a member of an Associate Reformed Presbyterian session or
congregation the inquirer must take the following vows:
i. Do you profess that you are a sinner in the
sight of God; that you deserve His punishment; that you are unable to save
yourself; and that you are without hope of salvation except for God's love and
mercy?
ii. Do you
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of sinners;
and do you receive and trust in Him alone for your salvation?
iii. Do you
accept the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, as the written Word
of God; and that it is the only perfect rule of faith and how to live?
iv. Do you promise to trust in the guidance and
strength of the Holy Spirit so that you can live all of life as a Christian,
following the example set by Jesus Christ?
v. Do you promise to exercise faithful
stewardship of God's resources entrusted to you for the furtherance of God's
Kingdom and purposes?
vi. Do you accept that the doctrines and
principles of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church are
founded upon the Scriptures?
vii. In loving obedience, do you submit yourself
to the government and discipline of this church, promising to seek the peace,
purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as you are a member of it? (ARP
Form of Government, pp. 25-26).
Vow number v is troublesome because
it precedes the two vows that are linked to the promise to affirm women as part
of the male diaconate. So, I must tithe
and support the church first, then consider if I want to vow to obey the church? Vow number vi contradicts Westminster
Confession 1:6 which says that the confession is deduced from the Bible by good
and necessary consequence, not that the standards are founded on the
Bible. The word “founded” is a weasel word
in my opinion. If vow iii is taken at
face value, then the church member has a moral obligation to oppose the church
whenever the church violates the clear teaching of the Bible on doctrinal
matters that are above matters of indifference or adiaphora.
The problem with ordaining women
to any male office is that it is a direct violation of the Scriptural
prohibition of women being in authority over men in the visible church. (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34; Titus 2:5;
Genesis 3:16. All proof texts are from
the KJV). A further problem for the
innovationists is that John Calvin did not agree with ordaining women to male
only offices in the church:
For my own part,
though I do not deny that the order of deacons might sometimes be the nursery
out of which presbyters were taken, yet I take Paul’s words as meaning, more
simply, that they who have discharged this ministry in a proper manner are
worthy of no small honour; because it is not a mean employment, but a highly
honourable office. Now by this expression he intimates how much it is for
the advantage of the Church to have this office discharged by choice men;
because the holy discharge of it procures esteem and reverence. (Commentary
on 1 Timothy 3:13).
Furthermore, Calvin contradicts
Thomas Schreiner’s argument that a missing pronoun makes the verse ambiguous
enough to allow for women deacons:
Likewise the
wives He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids
to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel
that of others.
Let the deacons
be Since he mentioned wives, he lays down the same injunction about deacons as
he had formerly down about bishops; namely, that each of them — satisfied
within having but one wife — shall set an example of a chaste and honorable
father of a family, and shall keep his children and his whole house under holy
discipline. And this refutes the error of those who understand this passage as
referring to domestic servants. (Calvin, 1 Timothy
3:11).
It is true that Calvin says that
Phoebe had an office in the church but Calvin never calls Phoebe a deacon as
Schreiner does in his article cited above.
(See: Calvin, Romans 16:1). The word for servant in the Bible is the same
word as the word for deacon. However,
even if the Greek word is in the masculine gender, it does not necessarily
refer to a male office of the diaconate as asserted by the proponents of females
being elected to the diaconate.
Lastly, I would like to respond
to the charge that those who oppose the ordination of women to any church
office as being mean-spirited and uncharitable.
In the light of the current situation where mainline Reformed
denominations have in the past gone complete over to the social justice gospel
of the temporal here and now, it seems to me that the compromises made for the
sake of peace ends up in the frog in the kettle analogy. The frog does not realize that the water is
boiling until it is too late to hop out of the pot. Even the venerable and late presbyterian
minister, Dr. R. C. Sproul was compromised early on in his vocation. He admits that he was ordained with the United
Presbyterian Church, which later became part of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.
where women were indeed ordained as teaching elders. Sproul by his own account disagreed with the
ordination of women because of the biblical prohibition of women being in authority
over men. He tried to compromise by
asking for an exception that he would not participate in the ordination services
for women but that he would submit to their authority after they had been
ordained. The liberals would not
compromise and forced Sproul to resign peaceably. (See: Table
Talk: Women’s Ordination and R.C. Sproul).
I have recently thought again
about becoming a member of First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South
Carolina. I had forgotten about an
earlier study I had done in regards to the issue of the ordination of women
when I was considering joining the ARP church plant in Lexington, South
Carolina. I wrote a letter to the pastor
of the church plant, whose name is Jeff Tell.
You can read the three part series on my blog at: Reasonable
Christian: Should Women Be Ordained to
Ministry? Part
1, Part
2, Part
3. (See also: An
Open Letter to Pastor Jeff Tell).
As proof that the ARP has
problems with liberalism, I can cite and even quote a minister who helped to
craft the resolutions for the ordination of women as deacons in the ARP. His name is Dr. William B. Evans, who
resigned from the ARP and was received in good standing into the Presbyterian
Church U.S.A. not too long ago.
Although I disagree with the doctrine
of common grace as outlined by the three
points of common grace, and I disagree with the free
offer of the gospel, I do like the preaching and teaching of R.C. Sproul,
Derek Thomas, and Neil Stewart. Probably
the most conservative Reformed pulpit in my area is First Presbyterian Church
in Columbia, SC. But I cannot join there
or support that church due to the fact that it would violate my conscience and
the written word of God to vow to uphold an unbiblical mandate for women to be
ordained to the male office of the diaconate.
While Dr. Stewart did say to me in private that he also disagrees with the
ordination of women to the diaconate, apparently, he is contradicting
himself. I say that because he has for several
times presided over the ordination of deacons which included two or three
women. The same can be said of the two
previous pastors from the Ligonier background, namely Derek Thomas and
Sinclaire Ferguson. Both men read the
ordination vows for the ordination of both male and females to the office of
deacon. Is the ordination of women just
a matter of adiaphora or indifference? I
do not agree. Also, if women are not in
authority in the office of the diaconate, neither are any of the men. Why ordain anyone to the office of deacon at
all?
As Dr. Gordon H. Clark pointed
out, if there is no authority over anyone in the congregation, why ordain
either men or women? R.C. Sproul was
willing to submit to women in authority, unfortunately, and he openly admitted
as much in the linked article from Table Talk.
This is disappointing because doctrine matters. Finally, since excommunication and the keys
to the kingdom are exercised by teaching elders, ruling elders, and by
delegation to deacons in the matter of serving the outward signs of the Lord’s
supper, deacons are likewise in authority over members of the congregation as
well as visitors.
In the modern era it is difficult
to keep unqualified persons from partaking of the Lord’s supper or table in
very large congregations unless the excommunicated person is well known. For all practical purposes, church membership
is a useless endeavor because the church member, for all practical purposes,
has no say in what the elders and church officers decide to do in the session
or in the presbytery. Church officers
lord it over the congregation, and those who have any legitimate disagreements
are invited to peaceably withdraw or to peaceably not join, which is what Dr.
Neil Stewart suggested in my case.
However, since I believe in the priesthood of believers, even a lay
person has the moral duty to disagree publicly with equivocation, compromise,
and dissimulation wherever it happens in supposedly Evangelical or Reformed churches
or denominations. The peace of the
church depends on church discipline both individually and corporately. Unfortunately, most denominations are more
concerned about sex scandals, their political standing with the government, and
individual immorality than with the biblical mandate to continually reform the
church according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Charlie J. Ray
Further Resources:
PCA Historical Center. Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical
Synod. OVERTURE N: RECONSIDERATION OF WOMEN DEACONS. [156th General Synod Minutes, 16 June 1978,
pp. 133-134; Documents of Synod, pp. 156-157.]
PCA Historical Center. Dr. Gordon H. Clark. The
Ordination of Women. (Dr. Clark’s
view prevailed and to this day, the Presbyterian Church in America does not
ordain women to any church office, including the office of deacon. The RPCES merged with the PCA in 1978 or so
and shortly thereafter, Dr. Clark withdrew and joined the Covenant Presbytery.)
Did
the RPCES have Deaconesses? Yes and No.
Posted on November 22, 2021, by Zachary Groff. By Jared Nelson | November 22, 2021.
Dr. William B. Evans: The Ecclesial Presbyterian. A
Change in Ecclesial Affiliation for the Ecclesial Calvinist!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment