2002 Synod on Women Deacon
Synod resumed consideration of the report of the Committee to Study Continuing the Ordination of Women Deacons.
Item 3 was stricken. Item 4 was adopted. The report as a whole was approved and is as follows:
Report of the Committee to Respond to Communication #01-3
Namely, the Report of the Study Committee of the Great Lakes/Gulf Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America to Examine the Question of the Ordination of Women Deacons.
INTRODUCTION
Our assignment from the Synod of 2001 is "to report in 2002 on the merits of the proposal" of Communication 01-3. This communication proposes the enactment of basically two changes in our Testimony and Directory for Church Government:
The removal of all statements that the office of deacon "is neither a ruling nor a teaching office."
The explicit restriction of the office of deacon to male members only.
The paper argues that the burden of proof lies on those who would argue for women deacons. For example, quoting Gordon Clark:
"... a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate ordination of women."
We note that the burden of proof is something we all are under. Everyone must demonstrate their claims as warranted by the explicit statements of, or good and necessary consequences from, the Scriptures (see The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph 6).
Your committee notes that those who worked through the revision of the Testimony that was adopted in 1980 did not take their doctrinal tasks lightly but carefully weighed the issue of women deacons as well as all the other issues of the Testimony.
ORDINATION
The paper argues that the office of deacon, being an office, is invested with authority and that, therefore:
Statements in our standards specifying and/or excluding certain kinds of authority must be removed, and
Women may not be ordained to this or any other office in the church.
We wholeheartedly agree that every office is, by definition, invested with authority. We will not, therefore, discuss this major thrust of the paper. We do, however, disagree with both conclusions proposed by the paper and the recommendations that flow from them.
It is our opinion that the paper's implicit claim to be articulating the Reformed view of ordination is debatable.
THE FIRST PROPOSAL: THE REMOVAL OF STATEMENTS REFERRING TO THE DIACONATE AS "NEITHER A RULING NOR A TEACHING OFFICE"
The paper itself recognizes that the authority of office has a particular and not a general character. The argument includes language such as "in a specialized area" (page 936; line 10; emphasis added); that the gatekeepers had charge over particular things (page 936; line 18); "whatever pertains to their specific office" (page 937; lines 21, 24; emphasis added). We understand this to be the point of the statements the paper objects to. Namely, that the authority of the office of deacon has particular reference to administrative work rather than ruling, legislation, or teaching doctrine. Note that the context of these statements does not only exclude some kinds of authority from the office of deacon but also asserts the particular authority that the office does have.
"The Diaconate... is neither a ruling nor a teaching office. Its exercise and its function is administrative."
(Directory for Church Government, III. Deacons, page D-23; emphasis added)
Deacons are ordained to an administrative office with administrative authority, not no authority.
"The board of deacons has no legislative or judicial powers; its work is wholly administrative, subject to the direction of the session and sensitive to the counsel of the congregation."
(Directory for Church Government, III. Deacons; C. Privileges; page D-24, emphasis added).
Again, deacons are ordained to an office of administrative authority.
"The diaconate is a spiritual office subordinate to the session and is not a teaching or a 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."
(The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Chapter 25, paragraph 11, page A-88; emphasis added).
Deacons are ordained to an office that involves specific authority for the purpose of fulfilling their particular responsibilities.
The authority conferred through ordination is according to the work set aside for it. For the elders, their authority is to rule and teach. For the deacons, their authority is to administrate; collecting, maintaining, and distributing resources to meet the temporal needs of the congregation, including all relevant spiritual counsel.
We conclude with two quotations from highly respected authors:
"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 with respect unto the special work of it, under a general notion of authority; that is a right to attend unto it in a peculiar manner, and to perform the things that belong thereunto."
(John Owen, Works, Vol. XVI, p. 147; emphases added)
The OPC majority report includes the following words on ordination from Samuel Miller's An Essay on the Warrant, Nature, and Duties of the Office of Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church (1831):
"That solemn rite, or act, by which a candidate for any office in the Church of Christ is authoritatively designated to that office" and "They are fully invested with that office, and with all the powers and privileges which it includes."
(emphasis added by authors of the OPC majority report)
Each of these quotations supports our thesis that ordination is not general but specific to the office and work ordained to.
RECOMMENDATION #1
That Synod sustain the following statements in our standards as they now appear, not deleting the sections that specify the diaconate as not being a teaching or ruling office, which deletion is proposed by Communication 01-3.
"It is neither a ruling nor a teaching office." (Directory for Church Government, III. Deacons, Page D-23)
"and is not a teaching or ruling office."
(The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Chapter 25, paragraph 11, Page A-88)
THE SECOND PROPOSAL: THE PROHIBITION OF WOMEN SERVING IN THE DIACONATE WITH THE EXPLICIT RESTRICTION OF THE DIACONATE TO MALE MEMBERS
The argument of the paper may be summarized as follows:
The diaconate, being an office, involves ordination to, and the exercise of, authority (see Numbers 27:20f; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22).
Women may not exercise authority over men in the church (see 1 Timothy 2:12).
Women deacons, by virtue of their ordination to office, exercise authority with their male colleagues over men in the congregation.
Therefore, women may not be ordained as deacons.
We agree with the first two premises but disagree with the third and, therefore, with the conclusion and the recommendations that proceed from it.
SURVEY OF RELEVANT PASSAGES
1 Timothy 3:11 is the clearest and most decisive text for the question of women deacons. Acts 6 declares that seven men were prescribed by the apostles originally, but this passage does not necessarily, in itself, prescribe either the number seven in a congregation nor a limitation to men. Romans 16 is inconclusive on its own as to whether Phoebe was a woman deacon, though the OPC Minority Report and Adjemian present a good case in favor of Phoebe as an ordained deacon. The widows of 1 Timothy 5 are having their pressing needs met, not being enlisted to meet the pressing needs of others. The qualifications listed refer to past activity as a condition of present and future temporal provision. Any future work by the widows is incidental to this context of the widows receiving assistance. The nature of the widow's commitment is to the church as to a husband for indefinite and unqualified temporal provision. Violating that commitment is analogous to violating a marriage vow. This explains Paul's strong condemnation (1 Timothy 5:12, see Ecclesiastes 5:5; Deuteronomy 23:21f; Leviticus 27:1f; 5:4f). The history since the early church of widows serving in diaconal roles cannot overrule a simple exegesis of these passages that rules out an identification of the widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16 with the women of 1 Timothy 3:11. Exegesis ought to determine historical practice; historical practice must not determine exegesis. The similarities and differences between women and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 are unique to this passage, but so is the identity and distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders in 1 Timothy 5:17.
1 TIMOTHY 3
And so we come to 1 Timothy 3. Commentators routinely begin and end their discussion of this verse with the observation that the exegetical considerations are quite evenly balanced among various views. Therefore, we will try to represent these views as fairly as possible.
THE CONTEXT OF CHAPTERS 2 & 3
The broad context of 1 Timothy 3:11 is Paul's speaking about the church in terms of a household (3:15, see 2:1-3:16). This is generally recognized. Consequently, Paul often touches on the relationship between men and women (2:8,9f; 3:2,12). The idea is that the church mirrors the family in its structure and function.
THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTER 3
Parallelism, using "likewise," is a significant structure in chapters 2 and 3. Women adorning themselves with good works are set in parallel to men praying (2:8,9f; "likewise"; see the same structure using "likewise" in the same theme in Titus 2:2-8). Given the context of analogy with the household, this parallelism seems to have in mind the creational complementation of women serving as indispensable helpers to men in their joint service in carrying out the creation mandate (2:13; Genesis 2:18-25; 1:26f; 1 Corinthians 11:8,9). In chapter 3, this same parallelism, also using "likewise," is employed to associate elders, deacons, and "women" (3:1,8,11). Verses 8 and 11 assume the verb of verse 2, which strengthens the parallelism. Verse twelve provides a new main verb, which suggests a new section while renewing the discussion of deacons. This further strengthens the integrity of verses 2-11 and the parallelism within it. Given that the first two elements in the triad are offices, it seems that "women" is referring to an official function also. Therefore, it seems that the women are understood to be officers like elders and deacons and that, since elders and deacons are ordained to office, these women should be also. Given that women parallel deacons in the same way that deacons parallel elders, it seems that their office is distinct in some way from the deacons.
On the other hand, the association by means of "likewise" may not be with respect to office but with respect to qualifications for different kinds of service. If Paul truly meant to refer to a third office, it would seem that he would have done so after he finished his section on deacons with a discussion as substantial as his more lengthy passages on elders and deacons. Therefore, "women" could refer to women in the same office as deacons. But, if Paul truly meant to refer to an office, he could have said, "Women deacons likewise." He could have also said "Deaconesses likewise" by coining a feminine form of diakonoi. Therefore, "women" could simply refer to the wives of deacons. Some conclude from the dependence of verse 11 on the verb of verse 2 that "women" refers to the wives of elders as well as the wives of deacons, though not many commentators support this view.
THE STRUCTURE OF VERSES 8-13
The inclusion of the verse about women (verse 11) within the passage on deacons (verses 8-13) requires some notion of integration between the two groups. Given the broad context of the analogy with the family and a special focus on the relationship between man and woman, it seems that a relationship analogous to that of husband and wife is in mind. The women work with the deacons as a wife works with her husband. These women could include the wives of deacons, but the passage does not seem to indicate this. The context of home life is by analogy (women), not by identity (wives). The relationship between deacons and women is an ecclesiastical one (vows of office), not a domestic one (vows of marriage). If Paul intended us to understand wives here, it seems that he would have made this clear by adding the personal pronoun or the article according to standard grammatical conventions. Also, these women could include widows, but there is no indication in the text that Paul intends this. Therefore it seems that, even if the office of women is distinct from that of deacon, their work is within that of the deacons. Or, the inclusion of verse 11 within verses 8-13 may mean that the women are in the exact same office as deacons, reflecting the partnership of male and female in the creation mandate (Genesis 1:26-30). In either case, ordination is indicated.
On the other hand, even though the context is one of analogy, the inclusion may refer to the literal relationship of husband and wife, reflecting the creation of woman from the side of the man and being a suitable helper to him in general (Genesis 2:18-25). The absence of the article or the possessive pronoun is not decisive against the interpretation of the wives of deacons.
THE CHOICE OF THE WORD, "WOMEN" IN 1 TIMOTHY 3:11
Paul's choice of the word "women" seems significant. He could have coined the feminine form of deacon if he intended that these women would simply do the deacons' work with them. If this were his purpose, he also would not have set the women in parallel with the other two offices with "likewise" and with dependence on the main verb of verse 2. His word choice of "women" in the context of family relationships indicates that he sees their work as "suitable helpers" (Genesis 2:18, 20) to the deacons in analogy to a woman and man in marriage. Given this, nothing more is needed to describe the work of the ordained women. These women know full well from the Scriptures, and as they are lived out in the church, what and how a woman helps her husband. Titus 2:1-5 is remarkably parallel to 1 Timothy 3:11 in structure and content, encouraging those in the ordinary leadership of age (rights and duties of firstborn by a natural providence) in the same way as those in the special leadership of office (rights and duties of firstborn by a special providence; namely, ordination). As each man and woman works out the biblical principles in their marriage, the deacons and women in each congregation of God's household should do likewise. But, again, Paul's word choice, especially in the midst of the discussion of deacons, could simply refer to female members of the diaconate or to the wives of deacons.
THE QUALIFICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH "WOMEN" IN 1 TIMOTHY 3:11
The qualifications listed for the women are very similar to those of elders and deacons and, thus, in this context, seem to indicate qualifications for office.
On the other hand, these qualifications are very similar to those of the older women in Titus 2:3, where there is no notion of ordained office. These qualifications are quite suitable and necessary to the wives of deacons, especially as a deacon's work could involve the active assistance of his wife, particularly when serving women in need. There were special qualifications for the wives of priests (Leviticus 21:7, 13, 14) who were not actively involved in the work of their husbands. These qualifications are also in keeping with a well-ordered home similar to the characteristics required of children, even though the structures of the respective references indicate that the behavior of children is a qualification for elders and deacons (verses 4, 5; 12) while the behavior of women is with respect to their own qualification (verse 11).
CONCLUSIONS FROM 1 TIMOTHY 3:11
With the vast majority of commentators, we recognize that the exegetical considerations are balanced among the various views of same office, same work (women deacons), different office, similar work (deaconesses), no office, similar work (unordained helpers or wives helping their deacon husbands), and no office, no work (wives helping husbands in general but not necessarily in their diaconal work). Nevertheless, overall, it seems to us that the balance comes to rest in favor of women participating in the work of the diaconate by ordination. It seems to the committee that there is warrant to commend this argument, conclusion, and practice to the church. Therefore, we recommend that our documents not be changed to limit the office of deacon to men and that we retain the statement in our Testimony (Chapter 25, paragraph 8), that "women as well as men may hold the office of deacon."
RECOMMENDATION #2
That Synod sustain the statements in our standards as they now appear (below), not restricting the office of deacon to men as proposed by Communication 01-3.
"Those eligible to be called as deacons must: 1. Be communicant members in good standing of the Reformed Presbyterian Church."
(Directory for Church Government, III. Deacons, A. Qualifications, paragraph V, Page D-23).
"A judgment of the session that there are qualified persons in the congregation, and an increase in the number of deacons is necessary."
(Directory for Church Government, III. Deacons, D. Procedure for Election, paragraph l.a.(2); Page D-25).
"Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon."
(The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Chapter 25, paragraph 8; Page A-87).
RECOMMENDATION #4: That this committee be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
Kit Swartz, Chairman
Thomas Houston
Kay Klein, Deacon (consultative member)
Joseph Lamont
Jerold Milroy
Jeffrey Stivason
Recommended Reading
Your committee highly recommends the following papers to the synod for further study:
Adjemian, Christian, On Deaconesses, privately published; latest revision, October 2001. Your committee hopes that this paper will be available to the members of synod at the Cambridge congregation's website by the time you receive this report in the 2002 digest. Look for a reference to this paper at http://www.reformedprescambridge.com/index. shtml
Reynolds, Gregory E., Evan Davis, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Robert D. Knudsen, Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office, in Minutes of the Fifty-fifth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1988, pages 310-364; available online at: http://www.opc.org/GA/women_in_office.html Note that both the Majority and Minority reports are at this same address, with a response to the minority report written by Dr. Gaffin sandwiched in between them.
Strimple,_Robert B., Report of the Minority of the Committee on Women in Church Office in Minutes of the Fifty-fifth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1988, pages 365-387; available online at: http://www.opc.org/GA/women in_office.html Note that both the Majority and Minority reports are at this same address, with a response to the minority report written by Dr. Gaffin sandwiched in between them.
Essay on Ordination by Pastor Jeff Stivason
Attached to the report of the Committee on Communication 01-3
The paper (Communication 01-3) argues that ordination is “induction into an authoritative order.”[13] There is no doubt that every office is, by definition, invested with authority.[14] However, we are not in agreement with the paper’s interpretation of the doctrine of ordination, which we believe represents Clark, in the main.[15] Moreover, the committee believes that Clark’s view is not the Reformed doctrine of ordination.[16] Therefore, we will briefly delineate Clark’s view and then point out disagreement.
For Clark, ordination to the office of elder or deacon does “confer authority to preach, administer the sacraments, and exercise discipline.”[17] Thus, for Clark, there is no distinction between the offices of elder and deacon either in function or authority. [18] Hence, one already sees why Clark draws the conclusion he does concerning the ordination of women deacons.
However, even though teaching is not a requirement for the office of deacon in 1 Timothy 3, Clark finds support for this assertion in Acts 6. He believes that these seven were the first deacons of the NT church. And although, Clark writes, “the activities of five of the original seven are not described, the other two did in fact preach and baptize.”
Nevertheless, this does not seem to carry the weight Clark would like. There is some question as to whether Acts 6 is the appointment of deacons or elders over the Hellenistic Jews. Significantly, there is no mention of the word “deacon” in the text. Moreover, Acts 6 is a very early time in the formation of the NT church which makes it unlikely that there would be a firm and fast system of government already in place. Therefore, it seems that Clark applies the analogy of faith backwards when interpreting Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3.
Therefore, with the assumption that ordination to the office of deacon entails the authority to “preach, administer the sacraments, and exercise discipline” women are necessarily excluded from the office of deacon. Seeing then no distinction within the type of authority from one ordaining office to the next Clark adds, “persons chosen to non-authoritative functions are not to be ordained.” Obviously, holding to the above view of ordination, women must be excluded.
Therefore, when the paper addresses the possibility of woman deacons from 1 Timothy 3 it states that,
The clear teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of ordination to ecclesiastical office, in fact, requires us to deny this possibility (ordination of woman deacons) on the grounds that it would positively contradict what is everywhere affirmed with regard to office and authority. The apostle Paul, in the very same letter to Timothy, made it patently clear: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.”
However, the paper has not made its case in the following areas: First, it has not proved that office is without distinction in authority.[19] Moreover, and especially, it has not proved Clark’s position that ordination to the diaconate entails the authority to preach, administer the sacraments and exercise discipline.
Second, neither Clark nor Communication 01-3 has demonstrated that its position is “the Reformed position.” For instance, Clark admits to a “considerable dependence on George Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Against the Ceremonies, and Miscellany Questions.” Yet, clearly, Gillespie does not believe that deacons have the authority to preach or baptize.[20] Therefore, at a critical place in his argumentation Gillespie disagrees with Clark. Consequently, it seems that there are differences of interpretation concerning the nature and authority of ordination in the Reformed position.
Therefore, the committee rejects Clark’s position concerning the nature and authority of ordination and instead upholds that offered in the body of the committee’s response.
[13] Communication 0-3, p.934.
[14] See Report, 2.
[15] Communication 0-3 is advocating Clark’s position, cf. p.933. This is clearly shown in remarks such as, Clark “pinpointed the main issue” in the debate over the ordination of women deacons. And “Clark understood the advocacy of women deacons to strike at the very heart of the reformed doctrine of ordination.”
[16] Communication 0-3, p.933.
[17] Clark, The Pastoral Epistles, Appendix B, 277.
[18] Clark may in fact see the differences in purpose but does not mention them here.
[19] In fact, we think that we have demonstrated that there are distinctions of authority between offices.
[20] Clark, The Pastoral Epistles, Appendix B, 275. Strikingly, neither does John Owen believe that deacons may preach or administer the sacraments. Moreover, one Gillespie scholar has even found evidence within Gillespie’s writings that indicates he believed in the ordination of women deacons (cf. McAy, W.D.J. An Ecclesiastical Republic: Church Government in the Writings of George Gillespie. Carlisle, UK: Rutherford House Paternoster Press, 1997).