WOMEN AND THE DEACON'S OFFICE

In 1888, the RPCNA made a decision that sparked controversy: they permitted the ordination of women as deacons. Was this a response to first-wave feminism infiltrating the church, as some critics have claimed? Or, was this a biblically grounded return to the practices of the early church? My prayer is that this will be a helpful historical resource for members of the church today still wrestling with the topic.

When a complex historical decision is reduced to a simple accusation or interpretation, it's essential to pause and dig deeper. It is especially important when asking a historical question to go back and read the primary sources (the documents themselves) and not just interpretations of the events (secondary sources). There are many elders who voted for this decision, doubtless many had various reasons for their votes.

Thankfully, the RPCNA is committed to doing things decently and in order. Because of this, we have access to a wealth of information preserved in synod minutes and denominational publications."

What you will find below is:

1) An extremely brief history.

2) My outline and presentation of the Synod Committee's reasoning.

3) Most importantly, the full document entitled "Women and the Deacon's Office."

4) Appendix of other helpful quotes from 1888 and 1889 within the church and a presentation on the office of deacons in the RPC as of 2024.

This may be the longest post in Gentle Reformation history. If scrolling through here make it difficult I have organized this through links at www.sharonrpc.org/rpcna-women-deacons

The document giving the Synod's rational for allowing women to be ordained to the office of deacon was written by James Kennedy pastor at 4th New York and T. P. Stevenson pastor at 1st Philadelphia. I've kept the document in its original form (spelling and paragraph breaks) but have added subheadings to help reading.

Brief History

The Synod of 1888 had before its Committee on Discipline a case from the Pittsburgh Presbytery in which the McKeesport Congregation had elected a woman to the office of Deacon. Synod Adopted this statement in the committee's report

"Such ordination is in our judgment in harmony with the New Testament and with the constitution of the Apostolic church." (Minutes of Synod 1888, page 287)

How was the election of a woman to the diaconate "in harmony with the New Testament and with the constitution of the apostolic church?"

Synod knew their decision was not and would not be liked by all. In total nine presbyters registered their dissent. One of the main dissenters, Pastor D. S. Faris of the Bethel congregation in Sparta Illinois, wrote in the conclusion of his article "The Female Deacon and the Sentimental Overflow of Synod":

Now, I do not affirm that the Synod is certainly wrong, but I do charge the majority with undue haste in rushing to a decision which is an innovation upon our customs and constitution as received from the Church of Scotland and, upon mature reflection, feel bound to add the additional reason of dissent, that the Synod, by not overturing the matter, has violated the rights of the sessions and of the people. (Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter Vol 26 1888, page 359)

Pastor J. C. K. Milligan of 1st RP Church New York and Editor of Our Banner wrote:

The most progressive cannot find fault with Synod in this matter, though doubtless many of our conservatives have been taken by surprise. By a four-fifths vote Synod declares that "the ordination of women to the office of Deacon is in harmony with the New Testament and with the constitution of the apostolic Church." ... Our difficulty is to find a warrant for her ordination to regular office work ; and we shall wait anxiously for the argument of the committee. In the meantime it is to be distinctly understood, that Synod would as strongly deny woman's right to be ordained either as a minister or elder. (Our Banner Vol 15 1888, Pages 326-327)

So it was up to the Committee of Synod to explain to the church why women could be ordained as deacons.

My Outline and Presentation

(If this isn't helpful to you, that's fine. Just scroll past)

Introduction:

• Context: A congregation elected a woman as a deacon, leading to a debate on whether women may be ordained to this office.
• Synod Decision: The Synod concluded that ordaining women to the office of deacon is consistent with New Testament teachings and the practices of the apostolic church.
• Scope: The paper explicitly focuses on the ordination of women to the office of deacon, rejecting any connection to women preaching, being elders, or serving in higher offices.

Scriptural and Historical Foundations for Women Deacons:

• Two Main Lines of Argument:
  • Scriptural: Does the New Testament support women holding the specific office of deacon?
  • Historical: Does the history of the apostolic church show that women served as deacons?
• Guiding Principle: The church must base its offices on God's Word, and historical examples must align with scripture.

Scriptural Examination:

• Gradual Introduction of Church Offices:
  • The office of deacon was introduced gradually in response to practical needs within the church, similar to other offices like elder and pastor.
  • The synagogue, which influenced the structure of the early church, had female officers for certain roles, making it likely that women served as deacons in the Christian assemblies.

Early Church and the Role of Women as Deacons:

• The Office of Deacon:
  • The office of deacon was instituted by the apostles to handle practical and charitable functions in the church.
  • Female officers existed in early church communities, a practice likely inherited from the synagogue where women served in specific roles such as caring for female worshipers.
• Phoebe’s Role as a Deacon (Romans 16:1):
  • Paul calls Phoebe a "deacon" of the church at Cenchrea, using the same Greek term applied to male deacons.
  • This term, not "deaconess," indicates an official church role, suggesting that Phoebe held the same office as male deacons.

The Role of Terminology in Understanding Women's Office:

• Use of Terms in the New Testament:
  • Terms like "deacon," "elder," and "bishop" in the New Testament often refer to specific offices, not general service roles.
  • The term "deacon" was used in both a general sense (as a servant) and in an official sense (as an office-bearer in the church).
• 1 Timothy 3:11 and Women Deacons:
  • The passage that mentions "wives" in 1 Timothy 3:11 is argued to refer to female deacons, not deacons' wives.
  • The grammar and structure of the passage suggest that Paul was setting qualifications for women serving as deacons, consistent with other qualifications for male deacons and bishops.

Ordination of Women to the Office of Deacon:

• Ordination and Election:
  • Ordination in the New Testament means setting someone apart for a specific office, including the office of deacon.
  • The process of ordination involves formal recognition of one’s election and qualifications, not necessarily the laying on of hands (which is not essential for deacons).
  • Since the term "deacon" is gender-neutral, and since women like Phoebe held this office, it follows that women, if elected and qualified, can be ordained as deacons.

The Nature of Ordination for Deacons:

• Laying on of Hands and Ordination:
  • There is no explicit requirement in scripture for the laying on of hands for deacons, male or female.
  • Ordination involves formal recognition and installation of the office-bearer, which applies equally to male and female deacons.
  • The principle is clear: if a woman is elected and qualified, she has the same right to ordination as a man elected to the office of deacon.

Practical Benefits of Women in the Office of Deacon:

• Women in the Role of Deacon:
  • Women can fulfill tasks in the church that men cannot, such as tending to other women in private situations or addressing sensitive needs.
  • The early church found women useful in ministries of care, including charitable work, visiting the sick, and aiding those in need.
• Women and Church Ministry:
  • Women serving as deacons could extend the reach of the church’s ministry, especially in areas like Sabbath schools, local charity, and missions.

Conclusion: Women’s Right to the Office of Deacon:

• Clarification:
  • The authors are not advocating for women to serve in higher church offices, such as elder or pastor, but are defending their right to the specific office of deacon.
  • The office of deacon, by nature, involves practical service and charitable work, making it an appropriate role for women, as demonstrated by Phoebe and other women in the early church.
• Reformation Churches’ Progress:
  • Many Reformation churches are moving towards recognizing women as deacons, reflecting historical practices and scriptural teachings.
  • The Synod affirms the need to follow this precedent and lead by fully recognizing women’s rights to this office.

Committee’s Final Exhortation:

• Synod’s Position:
  • The Synod calls for the full recognition of women’s rights to serve as deacons, based on scripture, historical precedent, and the practical benefits to the church.
  • Women who are elected and qualified should be ordained to the office of deacon, as was the practice in the apostolic church.

"WOMEN AND THE DEACON'S OFFICE"

(From the Reformed & Presbyterian Covenanter - Vol 26 No 11 November 1888, Pages 383-394, and Our Banner - Vol 15 no 11 November 1888, Pages 373-384)

Introduction

It is generally known that one of our congregations, having recently elected a female member to the office of deacon, "the question of the right of women to ordination to the office of deacon," came up before Presbytery, and by Presbytery was referred to Synod: Synod answered the question by adopting the following item in the report of the committee on discipline: "That such ordination is, in our judgment, in harmony with the New Testament, and with the constitution of the apostolic church." As some of the brethren, however, dissented from this decision, it was referred to a small committee to draw up a statement of the grounds on which Synod arrived at the conclusion indicated above.

And here we regard it of special importance to keep steadily in view what the question really is, so as to allow no extraneous matter to be imported into its consideration. The question is not, May a woman preach or otherwise undertake the work of the gospel ministry? or, May she be invested with the office of ruling elder and sit in church courts? These are questions which we are persuaded our Synod would have answered in the negative even more harmoniously than it answered the other in the affirmative. One point only, however, is now before us—the right of women, duly elected and qualified, to ordination to the office of deacon—and we object to burden the argument with any more general issues. The other questions, to which we have referred, are never likely to come up for consideration in our church, and if they should, it will be time enough to consider them when they do actually arise.

Now, there are two lines of argument on which we may proceed in considering this question, namely, the Scriptural and the historical. Confining ourselves, for the present, to the former, let us inquire, does the New Testament sanction the practice of women holding the office of deacon, and is it, as far as we know, consistent with the constitution and practice of the apostolic church? We are all agreed that for the institutions of God in his church we must first of all go to his own Word, and that whatever may be set up or practised in the name of religion, if not found there, can have no binding force or obligation on the conscience. True, the historical argument as to the institutions of the New Testament church is both valuable and important, but it is chiefly corroborative, whereas, "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Now in appealing to this "sure word of prophecy," on the subject before us, it will help us, if we keep steadily in view the following points:

Gradual Introduction of Church Offices

I. That the institutions and provisions of the apostolic church were not all formally introduced at once, but from time to time, as they were found necessary to the comfort and edification of her members.

Of course, in the commission given to the apostles, and in the gifts of the Spirit they enjoyed, all was provided for, but only to be brought into operation as the times required. Of this many examples might be given. Thus in preaching the gospel, according to their commission, to the whole world, to Gentiles as well as Jews, in organizing congregations and placing over them pastors and elders, in appointing deacons to attend to the outward business of the house of God, in giving a deliverance that freed Christians from the yoke of the ceremonial law, and in other respects, the apostles seem to have followed the guidance of providence, as well as of the Spirit, in giving to the church a full organization. And indeed it had been so in setting up the institutions of the Old Testament, many of its laws and provisions having been introduced gradually, as necessity for them arose. For example, the synagogue and its worship are thought to have originated in some condition of the country, in which it was difficult, if not impossible, to wait on the temple service, and yet it was sanctioned by priests, prophets, and by our Lord himself. And what is more remarkable, the Christian church, in her government and worship, is modelled rather after the synagogue, than after the temple, the sacerdotal and hierarchical having no place in her. Indeed, so fully was the order of the synagogue transferred to the Christian church, that James calls a regular church assembly a synagogue, (James 2: 2, Greek), and blames the officers for their partiality in assigning better seats to the rich than to the poor. The synagogue had a council of elders, "rulers of the synagogue," with a president (archisynagogus), having the power of discipline, even to excommunication. According to Vitringa, the president was called legate or angel, because in offering prayer he was a messenger sent to intercede for the whole assembly, which casts light on the meaning of the expression, "the angels of the churches," as also perhaps upon that difficult passage, 1 Cor. 11: 10. In the synagogue also was the chazzan, (in Greek hyperetes, (Luke 4: 20), church officer or beadle, who, besides other duties, had the carrying of the roll containing the Scriptures to be read, and placing it on the desk, and afterwards returning it to its place at the close of the service. Besides, the synagogue had deacons, who had charge of the property, opened the doors and conducted strangers to seats, and attended generally to the comfort of the assembly, as well as being almoners and managers of the funds. And as the sexes sat apart, separated by a partition of some height, female officers were required for one side of the house, to attend to the comfort of the worshippers and preserve order. And it is to the strict order thus to be maintained in Christian assemblies, that Paul is supposed by some to refer when he commands, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak," in the sense of converse or talk, by asking questions or explanations. Nor is the supposition by some of our best writers at all unreasonable, that even before the choice of the seven (Acts 6), one side of the great multitude of believers then in Jerusalem (the Hebrew), had, after the example of the synagogue, parties already acting as deacons in taking care of their poor; while the Hellenists, being comparative strangers, had none, and therefore their poor were neglected. And favoring this idea is the fact that all the seven chosen had Hellenistic or Greek names, and all, therefore, seem to have been taken from the party that had complained. And this, putting them on equal footing with the Hebrews, perfect harmony was restored. The church as yet, however, was in a very inchoate state, and we cannot, at that early period, expect to find about her institutions all the completeness afterwards attained. Certain it is, however, that the deacon's office came ultimately to be recognized as a divine and permanent institution in all the churches, and therefore Paul addresses the church at Philippi as consisting of saints, bishops and deacons.

Offices in the New Testament Church

II. That the offices in the New Testament church are indicated both by official names given to the office-bearers, and also by terms descriptive of their work.

It is well known that many words in the New Testament have come to be used in a twofold sense and meaning—the ordinary, and the appropriated. Such words as angel, devil, elder, overseer, pastor, deacon, and even church and synagogue, had originally a primary or ordinary meaning and use, in which we seldom now employ them. Thus, instead of using the term angels for messengers, and devils for false accusers, in an appropriated use we employ these words to designate certain classes of spiritual beings. In like manner the terms overseer or bishop, elder, pastor and deacon, are now mostly used as official names for office-bearers in the church; and in which sense, primary or appropriated, any one of these terms is employed in the original of the New Testament, can only be determined by a careful study of the context. In its primary and ordinary signification the term rendered deacon simply means one who renders a service to another, and both it and the verb formed from it, are often used in this sense, and are even employed to designate the obedience rendered by Christ. But in time it has come to be chiefly used as a designation of a church office-bearer, and though as a substantive it is not used of the seven (Acts 6), yet as a verb it is employed to express the nature of their work, "to serve tables" (diakonein trapezais). Now in many of the congregations, organized by the apostles, we have no account of the appointment of pastors, elders and deacons at the time, and yet afterwards, by some reference to them in the epistles, either by their name or their work, we learn that they were there. And thus we think it a safe rule, that from the name we may infer the work, and from the work may infer the office. Thus, for example, we may have no express mention by name of pastor or elder, but if we find such words of exhortation to any church as, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls," we know that these office-bearers were there. Thus in one passage (Rom. 12: 6–8) the several office-bearers in the church are wholly designated by their work. "Having then gifts, differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, ... ministry, ... teaching, ... exhortation, ... rule"—all official gifts indicated by the work proper to each. Among these, "ministry" (diakonia), the deacon's work and office, is in its operations doubly described as "giving with liberality," and "showing mercy with cheerfulness." Therefore, when either the term deacon is used in connection with the church and her work, or when the work proper to the deacon's office is clearly referred to, it is reasonably certain that a church officer is intended.

Ordinances Based on Subsequent Facts

III. That how far any ordinance or institution is to be enjoyed or exercised by members of the church, can only be learned by subsequent facts, not from the account of its first institution.

The church of the New Testament is a corporate institution, and all her members have all corporate rights and privileges, unless when specially excepted. How far, however, the enjoyment of such rights and privileges has been limited or otherwise, by such exceptions, can seldom be learned from anything said of the ordinance at its first institution, but is to be gathered from subsequent facts.

Baptism and Communion

For example, were women to be admissible to the ordinance of baptism? Many things at first sight would suggest a negative answer. Women were not circumcised, and as baptism, as the initiatory ordinance, was now to take the place of circumcision, it might be argued that neither should women be baptized. And then throughout the ministry of John and of our Lord, not one woman is recorded as having been baptized. And moreover, at the full institution of Christian baptism, at our Lord's ascension, it is said, "He that believeth and is baptized," apparently leaving out women altogether. And for more than twenty years afterwards not one female is reported as admitted to the church by baptism. We have to wait those twenty years for one case—the solitary case in the New Testament, the baptism of Lydia—and but for that one case, it might be argued, with some show of reason, that women were not to be admitted to this ordinance. And the same might be said of the right of women to partake of the Lord's Supper. There is not one concrete example of a woman communicating at the Lord's table recorded in the New Testament. And did not Paul, in his directions how to prepare for this ordinance, say, "But let a man examine himself," apparently leaving out all the female members? But we rightly infer that it is the privilege of women to come to the Lord's table because of the primitive company it is said, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren;" and because of this company, without any exception, it is said, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship; and in breaking bread, and in prayers." Thus we gather that "he" in the institution of baptism, and "a man," in Paul's direction about the supper, are used in a generic sense for all of a class, and that "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female."

Deacons and Gender in the Apostolic Church

Now let us see how these general principles will apply to the matter before us. Well, the first shows that the fact, that the first seven deacons were all males, does not necessarily exclude females from that office, inasmuch as the institutions of the New Testament were, to some extent, adapted to circumstances as they arose. The second shows that if we find both the name and the work, and the qualifications proper to the deacon's office (predicated of women, and that clearly in church relation), they must be admissible to that office. The third shows that the privilege of holding and exercising the deacon's office, not being in the case of women one of the things excepted, their right thereto is as plain, and even plainer, than to many other things which we freely accord them. These points then, will, we think, apply in considering certain passages in which we have the name, work and qualifications of the deacon all predicated of women.

Phoebe as a Church Officer

The first of these we notice is the well-known passage, Romans 16: 1–3, in which we have Phœbe, a member of the church at Cenchrea, preparing to visit Rome, and duly certified of her church-standing by Paul, who was in Cenchrea or Corinth at the time. Now the apostle calls her "a deacon of the church of Cenchrea,"—not deaconess, as in the margin of the revised version, and as used by some writers—for the word in Greek, being of the common gender, has no termination to distinguish sex. It is exactly equivalent to the English word servant, which, without any change of form, we apply equally to male and female. Now, we hold, that the word deacon is here used of Phœbe, not in its primary or ordinary sense, but in its appropriated sense of a church officer, because she is spoken of in church relation. Had it been "a servant of God," or "a servant of the Lord," it would have proved nothing as to her holding office, because these expressions are applicable to all who are of the household of faith. But we are not aware that "servant of the church," or any similar expression, is ever used of persons except in official positions. For example, we have "elders in every church." "Now, there were in the church at Antioch certain prophets and teachers," "the messengers of the churches," "the angels of the churches," and "God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets," &c., and in every case official relation is meant. A parallel expression about an Old Testament leader will illustrate our meaning, "And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant," evidently referring to his official position in Israel. But as Paul assures Timothy, "The house of God is the church of the living God," and for Phœbe to be a servant in and to that house as much implies official relation, as do the words quoted of Moses. Moreover, that the apostle here speaks of Phœbe in an official sense is farther confirmed by the term which he employs to express what she had done for himself and others. "For she hath been a succourer of many and of myself also." The word here rendered, "succourer" (prostatis) signifies one standing before another in office, rank or service, and in the masculine, is employed for a Roman prefect, a magistrate, patron or protector, often corresponding to our terms president, moderator, chairman, overseer or anyone who is before or over others in any work to be performed. Now in either gender the word must retain something of this meaning, as it is formed from a verb (prohistemi) signifying to stand over or before in some recognized relation. Its force can be seen in the fact that it is twice used by Paul in describing the qualifications of a bishop (1 Tim. 3: 3-4), as "one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity," as every father and head of family should. Having this shade of meaning, as applied to Phœbe, it would exactly express what she had done for Paul and others, if aiding them officially as a deacon in the church, and strongly supports the conclusion that she is here spoken of, not as a private member merely, but as a recognized office-bearer.

Phoebe's Role and Responsibilities

But sister Phœbe, as it appears, has a "business" to transact at Rome; and it is wonderfully foreign to the whole spirit of the passage to suppose that the business was private. She was deacon in a small congregation in Cenchrea, the eastern or Asiatic port of Corinth on the isthmus. The members of the church in Cenchrea were probably of the humbler classes, mostly seafaring men, sailors and fishermen. Now we know that the churches at that time were wont to depute parties to travel with Paul, Titus and others, to raise funds for the relief of the needy, and those were called "messengers of the churches," as chosen and sent forth for that purpose, (see 2 Cor. 8: 16-24 and 9: 3-5.) In commending Phœbe to the Romans as a deacon in a sister church, Paul not only officially certified her standing, and that she was worthy of their full confidence, but asks for her assistance and help from the wealthy and liberal members of the church in the great metropolis. She was thus engaged in what we have reason to believe, was quite customary at the time in many of the churches, and which is by no means uncommon in the present day. And thus both in official designation, and in active work, Phœbe is here recognized as a church officer. And it is worthy of remark that almost all expositors, ancient and modern, with hardly an exception, are of the opinion that this passage implies that the sister here certified, was in some position in the church in Cenchrea, other than that of mere private membership.

Qualifications of Female Deacons

But, again, we have in another passage the qualifications required in female deacons. In writing to Timothy how "he ought to behave himself in the house of God," Paul first instructs him as to how a bishop should be qualified, then, in five particulars, the necessary qualifications which deacons should possess, (1 Tim. 3: 1–10,) and then (v. 11) adds, as in the authorized version, "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." This would, at first sight, appear as an additional qualification which the deacon should possess, but though usually so interpreted, there are no grounds for understanding the passage in that sense, because, first, the character of a man's wife is never given as a qualification for his holding office in the New Testament church. If it had been so, it would be of special importance in the case of a bishop, and yet in his case nothing of the kind is ever hinted. Then, secondly, there is no word for "their" in the original text, that would indicate any relations of the females referred to, as the wives of deacons. The expression is not "their wives," but simply "women," (gynaikas), which is the primary meaning of the word, and so translated in the revised version. And, thirdly, the grammatical construction of the whole passage in the original text forbids the idea of private relation betwixt the women mentioned and the deacons.

Scriptural Basis for Female Deacons

Two connecting links hold grammatically together the whole passage about bishops, deacons and women. The first of these is, deieina, with an accusative case intervening, signifying what it is necessary the intervening accusative "must be." Though this connecting expression is only found in the second verse, it is understood in the eighth and eleventh verses, and is accordingly supplied in italics, by our translators. Thus connected the passage states, first, what it is necessary a bishop to be, then what it is necessary deacons to be, and then what it is necessary "women" to be, by way of qualifications. But if by "women" here are only meant private members, why exclude the male members, and why introduce only women in company with bishops and deacons as requiring high qualifications? Then there is also another connecting word, hosautos, translated "likewise" in verse 8, and "even so," verse 11, and by the revisers, "in like manner," which is used to connect things in some respects similar, or of a similar class, which class in the passage must be that of office-bearers, as distinguished from private members. As Alford remarks, "gynaikas here, marked off by hosautos, must be an ecclesiastical class, and can hardly be other than deaconesses, ministrae, as Pliny calls them in his letter to Trajan, such as Phœbe was at Cenchrea." One of our most reliable expositors takes the same view. "Their wives," rather, "women," i.e., deaconesses, for there is no reason that special rules should be laid down as to the wives of deacons, and not, also, as to the wives of bishops. Moreover, if wives of deacons are meant there seems to be no reason for the omission of "their." Also, hosautos, even so, likewise or in like manner, denotes a transition to another class of persons. Also the omission of domestic duties in their case, though specified in the case of the man, verse 12, shows that they are not spoken of in their private capacity as wives. There were, doubtless, deaconesses at Ephesus, where Timothy was now laboring, as well as at Cenchrea, and yet no mention of them is made in this epistle if not here; whereas, if they be meant here, chapter 3 embraces in due proportion all the officers of the New Testament church, and Paul naturally, after specifying the deacon’s qualifications passes to those of the deaconess.” (Crit. Com.)

Women and Ecclesiastical Offices

Two things in the passage further confirm this view. First, the manner in which "women" are here brought in by the apostle, when giving instructions how deacons should be qualified. In verses 8–10 he describes what the deacon must be, then verse 11, what "women" must be, and then at verse 12 goes back to the deacons, thus showing by placing women in the very centre of what he had to say about deacons’ qualifications, that they belonged to that class. And then again, not only must these women have certain qualifications, but the four mentioned are exactly the same as required in men. By comparing the two lists we find that in the first qualification the very same adjective in different genders is employed, and in the other three, words precisely of the same import. If, then, these women were not of the number of deacons at Ephesus, when Paul wrote, the passage is not only obscure but misleading.

In several other passages of more general import, as in Paul's salutations to prominent women in different churches, who had been his "helpers," and who are said to have "labored," and to have "labored much in the Lord," there may be reference to the same feature in the apostolic church. Some, also, understand the instructions given to Timothy (1 Tim. 5: 9) about widows being "taken into the number," or enrolled as having similar reference to an order of female deacons; and Mosheim goes so far as to maintain that the widows (Acts 6: 1) were not for themselves the recipients of church help, but deaconesses, and the ground of their complaint was that the funds placed at their disposal were not equal to those entrusted to the Hebrew deaconesses. We do not, however, think that the enrolled widows were anything by way of office, but simply recipients of church aid, as Timothy directed, "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged, that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."—1 Tim. 5: 16.

The Case for Women's Ordination

As, however, we firmly believe that the passages we have considered fully bear out the conclusion that in the apostolic church women took their place with the men in holding and exercising the deacon's office, it follows that we have full warrant to admit them to the same position still, and set them apart by ordination to the performance of its duties. And here we must say, that to us the strangest feature in the whole matter is the difficulty which some brethren feel about ordaining women to this office, even when duly elected and found qualified. One brother, after owning the peculiar fitness of women for the performance of many of the duties of the deacon's office, writes, "Our difficulty is to find a warrant for her ordination to regular office work." Another thinks that a woman could just be as useful without ordination, and that therefore it is unnecessary to raise the question at all. Another thinks her right to ordination cannot be proved because we have no example of a woman being inducted into office by being anointed with oil, or by the laying of hands upon her head; and so others in similar strain. Now the obscurity seems to arise from imperfect views of the nature of ordination and its relation to holding office in the church. There are no less than eleven words in the Greek text of the New Testament, which our translators have rendered by the verb "ordain." Six of these are used of persons being put into a position, such as office of some kind. The first, only applied to Christ, and signifying to mark off, separate or set apart, is twice used, (Acts 10: 42 and 17: 31.) The second signifying to make, and the third to place, and the fourth to become, are the words used for setting apart the apostles, (Mark 3: 14; John 15: 16; Acts 1: 22 and 1 Tim. 27). The fifth to place in position, is used of priests (Heb. 5: 1 and 8: 3) and of elders, (Tit. 1: 5). The sixth to elect by raising the hand, is used of elders, (Acts 14: 23). Now it is a remarkable fact that not in one of these words is what we call ordination by laying on of hands clearly expressed, while the last of the six makes election by show of hands to be what appoints or puts the elder into office. And, in fact, the making and putting into place and position in church office any man or woman must depend upon their being duly elected, proved and found qualified. Without these no presbytery would ordain to any office. In fact it is not the man we ordain but the pastor elect, the elder elect or the deacon elect, so that we literally "lay hands suddenly on no man."

Ordination and Installation

Following these, according to our book of discipline, (p. 107,) "*ordination and installation are authoritative acts done in the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church." But these acts simply seal and ratify, in a public, authoritative manner, what went before, and it is just as when a person has been elected or appointed to some office in the State, but before entering upon its duties, takes an oath of office. It is not the taking of the oath that makes him an officer of the government, but his election or appointment, the oath being merely a formal pledge of fidelity. Now that a deacon elect is to be formally set apart and officially declared an office-bearer in the church, by such an act of ordination as we perform we are all agreed, but the diakonos is of no gender, and as we think that we have made it clear that a woman may be a diakonos, when duly elected and found qualified, the right to ordination is hers as much as that of one of the other sex, who may have been elected at the same time. It is a simple syllogism. To a deacon elect, duly qualified and approved, belongs the right of ordination. But a woman may be a deacon elect, duly qualified and approved. Therefore, to a woman duly elected to deacon's office, and qualified and approved, belongs the right of ordination. The principle is plain. To a woman belong all corporate rights in the church, unless specially excepted, as is the case as regards the ministry and eldership, whilst it cannot be shown that the deaconship is excepted but the contrary is established. In fact her rights here are fuller and plainer than her right to the Lord's table.

Advantages of Women in the Deacon's Office

Nor is there any question as to the many and great advantages that would accrue to the church from having a few able and devoted women in every congregation in the deacon's office. While we think so, however, we have no sympathy with a great deal spoken and written at present about restoring the old order of deaconesses, and getting our women organized into sisterhoods, and assigning them work aside from other members of the church. A great deal of such talk comes, not from scriptural views of woman's place and work in the church, but from the corruptions that soon prevailed, both in the east and west, in relation to all ecclesiastical matters, and by which as has been well said, "The convent swallowed up scriptural organizations of women, as the monastery absorbed the scriptural presbyters." In the days of Timothy active female deacons would be an arm of strength to the church. As has been said by a judicious writer: "*From the seclusion in which oriental women were kept, and the improbability that there could be anything like a free intercourse with them, on the part of the apostles and first preachers of Christianity, the desirableness and necessity of having women specially devoted to the work of visiting and instructing them is apparent. Considering also the elastic nature of the constitution of the apostolic church, it may readily be believed that, as in the case of deacons, the instant such a need was felt, steps would be taken to supply it. By such an arrangement the gospel could be introduced into many families, where otherwise it could hardly have found admission."

Women and the Apostolic Church

And analogous causes may have led to the employment of women, as the instrumentality best adopted to many other forms of christian work. And nothing is more historically certain than that at the close of the apostolic age women in office, and generally styled deaconesses, were to be found in all the churches." It might be added that the numerous and fierce persecutions to which the churches were subjected during this period "as the spoiling of their goods," fines, imprisonment, violence and tortures in many forms, by which they were daily tried, would furnish much work for such consecrated women, and they could have access often to those who were "sick and in prison," such as no male office-bearer in the church could possibly have. Whilst, however, thankful that our lines have fallen in more pleasant places and times, still there are many things that women in office could accomplish which men have neither the taste, talent, tact, nor time to attempt. In acquiring, holding and improving church property, providing and dispensing funds for current expenses so that ordinances may be regularly enjoyed, and in many other respects our deacons render very valuable services which we have no desire to undervalue or belittle. But in the privacy of family life there are sad scenes of suffering, hidden misery, wretchedness and want, into which even pastor or elder cannot penetrate, and which would be freely opened to a sympathetic spiritual woman. Even when not acting officially the presence of such a woman for a short time has been felt to be as an angel visit. How much more would our noble Christian women prove when quickened by the felt obligation of being consecrated to God and his work. And now that female physicians, female teachers, &c., are recognized as in some measure required by the exigencies of society, there are many ways in which ladies, representing the claims of religion, might have doors of usefulness opened before them. If in each of our congregations we had even a small number of such women in office, they could organize the female element for practical purposes more effectually than has ever been the case in the past. In local visiting, sabbath-school work, raising funds for the poor and for missions, the promotion of systematic beneficence, the cause of temperance, and Sabbath observance, they would do a work for the church which our deacons never now think of or attempt. In view of the manifold capabilities and opportunities for work such women would possess, we very fully sympathized with the words uttered in Synod by the late Moderator: "We are getting rid of the prejudice against the equality of man and woman, and should be glad that the church has got so far forward in this great truth that God intends to use both man and woman in advancing his cause."

Reformation and the Role of Women

We may add, in conclusion, that almost all the churches of the reformation are moving, more or less in this matter, and it is becoming one of the questions of the day. In many churches on the continent of Europe, and in the established church of England, a very marked interest in it has of late been awakened. In the report of the proceedings in the General Assembly of the church of Scotland, in May last, a resolution was passed that deaconesses henceforth be ordained not by Presbyteries, but by kirk sessions. The great Presbyterian Council that lately met in London also grappled with this question, and the paper on the subject by Professor Charteris, of Edinburgh, (in substance in the Presbyterian Review of last April,) and the discussion that followed showed what an interest it has excited throughout the churches. And it is but meet that our church should lead in this matter. We accord to our female members their corporate rights more fully than any church of the Reformation, and in following up what has at our late meeting of Synod been so auspiciously begun, we may still further draw out into active operation the mighty moral force lodged in our devoted Christian women, and thus accomplish a work for which posterity will bless us.

COMMITTEE OF SYNOD

Appendix

1) Women Deacons in the Early Church

2) 1888 Seminary President Address

3) Congratulations from the Ladies Missionary Society of North Cedar RP in Kansas.

4) Pastor D. S. Fair's Response to the Committee's Report.

5) A full blown feminist letter to the magazine on hoping to move beyond women deacon to women preachers.

5) Video Lecture on Deacons in the RPCNA in 2024 with the text of a report adopted by the Synod of 2002 on Women Deacon.

WOMEN DEACONS IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH
BY THE REV. T. P. STEVENSON. 

(Our Banner Vol 15 no 12 Dec 1888, Pages 405-408)

To the junior member of the Committee appointed to present the reasons which underlay the decision of Synod respecting the ordination of women to the office of deacon, was assigned the duty of collating the historical facts which show that women were elected and ordained to this office in the early Christian church, and that this recent decision involves no departure from the primitive order of the house, of God.

The authors and compilers of the various encyclopedias of ecclesiastical history and literature have, for the most part, treated this topic in a thoroughly unsatisfactory way, the one notable exception being M'Clintock and Strong's "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature," where the subject is presented with a fullness which leaves little or nothing to be desired. Nearly all the facts set forth below may be found in its excellent article under the title "Deaconesses." This article, however, is itself the fruit of the new impulse given to the study of the subject in connection with modern efforts to establish an order or institution of "Deaconesses" in the Church of England and in various churches on the continent of Europe. Dean Howson's work entitled "Deaconesses, or the Official Help of Woman in Parochial Work," (London, 1862) and Ludlow's "Woman's Work in the Church," (London, 1864), are among the sources from which, as well as from the article above referred to, the facts herein presented have been gleaned.

The earliest reference to women as deacons is found in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan in which he describes the usages of the Christians against whom at that time he was, by the emperor's command, waging a bitter persecution. In this letter he speaks of having examined by torture "two maids who were called ministers" — "duabus ancillis quae ministrae dicebantur." The word ministrae is an exact translation of the Greek diakonos, a word of common gender, and the word which is applied to Phebe, Rom. xvi. 1. The expression "who were called ministers" plainly indicates that these women had some recognized position among the Christians, that they belonged to a class or order designated by that name. When we remember that this was written about A. D. 104, while those were still living who had been taught by Paul, the importance of this link in the testimony becomes apparent.

The next valuable testimony to the official work of women in the early church is found in the "Apostolical Constitutions." These are a body of rules for the government of the church, gathered partly from the Scriptures, especially the Pastoral Epistles, partly from tradition and the unwritten law of early times, and partly from the decrees of early Synods and Councils at Antioch, Neo-Caesarea, Nice, Laodicea, etc. They are not in any sense of apostolical authority, they were evidently and necessarily of gradual growth, and were collected by some unknown hand in the fourth or fifth century. Their historical value, as to the usages and institutions of the early church, is unquestionable. These rules prescribe that the female deacons be ordained with the laying on of hands, and give the following form of prayer for this service: "Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of man and woman; Thou who didst fill with thy Spirit Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah; Thou who didst vouchsafe to a woman the birth of thy only begotten Son; Thou who didst in the Tabernacle and in the Temple set female keepers of thy holy gates; look down now also upon this thy handmaid and bestow on her the Holy Ghost that she may worthily perform the work committed to her to thy honor and the glory of Christ." (Chase, Constitutions of the Apostles, N. Y., 1848, p. 225.) Grant, as we have already done, that these canons have no apostolical authority, that they are a compilation from various sources by an unknown hand in the fourth or fifth century, still they prove that the ordination of women to this office was the custom at that time and in the time of the still earlier synods and councils from whose decrees these canons were compiled.

Origen, in the early part of the third century, commenting on the example of Phebe, speaks of the ministering of women in the church as being both useful and necessary. In the fourth and fifth centuries all the eastern fathers refer to deaconesses — Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Sozomen. Notices of individual deaconesses become frequent in the annals of the church, and "everywhere," says Ludlow, "the female diaconate is spoken of as an honorable office, and one filled by persons of talent, rank and fortune." No less than six deaconesses appear by name among those who enjoyed the personal friendship of Chrysostom. Three of his letters "to Amprucla the deacon, and those with her" were written to console them under the persecutions they were subjected to. Not less than eighteen of his letters are addressed "to my lady, the deacon Olympias," whom he chides for her unbounded liberality and whose steadfast adherence to his cause led to her expulsion from Constantinople after Chrysostom's banishment.

Tertullian speaks of female deacons, and prescribes their qualifications and their duties, saying they are not to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, i.e., the Eucharist, nor to arrogate any function belonging to men, "lest two should claim the lot of the priestly office." The duties of the female deacons were to care for the sick and the poor, especially women, to prepare female catechumens for baptism and to assist at their baptism, to stand at the women's entrance to the church and to assist in seating women in the sanctuary, to minister to martyrs and other sufferers to whom they could often gain access when men could not, while to them equally with men deacons pertained the duty of "messages, journeys to foreign parts, ministrations, services." ("Apostolical Constitutions," Bk. iii. c. 19.) Phebe's journey to Rome was thus strictly within the limits of her recognized functions.

The Council of Nice forbade the ordination of women by the laying on of hands, "lest it should be supposed they were admitted to priestly functions" — a circumstance which marks the growth of the sacerdotal and hierarchical spirit in the church. From this point the deaconess gradually disappears from ecclesiastical history until during the dark ages the institution became extinct. The Council of Orange abolished it in France in A. D. 441, followed by the decree of the Synod at Epaon in 517. In the Greek church they are still found as late as the twelfth century at Constantinople, assisting at the communion services.

That the office was not restored to women in the Reformation is not surprising. Glorious and beneficent as that spiritual uprising was, it was not complete or exhaustive. It did not revive the work of foreign missions; it did not recover the law or the spirit of systematic beneficence; it did not in other respects than this do justice to women or restore her to her true position in the household of Christ.

Yet there was one earnest effort, at an early period of the Reformation, to re-establish the function of women deacons. In the reformed churches of the Netherlands, the congregation of Wesel restored the office, and the classis or Presbytery favored their action, and referred the matter to the Synod that the office "might be revived in other places also." Accordingly, the subject came before the Synod at Middleburg in the year 1581, which decided against it, not on scriptural or historical grounds, it would seem, but "on account of various inconveniences which might arise out of it" — a deliverance not very creditable to the scholarship or good judgment of the Synod. It is noteworthy that in this discussion it was argued that women deacons already exist "among our Bohemian brethren." 

The Puritans in England in the sixteenth century recognized women deacons, as appears from the following extract from the "Conclusions" drawn up by Cartwright and Travers: "Touching deacons of both sorts, men and women, the church shall be admonished that they are not to choose men for their riches but for their faith, zeal and integrity, and that the church is to pray to be so directed that they may choose them that are meet. Let the names of those that are thus chosen be published by the next Lord's Day, and after that their duties to the church and the church's duties toward them; then let them be received into their office with the general prayers of the whole church." (Neal's History of the Puritans, Vol. 1. Chap, vi.)

The writer respectfully submits that the facts adduced establish the position assumed at the beginning that the late action of Synod is in consonance with the usage and belief of the church from the earliest times. When it is added that the majority of the members in all Christian churches is composed of women, that their zeal and liberality always do much to replenish the treasury, that the public charities of Christendom are today devised and administered very largely by women, that God is leading his handmaidens out in these days into manifold and most important fields of activity and that "this way points the finger of God" for the further progress, in most important respects, of the kingdom of Christ, it will be concluded that Synod has taken a very natural and reasonable step in admitting women to a share in the official administration of the charities and benefactions of the people of God.

SHOULD A WOMAN BE ORDAINED A DEACON?

Lecture by Prof. D. B. Willson at the opening of the session, 1888–9, of Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pa., September 18, 1888.

(The Reformed and Presbyterian Covenanter, Vol 24 no 11, Pages 394-407)

Gentlemen of the Theological Class:—It devolves upon me this evening to welcome you to your studies, as I do now for myself and my associates. In this connection, it is usual to consider some subject related to your calling. There is a topic which seems to have a claim at this time, on account of the action of the last Synod, and the little discussion previously given to it in our church, that is, Should a Woman be Ordained a Deacon? Ordination is the formal act of the church investing one with office. For this, there must be, in this case, the warrant of Christ, and the voice of the people. You all know the history of this question as now brought before us. It was not taken up as a theoretical question, though it has been much discussed by church historians and other writers. One of our smaller congregations, feebly equipped with male members, chose to the office of deacon one of the female members, one that had shown efficiency in temperance and evangelistic work. There is here the choice of the people. Is there the warrant of Christ? No question is raised of personal fitness. The whole matter is a question relating to sex. All acknowledge this; the disability, if it exists, is a disability of sex.

This brings before us the wonderful advance of late years in removing the disabilities of women. The whole subject of the advance of women opens up an interesting field of study. I shall not refer to woman's condition in the barbarous nations, where, though burdened, she was not treated with the indignity which more advanced nations visited upon her. I shall refer only to classic lands, and then to the great Indian Peninsula, where a sad condition of affairs exists even to this day, yet with efforts to remove it.

As to Greece, whose language flourished when the New Testament was written, in the heroic ages, women seem to have been held in higher esteem than in historic times. Penelope and Antigone were respected and admired. They were neither toys nor slaves. Grecian women directed the household. Xenophon represents Ischomachus as saying to his young wife, "You must consider yourself the guardian of our domestic commonwealth, and dispose of all its resources as the commander of a garrison disposes of the soldiers under his command." They taught their children and were beloved by them. Themistocles, it is reported, said of his infant son, "This little fellow is the most influential person I know. Why? He completely governs his mother, while she governs me, and I the whole of Greece." As to customs, to cut the hair was always a sign of grief, and when a Grecian woman placed her tresses on her husband's tomb, it was a precious memorial of her affectionate grief. Yet the rule was that a woman's face should be veiled with a long veil, similar to those worn by slaves. In general, woman among the Greeks was in a state of great, although not slavish, subjection to man. There was little intercourse between the sexes. Women were seldom allowed to go abroad, and in later times, this seclusion continued, and they had less to do than before with the business and pleasures of men. This state of subjection and degradation remained even in the best period of Greece. Unmarried women were closely watched. Their apartment in the house was commonly kept closed. Married women were allowed only liberty as far as the door or yard. Mothers had a little more freedom. Women had more liberty at Sparta than at Athens. There, married women only were required to wear veils abroad; the unmarried might appear without them. Marriage was promoted and controlled by the laws. In Sparta, penalties were inflicted upon men passing a certain age, unmarried. At Athens, all who wished to be commanders or orators, or to hold any public office, must be married. There was then no public life for respectable women. The other class were abroad, for licentiousness was exceedingly common, and was favored even by the system of worship. In Athens, distinguished men openly associated with dissolute women. Corinth was more badly corrupted.

As to Rome, in the early days, marriage gave the wife privileges which were considerable and honorable. When married in strict form, the two eating the sacred salted cake together, the wife was set in a place of dignity and power. The State looked to her interests and welfare, though she belonged more to the family than to the community. Her legal personality was merged in that of her husband. He was the master of the household, but she was as much the mistress as he was the master. Her legal position was that of her husband's child. But he had not the power over her that he had over his children—to sell them into slavery or to put them to death in certain cases, or in infancy to allow them to die. As to customs, women seldom went abroad, and when they did, they usually had their faces veiled. When luxury and wealth increased, dress became, with many, the chief matter, and women of fashion were then, as now, devoted to it. The hair was bound with fillets or ribbons. Ribbons seem to have been peculiar to modest women. Marriage was held to be the duty of every Roman, and those who neglected it were taxed—that is, fined. There was little public life for respectable women.

As to India, not only as a matter of the past but of the present time, the attention of the world has been fixed particularly of late on the women of India by the work of Pundita Ramabai Sarasvati. The introduction by the late Rachel L. Bodley, M.D., dean of the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania, tells of Anandibai Joshee, a Hindu woman, educated in Philadelphia, who declared in starting out: "I will go (to America) as a Hindu, and come back and live among my people as a Hindu." She did so. What a strain it was will appear. The population of Hindustan numbers two hundred and fifty million; more than three-fifths of them are professors of the Hindu religion in one form or another. Their religious customs are essentially the same; the social customs differ slightly in different parts of the country. Ramabai came to America for Mrs. Joshee's graduation in medicine in Philadelphia, March 11, 1886, and has written a book on Hindu women. The whole story is taken up under three heads: childhood, youth or married life, and widowhood or old age. As to childhood, she tells us that a girl is ever made to feel that she is an unwelcome, unbidden guest in the family. Religion enjoins that every girl must be given in marriage; the neglect of this duty means for the father unpardonable sin, public ridicule, and caste excommunication. Hence, a high-class Brahman may take advantage of this provision and may marry ten, twenty, or even a hundred and fifty girls, receiving presents from their parents, and go away, leaving them, not to return. This mock marriage, as we would call it, does not exist among the non-Brahman caste, but to offset it, the Rajputs, who belong to the warrior caste, practice infanticide in the case of the girls—yet not as sanctioned by their religion. It has been forbidden by the Hindu princes of the semi-independent States, yet "a belief, deeply-rooted in the hearts and religiously observed by the people for centuries, could not be removed by external rules" (Ramabai). The census of 1870 shows that three hundred children were stolen in one year by wolves in the city of Umritsar, all being girls, and this is where the British Government has sway. The census of 1880–1 shows over 5,000,000 more men than women in India. The system of early marriage, child marriage, goes back at least as far as 500 B.C. Marriage is the only 'sacrament' administered to a woman of high caste, Vedic texts being pronounced at the time. The girl then is the man's property, and that of his near relations. In northern and southern India, this ceremony is a betrothal, irrevocable however. Marriage as a social ceremony takes place some years later. The family system is a joint system; four generations may be under one roof. Men and women have but little in common. The young bride must never talk or laugh loudly, must not speak before or to the father or elder brother-in-law, or any other distant male relatives of her husband, unless commanded to do so. In Northern India, where all women wear veils, she veils her face before them. In Southern India, where women do not, as a rule, wear veils, they show respect by rising and remaining standing while their elders or their husbands are present. The Hindu religion does command honor for women to a certain extent, and so it is among Aryan Hindus, but the honor centers in regard paid to the mother, as in China. The mother occupies the place of honor, "Let thy mother be to thee like unto a god," is one of the commandments of the Hindus, yet women as a class are set low in their sacred books, with sad results. It is not necessary to quote the low opinion expressed in these books. It is one of distrust, as bad and false. Hence the custom of seclusion for women, which existed as far back as 600 B.C. Religion for a woman consists in submission to all this, and never to do anything but that which is approved by law and custom. The law has a firm grasp. An instance is given by Ramabai. A child marriage was performed in her family connection; thirteen years after, the young man came for his wife. The parents were now unwilling to let her go; they shared the "advanced" views that are making headway in India and judged him an unfit companion for their daughter. The young wife, of course, was a stranger to him. But the stricter class raised money to sue her and her parents in the British Court of Justice. The ground was treaties, by which, except in cases of life and death, the Government is not to interfere with the social and religious customs and laws of the people. The verdict was for the husband, according to Hindu law. A more recent case has been tried at Bombay. The woman pleaded that the marriage was concluded without her consent, that is a British plea for a decree of invalidity. The justice sustained it. Money was raised by the stricter party, and the case was appealed, and the chief justice remanded it for trial on its merits according to Hindu law, and the woman was mulcted in the costs last year. This is the old line of slavery decisions as all see, so common in the United States Courts thirty years ago, and we must not exclaim too loudly. These women are beating madly against the bars. Widowhood has a sorrowful end in India. The code of Manu does not involve self-immolation, but this came in later from the priesthood. The Suttee came to be a meritorious act, but on what authority? The priests produced a text from the Rig-Veda, and so the Hindu widow committed herself to the flames on the funeral pile of her deceased husband. Max Müller shows that the Rig-Veda does not assume the death of the wife at the funeral pile with her husband's body, and Ramabai breaks forth against the priests of her former faith: "It was by falsifying a single syllable that the unscrupulous priests managed to change entirely the meaning of the whole verse. Those who know the Sanskrit characters can easily understand that the falsification very likely originated in the carelessness of the transcriber or copyist, but for all that, the priests who permitted the error are not excusable in the least." Max Müller says of the verse that "the later Brahmans have falsified and quoted it in support of their cruel tenet." Saved now by the law from the Suttee rite, what is the condition of the widows? Except in the Northwest, they are put to very great trial. They are robbed of all ornaments, and in many parts must yield their tresses, their heads being even shaved. The widow must eat only one meal a day, and the sight of her is regarded as unauspicious; no man but her father, brothers, uncles, and her aunt-cousins (who are regarded as brothers), may see her or speak to her. A Hindu man, in an article in the Nineteenth Century for September 1886, says: "To a Hindu widow death is a thousand times more welcome than her miserable existence." This is a sad enough picture of the life of women in India, and any disability woman has endured in classic lands is as naught compared with this. As to Christian lands, the Roman civil law has had long life with many of its maxims. The Canon law has been side by side with it, mitigating, modifying it. Is it unfair to say that many of our ideas and customs are traceable to a heathen origin, and to a heathen condition of society when traced to the furthest limit? We know this to be the fact as to many matters. Christianity, as brought into the nations, did not at once abolish their customs. Many lived, some were diverted. Look at the origin of the Christmas festival, and of the May Day revel. Customs hold their own against power and are removed by light, accompanying force. There is an adage, "Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar." One of our missionaries said to me that no American woman should marry an Eastern convert, that it would take several generations for that people to learn to treat a woman as an American wife would expect to be treated. Take the Word of God and urge it upon the life of the Hindu families, and how many conditions are met with in them and in Hindu social life, that cannot be altered at once, and must needs be taken into account while in no wise approved. This is known in dealing with converts. They are not as Abraham, called out of their country and their kindred.

Education is leading the women of India out into liberty. They are learning Sanskrit. Their sisters were kept in ignorance of it. Education is everywhere doing the work of fitting women for diversified employments. They are coming forward. There have been every now and then extraordinary cases. Mary Sommerville in England, followed by Maria Mitchell in our own country, gained a place in the list of those distinguished in science. Women have won a place in the ranks of the medical profession and have even secured admission to the bar. In 1880, the late Professor Samuel D. Gross became President of the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery. At the 24th commencement that same year, fifty-seven persons graduated, including two women. He writes in his Autobiography: "In congratulating the graduates upon the completion of their studies and upon their entrance into professional life, I extended my special sympathies to the young women. I spoke to them words of encouragement, telling them that they could not fail to do well, if they were true to themselves and to their profession, and that the dentist of the Empress of Germany was a woman, a graduate of the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery. One of them, a native of Germany, took a prize for proficiency in her dental studies, and she is said to possess marked ability, having made herself fairly acquainted with the English language, of which she hardly knew anything on her arrival in this country, two years ago." Women are now fairly equipped for nearly all service. They are not only in stores, but in counting rooms of all kinds of business, in railroad offices, in Government employ. They are on boards managing homes, hospitals, and schools, and in Canada, a lady is on the Board of Church Trustees. They appear on the platform in advocacy of reforms, with the same freedom that they have long enjoyed on the stage for the amusement of the public. We all know that this advance has been made in the face of opposition. What it cost to move on, women can tell us, better than men. There was long a discrimination in the matter of higher education, necessary to fit women for advance. This is all changing, we may use the past tense speaking of the North, in our land, this is changed. The spirit of the age, as we know it, is on their side.

Was our Synod carried on by the tide in its action? The congregation made the choice; they left it to the courts over them in the Lord, under our Presbyterian order, to decide on the propriety of conferring office on a woman. The decision of Synod was in favor, by a vote of 93 to 24, the nays not being ready to approve but not set in opposition. Does the Word of God countenance such a step? This is the ultimate question. The movement is in the line of enlarging the field of woman's work in the church of Christ, in duties to God as rendered to his people. It does not seem that a right interpretation of the Word of God can be against this; but as the view is challenged, we must make it clear that his Word approves this. Many of the advocates of women's privileges have cast off this standard and care not what it says, as witness Mrs. Caird's article in the last Westminster Review. Avoiding the Scylla of subjection, as they regard it, they fall into the Charybdis of license. Even such a woman as Miss Willard, the leader of a large organization and a Methodist by religious profession, raises a question between Paul and Christ, as to the place of women, as if there is a necessity to decide between Jesus and one of his apostles in the inspired record, and not a way in which they may be shown to accord. Is it then necessary to set the Word of God, any part of it, against this church service of women? It is not unfair here to show the need of caution in handling it. It has been set in the course of the Christian centuries against progress in the State and in the Church and has been thus abused all along the line of history since Christ. See how it is used today against the Temperance Reform. All know how even the very words of Christ himself, in the 16th Chapter of Matthew, are used to prop up the throne of the Papal rule. But I refer now to the passages that have to do with the support of the King and the Master, as it has been supposed. There is a kinship in all these questions. At the root, it is not man against woman as some take it in their talk about the despotism of the "lords of creation." There is no call for crimination and recrimination. Man has been as cruel to his fellow-man as man has ever been to woman. It is altogether "man's inhumanity to man." Sin has cursed the world, and force, brute force, has wronged the weak, and women have availed themselves of this, as well as men, and have joined in crushing their sisters. They do it today. Man and woman both fell, Christ Jesus is the remedy for the fall for man, that is for male and for female. As to the misuse of the Word of God to which I have referred, I have in mind especially the two subjects of the political rights and the natural rights of man. A reference to these is the more pertinent, because in the lands of which I have spoken, in treating of the status of woman, Greece, Rome, and India, there has been the invasion of both these classes of rights. As for the former, what a history has been that of the "divine right of kings," among heathen and Christian peoples. Volumes have been written concerning this. What life in Christian lands has the doctrine of "passive obedience and non-resistance" had even in the late Christian centuries? Our forefathers in Scotland suffered under this yoke of the kings supported by the bishops, under the Stuart dynasty, until under oppression they came, not to hate the Word of God but in studying it, to understand the passages the bishops quoted, especially that one: "The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation;" and Jus Populi Vindicatum and Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex show that light came to them; and their thinking has done good to the world. They were not driven as the French, who were not possessed of Bibles in their homes, but received only what their Romish teachers gave them, so that when their manhood rebelled against the oppression of the Bourbon line, they threw off religion as well as the yoke of their kings. What is the fact today as to man's political rights and all the passages brought up by the bishops? We are satisfied under a Republican government as to all that is written in the Word as to kings and obedience to them. We have light.

The other matter of the denial of human rights, of the natural right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, has a sadder history. The ladies of Greece and Rome were served by slaves; so were the ladies of India, and it is not a quarter of a century since the ladies in Christian America, in this Republic, were served by slaves, and they were not always the kindest rulers. Women were as violent as any in their zeal for "the corner-stone of the Confederacy." No one needs to be "high-minded" in discussing any of these questions. We have all cause for humility. What of the relation of the Word of God to the system of slavery? The changes were rung on the words of Noah, "Cursed be Canaan," and the New Testament command, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Abraham was held up as a slave-owner. Paul was represented as returning Onesimus to bondage, a more valuable slave because a Christian, thus doing a favor to Philemon by converting his slave to Christ. I might say, this is not a thing of the past, it is a present interpretation of Scripture. It is all over now as far as of any service in the lips of the ministry to prop up that system of iniquity that went down in the abyss of war, but it is not dead yet. A southern clergyman urged the revisers of the Bible to be faithful, and to translate doulos as "slave." They did not do it, but they did put "bond-servant" in the margin in strange connections as a rendering of it. Paul is a "bond-servant" of God (Titus 1:1) and so on, though the Greek doulos passed into Hebrew usage to render the free service of an Israelite. (See in LXX, Eccl. 5:12, "The sleep of a laboring man (doulos) is sweet, whether he eat little or much.") The work of Conybeare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, says (and they, Englishmen, not poisoned, one would think, with American virus), "Of all the disciples now ministering to St. Paul at Rome, none has for us a greater interest than the fugitive Asiatic slave, Onesimus. Paul wished to keep him at Rome and employ him in the service of the Gospel. Yet he would not transgress the law, nor violate the rights of Philemon, by acting in this matter without his consent," and so he returns him. Yet the Jewish law forbade the return of a fugitive. "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." Look at the line of witnesses for liberty in the Christian church, beginning with Jesus Christ himself, who came "to preach deliverance to the captives" (Luke 4:18). Paul tells us that the law is made for "the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for men-stealers" (1 Tim. 1:9-10), and he directs "masters to give unto their servants that which is just and equal" (Col. 4:1). Chrysostom, in the fourth century, said: "There were no slaves in the old times; for God when he formed man, made him not bond, but free. Behold, slavery came of sin. Slavery is the punishment of sin, and arose from disobedience. But when Christ appeared he removed this cause, for in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free." Isidore of Pelusium, soon after, said, in writing to a master, "I did not suppose that a man who loves Christ, who knows the grace which has made all men free, could still hold a slave." Augustine likewise wrote, "The Christian dare not regard a slave as his property, like a horse or silver." Whatever views may be held by any divines in other churches as to the attitude of the Bible to slavery, as if it recognized property in man, the Reformed Presbyterian Church long ago reached a conclusion that the Bible stamped it as a sin, and in 1800, the Presbytery, then the highest court of our church in the United States, declared that "no slaveholder should be allowed the communion of the church." We have definite and decided views as to man's natural and political rights. Whoever will may tarry in the darkness. The age is against them. This year the slaves of Brazil have been freed without a civil war. This point has been reached. Property in man is condemned. What of this "spirit of the age?" Is it a part of that anti-Christ, that is setting itself against all order and government? Or is it, in these matters of liberty, liberty for woman as well, part of the development of the world under Christ? When we recall the attitude of our church on man's political and natural rights, and that in this matter now on hand, the result was reached without any angry discussion, and with such a majority, we must attribute it to our training in a "free school," under Christ. To many questions of the bearing of the Word of God on the customs of human society, we must say with the Savior, when questioned, "From the beginning, it was not so." "He which made them in the beginning made them male and female." The record as to man is, "In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Whatever you deny to another that you claim for yourself, you must deny on a sure warrant. Your warrant to prohibit must be clear.

In some such frame of mind, with a desire to know, we open the Bible inquiring, Should a woman be ordained a deacon?W. Lindsay Alexander, in his edition of Kitto's Cyclopaedia, makes short work of the question, and his views are widely held: "That in the early church there were females who were officially set apart for certain duties under the title of deaconesses seems beyond doubt; but whether such were found in the churches of the apostolic age is very doubtful. The grounds for the affirmatives are extremely slender. Phoebe is called a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea; and Paul specifies certain qualifications which were to be required before a widow was taken into the number (as is alleged) of deaconesses. On such evidence, nothing can be built. The former passage proves nothing as to any official status held by Phoebe in the church; for aught the word teaches, she may have been the door-keeper or cleaner of the place where the church assembled. The latter passage is made to bear on the subject only by assuming the thing to be proved; not a word does Paul say in it of deaconesses; he says certain widows are not to be received 'into the number' without saying of what. The context can alone determine that, and as he is speaking there of those who are to receive pecuniary aid from the church, the conclusion to which we are naturally led is, that 'the number' to which he refers is the number of those who were to be so aided. To assume in the face of this that 'the number' referred to is the number of office-bearers of a certain class is illegitimate; and to make this assumption for the purpose of proving that such an office existed in the church is to set all logic at defiance. To these arguments, some add the reference in 1 Timothy 3:11, etc., to gunaikes, and Titus 2:3, to presbutides, as intimating the existence of deaconesses in the church; but in the former case, the parties referred to are probably, as the authorized version gives it, the wives of the deacons; in the latter they are undoubtedly 'old women.' In certain states of society and public feeling, it may be quite proper to appoint females to discharge functions which properly belong to males, but that any institution to this effect was made by the apostles is wholly without proof." I have quoted all that Dr. Alexander says. It is brief and covers the ground, and is decided, but it is not satisfactory. Let us now look at the Bible, specially examining the passages to which he refers. There were women in the company of Christ, Luke 8:1-3: "And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God, and the twelve were with him, and certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities. Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna and many others ministered (diakonoun) unto him of their substance." This is virtually the deacon's office. The apostles were the preachers of the Word. These women provided for the temporal wants of what was then Christ and his church. Judas, it is true, carried the bag, but that does not nullify the force of this passage. Look again at Paul's associates, at the large list of female names at the close of the Romans, "Salute Tryphena, and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which labored much in the Lord. Greet Mary who bestowed much labor on us. Greet Priscilla, my helper in Christ Jesus." Associating her with her husband, Paul says, "Unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles" (Romans 16:3-4, 12).

The question is rightly stated as sent up to Synod for an answer: Are women eligible to the deaconship? There is the office. Are women eligible to it, as well as men? Rev. Dr. Rainsford, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, had written an article on Deaconesses for the Independent, commenting upon which that paper asked, "Whether it would not be well to establish an order of deacons in that church; for there is in the Episcopal Church no lay order of men whose service would correspond to that of the proposed deaconesses." The Southern Churchman noticed this inquiry, and lately said: "The point is well taken. The apostolic order of deacons should be restored; we have retained the name but we have virtually lost the order." Are women eligible to this order? That church does not doubt as to deaconesses. They lack the deacon in his primitive functions. Presbyterian churches have the deacons, but lack the deaconesses. There are three passages I wish to consider. The first states the character of the women to be chosen deacons. The second relates to the matter of experience. The third gives us an instance of a woman holding the office.

1. The character of the women to be chosen deacons.
   The passage, 1 Tim. 3:8-13: "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, and let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." The first thing that strikes one here is that the office of a bishop and the office of a deacon are treated of together, yet while the qualifications of bishops, deacons, and deacons' wives are given, nothing is said of the bishops' wives. This is suggestive, and prompts to inquiry. We turn to the Revised Version, and it reads in verse 11, not their wives, but "Women in like manner must be grave." The similarity of structure with the eighth verse naturally suggests the supply given, must be. If this be made, it seems that female deacons are meant, and not deacons' wives; as their is not given, it is not their wives. Our Bible has that word in italics because it is supplied. Then as verse 12 still speaks of deacons, it seems the male and the female—the man and the woman—are in the same office. There is one class, deacons, who may be men or women. This is the easiest and plainest explanation, and objections to it must be from other considerations, from ideas of the disability of sex. Other explanations, as joining verse 11 to verse 9, and governing the word for "women" by "having" in the latter verse, having wives, thus making a parenthesis of verse 10, are complicated. Thus Bengel construes the passage. Another explanation is that deacons' wives are mentioned because they could and should help their husbands in their work, but a bishop's, that is, a pastor's wife, could not take part in his work, and so her qualifications are not stated. But after all, this explanation concedes the point, unless one holds to it, that sex is such a disability that in no case can a woman hold any office, though she can do all the work that has to be done. Here again, we are on the broad sea of discussion as to the disability of sex. We take it, then, that at Ephesus, a Grecian city, Timothy was instructed what qualifications women called into church service must have. The church needed their services. If called, then, into service, nothing preventing when the need appeared, then also in these days may women be called, in this time of enlarged activity.
2. The experience required.
   The passage, 1 Timothy 5:3-12: "Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents; for that is good and acceptable before God. Now, she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under three-score years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse; for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith." There is a view of this passage, as Dr. Alexander gives it, that removes it from any place here, and that is, that it refers to widows supported by the church. But does that view answer all inquiries? Mark the qualifications of one spoken of as taken into the number, "three-score years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works, have brought up children, have lodged strangers, have washed the saints' feet, have relieved the afflicted, have diligently followed every good work." Now, we ask, must a widow, to be supported, be sixty years of age? Again, must a widow, to be supported, have all these qualifications of a past efficient life? Does the passage not read rather as giving a list of qualifications for office, and is not the connection this, that of the widows supported, there were a number supported as employed? These must be persons of experience, to serve the church, even though dependent. The younger widows would look to marriage, as we know this was universal. The laws of Greece and of Rome have been referred to, and we see in 1 Corinthians, that Paul was asked whether it were right to remain single, and he answers at length. Today, as then, married women, as a rule, have family duties that engage their time and strength, and prevent them from formally engaging to discharge exacting official duties. They are deacons at home, ministering in the honored place of the mother, to the best interests for time and eternity of the children—the same service unto God when we consider its essence. A Sister of Charity or a Sister of Mercy is no more consecrated than a mother, in the sense of being set apart to a holy service. There is no holier service for a woman. The Jewish Rabbis said: "God could not be everywhere, and therefore he made mothers."
3. We have an instance of a woman at Cenchrea, in the actual exercise of the deacon's office.
   Romans 16:1: "I commend unto you Phoebe, our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath been a succorer of many, and of myself also." The Greek is "a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea." The word succorer (prostatis) means, first, a woman set over others, then, one who cares for the affairs of others and aids them with her resources. (Thayer's Lexicon.) True, the word "deacon" has a general use, as well as a special one, as the word "elder" has; but it can hardly, in this connection and with such amplification as to her usefulness and business, relate simply to service about the church building, as Dr. Alexander suggests. In line with the former passages, which relate to character and experience, we say this woman was a deacon at Cenchrea. You reply, she did not have that office there. Why not? "Because a woman could not hold an office in the church." Such a declaration is only made on a broad ground of an idea as to Woman's Place, and I have shown that this idea cannot stand any longer in the way. It is not Scriptural, and it is out of harmony with our social life, in its present stage of advance. I regard the point as settled, that experienced Christian women, at a time of life, and in circumstances, when they were free to do so, did service in official place in the early church. There was no reason why they should not. There were reasons why they should. Today, fitness does not only come late in life, but far earlier, by special education and from enlarged facilities. We see this in all lines of work. A limitation of years as to office is recognized in our civil institutions. This may not be called for now as to church office, but the requirement of fitness in spirit, capacity, and training can never be neglected. It is only right to add, as tending to confirm the view which Synod has taken of the teaching of the Bible as correct, that the late Council in London, of the Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System, held a month after Synod met, took the same position. The proof is clear of female official service after the apostolic age. No one doubts this. Pliny's Letters early show this, and church history shows it, and we know the office reappeared in some places in Reformation times. Dr. E. A. Washburn says, in Lange's Commentary: "It is clear that in the Greek church of the second century, the female diaconate was a most active and useful ministry. Undoubtedly this order differed in many features from the germ of the primitive day. It had become a semi-clerical office, and had its vow of ordination. No trace of this can be found in the simpler deaconess of the Pastoral Epistles. But it is not to be confounded with the later type of female celibates in the Latin church; on the contrary, it is a striking picture, that with the change from the healthy, social life of a Christian womanhood in the church to the conventual life, the order of deaconesses passed away. The just abhorrence of the Romish abuse has led the Protestant to lose sight too often of the good which may be wrought by such organized womanly charity, after the pattern, not of the convent, but of Paul's ekklesia kat' oikon." There is no need to speak of the fitness of women for this service. We all see how much of the organized charity of the world is connected with their work, and controlled by them. The personal contact with the poor and needy is left greatly in their hands.

Now that Woman's Work is recognized, and it takes its place under the church order, we can only hope that it will be efficiently carried on. Many, that is many men, on whose shoulders the obligations of church office now rest, make but little of their obligations, just as many parents neglect their solemn engagements to duties to their children. We all know how much is to be done—visiting the sick and needy, ministering to them, visiting the homes of Sabbath School children, providing raiment, aiding the general mission work of the church. The burden and the work lie just at our door. Some may leave this work, drop it, and look for more consecration under vows and in orders. Miss Muloch says: "I believe that in women, as they are placed by Providence, the chief instrument of social amelioration may be found. I believe that this must begin in the center of our own homes and not in penitentiaries and well-organized sisterhoods." Again, she says: "With the exception of a few, singularly unfortunate in their natural position, I cannot imagine any woman in the best sisterhood as advantageously placed as she who keeps to home duties. For self-denying exercises probably nothing will equal this, though such an uncourteous suspicion may only be recognized in the depths of the heart." This is a woman's voice, and we listen to it. The work is just here in the homes and in the church home, around our doors. There is no need of sisterhoods and the habit of an order. There may be, and ought to be, schools of training for ministering, open to all. Some are now in existence, others are forming, more will follow. There is no call or warrant for the vow of celibacy. The work is free. The rule is for women as for men. Protestantism has no vow or promise of celibacy for church officers. There is to be none for women entering the service of the church. Many men even serve only for a time in church offices. As to vows in the past, Isaac Taylor says: "Just in proportion as these religionists were deeply moved by religious considerations they were extravagant, unnatural and artificial, and (it is no paradox) the more sincere they were, the less genuine." Miss Muloch says: "When any one attempts to absorb herself wholly in the endeavor to please God, she can hardly fail to concentrate every thought on the self she wishes to sacrifice." We want, then, no sisterhoods, no Orders. We wish church officers and voluntary work.

As to the results to follow the movements of our times in the advance of women into public place, one that is apprehended if we take the expressions of opinion, will not take place—the breaking up of homes. There will be no turning of the world upside down, but in this as in other concerns of the church, the gathering into one under Christ, the Head. We might hope for more energy to be given to church work. A result I should gladly see would be full cooperation between the male and female members of the church. If as deacons, why not otherwise? The dividing up of congregations into so many organizations, as we see now, does not seem to be the best way; a number of them under heads not within the church organization at all. One pastor reported in the Presbyterian that there were sixteen organizations in his congregation. I refer not to such an organization as the Women's Christian Temperance Union. There is a need of this, created by the non-action of men in politics, who have been governed by expediency in dealing with the liquor traffic. The zeal of women, out of politics and largely for this cause, went beyond them, this subject presenting itself to them as a matter of duty only, not of expediency and party policy. But why should the members of a congregation be divided into male and female on the lines of mission work any more than of Sabbath School work? A few men's missionary societies here and there will not remove the objection to this division. What is the cause of it? In a measure, I think, it has arisen from the growing sense in woman of individual responsibility, and a desire to do her part and to have that part felt and recognized. The result might well be then the unification of church work, with various departments, but not divided on the line of sex. There are organizations rising that seek to enroll the sons and daughters of the church under self-constituted leaders, to map out for them Christian work. Their names are catching. Speaking of one of them, the Presbyterian says: "It is full of promise, but this does not always mean usefulness. This will depend altogether on the way the promises are unfolded. If it works in subordination to the church, it will be a blessing and in turn be blessed. The majority mean only sincere work and desire to be led into opportunities to do it, and their reward will be the consciousness that it is done. But beware of doing work only suggested by it, or of attending its meetings only; rather believe in those who love the church best and have only a desire that it shall put its shoulder to the wheel to help on the church." These are useful cautions. The whole subject of the organization by the church of its forces must be re-studied. More means must be expended, more effort put forth, right on the ground. In all this organizing, Christ Jesus is the Head, the Head of his body, the church, and in him, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, "we are all one in Christ Jesus." It took long years and much counsel to realize the first declaration. Read Acts 10th chapter, as to Peter and Cornelius, and Galatians 2nd chapter and Church History for many years after that period. The second declaration is realized as a fact today, but hardly fully as a doctrine; the last is coming.

A few words in closing.
You, young gentlemen, have come here to study for the ministry of the gospel. Whatever may be said of Woman's Place and Woman's Work, none but a few Christian sects have ever set themselves against a stated, educated ministry. You have no adjustments of relation for which to wait. Your work lies right before you, on and on, so long as God spares your lives. Look then to patient, prayerful study for fitness for your work, seeking first of all the baptism of the Divine Spirit. Address yourself with energy to the study of the Word of God, seeking to know it fully, first in your own hearts, then to give it to others. Cherish the fullest sympathy with the movements going on every hand for the benefit of mankind. Urge on both men and women that they be not only disciples of Christ, but also servants of Christ. And the working forces of God's people shall yet bring this rebellious and suffering world into the peace of God, under Christ Jesus our Lord.

DEACONNESSES

(Our Banner, Vol 15 no. 1 January 1888, Page 29 and RP&C, Vol 26 no. 1, Page 25)

"The McKeesport congregation recently at an election for elders and deacons, elected to the latter a lady, Miss McConnell. The question is referred to Synod for its decision. At the December meeting of ihe North Cedar L. M. S., the following resolution was adopted:

We, as the Ladies' Missionary Society of North Cedar R. P. congregation, send congratulations to Miss McConnell on her election to the office of Deaconness by the McKeesport congregation, urging her conscientious acceptance and faithful performance of the duties of that office; while we hope that the Synod of the R, P. Church will lay no obstacles in her way, and pray that the glories of the millennial morning may be withheld from us all until our Church can glory in her Deborahs, Huldahs, Annas, and Phoebes as her Deacons.

By order of the Society"

THE FEMALE DEACON

ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE ARGUMENT OF SYNOD'S COMMITTEE
BY REV. D. S. FARIS

(The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter, Vol 27 no 5, Pages 137-140)

I, for one, was not satisfied that after time enough to mature their arguments, the committee have proved their case. The effort is great but the proof is small. The proof is in the inverse ratio to the effort. The reading of the report made me think of Virgil's line about Polyphemus: "Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum." Indulging in some freedom of translation to adapt it to the present case, I would render it thus: "A horrible monster, huge in form without any point." The attempt to understand it calls up another classical line, "Exegi monumentum aere perennius," which the student translated, "I have eaten a monument harder than brass;" and the professor remarked, "You will have a hard time digesting it." So I think the members of the church are likely to be troubled with indigestion for a while after taking in this report.

The proof furnished for the extension of an institution is altogether circumstantial. This kind of proof does not convict a criminal, neither ought it to be held sufficient to introduce a new policy in the church. The committee have but two or three texts of Scripture which they rely on as ground for an inference to sustain Synod's position. They must bear the burden of proof. If it is not sufficient, then the case fails. It is not necessary to say that they have no evidence, but that they have not enough—they have not the right kind. From the Word of God they bring only circumstantial evidence. More is required, for they have to overcome a probability on the other side.

1. As far as I am able to remember, woman was set apart to no office under the old dispensation. I admit extraordinary calls, as Deborah and Huldah. But I see no intimation that woman was ever set apart by the anointing oil for the regular service of the sanctuary. Nor after the introduction of the Synagogue did they serve, at least, officially, as deacons. According to Brown's Antiquities of the Jews, ten men were the least number that could be organized into a Synagogue, for there were so many officers—three of which were deacons. If women served in this connection, it had nothing to do with the constitutional organization. In Acts 5:6–8, we have persons designated "oi neoteroi," and "oi neaniskoi." Mosheim thinks these were deacons, already introduced after the manner of the Synagogue. It may be so. But the terms to our minds would prove that if so, there were no female deacons brought in from the Synagogue, for the words are masculine; and one would think that if there had been female deacons, they should have attended to the preparation of Sapphira for burial.
2. The election and ordination of seven men to take care of the Grecian widows fairly brought in the office of deacon into the Christian church. It was after this, if at all, women were set apart to this office. But the occasion now, if ever, demanded women-deacons, since the care of widow women was the specific reason for the institution. As women were not at that time admitted to office, it is probable that any deacon's work ascribed to them afterwards was unofficial, that is, performed without ordination vows.
3. Nature has set women apart to motherhood, the most important and vital function connected with the existence of the race. The Word of God takes care that woman shall not be diverted from so honorable and influential a position by any public or official relation to church or State. 1 Tim. 5:14. "I will therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house." This is not a prejudice against her sex at all. It is rather a safeguard. It implies no inferiority of talent but is on the ground of her being already by nature devoted to a service indispensable to the race. Hence, I think, it is admitted that the so-called female deacons of the early centuries were widows and elderly maidens.

These three facts seem to me to constitute a probability contrary to Synod's decision (that women may come under ordination vows), that must be set aside by positive proof from the Word of God.

I admit unofficial activity, both of male and female workers, in the times of the Apostles. The argument of the committee proves to my entire satisfaction that women performed services that some men were under ordination vows to render. This has been my belief for some time before the present question came up for discussion. The inference that they were ordained when they engaged in the work is not sound. The same argument will bring women into the pulpit. Did not Priscilla teach Apollos? Then why not the congregation? And if she taught, why not infer her ordination? Paul calls her "sunergos," my helper. Mary and Tryphena and Tryphosa "labored" in the Lord. 1 Tim. 5:17. The elders "labor" in word and doctrine. The committee abjure any intention of carrying out their logic; but logic is a thing that carries itself out when we put ourselves under its power. And many are even now out-running the committee, who will say that the "labor" was "toil," and in a different line, which the advanced advocates will say that it is "toil" in the same line. In Philippians 4:3, Paul says, "Help these women that labored with me (sunethlesan) in the gospel;" which will be held to greatly strengthen the same opinion. Thus, inference, unless "by good and necessary consequence," cannot be allowed. Such inference enthrones the pope. We cannot trust the child that starts toward the precipice, saying, I will not go over. The committee leads us in a dangerous direction. We must hesitate to follow them.

Phoebe's relation to the church at Cenchrea proves that a woman did deacon's work, but it does not prove that she was set apart by ordination vows.

The passage of 1 Tim. 3:11, I call circumstantial evidence because it admits a very grave doubt, as able expositors take different sides. In examining the text this impression is made on my mind. Paul is laying down the qualifications of deacons. Among these is the fact that the deacon must be the husband of one wife. He precedes this by giving the qualification of the women, who may be their wives; then he follows up the first subject by showing the qualification of deacons through the government of their children. This, to me, seems more natural than to stop the subject of male deacons when only half done, to speak of the female deacons, then to resume and finish the qualifications of the first. To the reply that the wives of bishops are not mentioned, our rejoinder is that their children are; and there may be a special reason for deacons having wives like themselves, viz., the fact that they must become acquainted with many delicate matters in families. This passage is the strongest ground for the inference of the committee. But the proof is by no means conclusive.

The argument proves the admission of women to the Lord's table by inference, is of no force; for this ordinance so obviously takes the place of the Passover, which they observed by households, that no person could call it in question, and it never fell into disuse. It stands on the same ground as infant baptism, which is practiced generally in the Christian church because it takes the place of circumcision. As to the baptism of women, our committee, now in the spirit of deliberation and judicial deliverance, fall into a mistake similar to that made on the floor of Synod. They seem to be putting a patch of new cloth on an old garment, and the rent is made worse. Trying to hide their denial on the floor of Synod, that there is any direct Scriptural proof of the baptism of women, they attempt to imply that what was meant to be said was that we have nothing to prove it for a matter of twenty years. They fail to read the record, Acts 8:12, "They were baptized, both men and women." With this error in one of the arguments, we may be borne with, when we call in question the conclusiveness of the rest.

The committee, in their disposition, belittle the significance of ordination. There was a doctrine of laying on of hands. Heb. 6:2. In other words, ordination is a matter of solemn import and not a mere ratification. The laying on of hands contains at least three things:

1. Consecration or setting apart to a certain work in the name of Christ.
2. Conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost needed in doing that work.
3. A solemn vow on the part of the person to exercise these gifts as a life work.

The statement of the committee that election confers the office is all wrong. This will be new light to those familiar with the history of the persecuted Covenanters. In the Informatory Vindication, our faithful forefathers emphatically declare that the authority of officers in the church comes down from Christ through ordination. They admit that in the State the authority of God resides radically in the people and is upward through election. They do not dispute the right of election in the church, but they deny that it gives authority. Now, while the way is open to women to perform in a voluntary way, any service like this, it is not given her to take a vow that would interfere with the duty of marriage. It is objected that the vow is not so construed in the case of men. I answer, that man's relation to the race does not tie him up as woman's relation ties her. Woman's greatest service to the race is that of motherhood. She may still do any voluntary work that does not interfere with her duty to her husband and children; but she is not free to assume another life-work; and though she purpose not to marry, and may rightly entertain the purpose, she has no right to bind herself never to change her mind. Nature is imperative when she asserts her authority. It is therefore wrong for either man or woman to take entangling vows of single life. But the ordination vow implies more than woman could render in the event of her marriage.

The historical argument outside of the New Testament is not sufficiently definite as to the apostolical period. We admit the fact that the church did legitimately add to her institutions under apostolical directions; but history shows that she continued to do so without such direction, in the subsequent ages, till she lost the entire form of her primitive organization, and episcopacy came in with her archbishops, bishops, and her archdeacons, deacons, and subdeacons; and we may even surmise that the official female deacon came in to take the place vacated by the men when they assumed the ministration of the word and sacraments. The history of the case also shows that the ordination of women was at length withdrawn, which gives rise to the inference that it was a custom found to be of evil tendency, and not a thing of divine right.

ORDINATION OF A FEMALE DEACON

(The Reformed and Presbyterian Covenanter, Vol 27 no 6 June 1889, Page 194)

In my wanderings and sojournings, in the divine and gracious providence of our Saviour King, I found myself at Youngstown, O., and received a cordial invitation from the pastor, Rev. H. W. Reed, to attend their communion services on the fourth Sabbath of October, an important part of their preparatory services being the examination and ordination of the elders and deacons elected by the congregation some time before. There were four elders and five deacons elected. One of the elders was absent, and one had been ordained before, so there were but two to be ordained. Of the five deacons elected, two were men and three were women. The two men and two of the women declined ordination, so it left but one lady (Miss Jennie S. Gault) to be ordained as deacon. It was a great trial and a novel experience to her, as well as to the congregation and all others. But she had made up her mind to obey the call and enter into the service of the divine Master and His church, and she proved herself to be well prepared and eminently qualified for the position. Being kindly invited by the session, with Brother Laird the assistant, I took part in the exercises. I cannot describe the emotions and feelings of delight and satisfaction I felt, in thus reaching the climax, triumph, and realization of my own convictions and contendings for the last twenty years or more, in being allowed, with others, to place my hand on the head of the first lady-deacon ever set apart to that office in this country, or perhaps in any other for a long time. This is the exemplification. We have had theorizing enough. Now let the exemplification go on. Christians love and treat their children alike in the family, public school, Sabbath school, and many of the privileges of the church. Why stop, when in Christ Jesus there is neither... "male nor female," etc.

As I have always striven to be in the vanguard in every moral and beneficial reform, I hope and pray for the time when nothing but physical or moral deficiencies will exclude women more than men from any position in church or state which they are found qualified to fill, and I hope that our church will "mount higher," until she at least awards to our brave missionary, Miss Wylie, of Latakijeh, the position she richly deserves. I have seen some women in the pulpit, I have seen some women in the pulpit, and they acquitted themselves with credit. If all the men would do as well, we should have a good ministry. I can remember one young lady, a Miss Rankin, who was a very acceptable supply to some pulpits in the First New York Presbytery, as far back as thirty or forty years ago. She belonged to a family of ministers. She taught a classical school, and I have no doubt she taught theology and church history as well as any professor in any seminary, and I have no doubt she made a better preacher than some of the graduates. I can remember when some of the good brethren of the Old Covenanter Church said that it was not "proper" to make a woman a ruling elder, though a good many women ruled their elders. Well, they have learned better. I have had, for a number of years, a church officer who has rendered most valuable assistance, and without whose aid I should have been in difficulty; and it is not long since I saw a woman take charge of the proceedings of an ecclesiastical court, the same as any other member of the court.

I have always felt that the distinction made between male and female members of the church in regard to service was unscriptural. It is artificial and has no foundation in the Word of God, and I am glad to see this distinction being broken down, and women are being allowed to enter into the work of the church more freely than formerly. God has endowed them with abilities for His service, and it is a wrong done to the church, as well as to the women themselves, to shut them out of the exercise of these talents. The ordination of a female deacon is a step in the right direction.

In conclusion, I can only express the hope that this movement will go forward, and that the church will continue to advance in its understanding and application of the principles of the New Testament in regard to the place and work of women in the church. I believe that the time will come when the church will recognize that the distinction of sex, in regard to official service, is no more valid than the distinction of nationality or social position, for "in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female."

Thomas Wylie, Youngstown Ohio, Oct. 28, '88

Presentation at Sharon RPC on the RPCNA's Testimony and Directory of Church Government on the Office of Deacon.

2002 Synod on Women Deacon

(Synod 20222, Pages 114-120)

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:

1. The removal of all statements that the office of deacon "is neither a ruling nor a teaching office."
2. 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:

1. Statements in our standards specifying and/or excluding certain kinds of authority must be removed, and
2. 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:

1. The diaconate, being an office, involves ordination to, and the exercise of, authority (see Numbers 27:20f; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22).
2. Women may not exercise authority over men in the church (see 1 Timothy 2:12).
3. Women deacons, by virtue of their ordination to office, exercise authority with their male colleagues over men in the congregation.
4. 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).