Deaconesses defended in "The Form of the Christian Temple"?

[cmarehart]

I'd like to revisit a subject discussed in a thread from 2009 ("Women Deacons", the thread now being closed). I offer this merely to update/expand upon/contend with some info offered there.

While doing some research on the book, The Form of the Christian Temple (Thomas Witherow, 1889), I came across a message in the thread where an assertion was made that Witherow "defended" deaconesses in the book.

Since I recently found the book available online, I thought to look this up when I saw the thread here, as the contention surprised me. The book seems very conservative and orthodox.

I do find the one reference (p 86/87) that refers to deaconesses. It's just two paragraphs. Not trying to stir the pot, but I don't know if it's so much a "defense" as a brief observation regarding Pheobe (Romans 16:1) and the widow of 1 Tim. 5:9,10 (and he goes to the Institutes for some affirmation of his observation on the latter, but says the conclusion seems "open to question").

But more important is that he does seem to go to pains to suggest that any idea of deaconesses it's not normative and if they existed were not officers of the church. I'll let his words stand for themselves (with the bold emphasis mine with respect to my couple of points above):

The case of Phoebe, "a servant of the Church ([greek text]) that is at Cenchreae," proves not only that females were eligible to the diaconate, but that one at least filled that office with the approval of Paul. It does not, however, require us to believe that a female diaconate was universal, or even general in the Churches, and still less that the deaconess filled a distinct and separate office of her own. Women, we may infer, were appointed only in cases where female ministration was wanted, and where some of the sex developed the necessary qualifications. In the discharge of duties to the sick and poor, cases no doubt often occurred where females could minister most tenderly to their own sex, and where men might be practically useless.

Some doubt has been entertained whether the widow of 1 Tim v. 9,10 was a deaconess, or only a person to be entered on the list as eligible for the charity of the Church. Calvin (Inst. iv. 3. 9.) thinks that these widows were deaconesses and that there were two degrees in the order. The same view was taken by some in the post apostolic Church, and led to their exacting from deaconesses some peculiar qualifications. But the opinion is open to question. From the deaconess an amount of active service would be expected, to which a woman of sixty would be scarcely equal. Paul does not assign to the widows any active duty, but speaks of those only drawing support from the Church. On the contrary the glimpse of their condition given by the apostle conveys to us the idea that they were merely pious women who, in their day, were hospitable and useful; but who, having been left desolate, were comforted by the Church's charity in the evening of their days. There does not seem to be anything in the passage of Scripture cited obliging us to believe that these women held any Church office whatever.

I searched the book for any other references to women, woman, and female. They all merely quoted biblical passages (mentioning women in passing for some reason) or he was stating things like how women were to be silent in church, were not to be officers. And he does make those latter points a few times.

I'm not meaning to contend too strongly with the commenter, whose work I respect. Maybe he felt that the two paragraphs above did amount to a defense. I just wanted to offer this clarification, in case others too may some day be searching for references to this book and find that thread. (Since I can't comment there on that closed thread, I can only hope their search might find this one.)

I would just fear that a casual reader seeing that assertion (that it somehow "defended deaconesses") could be dissuaded from reading what seems otherwise (from my reading so far) to be a fine book upholding classic Presbyterianism.

This thread (being in the "church office" section) isn't perhaps the place to elaborate on the book, but in brief, it's in 3 parts, with a chapter each within them on first the "temporary agencies" (apostles, prophets, evangelists, charisms) then "permanent principles" (church, ministry, deacon, elder, presbytery, election of officers, ordination, and so on). It concludes the last half (third part) distinguishing them from "human additions" (priesthood, penance, prelacy, apostolic succession, and papacy). See my link above to the actual book, available both online and in print.

Hope this is helpful to some.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I may be misremembering the characterization I relied on for that comment, but from respect to his Apostolic Church which is it I had expressed the idea years ago to a TE about republishing Form; and he sort of put me off the idea by saying Witherow held to deaconesses. He had read the book but he may have got the idea elsewhere? Warfield noted Witherow had moderated somewhat from an earlier writing. See Warfield's comment here. At this juncture I'll bow to others' input.

 

[Scott1]

"Servants" commended in several places in the New Testament, are not the same thing as the men appointed "over this business" of Acts 6.

Mr. Calvin, unwisely, I think, sometimes referred to deacons as different "classes," clearly differentiating between the widow servant model of the former from the oversight as officers of the latter.

In no case, did he mix the two without distinction, as is sometimes suggested in modern debate.

 

[cmarehart]

Thanks for the clarifications, Chris. And isn't it just so wonderful that we can so easily now refer (and refer others) to such classic writings. Thanks for the reference to Warfield, and his observations. It was quite interesting, and as you note, he sees moderation from Witherow then, compared to whatever he had seen before.

Also interesting to see that Witherow was listed as an associate editor of that journal, so perhaps Warfield was choosing his words carefully. Then again, he referred to him as "the latest Presbyterian student of ecclesiastical polity", which seems a bit dismissive.

Just fascinating to watch the to and fro happening then, as indeed it happens today, with people emerging and stalwarts watching out for them, iron sharpening iron. Similarly compelling to think about how people in the future may look back on modern writings (and indeed forums like PB) and be able to observe the same in our time.