Doubts about deacons

[darrellmaurina]

So...the wives are normally involved in helping them, i.e. they are "assistants to the deacons"...so why does the church need to designate a specific role and call it "assistants to the deacons"? Why not just call them the deacons' wives?

What happens when a deacon dies, or gets selected to become an elder? Is his wife or widow banned from her previous role because her husband is no longer a deacon, or is dead? That can't be what the Scripture means if it specifies a role for the deacons' wives but not for the wives of pastors or elders.

Again, I've said many times that this is not a hill to die on. I'm not so much advocating for deaconesses as defending the legitimacy of churches having deaconesses if they believe the biblical text permits it. There are issues within the Reformed faith on which we have a centuries-long history of agreeing that both positions can legitimately appeal to Reformed history and Reformed principles of biblical interpretation. Given that this issue of deaconesses goes all the way back to Calvin himself in Reformed history, and all the way back to the post-apostolic fathers in broader church history, I think this can fairly be considered one of the issues on which people who are legitimately Reformed can disagree, and have disagreed.

As with the infra-supra debates, and broader assemblies versus higher courts, and a two office/three office view, at least one position has to be wrong, or maybe both are wrong. Not everything is crystal clear in Reformed theology or Reformed history. That is part of why we have multiple Reformed denominations that respect each other as being within the Reformed spectrum but disagree on details -- some of those details being quite important and which quite correctly prevent church union, but don't cause one denomination to declare that the other is outside the bounds of the Reformed faith.

 

[CGS]

What happens when a deacon dies, or gets selected to become an elder? Is his wife or widow banned from her previous role because her husband is no longer a deacon, or is dead?

If her role was to assist her husband in his role as a deacon, and he ceases to be a deacon (for whatever reason), then she would cease to be an "assistant to the deacons".

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Romans 16:1
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae"

 

[iainduguid]

Part of our problem is that we insist on transliterating diakonoi instead of translating it. It literally means "Servants". If the question were, "Can a woman be a servant of the church?" the discussion might go in different directions...

We could also apply that logic to "elder", which in Hebrew is zaqen ("bearded one").

 

[darrellmaurina]

If her role was to assist her husband in his role as a deacon, and he ceases to be a deacon (for whatever reason), then she would cease to be an "assistant to the deacons".

Okay, so if her deacon husband dies and she is in financial need, she should then be put on the list of the widows? But if she is financially well off and capable of helping others, so she doesn't qualify to be put on the list of widows, she should no longer be serving women who are in need?

I don't think that's what was happening in the first-century church and it's not what was happening in Calvin's Geneva.

 

[CGS]

Okay, so if her deacon husband dies and she is in financial need, she should then be put on the list of the widows? But if she is financially well off and capable of helping others, so she doesn't qualify to be put on the list of widows, she should no longer be serving women who are in need?

I don't think that's what was happening in the first-century church and it's not what was happening in Calvin's Geneva.

I don't believe "serving women who are in need" requires her to be officially designated as an "assistant to the deacons" or a "woman deacon/deaconess" (as an official title/office). Women in the church - even those who have no relationship to the diaconate whatsoever - can of course help women in need.

 

[MW]

Going back to Acts 6, the need of the hour concerned widows -- vulnerable women. If there were a situation requiring women to minister to women this was one of them; yet men were specially designated to fulfil the task of ministering to women. Obviously the apostles thought that men were competent to attend to the range of issues presented to the deacons.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Going back to Acts 6, the need of the hour concerned widows -- vulnerable women. If there were a situation requiring women to minister to women this was one of them; yet men were specially designated to fulfil the task of ministering to women. Obviously the apostles thought that men were competent to attend to the range of issues presented to the deacons.

Could I suggest that Acts 6 might indicate the appointment of men to supervise the work while, at least in some cases, the "deaconesses" or "assistants to the deacons" (whatever we want to call them) were doing at least some of the work?

In a first-century culture in which many women were unable to read and write and would therefore be unable to handle financial administrative matters, or in some cases were not even to interact with men in matters of business and commerce, having men supervising financial relief of the poor would be expected. While Calvin's Geneva would have had more women of education and business competence, having men in charge still made sense -- but Calvin believed some things needed to be done by women, or at least were better done by women.

Before we think that applies only five centuries ago or twenty centuries ago, I don't know about you, but if I get a phone call that a woman is in need of help in something that requires me to go to her home, I'm not going there without my wife. When I was single, I wasn't going there without at least one other person. That was even in the 1980s and early 1990s before the Bill Clinton debacle, and long before the "Me Too" movement. I have a policy that I will never be alone, for any reason, with an attractive woman, and I try as hard as I possibly can to avoid being alone with any women at all regardless of age or appearance. It is impossible in my business life to avoid meeting women in public places -- way too many school superintendents, city council members, school board members, and business owners are female for me to avoid all meetings in public with women -- but I do as much as I can by phone or email or at Chamber of Commerce meetings or after city council or school board meetings when multiple people are present. I know men who won't have lunch with women without their wives present and I understand why. For full-time pastors, that's probably a good rule though I don't think I can impose it legalistically on other people.

There are things that men may be able to do, but even in our "modern" culture, are better done by women.

I read every single felony and misdemeanor criminal court case filed in our county. That is around two thousand cases per year. It's not a huge number, but a few dozen cases every year involve "she-said, he-said" allegations made by a woman that a man did something to her with no witnesses, but after investigation, our county prosecutors filed charges based on a pattern of behavior because they believed the women and decided to let the lawyers, the judge, and maybe a jury figure out the facts.

I don't want to be on that court docket and the best way to avoid it is for me to avoid situations where I risk opening myself up to accusations.

 

[MW]

Could I suggest that Acts 6 might indicate the appointment of men to supervise the work while, at least in some cases, the "deaconesses" or "assistants to the deacons" (whatever we want to call them) were doing at least some of the work?

You can suggest it but it should be obvious to anyone who reads the passage that it is being plucked from thin air. The apostles needed assistance so they could devote themselves to the word and prayer. This led to the appointment of deacons to relieve them from having to do the work. If they had assistants they would not have needed assistants in the first place.

 

[darrellmaurina]

You can suggest it but it should be obvious to anyone who reads the passage that it is being plucked from thin air. The apostles needed assistance so they could devote themselves to the word and prayer. This led to the appointment of deacons to relieve them from having to do the work. If they had assistants they would not have needed assistants in the first place.

Romans 16:1
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae"

The books of Acts and of Romans need to be read together.

I don't dispute that the first deacons were male. We can have a legitimate discussion about what Phoebe was or was not doing, and whether this was an office or a role of service. But Phoebe was female.

The most logical conclusion seems to be that of John Calvin, namely, that men were appointed to oversee the work of service, but at some point, women were in some way assisting in that work.

I need to repeat again. There are things, even in our modern Western and egalitarian society, that men should not be doing because it opens them up to accusations even if they have done nothing wrong. Yes, there are work-arounds. Male pastors and male elders can make visits with their wives. A pastor can take a male elder, or two male elders can go, or an elder-deacon team of two men.

But let's be specific. I am not going to do rape crisis counseling with any woman I think is attractive because I need to guard my own heart, even if I am absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she will not accuse me of anything inappropriate. Same for a young woman who has gotten involved in sinful behavior with a boyfriend. I want a female counselor doing that work, and if at all possible, one who is well-trained in Reformed doctrine and in practical counseling methods. I am going to actively avoid most relationships with women, and even in public in the church building with lots of people around, will try to communicate with women when their husbands or other relatives are around. Private conversations will be mostly by email because there's a written record of what got said, with time-date stamps.

I don't care whether the woman doing that sort of work is called a "deaconess," an "assistant to the deacons," or has no title at all.

What I do know is I don't want to be in a position, as a man in the "Me Too" world, where I can be accused of things I have not done and would not do.

And yes, I have gone back and re-read things I've written to women with no problematic intent at all, and realized after-the-fact that I was clueless, and what I wrote could have been interpreted differently. We need to remember that what we say is not always going to be heard the way we meant it. One more reason, whenever possible, to have these interactions between two women and to leave men out of it.

 

[MW]

There are things that men may be able to do, but even in our "modern" culture, are better done by women.

Women have their own sphere of service. They have often done many things that go unnoticed. That is part of their ornament.

Issues related to men interacting with women have been around since day one. These are not limited to deacons' work but extend to the elders and ministers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Aren't all deacons and the diaconal work under the male leadership of the elders regardless? Likewise, isn't their authority limited to the authority of servants to do the bidding of masters, and their ordination, such as it is, to a role not of leadership but of service?

Historically, the wives of deacons have often performed service to the church under the headship of their husbands, but is there a scriptural example of a hierarchy beneath the elders within the diaconate, whether the term be confined to men or not?

By inference or GNC, there is an indication that diaconal work was being performed by women in the NT. Beside the obvious examples of Dorcas and Phoebe, the enrollment of "widows" is spelled out by Paul. Historically, these widows performed mercy work in the early Church. They were often referred to by the title of "widows."

 

[darrellmaurina]

Women have their own sphere of service. They have often done many things that go unnoticed. That is part of their ornament.

Issues related to men interacting with women have been around since day one. These are not limited to deacons' work but extend to the elders and ministers.

We agree. And that's why it's best to have women working with women when biblically permitted.