Women Deacons

Status
Not open for further replies.
CalvinandHodges

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi all:

I am looking for a book or article that defends the practice of Women Deacons. Does anyone know of such a thing?

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum - I was not sure where to put it.

Blessings,

Rob
 
19th century Presbyterian Thomas Witherow (more known today for his Apostolic church which is it?) defends it in his [FONT=&quot]The Form of the Christian Temple. 1889.
[/FONT]
CalvinandHodges said:
Hi all:

I am looking for a book or article that defends the practice of Women Deacons. Does anyone know of such a thing?

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum - I was not sure where to put it.

Blessings,

Rob
Click to expand...
 
The RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America) have women deacons, you might want to talk to one them. Or see if you can find their position on the issue from their Synod. The archives are in Pittsburgh.
 
Warfield argued for deaconesses, though he admitted he only had one verse to stand on.
See http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/warfield/deaconesses-1889.pdf

See also PCA Historical Center: Resources - A Topical Guide to the Colllections and Holdings of the Center for a host of other articles on the diaconate. One that I don't currently have posted, by Thomas Smyth, would be another arguing for deaconesses. It appeared in an early issue of the Southern Presbyterian Review, if you have access to that journal.
 
Thanks Tim, Dr Adjemian was very interesting.

BTW did you hear that he has taken a position at Farel?
 
Only grammatically inferior resources would offer works on women deacons, as women is an noun (female is the proper adjective :D ).
:graduate:
 
Why do people alwyas have to push the envelope and try to squeeze the scriptures to suit their desires?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
[15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This scripture couldn't be more clear could it? It can't be changed because it is the word of God.
 
DD2009 said:
Why do people alwyas have to push the envelope and try to squeeze the scriptures to suit their desires?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
[15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This scripture couldn't be more clear could it? It can't be changed because it is the word of God.
Click to expand...

I understand your concern, but I think you're completely misapplying this. I do not believe in allowing women deacons, but I believe that on the fact that there is no conclusive exegetical reason. The Bible commands only men be deacons. That is THE ONLY exegetical conclusion. You, however, argue in a different fashion. I believe it may be because you have a distorted view of deacons if you are using this passage to argue against women deacons. Deacons are not leaders. Deacons are not administrative. Deacons are not authority. I don't know how else to put it. It's been a tendency in modern America to put deacons on boards that oversee the pastor and the church, which is NOT the purpose of deacon, but the purpose of the elder/overseer. Deacons = servants. Deacons are servants. The office of deacon is the office of serving. How can this passage be used to negate women from an office that is strictly service? It can't.

Women deacons came about because of the indecency of immersion baptism of females, so there were female deacons to assist in those baptisms.

One very good question you ask, and I believe is perfectly applicable here is this:
"Why do people always have to push the envelope and try to squeeze the scriptures to suit their desires?" That I do believe they are doing. I don't believe they're going against the 1 Timothy 2 passage though.
 
Why do people alwyas have to push the envelope and try to squeeze the scriptures to suit their desires?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
[15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This scripture couldn't be more clear could it? It can't be changed because it is the word of God.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with women deacons, but I don't think that passage is helping your argument. Deacons are servants, not teachers. They are not leaders like elders. Therefore they don't need to teach, and they are under authority of the elders. That is a mistake which many baptist churches make. Even though I don't think there is a case for women to be deacons, they can certainly do many of the things which deacons do, which is service. Remember, Steven was chosen to be a deacon, not so he could would lead or teach but rather so he would, "wait tables," taking care of the widows so the ministers could minister. Most baptist churches have deacons, which act like elders, but who are not held to the same standards of elders.
 
Actually, David, I don't think I'd go specifically to any of those verses, except, perhaps, for a general authority structure. I think what's convincing to most of us is the instructions for selecting deacons in the pastoral epistles (husband of one wife), the the commissioning of the first deacons in Acts 6 ... choose seven men. Not that I'm discounting the general principe.
 
DD2009 said:
I will not support a Church with women deacons.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that only men should serve as deacons, I don't believe the OP was looking for debate on the topic, only resources that are pro-female deacons.
 
Probably so.

I remember the first time I used "regardless." I intentionally used it to sound "smart." Someone caught it and proceeded to make me sound not so smart. LOL
 
Marrow Man said:
Chaplainintraining said:
From dictionary.com

–adjective
13. of women; womanly.
14. female: a woman plumber.
Click to expand...

OK, that's 13 or 14th down the list! Not exactly standard usage. I wonder if that has crept into acceptability because of incorrect usage, sort of like "regardless." :think:
Click to expand...

I don't know how dictionary.com chooses the order of definitions, but Merriam-Webster lists them chronologically in the order they came into usage. In that dictionary, being down the list has nothing to do with how common such usage is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top