Logically and rationally with so much history supporting female deacons or deaconesses, it is difficult to understand such conflict.  The office of deacon does not biblically lead to the office of elder.  Their gifts and callings are different.  One governs and the other serves.  Remember, originally, they served tables. 

The current battle over women as deacons or deaconesses is disturbing—disturbing, as there are so many evidences for women participating in the works of mercy (responding to “Thoughts on the ARP Special Committee on Women Deacons Study”)
First, perhaps a thought is worth noting.  We hear and believe as some claim that the feminization of the church has/is taking place.  I would also offer that there is a history of the masculinization of the church.  Let’s be reminded that in the Church, we are “. . . neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  Throughout history, this has been forgotten.
I am not a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) but rather a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).  But I am also a student of the Word with a degree in Biblical Education, which means I’ve academically studied Bible, theology, church history, Greek, and hermeneutics.  This background plus more than 60 years of Bible study leads me to my conclusion.  Now to some personal thoughts.
I agree with the ARP form of Government wherein is stated, “The office of deacon is not one of authority and does not require the obedience of church members.”  The author responds, While an argument might be made that the New Testament church had female deacons, there is no evidence to suggest that some congregations had deaconesses and others explicitly denied them.”  Actually, the New Testament doesn’t compare any congregations.  So that point appears moot.   The author continues as to teaching reaffirming women being ordained to the office of deacon stating, “. . . I don’t believe any of us believe is the one taught in Scripture.”  Actually, Scripture, it appears, does give evidence in 1 Timothy 3: “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” (1 Timothy 3: 11) This follows the qualifications of the male deacons.  The word διακονοι covers both men and women.  Some versions translate women as “wives” of deacons.  However, as qualifications for elders precede deacons, their wives—who would be more important than deacon’s wives—are not mentioned.  Other translations of “women” allow for considering in context that these are the qualifications of female deacons.  To me, this is the more hermeneutically logical and rational understanding. Then there’s Phoebe who is titled in the Greek “deacon.”  But since the same word can be either translated deacon or servant, some versions translate “servant” for her as a woman.  One has to wonder if it’s an effort to avoid affirming her role as deacon/deaconess.
Next worth considering is that neither the fruit of the Spirit nor the gifts of the Spirit are separately listed by gender.  Therefore, the gift of mercy is not a gift given only to men—remember, “neither male nor female.”   There is a practice in many Reformed faith churches that also is not taught in Scripture.  It is customary in many churches for a man to be an usher, be promoted to deacon, and then promoted to elder.  That’s not biblical.  Where in Scripture is evidence that a deacon becomes an elder?  Those gifts and offices are separate.
We must go to church history to see what transpired in churches closest to the times of the Apostles.  For the first 400 years of the church, female deacons or deaconesses were prolific.  “Their ministry is mentioned by early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Origin. . . In a letter, Pliny the Younger attests to the role of the women deaconesses. . . (He actually tortured two) 4th century Fathers of the Church, such as Epiphanius of Salamis, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa accept the ministry of deaconesses as a fact.” (Wikipedia) There is much more out there in Church history.
In Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, he lauds deaconesses compared to nuns.  Perhaps he later differentiated between ordained and nonordained, but he recognized the ministry.
Logically and rationally with so much history supporting female deacons or deaconesses, it is difficult to understand such conflict.  The office of deacon does not biblically lead to the office of elder.  Their gifts and callings are different.  One governs and the other serves.  Remember, originally, they served tables.  When there are potluck or other meals in the church, who mostly serves tables?  Aren’t they the women?
This is written, and hopefully lovingly, in response to the conflict and cancellation of women as deaconesses or deacons in the ARP, but it stretches to many Presbyterian and Reformed Faith churches including my own.
The opinion I offer here today isn’t based on gender; it’s based on Scripture, ancient history, and Church history.  It’s so confusing—if not disappointing—to see such a strong push against the ministry (works of mercy) and service denied those gifted by the Holy Spirit for such a ministry.  Imagine the wealth of service a church lacks due to denying gifted women authority, recognition, and a God-given role in Christ’s body to practice and use the gifts the Holy Spirit has sovereignly given to both men and women to honor and glorify Jesus Christ and benefit His body, as well as many others.  I’m compelled to say, “Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy on us.”
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts:

Ruth did what she could (even straining her capacity at times) to care for those God had given to her, even when the risks were great, even when her strength ran low, even when others would have understood if she stopped, because Ruth was a worthy woman.

She knew that typically the man would make the first move. She knew that what she was doing would appear at least suspicious, perhaps scandalous. She knew what other people might say. She knew just how much she might lose (after all she had already lost). And yet there Ruth lay, in the dark — vulnerable, hopeful, trusting, courageous — waiting quietly at the feet of a man who might wake up at any moment.
Even in a more egalitarian age, the strange and brave step Ruth took that night can make many of us uncomfortable:
When Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. (Ruth 3:7)
Such was Ruth’s way of asking Boaz to take her as his wife. But why did she ask like that? Wasn’t there another way? Couldn’t her mother-in-law have put out some feelers with Boaz’s servants?
Maybe. But God, in his wisdom, decided to join this man and this woman in this unusual way. And when we stop to look closer, the strangeness of the scene actually enhances the beauty of their love. This potentially embarrassing moment highlights what makes Boaz a worthy husband — and what makes Ruth a worthy wife.
Worthy Woman
As scandalous as it may seem for Ruth to lie down next to Boaz while he was sleeping, it seems that, in God’s eyes, she acted honorably and in purity. For all the beautiful glimpses we get of Ruth in these four chapters, she is called a “worthy woman” just once, and it’s right here, at this most vulnerable moment. Boaz, recognizing her in the dark and receiving her humble and submissive initiative, says to her,
Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. (Ruth 3:11)
Worthy when her husband died, worthy when her mother-in-law was left alone, worthy in a foreign land, worthy while working long days in the fields, worthy even here, in the darkness, on the threshing-room floor, waiting at the feet of the man she desired. A truly worthy woman is as worthy in secret as she is when others are watching — and Ruth was just such a woman.
So, what sets Ruth apart as a worthy wife-to-be — yes, in the eyes of Boaz, but all the more in the eyes of God?
Loyal Woman
The story of Ruth’s worthiness begins with her surprising loyalty.
Her mother-in-law, Naomi, had lost her husband as well as her two sons, including Ruth’s husband. Naomi saw how bleak their future had become and tried to convince her two daughters-in-law to go back to their families. In response, “Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her” (Ruth 1:14). When Ruth had great reasons to leave and save herself, she stayed and cared for her mother-in-law instead. Listen to the intensity of her loyalty:
Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you. (Ruth 1:16–17)
Ruth could have walked away, but faith and love had bound her to Naomi. Staying meant suffering. Staying meant sacrifice and risk. Staying could have even meant death — especially in a period when the judges in Israel, though charged to care for the widow, “did what was right in [their] own eyes” (Judges 17:6). But nothing would make Ruth leave now.
As news spread, her future husband was especially drawn to this loyalty in her: “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before” (Ruth 2:11).
Fearless Woman
Ruth could not have been loyal in these circumstances without also being courageous. You hear and feel her fearlessness in the vows she makes to Naomi:
Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you. (Ruth 1:17)
Read More

Those convinced of the confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close/confessional communion might find themselves conscience-bound by the Word of God to abstain from participation in an improperly administered sacrament. 

The usual standard for admission to the Lord’s Supper in Orthodox Presbyterian Church congregations (and in congregations of other NAPARC denominations) is that the would-be communicant have a credible profession of faith in the gospel, live penitently, and be a baptized member of a gospel-believing church. The confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close communion or confessional communion is not widely known or understood today.  Below, this close/confessional view is described in contrast to usual OPC practice, and some Scriptural and doctrinal support for it is presented.
The OPC BD 2.B.2. states “The session shall examine the candidate for [communicant] membership to assure itself so far as possible that he [or she] possesses the knowledge requisite for active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies for salvation on the work of Christ alone, is trusting Christ for salvation, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.”
The OPC DPW 3.C.3. states “The minister shall then declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord’s Table according to the Word of God…. to invite all who are right with God and his church, through faith in the Lord Jesus, to come to the Lord’s Table. If you have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ, and if you live penitently and seek to walk in godliness before the Lord, then this Supper is for you, and I invite you in Christ’s name to eat the bread and drink the cup.”
The OPC DPW 4.A.1. states “Only those may be admitted to full [Supper] communion in the church who have been baptized and have made public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.”
The OPC DPW 4.B.2. states “The minister shall then require the person to profess publicly his Christian faith by giving assent to these or equivalent questions:

Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?”

According to the above sections of the OPC BCO, as I understand it, and as is my experience of usual practice in OPC congregations, would-be participants are generally admitted to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of meeting several requirements:

Having received Christian baptism.
Having made a [credible] public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Living penitently [ie, not in unrepentant sin], seeking to live in a godly way.
Being a communicant member in good standing [ie, not under censure] of any church that “professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ.”

Specifically, the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ required of those who would be communicant members of the OPC includes several distinct affirmations:

Belief in the whole Bible as God’s Word.
Belief in the Bible’s teaching of salvation to be perfect and the exclusively-true teaching of salvation.
Belief in the Trinity and Jesus Christ’s identity as God the Son incarnate.
Confession of one’s sinfulness, self-abhorrence, humbling before God, and repentance of one’s sins.
Confession of one’s trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
Acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as one’s Lord.
Promise to serve Jesus Christ entirely, to forsake the world, to resist Satan, to mortify sin, and to live in a godly way.
Promise to faithfully participate in the church’s worship and service.
Promise to submit to the church’s government and to heed its discipline in doctrine and life.

In addition to these things required of those admitted to the Supper in OPC congregations (as explained above), Scripture requires that those admitted to the Supper express affirmation (according to their ability) of the doctrinal standards of the church, not holding any principled objections to or disagreements with its teachings.
This includes a requirement that those admitted to the Supper express an understanding of the meaning and nature of the Supper (for example, as explained in OPC DW 3.C.2 and WCF 29.1, 7; WLC 168, 170), particularly Christ’s real, spiritual presence to those who participate in a worthy manner by faith, so that they are really spiritually nourished and strengthened by Him in the Supper. It may be the practice of some OPC congregations to require this, but it is not explicitly required in the OPC BCO (as far as I can tell).
Read More
Related Posts: