I find it interesting that we want to expend this time and money based on ONE mention of the word in Romans 16:1.

Why don’t we study the office of church “metal worker”? Metal Workers are mentioned 4 times in the Bible.

Thanks for this post. I actually stumbled upon it because I am thinking of reading the Scarlett Letter again. I really appreciate you and your family. May God continue to bless you at RTS. Thank you for the atmosphere of freedom that I have always felt in your home and your classroom. Tell Shari hello.

~Beth

I was grateful to know you, when all i knew ABOUT you was that you liked the color salmon, wore bow-ties/sandals and spoke transparently on Sunday’s of your walk/struggle/joys with the content of scripture. Now I’m honored even more!! Now i feel i know an intellectual/biblical Rock Star:-)

I know what I just wrote might sound trite and simple-minded…but hey…you/what you do/what you say/who you are day to day (which btw is a pretty great/funny/REAL guy who allows himself to grapple difficult texts//who tries not confine himself to the pre-established doctrine/definitions of “who God is” and “who/what He’s called his church to be/how to act/or ordain”, and instead allows for the sometimes painful tension of seeking Him out and wresting with His word in order clarity of His purpose/intent for His people) challenges/encourages me every week.

Thank you for YOU…THANK GOD, MY GRACIOUS LOVING GOD, FOR REGGIE KIDD.

To reply to your comments:

Second point: What is there to figure out about women and men co-laboring in ministry? It happens all the time and has been happening for centuries. The Scriptures have defined roles and when the Church follows those directives, there is great ministry. Sure, we can do better, but we certainly don’t have reinvent the wheel.
Third point: Since Paul “doesn’t directly raise the question” of women’s ordination, why do we?

Fourth point: You are right to surmise that I prefer to walk where Scripture is clear rather than dance on uncertainties. Historically, the Church has sided with ‘What does the Scripture say?’ rather than “Let’s do what Scripture does not forbid.” For instance, we don’t ordain children. Yet Jesus gladly welcomed children and commended their faith. In that same vein, Jesus never called a child or woman to be in the 12 and the Church did not select a child or woman to be one of the first deacons (Acts 6).

Very simply, we don’t have the clear warrant from Scripture to pursue the ordination of female diaconates.

A few unclear commendations does not a tenet make.

Blessings – Bill Lamkin

Second, as I say in the original post: ordination is not my fundamental concern. Men and women figuring out how to co-labor for the gospel is — there are a thousand and one ways in which that reality can be better embodied, in my view. And ordination isn’t the first question that should come up … it’s probably the last. In the original post I pointed to several examples of a good dynamic: my concern is that (and your experience may be quite different), I don’t see the Pauline balance lived out especially well in conservative Presbyterian circles (where I minister and teach).

Third, as to “ordination” in general: different ecclesiologies mean different things by the term (just as they mean different things by “minister” or “pastor” or “deacon” for that matter) — “ordination” is an application of biblical principles, a means by which different churches attempt to approximate truth. Paul does not directly raise the question of ordination when it comes to women (either with respect to eldership or the diaconate), so we are left to draw delicate inferences about how his principles should apply. I could respect, for instance, an ecclesiology in which a person — male or female — would have hands laid on them for a teaching ministry while the “teaching and governing authority” of the church remains in the hands of a male presbuterate (or episcopacy) to which that “ordained” person does not belong (E. Earl Ellis interprets Paul along these lines in *Pauline Theology: Ministry & Society)*. But, really, as a friend of mine observes: “… the quick categorizing of the issues makes me realize how few real encounters Christian leaders have had with significant ministry across gender lines. You are so right to recognize ordination as SO beside the point. However, when men and women keep so far apart that we never experience the places we can meet, how impoverished we are.”

Fourth, on deacon ordination: your argument — and in this, in fairness, you are following our tradition — places the burden of proof in an interesting place: the Scriptures aren’t sufficiently clear that we *should* do it. I do submit to the tradition — I’m not on a campaign (despite the length of this reply) — but I think the tradition is wrong on this particular point. I think the burden of proof should be: the Scriptures aren’t sufficiently clear that we *shouldn’t* do it.

Baptists would say to us about baptism of infants exactly what you have said to me about women as deacons: show me where Scripture clearly teaches it, and we’ll do it. In fact, Presbyterians baptize babies on less NT explicit evidential warrant than there is for authorizing women to be church deacons … there is no mention of babies being baptized in Scripture, while Paul speaks of women in the same breath as deacons and even refers to one (Rom 16:1) by the same term he elsewhere uses clearly for the office “deacon” (Php 1:1; 1Tm 3:8ff).

We Presbyterians contend that it is necessary to draw inferences from Scripture based on broader principles and on Scripture’s overall story (thus we, rightly in my view, baptize children of the covenant). I think Pratt, since you hold his way of doing theology in high regard, would have taught that at RTS-J; he certainly did at RTS-O. The question is why we apply Paul’s principial scruples over teaching & governing (i.e., elder/overseer) authority to the office of mercy (i.e., deacon). From the woman of Proverbs 31 to the women who underwrite Jesus’ ministry (Lk 8:1-3) to Tabitha’s “deeds of kindness and charity” (Ac 9:36-43) there is nothing but commendation for women who do the kind of work that Presbyterianism holds to be the work of the diaconate. There’s no reason to think Paul would scruple at ordaining women to that office.

I think it is because we wrongly frame the burden of proof: we demand a reason to allow women to minister in this fashion rather than to do as Paul did: he worked alongside women in ministry until the point emerged at which correction needed to be applied — and the place he drew the line had to do with authoritative teaching and governance, not the ministry of mercy. I think we in the PCA legitimately infer that Paul would scruple over ordination to the teaching and ruling office (even though I am ready to work with evangelicals who disagree), but I do not think our inference that he would exclude women from the office of deacon is legitimate. He may not speak clearly and directly to that office (assuming, for the sake of conversation, that 1Tm 3:11 isn’t clear and direct), but what he does say points towards permission — i.e., calling Phoebe a “deacon” and discussing women in the context of the diaconate without qualifying that he means “their women” (= “wives”).

Fifth, how we carry on conversations like this: I suspect that when Pratt would have discussed his “cone of certainty” he would have cautioned against an injudicious use of terms like “dangerous” and “damaging to the context” when discussing matters that aren’t at the core of certainty. I don’t know — I missed the RTS-J experience — but in the years I have taught with him in Orlando, I’ve sensed such an impetus in his teaching. For good reason did Paul, in my view, leave open some issues about which people appear to have been quite heated and tell them: “Welcome each other … neither judging … nor despising one another” (Rom 14 & 15). I realize that’s a pretty compressed presentation of that section of Romans— but one that we’d do well, myself included, to heed.

When I was at RTS-J, Dr. Pratt taught us that a basic rule of Biblical interpretation is to speak only where the Bible is clear and remain quiet where the Scripture is not very clear.

I still find it hermeneutically dangerous to imply from a few unclear texts that the Apostle Paul was advocating the ordination of women as deacons – especially when there are no further clarifying comments anywhere else in the Scripture.

To take I Timothty 3:11 as an imprimatur for the ordination of female deacons is to do damage to the context of I Timothy 3, for the very next verse (3:12) states that deacons are to be “husbands” and good stewards of “his” family (not “wives” or “her” family).

Again, I would gladly come along side you IF (big IF) the Scriptures were very clear on this. But, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear.

Then we have the old “slippery slope” argument, but that is for a later date.

First, you raise the question of “ordination” without differentiation. Though you go on to talk about Phoebe and deacons, I’m not sure whether you mean “ordination” in general, or “ordination” to a particular office. I say as clearly as I know how that I think Paul intends a male presbuterate (eldership). I do not advocate the ordination of women to eldership — I do think those of us in conservative denominations that do not ordain women to the teaching office should salute and support orthodox women who seek the teaching office in sub-orthodox denominations to bring orthodoxy to those pulpits, even when we disagree with the hermeneutic by which those women get there. I don’t expect everybody to agree with me on this point. But I’m willing to extend hermeneutical grace, because sisters are waging a campaign for the gospel in places where I have no say.

When it comes to the diaconate, yes, I do think including women in the office of deacon is more biblical than not doing so. I do not agree that it is that unclear, despite worthy commentators in our tradition (e.g., George Knight’s otherwise splendid commentary on the Pastorals). And this is a place where I think Scripture would encourage us to be more daring, and less fearful … or perhaps where Scripture would nudge us in the direction of being more fearful of missing our sisters’ contribution to the work of the ministry.

In the first place, in my view (and I realize you may disagree), the basic reason conservative presbyterians resist ordination of women to the diaconate is that we fear the next move would be to ordain women to the eldership. At least that’s what Don Seltzer and I were told in the early 1980s when we asked the Presbytery of Southern Florida to consider the question of women deacons. That’s putting a hedge around the law, not obeying Scripture … it’s a way of doing theology that is beneath children of the Reformation. Fact is, none of us is free of the danger of letting culture control our reading of Scripture. When we hear culture scream “Women must be ordained. It’s only fair,” some of us tend to respond more liberally, “Hmm, maybe we’ve missed something.” And some of us respond more conservatively, “Well, maybe we need to get even tighter.” We need to resist pressure from both sides of the cultural divide.

In the second place, in presbyterian polity, the diaconate is not a teaching and governing office, so 1Cor 14 & 1Tm 2 concerns do not apply. I’ve always found it puzzling that the case for ordaining elders and the case for ordaining deacons are not judged on different merits … especially by presbyterians who hold that the office of teaching and governing is not to be confused with the office of mercy.

Third, with apologies, the very fact that Paul applies to Phoebe the term “deacon” (not, by the way, “deaconess”) means that Paul probably does not mean that the women he discusses in 1Tm 3:11 are merely wives of deacons but rather are women who otherwise fit the rest of the profile of deacons he is outlining from 3:8-13. Especially, when Paul adds the tag “deacon of the church of Cenchrea” (Rom 16:1) … seems to me that unless you are determined that the text can’t mean what it seems to say, the term has about it an official sort of feel.

You give me much to ponder, brother. I, no more than you, want to be saying simply what our culture wants us to say. But when it comes to being co-laborers, as Paul was, with the likes of Phoebe, Euodia, and Syntyche, I do not think we conservative presbyterians have come as fully in to Jesus’ “new creation” as we could.

Phoebe is mentioned ONCE as a ‘deaconess.’ Paul says to Timothy “Likewise, wives (their wives, or women) are to be blameless….” The Apostle was either talking about the ministry couples (elders & wives, deacons and wives) or he was talking about women in general. Regardless, the clarity is less than crystal.

In such case, it is dangerous to build an office (or expand the current offices) beyond what is sufficiently clear. It is far better for the Church to err on the side of caution than to fling open the doors to something that is not expressly commanded and defined.

Our culture screams – “Women must be ordained. It’s only fair” while the Scriptures whisper something about a few exceptional women.

If the Scriptures commanded the ordination of women, I’d be in favor it. But, the Scriptures barely hint at such a notion.

We must guard the gospel from the accomodation of the culture and stand firmly on the clarity of God’s Word.

I’ve read this post a few times over in the past few days and appreciate your ability to articulate what so often is left unsaid. I’m grateful for your willingness to receive input from others and listen to the experiences of others that differ from your own–and to see the value of your own experience in teaching and ministry for the body of Christ. Thanks for this.