In debates about deaconesses, we often reach for authoritative voices, and few are more respected than B. B. Warfield. Warfield published an article, ‘Presbyterian Deaconesses,’ in 1889 that briefly outlined his position on the matter. However, many arguments appealing to Warfield take the following simplistic form: “Person X held this view; therefore, my view must be correct.” This is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), or more informally, guilt or innocence by association. If we are to speak faithfully and charitably about Warfield, we must avoid invoking his name merely as a proof-text for our own conclusions. Instead, we should carefully read what Warfield actually said, in its historical and theological context, and evaluate it based on Scripture and the standards of the church.
Warfield argues that he believes the primitive office of deaconess should be resurrected. When he uses the title deaconess, he clearly understands its limitations. Warfield is extremely honest, stating his position, “For it need not be denied that the office of deaconess is a Scriptural office, although it must be confessed that the Biblical warrant for it is of the slenderest.” He continues, “This is no doubt a narrow, not to say a precarious foundation on which to build much of an ecclesiastical structure.”
Warfield continues to examine the historical practice throughout the early church, citing Pliny’s letter to Trajan.
Warfield references Ignatius and his use of the offices of ‘virgin’ and ‘widows’ (107 AD). Warfield takes a different approach to Calvin , who believes Phoebe (Rom 16:1) serves in the office of ‘Widow.’
Warfield states there are two distinct classes — one of service and another of honor — saying,
“It is clear, however, that ‘deaconesses’ and ‘widows’ were different classes. And although this settled usage of the words in technical senses, at the opening of the second century, surely implies that the classes which they designate were of apostolic age, yet it is a different matter how far we are justified in assuming that these offices existed as offices in the apostolic age.”
Warfield points out that the Western Church ‘deaconess’ moves to the shadows, while the office of ‘widow’ is spoken of in the early church fathers (Ignatius, Lucian, Polycarp, Hermas, and the Clementine Homilies). Warfield expounds,
“We should say that the office of deaconess was wholly overshadowed, if not rooted out, by that of the ‘widows,’ throughout the whole second century, and was not so much revived as recreated by the Greek Church of the third century.”
In the third century, the three classes of offices for women were found in the Apostolic Constitution: ‘virgins, deaconesses, and widows.’ The Apostolic Constitution makes it clear that women are not to teach, citing 1 Corinthians 14:34. We start to see more official categories created during this period: readers, ministers, porters, and singers. Warfield says that, from the fourth century onward, the three offices were conflated and forgotten due to the prohibition on ordination. Although the practice of deaconesses is difficult to trace through history, the consensus is that deaconesses were not to be ordained (see Canon 19, Nicaea 325).
Warfield does not argue to reinstate the historic practice of deaconesses but seeks to argue for what he calls the primitive office of deaconess. For Warfield, the sole scriptural reference to the office of Deaconess is found in Romans 16:1. Warfield, driven by Scripture, comes to this conclusion: Romans 16:1 speaks of the office of deaconess and no other. Warfield explains,
“We are left only to the meagre inferences that as Phebe was ‘a deaconess of the church that is at Cenchreae,’ the office was a local one and inhered in the individual congregation.”
Warfield also points to Pliny’s letter, expressing that because Pliny tortured two women, we can see a plurality of deacons.
Warfield, throughout his article, presents the limited evidence from Scripture for this office of ‘deaconess.’ Throughout his article, he uses these words describing the evidence: ‘slender,’ ‘narrow,’ ‘meagre inference,’ or a ‘precarious foundation.’ Warfield even calls many additional sources ‘theories’ besides the little scriptural evidence. Warfield actually articulates one of the main concerns of the lack of Scriptural foundation of the office of ‘deaconess,’ stating,
“We have no Biblical account of the qualifications for the office or its duties, and no very early account of the functions it actually exercised.”
I appreciate Warfield’s candor and honesty, the simplicity of his argument, and the honesty that Romans 16:1 is the only scriptural support he has for the office. Warfield does not let his interpretation of this passage force the understanding of other verses. He speaks with clarity about his conviction that the Bible teaches the office of ‘deaconess’ without adding to Scripture. We can agree or disagree with Warfield and his reasoning, but we should all be able to agree that Warfield is a man of conviction and lets the Scripture speak for itself.
Sadly, I wish that Warfield had interacted with the other potential interpretation of Romans 16:1. He expresses that there are different interpretations of what Paul calls Phoebe in Romans 16:1. He explains,
“The term here employed (diakonoi) is of very broad connotation; and Pheobe might conceivably have been only an humble ‘servant’ of the Cenchrean church, or indeed, for all that the term itself declares, only a Christian belonging to that church (cf. John xii. 26).”
He continues to express why he believes Paul is referring to Phoebe as a ‘deaconess,’
“Nevertheless this seems the more likely meaning of the phrase; and this interpretation receives confirmation from a clear indication, coming to us from the earliest post-apostolic times, that ‘deaconesses’ were then already an established order in the church.”
His reasoning is grounded in post-apostolic writings, as cited in Pliny’s letter. To me, this is not a strong argument, given that we can use Scripture to interpret Scripture and see Paul referring to Phoebe as a servant, not a ‘deaconess.’
Warfield, convinced that Phoebe is a deaconess and that the church should therefore establish the primitive office of deaconess, suggests a variety of practices (McGill and Fliedner). Even the Church of England and the Church in Scotland are examples he points to. Warfield looks to these many examples of how the church should structure this office with the interactions with the broader church. Warfield suggests the possibility of having graded courts similar to presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, under the oversight of presbyters. One of the interesting aspects of Warfield’s articles is the example he gives in American Presbyterianism, namely the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUS), which is the PCA is the continuing church of. Warfield points to what becomes BCO 9–7,
“Perhaps the nearest approach to the more formal and ecclesiastical revival of the office among us, in its proper Scriptural sense, has been made by the Southern Presbyterian Church, which sets forth in its Book of Church Order, adopted in 1879, that ‘where it shall appear needful, the Church Session may select and appoint godly women for the care of the sick, of prisoners, of poor widows and orphans, and in general for the relief of distress.’ Here we have the essential features of the office.”
Warfield finishes highlighting the women’s ministry that was already occurring in the church at the end of the 19th century. Warfield is once more honest about the situation and does not then say this should be thrust upon the church without prudence. He concludes that independent women’s ministry organizations, if left outside church oversight, could eventually weaken the church’s structure. The church must wisely integrate women’s work into its official system under biblical authority and Presbyterian governance. Warfield believed reform was needed, but must be done carefully, with patience and fidelity to Scripture.
Conclusion
Warfield is one of my heroes. I love his work on the Westminster Assembly, and he has a great beard and an excellent middle name, “Breckinridge.” I sincerely appreciate his honesty throughout this piece. I would have loved to see him wrestle more deeply with several of his claims and to examine more fully how he arrived at his conclusions. The issue was a significant point of debate in his own time, and he was writing amid that tension.
I believe the BCO is correct in saying that the ordained offices in the church are open only to godly, qualified men. Yet Warfield raises significant concerns that must be addressed, even by those convinced of the office of deaconess. For example: if Christ has revealed the office of Deaconess, why are we given no qualifications for it, and what functions was it intended to serve? When some people today cite Warfield in support of their position (some female deacons), I am not convinced they have thoroughly read his arguments. Warfield does not discuss ordination and openly works from a “slender” and “precarious” biblical foundation, attempting to infer the missing qualifications and duties. He acknowledges the lack of Scriptural clarity yet does not seriously engage the straightforward interpretation that Paul calls Phoebe a servant.
Warfield deserves our respect, but he cannot simply be used as a decisive citation meant to settle the debate by name alone. If Warfield is the strongest historical support for the argument, then the argument itself still rests on what he calls a narrow and precarious foundation. To appeal to Warfield is not to settle the issue; it is to admit that the biblical evidence remains thin, debated, and far from conclusive. If we are going to build ecclesiology, we must build it on Scripture, not on names, however great they may be.