If the Reformed community were a playground, one of the most common arguments you’d hear would be “John Calvin did it.” What is implied by this argument is that if John Calvin, or any famous Reformed person, held a particular position, then it is allowable in the PCA today. There are several issues with the line of reasoning, which could be the subject of another article. The weakness is that they often explain that the circumstances, categories, and context match our own, and therefore, we are in complete agreement.
This reasoning is often less about what Calvin taught and more about what we want him to have taught. The argument is usually used in a way that suggests I hold to the particular Reformed person’s position; however, it is more frequently the case that the Reformed person holds my position. Or another way of saying, “If John Calvin were in this debate, he would wholeheartedly agree with what I am saying.”
Too often, people’s historical studies are done through a search function. Historical studies require a significant amount of reading and comprehension. Ultimately, not to argue this person supports my position, but rather, how would this person articulate their position in their own words? One of the main issues I observe today is the lack of historical context and thorough study surrounding particular issues, often relying on selective quotes to articulate a specific position rather than allowing people to speak for themselves. Sometimes people hear an argument made by another and do not check the primary sources. Some use a select sliver of quotes to support their position — using the person to prop up their argument rather than letting the person speak for themselves.
The argument that “If this historical figure were alive today, they would agree with our position” has many problems. Chief among them is that these figures lived in different times and cultures. To be a good historian, one must understand the context in which someone wrote. Take, for example, the question of Calvin’s position between infralapsarian and supralapsarian views of the fall. The first step is to recognize that Calvin never wrote directly on this subject, since that particular theological debate did not arise until nearly a century after his time. This does not mean he had nothing relevant to say, nor that historians cannot turn to Calvin for study. This is where PhDs are made, in the nuanced and technical study of specific topics. We must first seek to understand his theology within his own time before asking how his principles might address the issue today. So we must understand the times to understand their position. Sadly, I believe many do not read to understand Calvin’s position and see if they agree with him, or if he would agree with them.
Calvin and Deaconess
One of the issues we encounter when reading Calvin is that we are not reading his writings in the original French or Latin, as he wrote them. Thus, we are reading translations of his works and selecting words without the context of the arguments he is making. Everybody says Calvin had deaconesses, but no one I have read holds to Calvin’s view of deaconesses — even those who cite him to support their position.
Often, people point out Calvin’s class view of deacons,
“As it is certain that [Paul in Romans] is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves.”[1]
Calvin’s view is not that 1 Timothy 3:8–12 speaks of two classes of deacons, but that you see the office of Deacon and a second of service, which he points to the Widows in 1 Timothy chapter 5 (With specific qualifications). One is ordained; the other is a ministry (particularly caring for the poor and the sick).
Later in the Institutes, Calvin writes,
“For deaconesses were appointed, not to soothe God by chantings or unintelligible murmurs, and spend the rest of their time in idleness; but to perform a public ministry of the Church toward the poor, and to labour with all zeal, assiduity, and diligence, in offices of charity.”[2]
Within this context, Calvin is referring to the Roman Catholic perversion of Scripture, specifically the order of Nuns, which the Roman Catholic Church cites in 1 Timothy 5. Calvin is answering the question, “But what ground can there be for applying this passage to nuns?”[3] This passage he refers to is 1 Timothy 5 from the above section.
Calvin uses the term “deaconesses” when discussing the errors of monastic vows of celibacy. This is the only time the Latin phrase ‘diaconissæ’ is used (that I am aware of); there are many sources that could offer more to help understand Calvin’s position, such as consistory records. I do believe you can make an argument that Calvin is using the term as a synonym for what he generally calls ‘widows.’ The second class of deacon who serves the poor. This is why I think “Calvin had deaconesses” needs clarification, because people often interpret words in particular ways. Calvin had a non-ordained view of Widows (with specific qualifications), which he once referred to as deaconesses, a more historically accurate term to represent his perspective.
However, we need to delve further to understand Calvin’s view more fully. To this point, people read the above quotes and then argue that the church should have female deacons or that we should ordain deaconesses. Some might have more historical knowledge and know that Calvin did not believe women should be ordained; therefore, they argue, let’s commission women to serve as deaconesses. But we need to dig deeper. Having considered Calvin’s view of widows in 1 Timothy 5, it’s essential to examine how he treats Phoebe in Romans 16.
Calvin and Pheobe
Calvin translates Romans 16:1 in Latin,
“Commendo autem vobis Phœben sororem nostram, quæ est ministra ecclesiæ Cenchreensis;”[4]
His French translation (pictured above) is very similar: “laquelle est servante de l’Eglise,” which translates to “servant of the church.” What is interesting here is that he does not use the Latin, ‘diaconissæ’ or the French ‘diaconnesse.’ Calvin knew the Latin word existed because he used it, and yet did not use it when translating Romans 16:1. He uses the phrase ‘ministra.’ Now, some might want to explain that Calvin supported female ministers (What some might call ‘ministeresses’). However, this is a common argument: you take a word someone uses to support your argument, but it is not their position.
Some people might even translate this into English as ‘Deaconess.’ They continue to read Calvin, who explains, “He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office.”[5] They might even read the footnote that the editor has, “ ‘Ministra,’ διάκονος — minister, or servant, or deaconess, one who ministers.”[6] They point and say, “See, Calvin believes Pheobe is a deaconess, or even that he says he has an office” (without the nuance of the above position). He didn’t call her that, but even if he did, what did he mean by this? This is where people depart from Calvin.
Calvin explains precisely what he means when he says that Pheobe had the title ‘ministrae.’ Calvin refers back to Paul’s teaching in 1 Tim 5:9, stating, “for as the poor were supported from the public treasury of the Church, so they were taken care of by those in public offices.” [7] He continues to explain that they were widows who had no domestic concerns and no children. They desired to serve the church through this religious duty and were bound to that task. They had to be over the age of 60, because it was dangerous for anyone younger to commit to being celibate, even “liable to prove ruinous.”[8] These are the qualifications to be a ministrae/widow/deaconess in Geneva when Calvin served. Then Calvin brings it back to the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic church, which is connected to the “idle order of Nuns.”[9] Identical to his position in the Institutes. Clearly, Calvin sees these as all connected in the Institutes and in his commentaries on Romans and 1 Timothy.
Conclusion
Many appeal to John Calvin in support of ordaining women to the diaconate, but few continue reading what Calvin actually says. Beyond his theology, we must also remember the unique church–state context of Geneva. Calvin does use the term deaconess, but it refers to the widows mentioned in 1 Timothy 5. He is explicit that this is not an ordained office, applying the qualifications of 1 Timothy 5 rather than those of 1 Timothy 3.
Would John Calvin himself be ordainable in the PCA? That’s hard to say. Many Presbyteries would likely view his understanding of civil authority as striking at the vitals of our system, especially his approval of capital punishment for heresy. He would probably ace the theology exam, but raise serious concerns on the polity exam. Those who invoke Calvin to support their position to ordain women often find themselves disagreeing with him once (or if) they read him closely.
[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997). Institutes IV, iii, 9
[2] Calvin, Institutes IV, xiii, 19
[3] Calvin, Institutes IV, xiii, 19
[4] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 541.
[5] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 542.
[6] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 542.
[7] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 543
[8] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 543.
[9] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 543.