What does the letter of a Roman Official have to do with Church government today?
That is a great question, I am glad you asked.
The Letter I am referring to is Pliny’s letter to Trajan. First, who is Pliny, and why are his letters famous? Pliny the Younger, not to be confused with Pliny the Elder (his uncle). Given the name Pliny, it must be a family name. Pliny the Younger served as governor of Pontus/Bithynia (modern-day Turkey, near the Black Sea). He served from 111 to 113 AD. We have his letters to Emperor Trajan. These are well-known scholarly resources because they are among the earliest non-Christian references to Christianity. At the same time, scholarly debates discuss the validity of the letters.[1] That is not what we need to wrestle with today. For the purposes of this article, we will assume the letters date to around 111 AD.
Contents of the Letter
Pliny writes this letter (Letter 96) to Emperor Trajan, seeking his counsel and advice on the accusations he received about Christians in his region. In the opening, he explains that he has not previously interacted with Christians, so he was unsure about their common offences or how to investigate them. He interrogated Christians and executed them if they continued to confess Christ. If they did not claim to be Christians, he could test them by getting them to worship Roman gods, or offer incense to the emperor’s image, or even curse Christ. Yet true Christians would not engage in these practices. He notes that some individuals were Christians but had abandoned the faith; they nevertheless performed the tests he requested.
He explained their practice of meeting before dawn on a particular day and singing to Christ, committing to flee from sin (immoral behavior), and sharing an ordinary meal. His letter is to seek whether he is handling the matter correctly. He notes that persecution is leading to a resurgence of traditional Roman religion, as temples are once again active and sacrifices are increasing. He believes many Christians could be “reformed” if given the chance to repent. Trajan responds, agreeing that Christians are not to be actively sought out, but if they are formally accused and found guilty, they must be punished.
Why is this letter important to the Deacon/Deaconess discussion?
The letter is often referred to because of a particular sentence, “Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called [deaconesses].” Pliny, in his investigation, captures two female slaves and tortures them. Pliny explains that these two women are referred to as “ministrae.” People often translate this as deaconess. Now, the translation can be a concern; it is more likely that Pliny would use “ministrae” to mean female servants or female assistants. This would have been a common term for Pliny to use for temple assistants or servants. It is also possible that this is how the women introduced themselves, as servants of Christ, a common term (1 Pet 2:16; 2 Cor 6:4; 3:6).
However, the greater issue with using this letter to defend women for the office of Deacon or Deaconess is that we are placing a significant amount of weight on a letter written by a person who had never joined, participated in, or attended a church, having only met Christians for the first time. Pliny would not pass any membership or ordination examination. What if, hundreds of years from today, people shaped their view of church government from a letter from a governor writing to a president who knew nothing about Christianity, but from interrogation and torture? To put weight on this one term, which is indecisive at best, is to be shaped by an unbeliever and outsider rather than by Scripture.
Greater Concern
However, my concern is that we rely on Church tradition and history to structure the church of Christ. Turning to a Roman Governor, compared to the true king and head who governs his church, Jesus Christ. Turning to Church History, can be a return to the Roman Catholic model of human traditions, rather than the prescription of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says,
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence, we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
History should not be used to defend Scripture; instead, Scripture interprets and governs history. Or as the Confession says, Church History is to be examined and determined by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Church history, especially in matters of church government and worship, encompasses a wide range of practices and writings, sufficient to support almost any position if one seeks it out. You can find arguments for immersion, sprinkling, or pouring by appealing selectively to history. Therefore, church history must serve as a supplement and confirmation, not as the foundation for determining what is correct. Its value is in showing how the Church has traditionally understood Scripture, not in establishing doctrine or office on its own authority. This is why Calvin frequently cited the early Fathers, not because they were the final word, but because their testimony agreed with Scripture. As the Westminster Confession reminds us, ‘The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion… can only be the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.’ One letter from a pagan governor, using an ambiguous term and describing a faith he barely understood, cannot outweigh the clear form of government Christ has revealed in His Word.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-abstract/32/2/435/2669642