But they're not the only group that has a problem with the diaconate. In Baptist circles there's also a great deal of confusion on this point. For them, the office of 'pastor' is akin to Paul's bishop in 1 Timothy 3.
Like many Presbyterians they make a full distinction between
the pastors and the other male leaders in the church. Presbyterians call them
Ruling Elders and then marshal a few verses (read eisegetically) to make the
case for the separate office and the title. Baptists don't have ruling elders,
they have deacons which more or less function in the capacity of what Paul
describes as elders (presbyter-bishops). In the Baptist polity the deacons are
the ones who more or less administer the daily affairs of the church and act in
the capacity of the pastor's helpers, or the check to the pastor's power if
need be – for in those circles the pastor wields tremendous authority that's
often difficult to challenge without a major crisis. And so while their office is
akin to Presbyterian elders, the actual power of Baptist deacons is usually not
like an elder, not at all.
When a new pastor is being selected these churches usually
form a pastoral search committee which
will often include unqualified people including women. The deacons will take
care of things when there is no pastor but even when there is no one there,
they (typically) don't step in and fill that role in any capacity. This is
particularly telling with regard to our recent situation in which we left the
Baptist congregation we had been attending. We're not Baptists either (in any
way shape or form) but it was something we could attend and we had been there
for some time. We finally left the Church because of the Trumpites (some of
whom were at the January 6 Capitol event), an unfortunate and troublesome situation
exacerbated by the fact that the New Calvinist pastor had left months earlier
for a para-church position, and the congregation has been without a leader. The
deacons (apart from scheduling guest speakers) don't seem to believe they have
any authority to pursue disciplinary matters, or challenge troublemakers, or
even inquire of a family (such as my own) that left the church. We never even
got a phone call. There's simply no functional leadership. They are completely
passive and this isn't the first time I've seen this at work in Baptist
circles. It fact it seems to fit a pattern.
And yet, because they view the office as male-only, a
position of authority, and because they don't have the same concept of elders
versus the actual office of deacon, the very suggestion of a deaconess sends up red flags and would
immediately mark you as a theological liberal – which may or may not be the
case.
Again, if the office is non-authoritative and if deacons (and
particularly deaconesses) have no regular teaching role within the Church, then
the notion of male leadership is in no way compromised.
As far as the actual diaconal work, the Baptist deacons will
sometimes step in and help families in need and the like but in terms of their
building and things related to it – they have a Board of Trustees. Did this
emerge from some arcane reading of the Pastoral Epistles? Not at all, it's
simply a requirement of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for all non-profit and
tax exempt organisations. The Presbyterians play the same IRS game and also
have a Board of Trustees – they simply fill in their elders' names as those
that fill the position. But the Baptists (at government order!) go ahead and
form a separate body within their polity that has power (in certain areas) that
rivals or equals that of the deacons. It's a disaster on multiple theological
and ecclesiastical levels and none of these examples or models has anything to
do with the Scriptures.
Some time ago while talking to the New Calvinist pastor (an aficionado
of Mark Dever), I referred to these men as deacon-elders which elicited a
confused "What?" from his wife. To his credit, he said that I was
correct and that he would explain it to her later.
And yet like the Anglicans (who these Baptists would surely
despise as being non-biblical) the Baptists have also failed to understand the
office and its true function is almost eliminated from their circles. To be
honest the actual office has little import in many well-to-do American
congregations. That reality should lead to some Laodicean-inspired pausing and
pondering, but unfortunately it doesn't. In both cases a defective view of the
office leads to other problems and allows error to creep in. In the case of the
Baptists I've seen grievous situations requiring church discipline and intervention
but minus a pastor – the deacons will sit on their hands.
In conclusion, I will say this – there are those in Baptist
circles that are trying to remedy this situation and re-cast the polity in more
Biblical terms. They (mostly Calvinistic Baptists) are trying to bring in
actual elders and in other (rarer) cases they have dispensed with the 'pastor'
notion altogether in the interests of pursuing the New Testament ideal which is
a plurality of elders with no 'pastor' as such. This doesn't mean that all will
be engaged in that work full time. There will be those who labour in the Word
and doctrine above others and these are to be counted (as per the New
Testament) worthy of extra honour and by implication a more life sustaining
remuneration. The others will be at least part time tent-makers as it were. It's
natural that some men will lead more than others and fulfill certain teaching
and shepherding roles on a more regular basis but it can also be stated declaratively
that the 'pastor' system and even the contrived Teaching/Ruling elder polity
within some sections of Presbyterianism is not sustainable by means of New
Testament exegesis. The departure from the New Testament model happened very
early on in Church history and the Magisterial Reformation (in the end) did
little to correct the priest/parish model and that along with the whole mindset
regarding the 'holy' building has been largely retained even to this present
hour.
As far as the Anglicans there's no real way out for them.
They've tied their own hands. The real arch-conservatives among them in their
zeal to retain catholicity are unwilling and unable to break on these points
and so in the name of being 'good churchmen' they tolerate error. And thus
while they venerate tradition they are in fact caught in a never-ending and
self-defeating dynamism. There are a few 'breakaway' Anglican organisations
which claim the mantle of apostolic succession but these groups are small and
viewed as extreme.
I will grant one point to the Anglicans. More than a few have
said to me that the New Testament polity simply doesn't work. I appreciate
their honesty. They're wrong but they're not trying to pretend that their
system is there when it clearly isn't. Unfortunately, I did not encounter that
degree of honesty in my recent interactions with the ACNA priest. It wouldn't
have changed anything but I was more troubled by his sleight-of-hand argument
than if he had simply been candid and said – we don't follow the New Testament
when it comes to ecclesiology. The Baptists and Presbyterians (generally
speaking) don't either – the difference being this, they think they do.
I am fully prepared to attend a church that I'm not in
agreement with at some of these points. I don't expect them to change for me
but there are lines and women in the 'pulpit' (as it were) is one of them.
These are not 1 Corinthians 11 prophetesses (with covered heads) uttering the
revealed mysteries of the Divine Council, but women who bring shame on the
Church and caught up in the cultural moment are in rebellion.