Why A Little Strength Is Publishing About Women Deacons

Vol. 9, Iss. 1 Jan ‘26 | Alittlestrength
Volume 9: Issue 1 | January 2026

Why A Little Strength Is Publishing About Women Deacons

At the 2025 Synod of the RPCNA, it was announced that a change to our Testimony would be submitted to our 2026 Synod. The change would remove our Testimony’s teaching that women as well as men may be deacons. Many congregations in the Atlantic Presbytery either have women deacons now or had them in the recent past, so this proposed change should be of interest to us.

Among conservative Presbyterian churches, the RPCNA is unique in having women deacons. Being unique is nothing new for us. We were unique from our organization in 1798 in opposing slavery and staunchly opposing all racialist ideologies. We were alone in criticizing the 1787 American Constitution for being a completely secular basis for government. Today, we are nearly unique in practicing exclusive Psalmody. In 1888, our Synod concluded that the Bible allows for women to be deacons, the point of uniqueness now being contested among us.

Those who are against ordaining women as deacons have made their arguments known more often in recent years than those who are for it. Our aim is to subject the arguments of a book and a paper against ordaining women deacons to a more searching criticism than they have yet received.

The book is Brian Schwertley’s 1998 book on women deacons, and the paper is one submitted to synod from David Merkel and Chris Villi. Both Brian and David came into the RPCNA through the Broomall congregation while Bill Edgar was its pastor. Bill, lead author of our reviews, remains on good terms with both Brian and David. We agree that the issue of women deacons is important, but that it is not a central doctrinal issue. In fact, in Presbyterian church government, congregations can be organized without any deacons at all.

The editors of A Little Strength believe that our church practice of ordaining elected and qualified women as deacons is biblical. We would be happy to convince doubtful readers of the same. Women deacons have been a source of strength, not weakness, to our churches. Even if you are not convinced, we aim to achieve at least this: an acknowledgement by all that the RPCNA ordains women to the diaconate for Biblical and theological reasons.

– The Editors

Merkel-Villi Paper on Women Deacons, Synod Paper 2022-1

Part I:

Critique of Introduction

The Synod committee appointed to evaluate the Merkel-Villi paper and make recommendations to the Synod wrote an incomplete review of the Merkel-Villi paper. This review aims to supplement the work of that committee without interacting directly with its work.

Merkel-Villi begin their paper with a two-page introduction, which lays the foundation for their study and conclusions. Their introduction has four main points: their THESIS (women should not be deacons), their METHOD (whole Bible approach), their INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLE (continuity between the Old and New Covenants), and their HYPOTHESIS (male-only Levites should lead us to expect male-only deacons).

A. Merkel-Villi’s THESIS: There are four views on women and the diaconate. 1) Men and women equally deacons; 2) Deacons and deaconesses are two separate offices; 3) Women may be non-ordained assistants to male deacons; 4) No place for women in a diaconal office. The RPCNA holds the first of these four views, but it lacks clear Scriptural warrant to do so. It should stop ordaining women as deacons.

Evaluation: Merkel-Villi state their thesis clearly.

B. Merkel-Villi’s METHOD: The whole Bible should be consulted when deciding the issue of women deacons, especially since only a few verses mention deacons, Philippians 1:1, I Timothy 3:8-13, and arguably Romans 16:1. Acts 6:1-3 uses the verb form of the noun deacon, but not the word “deacon.”

Evaluation: True, the few deacon passages should not only be exegeted well, but also considered in the context of the whole Bible.

C. Merkel-Villi’s INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLE: The continuity between the Old and New Covenants (Latin “Testaments”) provides clear direction on the issue of women deacons. Under the Old Covenant, men led and held all offices. A few women held the irregular offices of judge and prophet, but this happened “sometimes to show that the men were not stepping up to their responsibilities.” Deacons continue the office of the all-male Levites of the Old Testament. The principle of “Male headship” was established at Creation.

Long Evaluation and Critique:

1. In stating that Reformed hermeneutics assumes continuity between the Old and New Covenants unless specifically stated, Merkel-Villi dismiss the meaning of the words “Old” and “New.” They write: “Reformed hermeneutics demands the assumption of continuity between Old and New Covenants in the absence of a clearly communicated change (i.e. abrogation or fulfillment)” (p. 3, citing Louis Berkhof). The footnote continues that the continuity between circumcision and baptism means that infants should be baptized. Correct. The footnote fails to note an obvious and pertinent discontinuity. Under the Old Covenant only males were circumcised. Under the New Covenant males and females are baptized equally. What might that imply? Merkel-Villi do not ask that question. The equal baptism of boys and girls, men and women (Acts 8:12), seems to have escaped their notice.

2. On the relationship between the two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace, Merkel-Villi bypass the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The “…covenant of grace…was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb…Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper….(7:4-6).”

For the last one hundred years Reformed theologians have often stressed the continuity between the Old and New Covenants to combat the Dispensationalist heresy of Darby and the Scofield Bible (1909), which lost sight of the one Covenant of Grace governing all of God’s relationships with man since the beginning: same God, same human nature, same moral law, same salvation by faith, same Covenant of Grace – continuity! However, the Bible emphasizes the newness of the New Covenant more than it explicitly teaches continuity. “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers” (Jeremiah 31:31-32). The writer to the Hebrews explains. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). You cannot put new wine into old wineskins, Jesus said (Mark 2:22). John in his Prologue wrote, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin devoted one chapter to the similarities and one chapter to the differences between the Old and the New Covenants (Institutes of the Christian Religion, chapters 10-11). No, Reformed hermeneutics does not demand the assumption of near total continuity between a now obsolete and vanishing Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The continuity that the Westminster Standards teach is the continuity of the one Covenant of Grace operating in both of its applications, the temporary Old Covenant and the permanent New Covenant.

3. From ancient times, the church has had to fight the temptation to “Judaize” the faith, that is, to bring Jewish laws and ways into the New Covenant era. Requiring circumcision for salvation was early Judaizing. The Council of Jerusalem responded that circumcision is unnecessary for salvation (Acts 15, Galatians 2). In doing so, the Council put not only Jews and Gentiles, but also men and women on an equal footing when receiving the covenant sign of baptism. Paul wrote about circumcision no longer being necessary. “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:24-28). In the parallel passages of Colossians 3:11 and Romans 10:12, Paul omits “male and female,” perhaps because in those places he was not writing specifically about circumcision, a visible covenant sign only males could receive.

For its first thousand years, the Church did not use musical instruments in public worship services because using them would Judaize the church’s worship. We do not call our pastors and elders “priests.” Priests offering animal sacrifices for sin represented Israel to God. Christ is now our permanent High Priest, having once for all offered himself as our sacrifice for sin. The office of priest has ended. Since the Old Covenant priesthood has ended, the office of Levite has also ended. Understanding the New Covenant office of deacon as continuing the Old Covenant office of Levite is a Judaizing mistake, like the mistake of calling teaching elders priests.

4. New Testament writers never use Old Testament terminology for its life together, except for “elder,” an office that predates the Old Covenant! Before God established his covenant with Israel, Moses spoke to Israel’s elders before going to Pharaoh. “Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel” (Exodus 4:29). During the era of the Old Covenant, the office of elder continued. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them….’” (Numbers 11:16) Elders continued while Israel had kings. While Saul was king, “Samuel did what the Lord commanded and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling and said, ‘Do you come peaceably?’” (I Samuel 16:4). (See also Deuteronomy 21:19, I Samuel 8:4, and I Kings 20:7.) In the New Covenant era, when the necessity of circumcision was debated in Jerusalem, elders helped make the decision. “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this issue” (Acts 15:6).

Elders do not continue the Old Covenant priesthood in their “preaching and shepherding,” as Merkel-Villi write. They predate the priesthood and continued alongside the priesthood. Attributing to the elders of the church priestly functions is a Judaizing mistake and could lead to calling teaching elders “priests,” as the Roman Catholic Church does.

[Side Note: Some early Christians such as Justin Martyr (100-165) taught that the Church has replaced Israel. By the Fourth Century, that replacement theology developed into a one for one replacement practice from Israel to the Church. Replacing both the Temple altar and pagan altars too, churches began to have stone altars, often enclosing the bones of martyrs. The Lord’s Supper became the Mass, understood as a sacrifice. Presbyters turned into priests, and deacons replaced Levites as aides to the priests. Reformed theology, on the other hand, teaches fulfillment theology, with Gentiles grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17) in the New Covenant People of God. The Church is built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles with Jesus Christ the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The Church is the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16-17). The conversion of the Gentiles brings the renovation and expansion of David’s kingdom (Acts 15:13-18).

Old Testament Scriptures prophesied the addition of Gentile believers to Israel, not Israel’s replacement. “Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush—“This one was born there,” they say. And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. The Lord records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there” (Psalm 87:4-6; See also Zechariah 8:20-23).

With the Old Covenant fulfilled, there is no further need for a physical Temple, priests, animal sacrifices, or Levites. Elders from before the Old Covenant continue as officers under the New Covenant, with deacons a new ministry of service.]

5. New Testament vocabulary for church life exhibits sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant People of God in their government and worship. No New Testament officer is ever called a “priest” or a “Levite.” The church does not meet in a “temple.” The body of believers is the Temple in which the Spirit dwells. Believers meet for worship as the “ecclesia,” a word taken from Greek political life. “Episkopos,” “pastor,” and “apostolos” are likewise ordinary Greek words given technical meanings by the church. “Deacon,” finally, is an ordinary Greek word for table servant.

6. Who were the Levites whom Merkel-Villi mistakenly view as precursors for deacons? The Levites were a tribe settled in their own cities throughout Israel, made up of men, women, and children. From the tribe of Levi came the priestly family of Aaron. Both the Levites and the priests were hereditary and temporary.

What was the job of the Levites? Firstly, God accepted the tribe of Levi in the place of the firstborn of all Israel (Numbers 3:11-13), a place that foreshadowed Christ, “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Now that Christ has come, that foreshadowing is finished. Levite men guarded and moved the tabernacle as it went through the wilderness (Numbers 3). They aided the priests in sacrifice. They played the instruments and sang during the Temple services. They handled the Temple’s money. Scattered throughout Israel, the Levites helped teach God’s law. At least once, they translated the Law of Moses as Ezra the scribe read aloud to the people (Nehemiah 8:7). Now that Christ has come and poured out his Spirit on the whole church, appointing elders and teachers, this task of the Levites has also ended (Acts 2:38, I Peter 3:15, Ephesians 2:10-15). All believers are priests (I Peter 2:5, 9, Revelation 5:10). Temple worship with its sacrifices has ended, and ended also are the human offices of priest and Levite. Others besides Merkel-Villi have tried to account for the office of deacons by tying them to Levites, but deacons are not Levites. Deacons are a new office in the New Covenant, serving alongside the old office of elder.

What was the calling of the men appointed to serve in Acts 6? It was to provide daily provision of food for the Greek-speaking Jewish widows in the Jerusalem Church. The Tribe of Levi had no such calling. In fact, God told Israel to provide food to the Levites to support them. “And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household. And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you” (Deuteronomy 14:26-27). Were Levites told to do acts of mercy as deacons do? No. The Old Covenant Levites who held a hereditary office, and New Covenant deacons ordained individually by the elders of a church, do not hold the same, or even a similar, office. The fact that the Levites were all males – but the tribe of Levi included women and children also – is irrelevant as to who may be deacons.

7. Another discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments is that women are more prominent in the New Testament than in the Old. Ruth and Esther are rare examples of OT female heroes, as are the prophetesses Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah, and Huldah. Merkel-Villi omit Miriam when they name OT women prophets. She certainly does not fit their notion that God chose a few women as judge and prophet because men were “not stepping up to their responsibilities.” Miriam’s brothers were Moses and Aaron!

Women in the OT almost always appear as wives and sisters. Deborah is the wife of Lapidoth (Judges 4:4), and Huldah is identified as the wife of Shallum (II Chronicles 34:22). Miriam the prophetess is the “sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20). Esther is the wife of Ahasuerus. Ruth is first the wife of Chilion and later becomes the wife of Boaz.

However, in the New Testament women accompanied Jesus and his disciples on their travels, some giving financial support, and only one is named as someone’s wife (Luke 8:1-3). Women were the main witnesses of Jesus’ crucifixion, death, and burial and the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27-28, Mark 15-16, Luke 23-24, John 19-20). Paul had many women associates and friends (Romans 16, Philippians 4:2-3), and he and his companions lived with Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16:14-15). Fewer than half the women named in the New Testament are identified by their husbands, brothers, or fathers. Given the prominence of women helping in the ministries of Jesus and Paul, one might expect to find evidence for women deacons in the New Testament since deacons have a helping role. And there it is, in I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1.

8. Given the relative prominence of women in the New Testament, their equal standing with men in being baptized and partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and their role as helpers to both Jesus and Paul, one needs clear New Testament teaching that they should not be deacons. There is clear teaching that only men can be elders, as the RPCNA has always taught and practiced. There is no such clear teaching for only male deacons.

By using the now ended Old Testament all-male priests and all-male Levites to form their expectation of all-male deacons, Merkel-Villi prejudice their reading of evidence for women deacons in the New Testament. Given their Introduction, it is telling that they nevertheless conclude that women deacons are “possible,” even though they do not think women deacons are “plausible.”

9. Finally, what is this “male headship” Merkel-Villi cite as established at Creation? The term “male headship” does not appear in Christian writing until after 1970, first from George Knight III and then Wayne Grudem and the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Yes, a husband is head of his wife (Ephesians 5:23). The man was created first (Genesis 2, I Timothy 2:13). God created the woman to be the helper of the man (Genesis 2:18), the most basic help being that only together can they bear children and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). However, no creed has defined “male headship” or spelled out either its extent or limitations. The term is merely a recent neologism coined to oppose modern secular feminism.

D. Merkel-Villi’s HYPOTHESIS: The two regular ecclesiastical offices of priest and Levite continue, by and large, in the offices of pastor and deacon. The priests and Levites in the OT were males. Therefore, “…one would not expect to find ordained women deacons in the New Covenant era.” (p. 3). “The ordination of women officers requires an explicit and clear NT command indicating a change in the structure of the offices. As will be seen, there is no such command in the NT” (p. 3).

Medium-length Evaluation and Critique:

No. The claimed expectation is beside the point for elders, who are not priests and do not continue the priestly office. The expectation is unwarranted for deacons, who are not tribal hereditary Levites and have a different primary calling than helping the priests at the Temple with animal sacrifices. Elders predate the Old Covenant, and deacons are new in the New Covenant. The Merkel-Villi emphasis on male priests and Levites, along with a one-sided emphasis on the continuity between the Old and the New Covenants, sets their study of women deacons off on the wrong foot from the beginning. Even so, they conclude that women deacons are “possible.”

Under the New Covenant, as James Kennedy for the 1888 Committee wrote: “The church of the New Testament is a corporate institution, and all her members have all corporate rights and privileges, unless when specially exempted” (Signed, “Committee of Synod,” Our Banner, November 1888, p 376). What “rights and privileges” are specifically restricted to men? Only men may be elders and preachers. There is no similar restriction on women being deacons, an office of serving, not ruling. Furthermore, in I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1-2, there is substantial evidence that the New Testament church had women deacons, just as the church had deaconesses for many later centuries, a fact well documented in Brian Schwertley’s book Women Deacons. Yes, women as well as men may be deacons.

— Bill Edgar