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. Those who invoke Calvin to support their position to ordain women often find themselves disagreeing with him once (or if) they read him closely.

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:

Read More