Does the Bible Allow for Women Deacons? Yes, Says Tom Schreiner (with a Response from Alex Strauch)

I tend to agree with Tyler on this. My main concern is the ROLE of deacon. Deacons are not elders. Period.

As you know, deacon means servant. These are people appointed by the church to serve its people. They make no spiritual leadership decisions whatsoever. Do you agree with that?

As for your “rock solid” exegesis of 1 Tim 3, if verse 11 is just the wife of a male deacon, why does it appear before the command for a deacon to be a husband of one wife? That’s just plain weird. And why does the wife of a deacon need to be qualified, when the wife of an overseer/elder is not mentioned in such a manner? I suspect that the gunaikas of verse 11 does not mean wife, but females who are deaconesses! But, that is just an opinion. It makes no sense to be wife when wife is mentioned in the next verse as a qualification for deacons.

I will never tell a church to have female deaconesses. I don’t even know that I would call the women servants deaconesses. But what I will not do is confuse deacons with elders, which is what almost every Baptist church I have attended did.

My apologies Ken. I took your comment the wrong way. Now you have explained more I see I am in the wrong.

I never equated deacons with elders. The original deacons were “servants” and were men. It was clearly an elected office. We see them involved in “spiritual work” in Acts, but basically I agree with Mark that that is not their main function. And having a wife is not said to be a qualification.

It strikes me that the phrase “man of one woman” is key here. If we translate it according to what kind of relationships deacons and elders had most of the time—marriage—then we might conclude that the single are not allowed. At some point, we might even wonder whether the life experience of marriage might be helpful for a church officer—ignoring of course the obvious objection “Jesus and Paul were single.”

But if we admit that objection, and translate the phrase as its more generic “one woman man”, that might seem to make more allowance for what we’d have to guess from Jesus’ and Paul’s singleness; that the single are not banned from church office. Key here is that I think a single prooftext is not sufficient to close the case.

And why does the wife of a deacon need to be qualified, when the wife of an overseer/elder is not mentioned in such a manner?

Perhaps because the role of an elder is primarily teaching and leading, two things women are forbidden to do. Thus their wives are not directly involved in their ministry. Deacons have a much more “hands on” ministry including visiting and caring for widows and those “on the list.” Their wives would be much more likely to be involved in their ministry.

As for making “no spiritual leadership decisions whatsoever,” that probably overstates the case. Pastors would be wise to listen to the godly men that the congregation has chosen to serve. Pastors have to be able to lead their family to demonstrate that they can lead the church (v. 4-5). Deacons also have to be able to manage their own families (v. 12). Why? Perhaps the same reason. Deacon run churches are a problem. I don’t like the term “board” or “Deacon board” because that implies a ruling authority to me. But they do lead in many ways because the congregation has chosen them to lead. They are more than go-fers for the pastors.

Paul, I agree with you in the main but I wonder this: If a church had deaconnesses as an official position, would you label them out of order, disobedient, or something else? Is there a place for deaconnesses alongside of a clerk, a treasurer, a SS superintendent, etc?

And why does the wife of a deacon need to be qualified, when the wife of an overseer/elder is not mentioned in such a manner?

I’d suggest that it’s very simple; it was likely implicit in the “manages his own household well.” If an elder’s wife was (to use the NASB phrasing) an undignified gossip who was intemperate and unfaithful….wouldn’t we conclude that the elder was not managing his own household well? That he had some things to attend to before he got behind a pulpit and such?

Regarding Tyler’s justifiable question of what differentiates a deacon from an ordinary church member, the emphasis on the demonstrated character of the man indicates that he’s suitable to be the public face of church service—e.g. serving the Grecian Hebrew widows. Notice also that he holds the mysteries of the faith with a clear conscience—again, to say that they have no real spiritual care is probably incorrect. Again, if you can bring meals to the widows without hearing of their troubles…I don’t think you’ve done half the ministry or received half the blessing that you ought.

Bert wrote:

Again, if you can bring meals to the widows without hearing of their troubles…I don’t think you’ve done half the ministry or received half the blessing that you ought.

Every Christian who is involved in the lives of fellow church members is, at some level, involved in “spiritual care.” I meant “spiritual care = pastoral care.” A deacon is nothing more than a mature, serving church member. I see little in Scripture to justify more than that. If that is the case (and I realize some may disagree that it is, indeed, the case!), then I really fail to see (1) why there are often so few deacons, and (2) why they must be men, given the legitimate grammatical issues Schreiner outlined in the article.

Good reasoning

Larry,

I think the issue is over the name (which I would not advocate for the reasons already given). But certainly women can have named roles in the Church body.

I’d suggest that it’s very simple; it was likely implicit in the “manages his own household well.”

So why is it stated for deacon’s wives rather than implicit as you suggest with elders’ wives?

[Larry]

I’d suggest that it’s very simple; it was likely implicit in the “manages his own household well.”

So why is it stated for deacon’s wives rather than implicit as you suggest with elders’ wives?

Larry, I’m not quite sure, and it’ll take a lot to move me from that position. :^) You could argue, as you did, that it’s even more critical to make sure deacons’ wives are of good character, hence the repetition, or it could be just how Paul expressed things—a near-parallel being used as a tool for emphasis—or finally (and this would be a rejection of my thought) it could be something that is truly not well described as “manages his own household well.” I don’t see it, but…

We might even “tweak” your thoughts to be “everybody knows the pastors’ wives are involved and how critical it is that they be on board….but since not everybody interacts with the deacons’ wives all the time, maybe we ought to repeat this so it doesn’t get dropped.”

That noted, to the main point of the thread here, I tend to regard the verse as referring to the wives of deacons, and that you have “one woman man”, as well as the logical progression from deacon to elder/overseer, among other factors, suggesting that this particular sort of “servant” ought to follow the Biblical pattern of male headship as well.