Why churches should recognize women as deacons
“The key verse for this discussion is right in the middle: verse 11 says, ‘Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.’” Cripplegate
- 11 views
We have an elder board, a deacon board, and a deaconess board. The deaconess board has certain specific areas of responsibility, as do the deacons. The deacon board, as one of it’s main duties, is to oversee finances and the overall church budget. It works quite well.
I’m not opposed to deaconess boards per se, but what bothers me here is that the analysis doesn’t really ask what a “deaconess” will do. Is she part of the board that sets the church budget and therefore clearly exercises a fair amount of authority, or is she planning funeral lunches and the like? So the article really dodges the issue of male headship in these areas.
Also, it strikes me that the passage in question clearly uses the word “deacons” in a male context in verses 9, 10, and 12, but uses the term “women” in verse 11 for a somewhat different set of qualifications than is set for the deacons. So in the context, verse 11 is strictly speaking for deacons’ wives, who might be considered deaconesses because they are under the headship of their husbands.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Could it be that a deaconess is just a female deacon? Romans 16:1 seems to verify this. The only problem I see is in churches where deacons have authority instead of simply being servants.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]Could it be that a deaconess is just a female deacon? Romans 16:1 seems to verify this. The only problem I see is in churches where deacons have authority instead of simply being servants.
Right, so for churches who don’t have female deacons, but seem to think it’s a good idea, first move to an elder rule setup. Really there shouldn’t be such thing as a deacon “board” at all since that implies that a group of deacons should be able to vote on something. Each deacon is individually to be subordinate to the elders. For churches that don’t have official female deacons, I’d bet you have them unofficially. You may have that lady that organizes the meals for the new moms. She’s a deacon or servant of the church, but you might as well make sure she fits the biblical qualifications of the office you put her over.
[Shaynus]Right, so for churches who don’t have female deacons, but seem to think it’s a good idea, first move to an elder rule setup. Really there shouldn’t be such thing as a deacon “board” at all since that implies that a group of deacons should be able to vote on something. Each deacon is individually to be subordinate to the elders. For churches that don’t have official female deacons, I’d bet you have them unofficially. You may have that lady that organizes the meals for the new moms. She’s a deacon or servant of the church, but you might as well make sure she fits the biblical qualifications of the office you put her over.
In our church, we did establish elders first. That’s essential. The deacons are a board in our church because they are able to vote on things in their sphere of authority…the budget for example.
This entire argument for deaconess’ has always struck me as a desperate argument from silence. I don’t believe you can walk through 1 Tim 3:8-13, in order, and get it from the text. I think you can infer, if you want to try. The plain reading of the text (and the Greek) indicates to me that men are in view.
Romans 16:1 is much more intriguing. I’d be interested in some historical theology on this issue.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Wayne Wilson]Shaynus wrote:
Right, so for churches who don’t have female deacons, but seem to think it’s a good idea, first move to an elder rule setup. Really there shouldn’t be such thing as a deacon “board” at all since that implies that a group of deacons should be able to vote on something. Each deacon is individually to be subordinate to the elders. For churches that don’t have official female deacons, I’d bet you have them unofficially. You may have that lady that organizes the meals for the new moms. She’s a deacon or servant of the church, but you might as well make sure she fits the biblical qualifications of the office you put her over.
In our church, we did establish elders first. That’s essential. The deacons are a board in our church because they are able to vote on things in their sphere of authority…the budget for example.
The budget should be an elders thing ultimately. The budget is a statement of the spiritual direction of a church as anything else it is. Deacons should help draft it, but I think it’s wiser that deacons be put individually over specific spheres or tasks. That seems to be the pattern in Acts. A set of deacons had the specific duty to take care of the widows, not set the agenda for the church.
[Shaynus]The budget should be an elders thing ultimately. The budget is a statement of the spiritual direction of a church as anything else it is. Deacons should help draft it, but I think it’s wiser that deacons be put individually over specific spheres or tasks. That seems to be the pattern in Acts. A set of deacons had the specific duty to take care of the widows, not set the agenda for the church.
I would have to disagree here. Deacons exist to free the elders from things like how much to budget for sound equipment. It seems to me that is what Acts 6 is really all about. And qualified deacons are very capable of sound spiritual direction. The Acts 6 deacons are described as “men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” I think men like that can handle the budget, and our experience shows that they can. Maybe we’re special, but the boards work in harmony here. If the elders have budgetary requests, which is rare, the deacons would certainly factor that in.
It’s worth noting that the major distinction between a deacon and an elder in terms of qualifications is that the elder must be “apt to teach.” So the historic distinction in roles between spiritual leadership and handling of earthly matters has at least a hint in 1 Timothy 3.
Either way, unless we simply view deacons as serving tables and little else, I cannot separate the male diaconate from the concept of authority, and in that case, the patriarchal nature of Scripture—from Genesis to Revelation—poses an insoluble problem in my mind.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It’s also important to remember that titles of leaders are only ever used for for the eleder’s/bishop’s position, and never used in conjunction with the deacon’s position. Throughout the New Testament, elders are held up as having positions of authority within the local assembly, but that is never the case with deacons - not once.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Wayne Wilson]Shaynus wrote:
The budget should be an elders thing ultimately. The budget is a statement of the spiritual direction of a church as anything else it is. Deacons should help draft it, but I think it’s wiser that deacons be put individually over specific spheres or tasks. That seems to be the pattern in Acts. A set of deacons had the specific duty to take care of the widows, not set the agenda for the church.
I would have to disagree here. Deacons exist to free the elders from things like how much to budget for sound equipment. It seems to me that is what Acts 6 is really all about. And qualified deacons are very capable of sound spiritual direction. The Acts 6 deacons are described as “men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” I think men like that can handle the budget, and our experience shows that they can. Maybe we’re special, but the boards work in harmony here. If the elders have budgetary requests, which is rare, the deacons would certainly factor that in.
Right, so a deacon of finance or group of deacons and their advisors would draft a budget and send to the elders. Again I stand by my statement that a budget is a statement of spiritual values and the elders have authority even in mundane things. I’m with Chip in that deacons have no authority in themselves. It may be that elders grant limited authority over specific tasks (as they did in acts on taking care of widows), and that’s fine. But a board of deacons approving a budget implies too strongly that they are in authority over the budget of the church, and they should not be in an ultimate sense.
The Romans 16:1 issue doesn’t seem that insurmountable, when you go beyond the fact that some English translation uses deaconess . The Greek word simply means servant and is used to refer to the office of Deacon, so the text would have to dictate its meaning. Romans 16:1 says Phoebe was a servant of the church of Cenchrea. Nothing in the context demands or indicates that it is an the office she holds. Paul often refers to himself and others as slaves and bondservants It says that she has been a help to many and of Paul as well, she is a good servant. Also the Greek word here is feminine. All the uses where context is speaking of an office are masculine.
I also think the context of 1 Timothy 3 as whole is speaking of leadership. There are only two office in the church, both are given basically the same qualifications (except for teaching) and one is a leader at some level and other is not? At some capacity, it would seem the office office of deacon has responsibility intended. Presuming Acts 6 is the first deacons, they are given reasonability to take leadership of the daily operations so the Apostles could spend time on the Word and prayer. Since leadership Scripturally is given to the men, not because of some sexist idea of Paul’s but it is rooted in Genesis, it follow that deacons should be men. I also find it interesting that in Acts 6 they chose 7 men and not 6 men and 1 women or some other combination.
Ultimately all Christians should be good servants of the Lord. All the women I have known that serve in many different capacity in our ministry, they don’t serve to have a title, they serve because they love the Lord.
I’m worried about your church, Wayne ;)
[Julie Anne]I’m worried about your church, Wayne ;)
Aww…thanks. I worry about it, too, every day. But not about our structure, which allows maximum use of gifts, divides responsibilities (and in some sense, even authority), and works so well. It is also thoroughly biblical. Frankly, I can’t imagine dumping budgeting responsibilities on the elders, who have so much to do ministry-wise. I should add that, as the pastor, the Constitution gives me a place on the deacon board as well, and I attend their meetings, and may vote on matters. So the elder’s perspective is present and always given full consideration. The deacons don’t see their role as conflicting with the elders, but using their wisdom to facilitate ministry as they are able. We always work for unanimity anyway on all the boards.
I suppose the fear of shared authority comes from worries about losing control, or bitter conflicts erupting. We just don’t have that. The elders set the tone for trust and harmony among the boards. Everyone bends over backward to work in a cooperative way.
I will refrain from discussing our Women Mentoring Women group here.
[Wayne Wilson]I will refrain from discussing our Women Mentoring Women group here.
I would love to hear about that group at some point if you have time. Even via private message if you prefer.
Discussion