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

deacon to mean a church appointed servant, yes, a man or woman can be that. If you rather use “deacon” to mean an elder, then no. So, it all depends upon how faithful you are to the word deacon. If I understand it correctly, many Baptist or Baptist-like churches have historically not used the word “elder” to distinguish themselves from Presbyterians or some such thing. This decision is the cause of the confusion, not Greek exegesis.

I think we all agree that if we use Biblical definitions that deacons and elders are two separate offices., and come to Mark’s conclusion. The challenge is that tradition (and a “fear” of looking like we’re granting credibility to Presbyterians as well as a denial that historic Baptist churches did have elders) has led many Baptists to allow deacons to act as elders. I knew a pastor in New England who spent 6 months teaching his Baptist church and deacons about the differences between elders and deacons. When he finished, his deacons agreed that the Bible did, indeed, teach a difference but they weren’t going to change. He became a successful Baptist church planter in Panama–with elders and deacons!

The problem is that many Baptist churches use deacons to perform elder/pastor duties. Spiritual care is a pastoral duty. If you draw that line, and restrict deacons to the kind of activities you see in Acts 6, then you can maintain a healthy distinction between the two offices. For example, why on earth should deacons meet with candidates for membership to “vet” them and hear their testimony, etc? This is a common practice in some Baptist circles. That’s a pastoral function!

Personally, I believe when you make this hard distinction and restrict deacons from spiritual care, you basically … have all sorts of people already doing “deacon” functions who aren’t deacons - including men and women. I’m admitting that I’m at the point where I don’t believe a church MUST HAVE deacons, because in church so many people are already involved in helping out the pastors in so many, non-spiritual care sorts of ways.

Our congregation has no deacons, because the eligible men were divorced at one point long ago. I personally don’t believe this is a disqualification, but our bylaws do believe it. I’ll fight that battle in the next year or so. But, honestly - does a church HAVE TO have deacons? I don’t believe so.

I am very open to interpreting the office of deacon as helping the pastors with the physical needs of the church (broadly defined). Thus, there can be many deacons who assist with these matters in many ways, both men and women. They’re “servants” who help the elders, so the elders can focus on spiritual care.

So, I’m ambivalent about the office. I think it’s often inappropriately expanded to a quasi-pastoral office. I also believe a lot more people COULD be appointed to the office if we restrict it from spiritual care functions. Maybe we ought to have MORE deacons; both men and women. Regardless of whether you have “official” deacons, I suspect many churches have people fulfilling the same non-spiritual care functions without holding the official title.

No, this isn’t a systematic theology on deacons, and I hope folks don’t take it that way. This is me thinking out loud.

That’s the one thing that sticks out as a distinction, and if we divide it per Tyler with “spiritual care”, it’s hard for me to imagine those serving the widows—what I’m told was the original task of deacons—would do so without providing some level of spiritual care for them as well. But if you’re providing spiritual care—e.g. “counseling” and such—aren’t you also teaching? Shouldn’t you be apt to teach?

Or might we also suggest that a key attribute of an “elder” or “overseer” be their …..age and seniority in the church, and we would then differentiate on the basis of “apt to teach” not on book knowledge, but on life experience to pass on? And hence we might suggest that the “spiritual care” that would be dispensed by a deacon to the widows (etc..) would be comfort while the deacon himself learns the art of life from the very people he’s serving?

And then once the deacon learns that art of life and becomes apt to teach….he becomes an elder? Now granted, this is not an exhaustive systematics of church office, but if we would find that deacons became elders in the ancient church, that would be one other indication that deacons….

…ought to be male, because there is no ambiguity about the sex of elders/overseers in the same way that the article sees with “wives”/”women” in the deacons section.

On the light side, glad to see Tyler veering off towards the abyss of Presbyterian church polity. :^) (j/k)

Making women into deacons (re. the church officer) is a case of taking the Greek word for “servant” and applying it in certain contexts where it refers to the office of “deacon.” It is poor exegesis. 1 Tim. 3:12 ought to settle it. No female qualifies!

We can think about this question by coming at it from the standpoint “what do the deacon duties tell us about the gender of those who hold the office?” So,

1. what deacons actually do
2. what makes their duties so special that we need a separate office for the duties
3. what makes their duties so unique that women are exempt
4. and what is the necessity of the office itself

I get that they’re in the NT. Most discussions I’ve seen have them fulfilling a quasi-pastoral role. I know Strauch has a book on deacons. I’ll have to make time to read it one day.

In the article (linked above), Strauch says the title ought to be translated to mean something like “assistant to the elders,” thus giving deacons authority over the congregation. Acts 6 is the only descriptive passage we have of deacons in action (some don’t see deacons here, though), and it’s a stretch to make Acts carry the freight of “deacon = assistant to pastors = authority over congregation.” Big stretch.

Acts 6 does show us all men, though …

Again, more interested in coming at this from angle of whether the duties suggest men only; moving beyond the grammar disputes.

can a woman be a Church deacon. I answer, Yes, as long as she can be the husband of one wife and be in charge of the home! End of argument.

I think the view that 1 Tim 3:11 is addressing deaconnesses is a legitimate view though I disagree with it.

Even absent a biblical directive, a church could have deaconnesses in the same way it has a church clerk, a treasurer, a financial secretary, a SS superintendent or another such position that helps the church to carry out its mission.

Can a woman be a deacon? No. But can they be a deaconess? Yes.

The question is one of role. Is a deacon a decision-maker and doctrine-choser in the church, or a servant? They are servants. If you refuse to call a woman a “deacon” yet use women to disciple, help, and serve other women (which I’m betting you do in some capacity) you have a “deaconess” you just aren’t using the title.

This is an argument that has been going on for far too long because people infused into the position of “deacon” the role of the elder. Period.

Every conservative church, and even fundamental Baptist church, has a group of women leaders and “go-to” servants who have no title or formal role. Can we admit they are “deaconesses”?

You wrote:

every conservative church, and even fundamental Baptist church, has a group of women leaders and “go-to” servants who have no title or formal role. Can we admit they are “deaconesses”?

Precisely.

You also wrote:

The question is one of role. Is a deacon a decision-maker and doctrine-choser in the church, or a servant? They are servants. If you refuse to call a woman a “deacon” yet use women to disciple, help, and serve other women (which I’m betting you do in some capacity) you have a “deaconess” you just aren’t using the title.

Precisely again.

[Paul Henebury]

can a woman be a Church deacon. I answer, Yes, as long as she can be the husband of one wife and be in charge of the home! End of argument.

Can an unmarried man or one without children be an elder or deacon?

Many of these counters are far too pragmatic. Basing arguments on pragmatism makes it very difficult to stop the train once you’re on it. Saying “if they’re doing it shouldn’t we call them deaconesses” is how egalitarians argue, and they use the same ploy to argue for female pastors.

We shouldn’t ask what they are doing, but should they be doing it according to Scripture. Furthermore, there are several men in our Church who serve the body in many ways but they are not deacons. That goes for women, and addresses Mark’s argument, although women (we believe) should not be deacons.

Ken’s argument is daft. I said “as long as she CAN be the husband of one wife or in charge of a home.” A women CAN’T, but a man CAN. But, as I say, this is how egalitarian reasoning goes (I’m not claiming anyone here is one).

If Paul had e.g. called Phoebe an “apostolos” that would have been a perfectly good term. It means “messenger” or “one sent”, UNLESS in terms of a particular office in the Body of Christ, it then takes on a technical meaning. To then use “apostolos” in reference to Phoebe (in this example), or “diacon” in fact, is a case of illegitimate totality transfer. Ergo, you can’t argue from someone like (e.g.) Phoebe to deaconesses.

To Tyler, I simply say there are not enough instances in the NT to decide whether there were perchance “deaconesses.” We do have clear statements about the office in 1 Tim. 3 and, as I have shown, women are excluded.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe I have good grounds for my position.

I’m really not interested in whether women can be deacons. I’m more interested in what a deacon’s duties should and shouldn’t be. I’m also interested in what, precisely, makes a deacon’s duties different from those of an “ordinary,” mature and actively serving church member. Not much, I believe.

[Paul Henebury]

Ken’s argument is daft.

Wow, ok.

I didn’t make an argument though, just asked a question. I had a professor in college who believed that if you interpret that passage to require that a deacon or elder must be male, then consistent interpretation also requires him to be married and have children. His position was that a deacon or elder must be a man, and married with children.