Frankly Answered Questions - FAQs

Women Deacons (Part 2)

Q: Dennis, here are a few more questions/concerns that are not addressed in your response regarding women deacons...

Your church bylaws reference two scriptures that clearly describe MEN as deacons, reading the plain sense of the passage:

Specifically...

(Acts 6:3 NIV) Brothers, choose seven MEN from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit...

(1 Timothy 3:8,12 NIV) Deacons, likewise, are to be MEN worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. A deacon must be the HUSBAND of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

NOTE: 1. The capitalization is mine. 2. The NASB uses the same words that I've capitalized above.

A: Let me explain my view on these passages as they impact on women serving as deacons.

The Acts 6 passage is historical narrative. We discussed this in the Biblical Interpretation Class that historical narrative doesn't teach anything, it merely illustrates. The Acts 6 passages does not say anything about women deacons which merely means that the first deacons were men. It does not mean that women were never made deacons at a later time.

The 1 Timothy 3:8-13 passage is the key teaching passage on deacons. It clearly mentions women (verse 11 is literally "In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect..."). As you indicate further down, there is debate among Biblical scholars as to whether this means women deacons or wives of men deacons.

There is no Greek word that specifically means "wives," so the word in 1 Timothy 3:11 could mean either women deacons or wives of men deacons. This debate cannot be settled from this passage, because the passage itself gives us no clue which is meant -- it just says "the women." (Of course, Timothy and the church knew what was intended, since they were already living the practice in the church.)

Q: Second question: In regard to your reference to Romans 16:1, the NIV, KJV, NKJV, and NASB all use the word "servant." If one were to argue that the Greek word "diakonos" really means the biblical office of deacon in all cases and that the translators were being chauvinistic, then why do all the same translations also translate "diakonos" to be "servant" in regard to a man, Epaphras, in Colossians 1:7?

A: The Greek word diakonos simply means "servant" in every case. It is the same word (in verbal form) that Jesus used when he said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." Just like the word "shepherd," the word "diakonos" has different meanings.

Shepherd can refer to:
1. An activity -- "I am shepherding the children to Sunday school."
2. A secular vocation -- "I shepherd sheep."
3. A church position -- "I am a shepherd (pastor) of New Life Community Church."

In the same way, depending on the context diakonos can refer to:
1. An activity -- "I serve my country in the military." "I serve Christ."
2. A secular vocation or position -- "I am Nero's servant."
3. A church position -- "Bob is a deacon of New Life Church."

The reason why I think that Romans 16:1 refers to a church position is because it specifically says that Phoebe is a diakonos "of the Cenchrea church." This little phrase raises the stakes.

It COULD simply mean that Phoebe is involved in the activity of serving the church of Cenchrea. But why mention a church that is 600 miles from Rome? How is Phoebe serving her local church by coming to Rome? Why not say that she is a servant "FROM the church of Cenchrea"? If she is simply serving in a general way, not as an official of the church, why not simply call her a servant of Christ or a servant of Paul? I just cannot get away from the idea that this is a use of diakonos which refers to a church position.

Now let's take the example you used of Epaphras being called a servant (diakonos). In Colossians 1:7 Epaphras is said to be a diakonos "of Christ." Unlike Phoebe, he is not a diakonos of a particular church. Epaphras is a servant of Christ. In many places Paul also calls himself a diakonos "of Christ" (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 4:1; Galatians 1:10) without meaning that he holds the office of deacon in a particular church. Epaphras and Paul are examples of diakonos referring to an activity, i.e. "serving Christ." They are different than the Romans 16:1 passage because of the modifying phrase "of Christ", as opposed to "of the church of Cenchrea."

Q: Next question: Male servants DO TEACH in the New Testament. In Colossians 1:3-7, Epaphras taught. In 1 Timothy 4:6, Timothy is referred to as a diakonos and he obviously taught.

A: As pointed out above, these passages have nothing to do with the church office of deacon. Epaphras was apparently an evangelist ministering among several churches (Colossians 1:6-7; 4:12-13; Philemon 23). He was a diakonos "of Christ," i.e. serving Christ, but not a diakonos of one particular church. As a matter of fact, it specifically mentions Epaphras serving three churches (Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis), not one.

Likewise Timothy is a servant "of Christ," but not a diakonos of one particular church. He was apprentice to a roving apostle (Philippians 2:22), a teacher (1 Timothy 4:11-13; 6:2), and an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5). But no where is Timothy called a diakonos of a particular church. You can be a servant of Christ and teach. I trust that I am a diakonos of Christ. I teach and have authority over males. But I am not a diakonos of New Life Community Church.

I think the more difficult examples of deacons teaching would be Stephen and Philip. Although Acts 6 does not specifically call the men "deacons," it does describe their activity as deaconing -- "wait on tables" (v.2) is literally diakonos-ing tables.

The first deacons of the Jerusalem church are mentioned by name (v.5) and later on we find two of these men debating and evangelizing, which probably included some teaching. But I think this is just an example of men growing beyond their office. Both men also performed great wonders and miraculous signs (Acts 6:8; 8:6), but I hardly think that this means that we should assume that New Testament deacon responsibilities include doing miracles.

The church office of deacon has never included teaching. It is an office of service to the church. Deacons are the administrators and chief foot-washers.

Q: My sticking point about this issue is that you "ordain" deacons. If women are deacons then you are ordaining women to church office. Doesn't Scripture prohibit the ordination of women?

A: Not that I know of. What is inherent in your understanding of ordination that prohibits a woman from being ordained? Do you somehow equate ordination with authority or teaching?  There is the Scripture that says: "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a male" (1 Timothy 2:12). But the church office of deacon has never included teaching or having authority. Deacons are not teachers. They are not leading the church. Deacons are chief slaves, waiters, stewards.

There is a lot of confusion about the office of deacon. In my opinion, it is the "neglected office."

The issue is further confused by the practice of many of churches. Baptists tend to call the men on their executive committee "deacons." In the Anglican, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Church a deacon is a clergyman ranking just below a priest.

But Biblically speaking, deacons are NOT vice-elders. Deacons have a completely different role to play in the church and the office requires different gifts and different abilities than the office of elder.

We teach that the office of deacon involves:

1. Administering the resources of the church to the needy (Acts 6:1-6; also Justin Martyr).

2. Handling the collection of money (Philippians 1:1,5; 4:10-19).

3. Contacting people from house to house and ministering to their needs (requirements of deacons from 1 Timothy 3; 3rd century Syrian Didascalia).

None of these functions involves teaching males or having authority over males. Women can be deacons and can be ordained.

Q: The word "diakonos" is not mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11. And whether this passage refers to deaconesses or "wives of deacons" is a hotly debated issue among conservative scholars. Most translations have a footnote explaining the alternate translation. Why do you think it refers to women deacons?

A: Let me summarize. Since the 1 Timothy 3 passage is unclear on this particular point on who "the women" are, then a decision must be made using the weight of circumstantial evidence.

I think that it is highly probable that Paul meant women deacons, because:

1. The wives of elders are not mentioned in 1 Timothy 3. If Paul meant deacons' wives, he surely would have said something about elders' wives.

2. There is nothing inherent in the activities or position of deacons that precludes women. It violates no other command in Scripture for women to handle money or to serve others in the church.

3. In Romans 16:1, mention is made of a woman named Phoebe who is called a diakonos from a particular local church.

4. We have a reference to "women in Ecclesiastical orders" from AD 196 (Tertullian, ON EXHORTATION TO CHASTITY, chapter 13), an early 3rd century church record of women holding an official position of deacon with an actual list of their duties (Didascalia), and late fourth century church manual with a section concerning women deacons (Apostolic Constitutions).

Thanks for the stimulating discussion.