Sunday, 23 May 2010
-
The Scriptural and Historical Basis for Female Deacons
By Sharon at SheWorshipsAbout a year ago I wrote a blog entitled “Should Women Be Deacons?” in which I highlighted Tim Keller’s endorsement of women holding the office of deacon. This week I ran across a second endorsement by Wendy Alsup that I wanted to repost here.
In particular, I appreciate Wendy’s warning against saying “no” to that which God has said “yes.” We often find ourselves fearing the opposite–saying “yes” to that which God has said “no”–but they are opposite yet equal errors. The goal of the church is to conform to God’s will in all things, which is why I am continuing to encourage conversation on this topic.
Wendy’s argument is as follows:
1. It’s Biblical.
2. It’s consistent with historical church practice.As someone from an independent Baptist/Bible background, the fact that it is consistent with historical church practice isn’t naturally compelling to me. I wasn’t taught to value church history as an independent Baptist. However, now that I attend a Presbyterian church, I am coming to value that 2nd argument in a new way. So I’m going to include that in what follows.
First, It’s Biblical.
I Timothy 3 (NAS) 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
The previous verses of I Timothy 3 cover requirements for elders. Verse 8 begins the requirements for the office of Deacon. Verse 11 literally reads “the women.” Some translations say “their wives.” This is a possible interpretation, but a strained one. First, it requires the addition of the possessive pronoun “their,” which is not in the text. Also, another important question for that interpretation is “Why are Deacons’ wives being scrutinized and not Elders’ wives?” This is a glaring inconsistency. Finally, if this text means “Deacons’ wives”, what church screens Deacons in this way? I’ve never known a church that considered the character of the wives of deacons that didn’t also consider the wives of elders as well. A more natural and less strained understanding of this text is that these women were Deacons. This is consistent with Romans 16 where Paul refers to Phoebe as a Deacon.
Romans 16:1-2 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
It is true that “Deacon/Servant” can be used in a generic way—every believer is called to be a servant. But, it is also often used in an official way (the same word is used in I Timothy 3). Paul here seems to be commending Phoebe as a “Deacon/Servant” in an official way. He is instructing them to receive her and help her in her job. Many conservative commentators understand the text in this way. Edmund Clowney, Douglas Moo, John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Robert Strimple also think that Phoebe held the office of Deacon in the church.
Please note that this is an entirely different argument from those for women pastors. Part of the Biblical argument against female elders is that the Bible never names a female elder and that the qualifications of an elder are written in specifically male terms. There are other arguments, but we undermine the importance of those points if we don’t accept women deacons. The Bible DOES name a female deacon (Phoebe) and it DOES include women in the discussion of the qualifications of a deacon.
Having women Deacons does not undermine the complementarian argument. NOT having women deacons undermines the complementarian argument. The Biblical case for women deacons is made BECAUSE of what Scripture says and not in spite of what Scripture says. There are many conservative commentators today who hold to both male headship and women Deacons (the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood considers the issue of women deacons a nonessential with respect to its core mission of promoting Biblical gender roles).
There are two great dangers in Biblical interpretation. The first danger is to say “Yes” where God has said “No.” This danger is real, and we should be diligent to guard against it. The other great danger, however, is to say “No” where God has said “Yes”. This is as grave a danger as the slippery slope of liberalism. If God has said “Yes” to women Deacons, then so should we.
Second, it was the historic practice of the church.
It is well documented that women served as deacons for the first 1000 years of the church. Though the practice waned around the time of the Great Schism between East and West, John Calvin reinstituted Deaconesses as part of his reforms of medieval church polity. Informed by the example of the Early Church and by Scripture, Calvin was a proponent of the office of Deaconess throughout his life. He saw the office of Deaconess as a public office of the church and had an order of Deaconesses in Geneva primarily composed of older widows.
There is an assumption among some complementarians that having women Deacons is a slippery slope to liberalism. Church history disproves this assumption. Church history demonstrates that the practice of having women Deacons is seen by many of our forefathers to be exceedingly biblical.
I am hopeful that having female Deacons will become the norm among conservative evangelical churches once again. Without it, I personally think we set up women for failure, especially in my culture. Women are important. Their needs are important. The reality is they/we HAVE been excluded and oppressed throughout history, even church history. If we deny women the office of deacons when God hasn’t, we push them toward accepting either feminism or chauvinism. We haven’t given them a Biblical norm. That’s a serious problem.
I’ll end this post with an encouragement. What if this is your conviction, but you are not under church leadership that feels the same? A wise female deacon at my own church told me of her experience advocating strongly for this at another church she attended years ago. At some point, she came to see that her efforts had gone from being positively advocating for a good thing to being negatively divisive. If you love and trust your church leadership, certainly there shouldn’t be a problem discussing this, even advocating for it with the appropriate people. But unity in the church is a precious thing. I encourage you to guard yourself diligently from crossing the line between encouraging toward a more Biblical view of women deacons to undermining leadership and fostering disunity. Be diligent to preserve unity. Make every effort to preserve unity. For we are all One Body.
Wendy’s final point cannot be understated. This is not an issue worth dividing over. But if we care about Scripture, God’s will, and ecclesial integrity, then we should care about this issue and discuss it further, in love, humility and grace. I hope you will.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: sheworships
- Name: Sharon
- About Me: Sharon Hodde Miller is a North Carolina girl, born and raised! She is originally from Charlotte, NC, and she received her undergraduate degree and Masters of Divinity from Duke University. Sharon has worked for Proverbs 31 Ministries where she was a contributing writer to the ministry’s daily devotions and radio broadcasts. She has written for Relevant Magazine’s online articles, Lifeway’s Collegiate Magazine, Ungrind Webzine, and she continues to write and minister to women all over the world about being a Christian woman in an ever-changing culture. Sharon currently lives in Durham, North Carolina with her husband, who is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity at Duke Divinity School. If you would like to contact her regarding a speaking or writing opportunity, if you have any questions, or would like to submit a blog topic, please e-mail her at sharon(at)sheworships(dot)com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 1 257 Views: 948 160842 Comments: 21 2415 View all posts by sheworships
Comments (18)
I support female deacons. Unity is important, and I believe in some churches disallowing female deacons causes disunity and sends the wrong message about faithful loving females serving God.
Honestly, I think it makes more sense to have a woman in a position to minister to other women, whom everyone can agree are more complex creatures than men
Oh, the 1 Timothy reference is very, very weak. It is clearly speaking about men, in reference to the Diaconate, the entire time. The sentence about women clearly seems is parenthetical. This post seems to be framing the entire early history of the Church entirely in Protestant terms when there was no such thing for the first 1500 years of the Church. Throughout Scripture, Paul actually refers to himself as diakonos, so I am not sure how that word can me used to mean the position of "Deacon" as opposed to a general "servant".
I haven't looked it up but is there different Greek words for women and wives and if so, which one is being used in Timothy?
I do not have a problem, with women serving in the church. I do not have a problem with women participating in prayer during the service. I recently helped put in motion a jr ushership program. I have taken both male and female children between 4th and 6th grade, and trained them how to take up the offering. Right now, this is all they do, I go up front with them, and say the offeratory prayer, as those involved in the children's program, are still working with them on prayer, and building them up where they feel comfortable with prayer.
The first time the kids collected the offering, I was approached by a couple of people after the service, and they were very happy to see the children participate, but they were wondering why I allowed the girls to volunteer as well. I looked at them, and said if you can find me a verse in the Bible that says women cannot take up the offering, I would be more than happy to change my mind, and make it only boys.
I will offer the same challenge here.
Show me a verse in the Bible, that says women cannot serve the church.
@Megan - Excellent
The Bible is clearly the word of God. There is a verse in the new test. that clearly states that women are to be silent in church. When I get home tonight I will look it up and post it.
@Megan - Actually it would be in Orthodox terms as well as Protestant: Orthowikia has an article on the historical role of female deacons here, with a more thorough historical overview here. They're mentioned in several church council records, including Nicaea.
@catman517@xanga - The Bible also says that Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos, that Lois and Eunice taught Timothy, and that Eudoia and Synticiche were Paul's "fellow laborers" in spreading the gospel.
So either the Bible is in contradiction, which I do not believe is the case, or "be silent" does not have the out-of-context meaning we've given it to forbid roles of teaching and service.
@BetweenFineLines@xanga - i don't think you quite understand unity... unity does not include blind acceptance and tolerance of the extremes or the irregulars in order to prevent disunity. it's quite clear from scripture (I am the vine, you are the branches... those branches not producing fruit will be pruned--i'm paraphrasing mind you, and i can't remember the exact citation, tho i think it's in John) and Church history (plenty examples of excommunication) that heresy is to be expelled from the Church...furthermore, the point of excommunication is so that the excommunicated person(s) actually feel the disunity from the Church AND from God, so that they do feel sorry and repent, so that they can return to good standing.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - women can definitely serve in the Church... just NOT as deacons, priests, bishops, or elders, pastors or whatever other official leadership (as in, of entire congregations) roles there are. now, this is certainly not a way to keep women down. there are plenty of opportunities for women to serve God and the Church, in the Church. Convents are a wonderful example of this. Nuns give their entire lives to God, in service to Him and His Church. that kind of sacrifice is even more profound than leading a congregation.
what i would propose to the churches that have female pastors/deacons is this... what happened to the MEN in that community? where did they go? and why do they continue to be passive and let a woman lead that community? i can definitely dig up all the scriptural and catechatical references for all this... but there is so much that is expected of pastors, regardless of denomination, that requires authentic masculinity (like i wouldn't want to confess my deepest, darkest sins to a women, in order to protect her purity, to a women...or, even the act of speaking out publically against certain sins, certain areas in which the church/Church needs to improve)...so why in the world would a woman be in that kind of position, other than because of the fact that a broken world tells her to?... i mean, you can even look at the fall... and how the serpent tempted Eve first...how Eve's sin was to grab not only dininity, but also masculinity by undermining her role as Adam's wife... and how Adam's sin was being passive and letting it all happen. point is, a lot can be traced back to original sin, especially on issues of gender.
yeah... my thoughts are kind of disjointed here and i apologize for that. i still welcome any comments.
I support equality for the sexes in every role..in the church, in the family, in the workplace, in society.
@rusty0505@xanga - Deacons are by definition, servants (diakonos). We are all called to serve. Deacons are shining examples of servants, and there is clear evidence that female deacons are sanctioned and historically they were. There is NO evidence that females are excluded from being deacons, so how is that heresy? Men are leaders, yes. Women follow the male leadership, supporting them. Both should be servants of each other, the church, and God and role models for younger Christians by both age and spiritual growth. Being a female deacon helps guide and inspire younger females to serve and grow to serve in official capacities, and there is no better role than as a deacon, the official servant of the church. Deacons are in no way leaders and do not guide or set any rules for the church, and therefore is not heresy against male church leadership as God ordained.
@rusty0505@xanga - Just because a church uses a woman as a deacon, does not mean there is a problem with the males in the church. It is possible, that it is a new church plant, and there are not enough men to do everything, so women are asked to fill in. that is one time that I can see women being used.
Our pastor, is currently in American Somoa(sp?) with a number of men of our church and area churches. We have been blessed by a guest speaker the past two weeks (director of missions for our baptist association). The first week, he was new to the church, and was having trouble memorizing the names of everyone, when it came time to close the service, he called on a female friend of his that he has known for a number of years. She just happened to be the one name he could think of at that moment.
She gave the closing prayer, and the service ended and everyone went their way. I am curious, on what you think. are women allowed to pray during church? Is there something about men, that make prayers ascend to God faster or more blessed?
@catman517@xanga - You are referring to 1 Corinthians 14 and you are abusing it. A common misinterpretation of Paul's lesson there and often used as sexist and misogynistic purposes. First look at 1 Corinthians 11 to show that women are indeed allowed to speak in church, but so as not to misinterpret that one, first understand that the cultural background to 1 Corinthians 11 is that temple prostitutes would have shaved heads. This is no longer a cultural normal, and from a cultural standpoint is not a disgrace. Furthermore, Paul refers to both the covering of a women's head and long hair as custom, not as sin or divine mandate. The reference to God, nature, and the angels are far less clear, but one might also consider that as a women's choice in how she glorifies God in her appearance. In Christian freedom "all things are permissible, but not all thing are beneficial". I would argue that long hair is to a woman's glory, but is not a divine mandate. Furthermore, Paul emphasizes this argument in terms of "division" among the church and often makes allowances for unity, such as in 1 Corinthians 15 where the council suggests that the new gentile Christians refrain from eating blood and things sacrificed to idols (among other things) because that was considered disgusting to Jews. We are clearly allowed in our freedom to do these things (1 Corinthians 8 and 10), but can choose to abstain if doing so is beneficial for unity. In Christian love as we love others as we love ourselves, Paul applies this in 1 Corinthians 9:19 "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more."
Finally, back to the original point, 1 Corinthians 14 is based on the specific environment of the church in Corinth at the time when speaking in tongues (and confusion because of it, for as Paul points out, unless someone translates it, it is not beneficial to one another). Chapter 14 is clearly focused on admonishing the church in this context, and the reference to women speaking is a reference to them adding to the chaos by attempting to interpret for others which would be a form of leadership and is contrary to teaching. Instead Paul is commanding the men to translate the speaking of tongues so as not to give the perception of the women having divine authority of translating the communication which is heavenly sent. Of the 40 verses in chapter 14, essentially all of them are talking about the Corinth church speaking in tongues, and it is natural to assume that this context is referencing THAT, not a command in general, especially in light of chapter 11. The proper way of interpreting 14 is:
33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34The women are to keep silent in the churches [and not add to the confusion]; for they are not permitted to speak [translate tongues], but are to subject themselves [to the translation offered by men of authority], just as the Law also says.
35If they desire to learn anything [because they did not understand the tongues], let them ask their own husbands at home[who have the authority to translate the divine speech]; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church [thereby either translating and taking a position of authority, or adding to the confusion].
@ChrisRusso@xanga - You have a lot of wisdom. Thanks for sharing it. And for the record, I agree with you.
a lot of this has to do with the whole argument in general about whether or not women should be in ministry positions, or even teach. I say yes and think scripture as a whole supports this. This was one of the issues I struggled with in seminary and wrote three papers about. My conclusion is: Women can minister. There is nothing I see where scripture says it is a sin for women to minister and share the gospel of Christ. Yes, there are circumstances where Paul seems to be against it but he never says they should not, nor does he say God says is is sinful. Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with the church and culture, meaning the church exist in a culture and most cultures are ruled by men. Only now, since women are gaining more rights, are we having this discussion... I think we would do good to look at various interpretations concerning slavery and consider how our view on women right now may be changing like that did not so long ago.
So God created man in his
own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. - Genesis 1:27
Hmmm, from what I see, 1 Tim. 3.11 DOES NOT literally translate to "the women" as this post claims; nor is "wives" a mistranslation as the post claims. First, there is no definite article with the word (transliterated) 'gunaikas', so to infer one is a matter of interpretive opinion in this instance and not a foregone conclusion. Second, the word could be translated as 'women' or 'wives'. In context, it likely is wives. It makes no sense to have differing rules for male and female if Paul were talking about each serving the same position.
One of the disturbing issue is how we make scripture say what we want it to say. Now I have no problem with women serving in the church but when scripture speaks specifically about something pertaining to male or female, then we need not put a comma whereGod has put a period.
First, my argument about whether or not a women is a deacon or (deaconness, as some interpret) is not chavinistic. However, the context relevant to the context explains the various usage of Greek words that could be read as masculine and feminine. However, let's not get into the Greek yet and just 1 Timothy 3:8-13 or Roman 16:1 as is. If you read the scripture through it answers itself.
For example Pheobe is called a servant (diakonos), not a deaconness. For at the time of writing there was not such a word for deaconess. However, Paul uses the word succourer (prostatis), which means an assistant, to describe what Phoebe was actually doing in the early church. She was helping people and not ruling in some sort of a heiarchy poisition or order of women deacons.
Now back to I Timothy 3:8-11, even if Paul was suggesting a specific order for women deacons, why is it that he used the word (gune goo-nay') and not the word (diakonos). These two words are not the same nor have the same meaning. Thus, making the argument for female deacon very weak.
Has anyone noticed that in 1 Timothy 3:12 the text reads: "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife," ruling their children and their own houses well." Again let's look at word usage....Let the deacons (diakonos) be the husband (aner aner meaning a man properly an individual male) of one wife (gune goo-nay'). Or should it be rendered to mean "the husband of one deaconness ( or female deacon)." The question is how does the word (gune goo-nay'), mean deaconness in 1 Timothy 3:11, and then mean wife in 1 Timothy 3:12? Thus, Paul is not establishing an order of female deacon (or an order of deaconness), when clearly the text reads that the deacon must be the husband of one wife ( or a one woman man).
To each it's own....The argument cannot be valid based on one paricular passage of scripture. It's a dangerous thing to establish a doctrinal order or theological conclusion based on one verse. That's why so many cults have flourished and destroyed the lives of those who are "tossed to and fro with every wind and doctrine."
Be Blessed