A Biblical Argument for Men Only as Deacons

[ahavah7]

*Note: This thread grew out of a broader discussion of women deacons and the PCA. You can find that discussion here

[It is anti-feminism that is keeping many from seeing the Biblical issue here - which I will state again: The Bible says there were women deacons, using the same word, diakonos, in Romans 16:1, that was used to give the Biblical requirements for deacons.

The above argument boils down to this: The same word always means the same thing. We can think of many words not only in our own language but in the Greek as well for which this is not true. I think the burden of proof is as great for those who say it means the same thing as for those who contend that it's meaning is different (Rom 16:1 vs. 1 Tim 3:12).

In most places the word diakonos is translated servant but in 1 Tim 3 it is translated deacon. Why the difference? In 1 Tim 3 we see a list of qualifications and the injunction to "prove" or test these men. All Christians are called to be servants but the men in 1 Tim 3 are a special class or subset, chosen by God to serve His church in a special capacity. This alone is sufficient grounds to conclude two different (though related) meanings of diakonos in Rom 16:1 and 1 Tim 3.

Acts 6 is also very helpful in understanding whether the office is limited to men only. In Acts 6 the apostles tell the church to pick seven men to assist with administering the daily distribution to the widows. Not even one woman was appointed to this task; at task that was directed solely to widowed women. This is strong evidence that men only should be deacons and should control our understanding of other passages related to deacons in the NT.

 

[Mushroom]

The same word always means the same thing.

Sure it does, dontcha know?

Like the word commonly tranlated Elder in the NT; prebuteros. The prodigal son had an elder brother - presbuteros - who was envious of him, so perhaps that's a quality we should look for in an Elder. Or again the "elder women" spoken of in 1Tim 5 - presbuteros - so that obviously proves that there should be women in the office of Elder in the Church. If we apply the hermeneutic used by those who claim Phoebe was an ordained officer of the Church because the word used both for servant and deacon was used to describe her, we will also have to accept women elders, right?

Or how about this one? Paul said that he beat his own body into submission, and also that our wives are our own bodies since we two are now one, so isn't it biblical for husbands to beat their wives? Everyone knows better than that. What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

 

[SolaGratia]

Is it true that these errors of reading the scriptures is coming from mostly young elders and especially from Covenant Seminary?

 

[ahavah7]

Is it true that these errors of reading the scriptures is coming from mostly young elders and especially from Covenant Seminary?

The perception is that it is increasingly young teaching elders who hold to this position, however that is not universally true. I met one teaching elder who had been in the PCA for like 30 years who beleived the women could be deacons. However, he was not in favor of changing the book of church order.

As to seminaries, it is the perception that not only Covenant but also the Westminsters and RTS's teach it as well. I say perception because I don't have any first hand knowledge of these seminaries and those opining may not have a comprehensive knoweldge of what those seminaries teach.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

This is simply wrong. At the very least this is a debatable issue - nowhere is it "clear" in Scripture that deacons are to be men only, as we have seen from numerous posts on other threads. Having female deacons in a church is not "very obviously contrary to Scripture." And why does there have to be an agenda? Why can't men simply disagree on a point of Scripture that is by no means clear? This smacks of paranoia in the extreme. I think it was R.C. Sproul who said that even John Calvin was right only 80% of the time. Maybe those who believe in the Biblical basis for female deacons are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are intentionally going contrary to the Bible or have an unscrupulous agenda.

By the way, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning to the men only side. However, there is clearly evidence both ways, and the truth is by no means obvious. The doctrine of the Trinity is obvious, salvation by grace through faith alone is obvious, the 5-points are obvious, etc. The validity of deaconesses does not fall in that category. Perhaps if we all used more humility in our discussion it would be more beneficial to everyone...

 

[jfschultz]

The Bible being true can also mean true reporting of what happened. If doctrine is established on the basis of what happened, then we only need look to David to justify adultery and murder.

 

[ahavah7]

What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

This is simply wrong. At the very least this is a debatable issue - nowhere is it "clear" in Scripture that deacons are to be men only, as we have seen from numerous posts on other threads. Having female deacons in a church is not "very obviously contrary to Scripture." And why does there have to be an agenda? Why can't men simply disagree on a point of Scripture that is by no means clear? This smacks of paranoia in the extreme. I think it was R.C. Sproul who said that even John Calvin was right only 80% of the time. Maybe those who believe in the Biblical basis for female deacons are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are intentionally going contrary to the Bible or have an unscrupulous agenda.

By the way, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning to the men only side. However, there is clearly evidence both ways, and the truth is by no means obvious. The doctrine of the Trinity is obvious, salvation by grace through faith alone is obvious, the 5-points are obvious, etc. The validity of deaconesses does not fall in that category. Perhaps if we all used more humility in our discussion it would be more beneficial to everyone...

I agree with two points: I agree that many who disagree on this issue do not have an agenda and they believe there is sufficient scriptural warrant for their position.

But I disagree also. I think that the spirit of our age does exert a subtle influence on those who adopt this view. I think it works in this way: they rightly sense that some in their congregations (and some outside) are put off by the men only position, so when they see any scriptural grounds for adopting the men and women position they jump at it. For the younger teaching elders who are taught that position in seminary, it is even more natural for them to adopt it.

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

 

[ahavah7]

The Bible being true can also mean true reporting of what happened. If doctrine is established on the basis of what happened, then we only need look to David to justify adultery and murder.

This is ridiculous argumentation. We have only to look at God's law to know that adultery and murder are wrong or look at the narrative to see how David was disciplined for it.

Much of Presbyterian polity is based on what the apostles did (as opposed to what they commanded) in the book of Acts.

If the apostles had seen nothing wrong with women as deacons, they would have certainly allowed some women to be elected to help serve other widowed women.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Thank you for your response, and I agree that society does in some ways influence how we view Scripture, which is a danger we certainly must guard against.

As for the Acts 6 verse, the problem with that argument is that the verse does not establish the office of deacon. MacArthur makes a pretty compelling case in his commentary, noting that Stephen and Philip were not called deacons anywhere else in the New Testament, and were both clearly evangelists. He also says that nowhere else in the book of Acts are deacons referred to as church officers, though elders are mentioned several times. He says it would be strange for the rest of the book to make no mention of deacons whatsoever if the office were already established. His contention is that this passage called for temporary church officers to address a particular need, but that it doesn't formally establish the office of deacon within the church.

 

[ahavah7]

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Thank you for your response, and I agree that society does in some ways influence how we view Scripture, which is a danger we certainly must guard against.

As for the Acts 6 verse, the problem with that argument is that the verse does not establish the office of deacon. MacArthur makes a pretty compelling case in his commentary, noting that Stephen and Philip were not called deacons anywhere else in the New Testament, and were both clearly evangelists. He also says that nowhere else in the book of Acts are deacons referred to as church officers, though elders are mentioned several times. He says it would be strange for the rest of the book to make no mention of deacons whatsoever if the office were already established. His contention is that this passage called for temporary church officers to address a particular need, but that it doesn't formally establish the office of deacon within the church.

It is true that these men are not called deacons in this verse. However, Acts 6 should be viewed as a prototype of the office of deacon. The office may not have been formalized until later in NT church history, but it does lay the foundation of our understanding of the office of deacon. For instance, I wonder what Macarthur would say is the purpose of the office of deacon? The purpose is so that the apostles (and later church elders) could devote themselves to prayer and the Word. Our understanding of this purpose of the office is most clearly developed in Acts 6.

The parallel qualifications are also noteworthy and demonstrate the relationship between Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3

As for Stephen and Phillip being later called to be evangelists, it is common in our churches today for some deacons to later be called to be elders. So it's not surprising that this happened in the early church.

Thank you for your interaction.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I also disagree that it is not clear from scripture. The Phoebe example seems to be the best (only?) argument for men and women. I've already tried to show the deficiency of that argument. Additionally, I haven't seen anyone address the Acts 6 precedent and its controlling influence on the discussion.

Thank you for your response, and I agree that society does in some ways influence how we view Scripture, which is a danger we certainly must guard against.

As for the Acts 6 verse, the problem with that argument is that the verse does not establish the office of deacon. MacArthur makes a pretty compelling case in his commentary, noting that Stephen and Philip were not called deacons anywhere else in the New Testament, and were both clearly evangelists. He also says that nowhere else in the book of Acts are deacons referred to as church officers, though elders are mentioned several times. He says it would be strange for the rest of the book to make no mention of deacons whatsoever if the office were already established. His contention is that this passage called for temporary church officers to address a particular need, but that it doesn't formally establish the office of deacon within the church.

It is true that these men are not called deacons in this verse. However, Acts 6 should be viewed as a prototype of the office of deacon. The office may not have been formalized until later in NT church history, but it does lay the foundation of our understanding of the office of deacon. For instance, I wonder what Macarthur would say is the purpose of the office of deacon? The purpose is so that the apostles (and later church elders) could devote themselves to prayer and the Word. Our understanding of this purpose of the office is most clearly developed in Acts 6.

The parallel qualifications are also noteworthy and demonstrate the relationship between Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3

As for Stephen and Phillip being later called to be evangelists, it is common in our churches today for some deacons to later be called to be elders. So it's not surprising that this happened in the early church.

Thank you for your interaction.

Your point about Stephen and Phillip later being called Evangelists is a good one. I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume (especially since both are seen as leaders) that because they are not called Deacons later in Acts that Acts 6 should not be seen as normative. That seems to me to be a silly argument.

 

[Romans922]

Is it true that these errors of reading the scriptures is coming from mostly young elders and especially from Covenant Seminary?

The perception is that it is increasingly young teaching elders who hold to this position, however that is not universally true. I met one teaching elder who had been in the PCA for like 30 years who beleived the women could be deacons. However, he was not in favor of changing the book of church order.

As to seminaries, it is the perception that not only Covenant but also the Westminsters and RTS's teach it as well. I say perception because I don't have any first hand knowledge of these seminaries and those opining may not have a comprehensive knoweldge of what those seminaries teach.

Let's be really clear here: It is not RTS's teaching the women can hold the office of deacon. It is true though however, that many students graduating from RTS Orlando hold to that belief, which would make me think that someone there is teaching it to be a good thing. So make sure we distinguish the RTS's out there please. At least to make me feel good. I am a graduate of RTS Jackson and it is certainly not taught here!!!

 

[Mushroom]

What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

This is simply wrong. At the very least this is a debatable issue - nowhere is it "clear" in Scripture that deacons are to be men only, as we have seen from numerous posts on other threads. Having female deacons in a church is not "very obviously contrary to Scripture." And why does there have to be an agenda? Why can't men simply disagree on a point of Scripture that is by no means clear? This smacks of paranoia in the extreme. I think it was R.C. Sproul who said that even John Calvin was right only 80% of the time. Maybe those who believe in the Biblical basis for female deacons are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are intentionally going contrary to the Bible or have an unscrupulous agenda.

By the way, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning to the men only side. However, there is clearly evidence both ways, and the truth is by no means obvious. The doctrine of the Trinity is obvious, salvation by grace through faith alone is obvious, the 5-points are obvious, etc. The validity of deaconesses does not fall in that category. Perhaps if we all used more humility in our discussion it would be more beneficial to everyone...

I'm sorry, friend, but it is quite obvious in scripture that the office of Deacon is limited to male members. I'm not sure what makes that difficult for anyone to see, but it is undeniably so.

If one were to read the pertinent scriptures without the influence of feminism and the fallen culture upon their thinking, or the fact that some 'nice' folks they know don't like the exclusion of women, this would not even be an issue.

 

[Ravens]

I will say upfront that I have never made a serious, prolonged study of this issue. That being said, I approach it in the following way, which seems to be both biblical and simple:

Almost everyone would agree that the more obscure places of Scripture are to be interpreted in light of the clearer places of Scripture.

Due to the semantic range of diakonos, it is safe to say that Romans 16:1 is, at least, up for debate (I should hope even those who advocate female deacons would admit this).

1 Timothy 3 is a purposeful, substantial treatment of the issue, that should be, by all accounts, regarded as the clearer, more substantial, intentional treatment of the issue.

Therefore, we interpret Romans 16 in the light of 1 Timothy 3, and the issue is solved. Granted I made a couple assumptions (i.e., which passage is clearer), but, at least in my mind, to argue any other way would reduce to quibbling.

Where is my reasoning wrong? Why is it not simple?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons -- Brian Schwertley - The PuritanBoard

 

[py3ak]

The same word always means the same thing.

Sure it does, dontcha know?

Like the word commonly tranlated Elder in the NT; prebuteros. The prodigal son had an elder brother - presbuteros - who was envious of him, so perhaps that's a quality we should look for in an Elder. Or again the "elder women" spoken of in 1Tim 5 - presbuteros - so that obviously proves that there should be women in the office of Elder in the Church. If we apply the hermeneutic used by those who claim Phoebe was an ordained officer of the Church because the word used both for servant and deacon was used to describe her, we will also have to accept women elders, right?

Or how about this one? Paul said that he beat his own body into submission, and also that our wives are our own bodies since we two are now one, so isn't it biblical for husbands to beat their wives? Everyone knows better than that. What I fear is that the supporters of women being in the office of deacon do know better as well, because it is very obvious that is contrary to scripture. To blindly hold to a position with disregard that scripture plainly refutes it is expected of pagans and pentecostals, but educated Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA? C'mon.... there has to be an agenda there, but what could move these men to deny what they know is true of scripture? That just plain scares me.

Brad, you've completely convinced me. From this point forward, I'm a resolute wifebeater.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

The Bible does have both deacons and deaconesses, but the office of elders is for men-only. I agree with Mark Dever who encourages Baptist churches to not be divisive on the issue, but be wise. If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

 

[Scott1]

The Bible does have both deacons and deaconesses, but the office of elders is for men-only. I agree with Mark Dever who encourages Baptist churches to not be divisive on the issue, but be wise. If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

You have a good spirit in these comments, along the lines of unity in essentials, liberty in nonessentials and charity in all things. We are definately called to pursue the peace and purity of the church.

The reason this issue is of such importance is that particularly those of us in the Reformed and Presbyterian world emphasize and are identified by church government.

In addition, there is such a reflection of this reconciled relationship in the Creation and in the Trinity. To alter that by, in effect, establishing men submitting to the ecclesiastical authority of women is no small matter.

It seems Elders have ruling and teaching authority, Deacons have administrative authority (particularly over mercy ministry and property stewardship) and lots of other godly men and women are involved in mercy (servant) (diaconal) ministry to the honor and glory of God. These others don't exercise ruling or administrative authority but are essential to the life of the Church. Those who serve well and extend mercy (diaconal) ministry are commended many places in Scripture.

 

[SolaGratia]

Qualifications of Deacons

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. -NKJV


Is not the scriptures clear that deacons are to be, not just any male, but men who have the above bible qualifications?

I do not understand from where are women to be deacons?

Women can serve in the church, of course, like everyone else in the church, since we are called to serve Christ, but not everyone is called to serve as a deacon.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons -- Brian Schwertley - The PuritanBoard

Andrew:

I printed it out and read it. It was interesting. I disagree with his conclusions (as you'd probably already guessed), but it was an interesting look at the issue. Thanks again.

 

[SolaGratia]

Sterling,

What are your conclusions about this?

How do you served as a deacon in your church?

 

[ahavah7]

The Bible does have both deacons and deaconesses, but the office of elders is for men-only. I agree with Mark Dever who encourages Baptist churches to not be divisive on the issue, but be wise. If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

What reasons do you have for agreeing with Mark Dever? Are any Bible verses used when coming to your conclusion?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

 

[Scott1]

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

I think we are getting closer to clarifying the issues here. It seems to me some are confusing the office of Deacon (elected, ordained, with administrative authority over mercy ministry and property stewardship) with "diaconal" (e.g. mercy, servant) ministry. A few may in fact be advocating installing women in the office with its accoutrements, but many are mainly concerned that women be allowed to do "diaconal" (mercy, servant) ministry and that there be no barrier to doing that. That is a very legitimate concern.

Under the oversight of the Deacons, women can do all sorts mercy ministry and be commended as godly servants, prayed for, and highly valued.

Keep in mind also, that men can also do all sorts of mercy ministry under the oversight of the Deacons.

There is an issue here some are not considering, if we highly value the office of Deacon and its ordination and its administrative authority in governing God's church and then advocate having women "deaconesses" who are not elected, ordained and are under the oversight of the Deacons, what do we call the men who do the same?

In the PCA, our Book of Church Order allows the Elders to appoint godly men and women to assist the Deacons.

My own thinking is that it might be wise to allow the Board of Deacons to also appoint godly men and women to assist them in mercy ministry (under their oversight). This might help clarify the administrative authority of the Board of Deacons over mercy ministry in each local church, might even prioritize mercy ministry more by creating this mechanism, and lead to more women in involved in "diaconal" ministry- a goal that I think is biblical.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.

 

[ahavah7]

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

This reasoning fails to account for the fact that we ordain deacons in accordance with Acts 6. Ordination is an investing with authority. There is no bibilical warrant for commissioning or any other method of appointing men to the office of deacon (or elder). Our assumption is not that the seven in Acts 6 had no help in distributing food to the widows. However, it is clear that they had authority to administer or oversee the distribution. Although this a different and more limited kind of authority than given to elders, nevertheless it is authority. If they had no authority, why do we ordain them?

In your scenario of a mixed diaconate, would women be allowed to be the chair or be the head of the diaconate?

 

[ahavah7]

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.

The idea that deacons have no authority and therefore women may be deacons still fails to account for Acts 6. Whether you see the seven in Acts 6 as having authority or not having authority, the fact remains that the apostles required them all to be men.

 

[Scott1]

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

If the church has the office of deacons as the leadership, then the office needs to be men-only. If the church has the office of elders as the leadership, then the elders need to be men-only and the diaconate office can be both men and women because the diaconate office is a serving position, not an authoritive one.

I think this is exactly right. Clearly any leadership roles within the church should be filled by men only. However, I fail to see the problem with female deacons so long as they are not in a position of authority. Would a mixed diaconate not be acceptable, so long as men were the leaders?

In my experience this is how diaconates work in the ARP.

We have identified another key issue here.

Our PCA Book of Church Order 9-2 says:

"...In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders,"

I don't think our Book of Church Order contemplates churches ordinarily not having the elected, ordained office of Deacon, constituted as a Board. That would deny men who are called by God and gifted for that office being denied as well as denying the congregation the benefit of their gifts and calling.

What seems to have happened in a few particular churches is that they have, in practice, deemed the office of Deacon, constituted as a Board as merely an option. They skip constituting the office, commission women with the same or similar vows and have them do everything in practical fact that the Board of Deacons is charged with doing, including oversight of mercy ministry.

It also appears that in the few instances where this is being done, although men might also be "commissioned," the vast majority of "commissionees" are women. For example, at the one and only church I observed this being done, the entire list of the "diaconate" were women (there may have been a few men because some names can be either male or female) and the overseer, the contact person was female also. That raises other questions.. big questions about what fully and properly constitutes a church- far beyond the proposition of whether women can be "deaconesses."

However, it seems a fair reading of our Book of Church order effects what you suggest, and what our brother observes as the standard in the ARP as well.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Perhaps this is primarily a semantics debate. I think it's safe to assume we can all agree on the following:

1. Leadership roles within the church should be be filled by men only, who must meet Scriptural qualifications.
2. Women have a vital role in the church in service and mercy ministries.
3. The Greek word "diakonos" refers to servant within the church, and there examples of both males and females in this capacity in the New Testament.

So, I think it's safe to say that a woman can be a "deaconess" within the church so long as it is not in a leadership role. I guess then the issue is where to draw the line on leadership role. Clearly a woman should not be in charge of other men in general or be an elder within the church. From there I think it can be a bit harder to define...any thoughts?

 

[AV1611]

The idea that deacons have no authority and therefore women may be deacons still fails to account for Acts 6. Whether you see the seven in Acts 6 as having authority or not having authority, the fact remains that the apostles required them all to be men.

It really depends upon what deacons are to do. By making Acts 6 prescriptive are you going to mandate the number of deacons to be seven? Further, can you demonstrate that the men in Acts 6 were installed to the Office of Deacon? Can you show where there is such a thing as an office of Deacon?

Here is John Gill on 1 Timothy 3:11

Some instead of "wives" read "women", and understand them of deaconesses, such as were in the primitive churches; whose business it was to visit the poor and sick sisters of the church, and take care of things belonging to them; but it is better to interpret the words of the wives of the deacons, who must be as their husbands, "grave" in speech, gesture, and dress, of an honest report, a good behaviour, and chaste conversation; which will reflect honour and credit to their husbands:​

Incidently, here is John Gill on Romans 16:1

Of this church Phebe was a servant, or, as the word signifies, a minister or deacon; not that she was a teacher of the word, or preacher of the Gospel, for that was not allowed of by the apostle in the church at Corinth, that a woman should teach and therefore would never be admitted at Cenchrea. Rather, as some think, she was a deaconess appointed by the church, to take care of the poor sisters of the church; though as they were usually poor, and ancient women; that were put into that service, and this woman, according to the account of her, being neither poor, nor very ancient; it seems rather, that being a rich and generous woman, she served or ministered to the church by relieving the poor; not out of the church's stock, as deaconesses did, but out of her own substance; and received the ministers of the Gospel, and all strangers, into her house, which was open to all Christians; and so was exceeding serviceable to that church, and to all the saints that came thither: though it is certain that among the ancient Christians there were women servants who were called ministers.​

Further, he notes:

"Nor is their [the deacon's] work and business to rule in the church; we read of ruling elders, but never of ruling deacons; if they were, women might not be deaconesses, as Phebe was, for they are not to rule...There is but one sort of deacons of this kind mentioned in scripture; unless it can be thought there were women deacons, or "deaconesses;" and, indeed, Phebe is called diakonov, a "deacon," or "deaconess," of the church of Cenchrea; we render the word "servant," (Rom. 16:1) and some render the "wives" of deacons, "their women," (1 Tim. 3:11) and by them understand "deaconesses;" and if the same with the "widows," as some think, their qualifications, as to age, character, and conduct, are described (1 Tim. 5:9, 10) and it seems certain there were such in the second century, whether virgins or widows; such seem to be the two servant maids Pliny speaks of, whom he examined on the rack, concerning the Christians, and by whom he says they were called "ministrae," ministresses, or deaconesses; and Clemens of Alexandria, in the "second" century, makes mention expressly of women deacons, as spoken of by the apostle in his epistle to Timothy; so Jerom, in the fourth century, speaks of them as in the eastern churches: and, indeed, something of this kind seems not at all unnecessary, but of service and usefulness; as to attend at the baptism of women, and to visit the sisters of the church, when sick, and to assist them."​