210 — Women Deacons?
Since we dipped our toes into this earlier this week, this question couldn’t be more timely.
I am really wrestling with the question “Can women be deacons?”. My religious tradition has declared an emphatic “NO”. While I see other traditions have embraced this concept wholeheartedly. Further study has left me more confused and conflicted than when I started. Would you care to weigh in on this?
Sadly, we run into two translation issues and one worldview problem with this question. Let’s deal with them as efficiently as possible (in other words, I don’t plan to drag this out to a thousand words or more).
Some translations, in the passages on deacons, translate a phrase to read “and their wives” when it really says “and the women.” The reason they translate it — or mis-translate it — that way is because their culture (church, historical) requires it. It is rather like those descriptions of huge beasts in Job. The only animals they really match are dinosaurs and so almost every translation dodges that, calls them something else, and helpfully misdirect readers by placing, in the notes, suggestions such as “elephant” for something that Job says has a tail that “sways like a cedar.” Why do they do all that? Because they don’t want dinosaurs in the Bible! And they don’t want women deacons in there, either.
The other problem is with the word “deacon.” It isn’t a real English word. The word, in Greek, is best translated as “minister” or “servant.” Sadly, when the Bible was translated into English, it was done so by men with agendas of their own. They replaced “immerse” with the made up word “baptize” in the same way as they refused to translate diakonos into “minister” but, as they did with baptism, they just hooked English letters on a Greek word and, presto-change-o, a new word enters the language. They didn’t want “immerse” because, by that time, the State church didn’t immerse. They sprinkled or poured water over a person and called that baptism… and so it was to remain. The same issue arose over the word “church.” The real term meant the assembly, those called out to make decisions or for any public purpose. King James didn’t like that at all. He insisted that the word for “chapel” be used instead. That is why, all these years later, people still talk about “going to church” when we should be talking about “being the called out of God in this world.” He wanted control over where believers met, who led them, and what happened there. We are still encrusted with those barnacles all these years later.
One of those barnacles is the role of deacon. In Scripture, deacons were there to make sure that evangelists and elders weren’t bogged down with — admittedly very valuable — works such as taking care of the widows and doing other, non-evangelistic, work. By the time of James, that had morphed into a church office and church offices could only be held by men (The Church of England followed Rome’s lead on this). In my particular religious tribe, the title of deacon is often bestowed upon men who are then given “an area of responsibility” such as education, building and grounds, treasurer, etc. There is no indication that this is an office that people are supposed to stay in for life or that it is a calling, yet, that is how it is treated in most churches. Some churches even consider deacons to be proto-elders, or elders in training. Rarely do you see someone make the leap into the eldership without first spending a good amount of time as a deacon. That is entirely without Biblical warrant, but it is the tradition in most white Protestant churches (in African American churches, deacons are often the most powerful officers in the church).
Now the worldview issue… which is really a Biblical-view problem. Is the Bible a legal document or is it a narrative? What is the difference? Well, if you were to ask me what does it mean to be a Christian and I responded, “A Christian is a man who loves his wife and kids, stays faithful to them and provides for them, loves the Lord and has been baptized, goes to church and plays an active part there, and who treats his coworkers with dignity and kindness” you would probably accept that definition because it is a narrative. If we read it as a legal document, however, there are glaring issues.
Are we saying only men are Christians? Are we saying that only those who are married AND have children are Christians? Are we saying that only good providers are Christians? Are we saying that those who are ill or disabled and can’t go to worship at the local building aren’t Christians? Are we saying that only those who have coworkers are Christians?
You get the point. As a narrative, it makes sense. As a legal document, it doesn’t. The Bible is the same way. There absolutely are legal sections in scripture and God does us the favor of announcing them ahead of time so we know where they are. For the rest of the time, He walks with us and speaks to us in narrative. That is why Paul gave some very strict rules on who could be an elder to Timothy but loosened up the rules somewhat when he gave them to Titus (we go from children who have to be believers to just asking that “they not be accused of riot”). Basically, Paul is really saying “you’ll know elders when you see them, and so will the congregation.”
Back to women deacons. Alexander Campbell, Isaac Errett, and many others in the early decades of the Stone Campbell movement had no problem with women deacons. They read these scriptures (and Campbell edited and printed a version of the New Testament that didn’t use King James’ word inventions and changes) and knew that God was calling upon the women to also serve… and that there was no reason to go through the list of qualifications all over again changing “he” to “she” and “wife” to “husband.” If we use language normally, this isn’t an issue. It is when we try to treat the Bible as a legal document that we get into trouble and paint ourselves into indefensible legal corners.
Let’s be honest: women serve (or “minister”) in every church. To refuse to acknowledge that because of our tradition is, at best, silly and, more likely, sinful. And, yes, women serve as ministers here at Rochester Church. We do not call them deacons because that is a made up word. We have gone back to the real word and call both men and women “minister” or “ministry leader” when they live that out actively among us.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Loved how you distinguished between legal text and narrative, never heard it expressed so clearly before!
September 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
This is exactly the way we understood it at RHCC when we finally recognized that women were servants, or deacons if you want to use that term. They had been serving in the ministries all along. Of course, we took a lot of flak for that, but it was very biblical.
Good job at pointing out the difference between the Bible as narrative and the Bible as legal document.
1,068 words, by the way.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I, too, think your distinction between the Bible being mainly a legal document or a narrative is very helpful. From my perspective as an attorney, it really hits home how “legalistic” many try to be in reading every single word and trying to “correctly interpret” it for ALL to follow.
This exact practice kept me busy full time when I was still actively practicing law. One of my “specialties” was working with the language (words, phrases) and meaning in all kinds of contracts and then writing briefs to present to the various courts to try to help them (by showing them through my research and logic) “correctly” and “legally” interpret the intent of the parties to the contract.
I’m telling ya, Patrick – trying to live a Christian life that way is IMPOSSIBLE!!
It gets down to such minutia (remember Bill Clinton saying, “it all depends on what ‘is’ is”) that even courts have to use their best judgments in how to rule.
Thank God we are saved by grace and the blood of Jesus Christ, doing away entirely with being bound tightly to the rules of law.
Women DO serve, no matter what we call it. It never stopped me from serving as a Christian woman not to be called a deacon, or minister or anything else. I serve our Father God at His pleasure in every way I can and no one has ever tried to stop me (except satan, of course). God knows my heart and actions, He will care for me.
Dee
September 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
My grandmother (an astute Bible student) used to get frustrated with the legalistic, check-list approach to appointing elders and deacons. She, too, said, “If a man is qualified to serve as an elder, just look around … you’ll see him already serving without the title. Just recognize him as an elder.”
I, too, like the way you distinguish between legal document and narrative. Now to get churches to understand that! We did at Long Beach, but Long Beach was always a bit progressive in those ways. When we appointed women as ministry leaders, they were very uncomfortable with the recognition initially. Now they have moved beyond that and others are being recognized for their ministry as well.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Very helpful response, and educational with regard to the word “deacon”. So, an honest question: seems that this perspective provides an opportunity for “singles” (either divorced or never-marrieds) to fulfill the role of “deacon” (a diakonos, in earnest); would this be practical and Biblical?
The question is posed on behalf of many singles who serve tirelessly in many congregations, and yet are often relegated to nearly second-class b/c they lack a spouse and family to “validate” them.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I agree that we have women serving functional ministry roles in every church. I am glad that you covered that at the end of your response.
The Greek is not clear here. One of the problems of Greek is that it has so many fewer words than English (~20,000 compared to 600,000). There was not a separate word for woman and wife. Every time the word gunae comes up the translation depends on context. The same is true for men and husbands. I can’t look at the Greek here and say that either woman or wife was definitely intended.
If this is an office for women, it is likely a different office from deacon. 1 Tim 3:8 starts “Deacons likewise…” and 1 Tim 3:11 starts “Women likewise…” The parallel structure indicates that if this is an office, it is a separate one from deacons and elders. Maybe instead of using “deacon” or “minister” we should use “gunae” or “woman.”
September 25th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
JV,
I am not sure about singles in regards to deacons. However, I do know that at least one single served as an apostle. As far as elders go, there is a reason for having children – if you haven’t proved yourself as capable of managing your household, what evidence is there that you can manage God’s? If we take deacons to function as they did in the New Testament then there is no problem here, since deacons did not shepherd the flock. However, in our churches our deacons frequently serve as junior elders, so which standard do we hold them to?
As a note for my previous comment, the word translated as “wife” in 1 Tim 3:2 is the same word used in 1 Tim 3:11. The word obviously means wife there because a man who is just “shacking up” with a woman would not be able to serve as an elder. There are times when “wife” is the obvious translation, times when “woman” is, and times where it is difficult.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“Not so fast, my friend!” 1Tim 3:2 is only ‘obviously’ translated ‘wife’ if you’re reading from a formal, very strict linguistic perspective.
No less a conservative Greek authority than John MacArthur translates that phrase as “a one-woman man” emphasizing the spiritual attribute of fidelity rather than the legal requirement of a valid marriage contract.also, this seems to be an important distinction in an age where maternal mortality rates weren’t like ours. Too many faithful widowers have been required to vacate the elder’s office by this legal reading of 1Tim 3:2.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Nick, what was a legal, valid marriage contract in those days, please expound ??
Laymond, you raise an interesting question. God seems to recognize whatever each individual tribe/nation regards as the point at which marriage occurs. I am one of those cussed contrarians that is not happy that, in our country, the government must get involved and license marriage… but it does, so I require it of those in my congregation who want to be considered married. In some times/cultures, marriage took place when a couple had intercourse. With Ruth and Boaz, it seems to have taken place by sharing a blanket (and maybe more). In other situations, a contract such as that which was made by Jacob and his uncle was in place. God never gives us a “you are married at this point” directive but, instead, honors whatever the tribe honors.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
You touched on it, but I’m not sure why Churches are so set on the need to have Deacons. Those serving in various roles within the congergation should continue to do just that without any title of Deacon being needed.
How many congergations have a woman in charge of the “Wednesday night meal”? What male is going to take on that responsibility. Oh – I’m sorry – a deacon is needed to oversee socialization?
September 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Patrick -
JV DOES bring up an interesting question. Will you address it for us, please. I.e., whether singles, both/either-or men and women, can serves as “deacons” (whatever the Greek word really is/means)?
As far as churches considering their deacons to be “junior elders” (which I know a lot of churches do), I don’t that is right or that any should do so, so as to keep women from serving as “deaconesses”/ministry leaders (whatever).
Thanks! Dee
September 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Romans 16:1ff lists several women who were servants.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
If you’re going to take early English translations of the Bible to task, you should avoid use of words like “Christ” (which is just an anglicization of the Greek ‘christos’) and “pastor” (which is straight from the Latin ‘pastor’). Some English words are, in essence, anglicized Greek or Latin words; that doesn’t make them less “real”.
You have a valid point. I prefer not using transliterated words when they hide rather than reveal meaning. And I may not be as consistent as I should be.