This book by Brian Schwertley is an excellent study on this issue. I highly recommend it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
Sterling,
What are your conclusions about this?
How do you served as a deacon in your church?
And while this view may have the effect of undermining the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon, and the perpetual nature of the office, it does not advance the case for "deaconesses."
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."
[/INDENT]
I thought this was interesting from John Piper:
2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.
from here
There are three reasons I think this is incorrect:
First, the elders' wives are not mentioned because they are not as "directly and extensively involved" in their husbands ministry as the wives of deacons. I don't mean that elders' wives are not a help to them. But how often does an elder ask his wife what the meaning of a passage is? How often does an elder ask his wife's input to case of discipline before they are made public? How often do deacon's wives help them to minister to the congregation?
Second, if deacon's were both men and women, then why would Paul address "women deacons" seperately?
Third, if he were to address "women deacons", why would he do it in the middle of his address to the male deacons?
AV1611 linked to an OPC report that gives some additional reasons that argue against Piper's position.
Fourth, if he meant "women deacons", why would he not use the word he supposedly used in naming Phoebe as a holder of the diaconal office?
we should not read into the text what is not there, so men were chosen, it does not follow that women should not be deacons.
In applying the regulative principle, it would follow that if men were chosen for this then, men would be chosen for this now. The regulative principle would say if women were not chosen for this then, women would not be chose for this now.
While not determinative in itself, it indicates a pattern and suggests qualifications for office.
The Church historically understood this and looked to Acts 6 as a beginning for the office of Deacon in the Church.
I thought this was interesting from John Piper:
2.2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, Paul says, "The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things." This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that the elders' wives are not mentioned in 3:1–7.
from here
Firstly, you have not demonstrated that the office of Acts 6 was not simply a temporary one established purely for the historical situation in Jerusalem.
Secondly, the regulative principle only applies to worship.
Furthermore, if you are correct it would also say that if seven men were chosen for this then, seven men would be chosen for this now.
If we look objectively at what took place we cannot conclude that Acts 6 establishes the office of deacon, indeed the great diversity of view in the historic church mitigate against drawing such a definite conclusion and the making of dogmatic statements.
It is important to recognize that the Church universal has, in the main, looked to Acts 6 as foundational (by analogy) for the office of Deacon, in the sense of establishing the oversight of mercy ministry by church officers."great diversity of view in the historic church mitigate against drawing such a definate conclusion."