A Biblical Basis
1. The woman Phoebe is called a diakonon in Romans 16:1. The word diakonos elsewhere in the New Testament can mean deacon (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8) and also minister (Colossians 1:25;4:7) but it can also be taken in a non-official sense as servant (Mark 10:43). So which meaning fits here? It is interesting that older conservative Bible commentators, such as Charles Hodge and John Calvin, concluded that Phoebe was a deaconess, while more recent conservative commentators, such as Doug Moo and Thomas Schreiner (as well as John Piper), all believe that Phoebe held the office of deacon.
2. In the New Testament, women were recognized for their diaconal work. Besides Phoebe, Tabitha is noted for her work with the poor and widows (Acts 9:36-40). It was women who served Jesus’ disciples as they traveled (Luke 8:2-3), literally “deaconing them out of their own means” (see Dorcas, Acts 9:36). Most interesting of all, 1 Timothy 5:3-16 describes an order of widows who were financially supported and who were “devoted to all kinds of good deeds” and dedicated themselves to “helping those in trouble.”
3. To me, the most compelling biblical case for a recognized body of “deaconing women” is 1 Timothy 3. Paul gives Timothy screening criteria for elder (v.1-7) and deacon (v.8-13) candidates. However, right in the middle of the description of deacons is v.11 that reads, “the gynaikas [wives or women] likewise must be worthy of respect, not speaking evil of others, self-controlled and faithful in all things.” Then, after this statement, Paul goes back to describing deacons.
The first question almost all exegetes ask is who—who are these women? Since the word gynaikas can mean either wives or women, that is a natural question. On one side are those who say that, if this word meant deacons’ wives, the possessive pronoun ‘their’ (auton) would have been used, but it wasn’t. On the other side are those who say that Paul could have made it clear these were women deacons by inserting tas diakonous (so it would have read “the women who are deacons”), but he doesn’t. This debate goes back at least to the Greek fathers—a very important point. If the church as a whole has not been able to settle this conclusively, we should exercise tolerance toward those who disagree with our opinion instead of calling our opponents “crypto-chauvinists” or “proto-feminists” as much of the blog chatter does.
A more revealing line of thinking starts not with the question “who” but “why”—why are these women being screened for their character? One answer is that these are deacons’ wives, and therefore the deacons are being qualified for their jobs by looking at the character of their wives. But why, then, were they singled out for evaluation and the elders’ wives were not? Surely, if anything, the standards for elders and elders’ wives would be higher! If the purpose of the women’s descriptors was to qualify their husbands, why was there no such list for the elders’ wives? Some have suggested that the elder candidates were better known and did not need such scrutiny, but if that was the case, why was the elders’ list of qualifications longer than the deacons’?
By far the most likely conclusion is that the deacons’ wives were being screened with selection criteria because they were going to be appointed to do diaconal work in the congregation alongside their husbands, while the elders’ wives were not sharing in the husbands’ work of discipline and oversight. The key adverb “likewise” (hosautos) further supports this. It precedes the description of elders (v.1,) deacons (v.8,) and women (v.11). This indicates that the evaluation list functioned similarly in each case as a selection criteria for doing work in the congregation.
So here’s the nub of the matter. Whether the word gynaikas is translated “women” or “wives” doesn’t matter. Either way, the text is teaching that women can and should do diaconal work alongside the deacons and in a way recognized by the congregation (after all, they are screened and selected). These may have been female individuals selected to do diaconal work with the deacons or wives appointed to do it together with them. But either way they were doing it. They were doing it either as ordained deacons or as assistants and partners, they were still doing it.
The biblical evidence is strong that a) women were examined for and appointed to do diaconal work in the local church, and b) that this work with the poor, sick, widows, and orphans was publicly recognized and was held in honor among all. Indeed, even the thinkers and commentators who deny the ordained diaconate to women agree on the need for appointed “deaconing women.” So the practice of commissioning “deaconesses” is one good, biblical, and ancient way to follow this biblical pattern. Is the language of BCO 9-7 sufficient to accommodate what the Bible describes? Does it allow PCA sessions to examine and appoint deaconing women who are recognized and honored for their work? For at least 25 years, many presbyteries and sessions in the PCA have judged that it does.
What About Authority?
But is the biblical evidence above enough to make a case for women to be ordained to the diaconate in the PCA? I would say no. I affirm and support the PCA’s belief in male headship in the home and church. I would never want to see our denomination compromise its support of this biblical complementarianism. Along with Ligon Duncan, I have never seen a credible biblical case made for the ordination of women to be elders or pastors. And when I see some of my friends try to make such a biblical case, I find their use of Scripture alarming and disturbing.
Nevertheless, a denomination as conservative as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) has ordained women to the diaconate (though not as elders) since 1888, because it understands the office of deacon to be one of service, not of rule. Our constitution is, I think, ambiguous about this distinction. BCO 9 never refers to the diaconate as exercising ruling authority—indeed it is clear that it always acts under the rule of the session, and cannot act without prior permission of the session or in some cases the whole congregation (9-2). However, in 24-5 the BCO requires that members take a vow of obedience to the deacons. This seems to indicate that BCO conceives ordination as always entailing some kind of ruling authority. That would preclude women.
However, I believe—like the RPCNA—that biblically, deacons are appointed to service, not to juridical authority. So I would be happy to see the PCA reconfigure its description of the office to be more in line with that understanding of it. If, as we’ve seen, Paul was admitting deacons’ wives to diaconal work but not elders’ wives to elders’ work, then, in light of 1 Timothy 2:11,12, doesn’t that mean that the apostle saw the office of deacon as a calling to service, not rule?
A Final Historical Note
Many opponents of deaconesses today are operating out of a “decline narrative.” They claim that having deaconesses is the first step on the way to liberalism. But Jim Boice and John Piper, the RPCNA and the ARP, B.B. Warfield and John Calvin, believed in deaconing women or deaconesses. Are (or were) all these men or churches on the way to liberalism? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, one person put it to me like this recently: “Sure, the RPCNA has had women deacons for over a century. Sure, a biblical case can be made. But in our cultural climate, allowing deaconesses would be disastrous. It’s a slippery slope.”
In other words, the Bible probably allows it, but let’s not do it because of the culture. Isn’t that also responding to the culture rather than to the text? If the PCA is driven either by reaction to or adaptation to the culture, it is being controlled by the culture instead of the Word. Let’s allow presbyteries and sessions to use women in diaconal work with the freedom they have historically had in our communion.
I agree completely with Ligon Duncan when he says that the current debate in the PCA is “to determine what its complementarianism is going to look like in the future.” That’s right. His article and mine represent an intramural debate within a strong commitment to biblical complementarianism. While we argue and discuss this let’s keep that in mind.
