tHE ORDINATION OF WOMEN TO THE OFFICE OF DEACONESS

Rev. Roger Smalling, D.Min

(Smalling's books are available for KINDLE)

It is typical of minor theological issues that some evidence exists on each side. In some cases, such as this one, the evidence for any view is scanty. Correct hermeneutics does not lead us to reject any evidence, but to attempt to determine where the greater weight of the evidence lies, whether the totality of evidence is great or small. The intent of this brief study is demonstrate that the view generally held by the reformed churches up until this century, is the position that contains the greatest weight of evidence.

Case of Phebe and the question of the difference between titles and functions

The word deacon comes from the greek word "Diakonizomai", meaning, "to serve". The noun form, "Diakonos", simply means "a servant". This presents a complication when we are studying the question of the office of deacon, because the Bible uses these words sometimes without any reference to any office, but simply as a description of an activity performed. It is, after all, quite normal for Christians to serve without possessing any office. Deacons are servants. But not all who serve are deacons. Thus, in theology, it is necessary to distinguish between the titular usage of a term, versus the functional usage of the term. When the term "diakonos" is applied to a person, how do we distinguish it from the office of deacon versus a mere description of a function that a christian is performing, without the office?

Usually the context tells us. Example:

Paul applies here the term "diakonos" to himself. Is the word descriptive of an office, or merely of a function? Paul was an Apostle, not a deacon. At no time do we read that he ever received an ordination to the office of deacon. Nor do we see him performing deacon-like functions in any local church. Clearly, Paul's usage of the term in this context referred to his apostolic function as a minister to the gentiles. The usage here is therefore functional not titular.

The scriptures normally use DIAKONOS in its general functional sense, without reference to a title of office. Some of the functional senses of the word are listed here.

1. In the sense of right attitudes among leaders: Matt. 20:26; Mark 9:35

2. As non-christian officials such as policemen and government officials. It is clear from this that these individuals are not officers in the church.
Rom. 13:4

3. As referring to Christ Himself, who surely did not receive ordination to the office of deacon in the local church. Gal. 2:17
Rom. 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

4. As referring to the Apostolic ministry of Paul to the gentiles. (Paul was never ordained to the local church office of Deacon.)
Eph. 3:6-7

5. Of a member of an apostolic team, sent by Paul to deal with affairs in the local church. Eph. 6:21

6. Of a church-planter, the founder of a the church in Colossae. Col. 1:7

How then does all this relate to the case of Phebe? These texts demonstrate that the normal usage of the term DIAKONOS is functional, and does not normally refer to a local church office. The only time it refers to an office is when the context makes it clear that an office is intended as is the case of I Ti.3, where offices are the subject of the chapter. In other contexts, where church offices are not the subject, the ordinary usage must be assumed, according to standard rules of hermeneutics.

Why the example of Phebe may not be used as evidence

To use Phebe as evidence of the existence of women deacons in the early church, the proponents are obligated to demonstrate that the use of the term "diakonos" as applied here is titular also and not functional only. What evidence do they have for this?

NONE. Absolutely nothing in the context indicates that Phebe held the office of deaconess. It could easily be a description of an activity she performed in the church, regardless of title. It makes no more sense to assume that Phebe was ordained to the office of deacon because 'diakonos' is applied to her, then it does to assume the same of the Apostle Paul.

Nothing in the context of the verses regarding Phebe are the subject of church offices. Therefore it must be assumed that use of the term DIAKONOS in Ro.16:1 is the usual functional usage. This verse constitutes no evidence, therefore, for the existence of women in the office of deacon in the early church.

For this reason, the example of Phebe does not constitute evidence for the office of deaconess in the early church.

Argument from the image of God

Although it may annoy the female gender to hear this, nevertheless the conclusion is inescapable. Men are the image of God in a particular sense in which women are not. Although women are indeed also the image of God, this image is derived , rather than direct, because woman was derived from man.

How does this relate to the deacon question? It has to do with the kind of image of God we wish to project to the world. However much we may say that the office of deacon is one of servant only, nevertheless all officers of the church are representatives of the church to the general public. The church, in turn, is the representative of God on earth. What image of God do we wish to project to the public? The feminine gender is not what Scripture projects to humanity as the image of God.

Argument from authority

It has been argued that the office of deacon contains no leadership authority. Correct. However, this does not mean that it contains no authority whatever. Although this office is in submission to that of the elders, it still has authority within the domain of its activities of service. The idea of an office without any authority of any kind is intrinsically absurd. The very concept of office implies authority of some kind, however limited. To ordain a women to an office is therefore to ordain her to a position of authority. This seems contrary to the Pauline concept of the role of women as non-authoritative in church.

Argument from "husband" in I Tim.3

The pattern regarding deacons seems to be similar to that of elders. As elders are to be husbands of one wife, i.e., men, so it is with deacons. Arguments exist to get around this, but they seem complex and forced. It seems reasonable to take the text in its most obvious and natural sense, i.e., that all church offices are to be occupied by the male gender.

Argument from history

The Bible, not tradition, is the final arbitrator of truth. That is what the Reformed movement is all about. But the reformers didn't throw out traditions merely because they were traditions, but only when they felt compelled to do so because of the teachings of Scripture. The whim of man is not sufficient grounds to throw it out.

For four hundred years the reformed movement has generally denied church offices to women. If this tradition is erroneous, then it must be changed. But the burden of proof resides with those who would throw out the tradition. Do they have sufficient proof?

This is the question the Bible student must decide.

Many who enjoyed this work also liked our book, Unlocking Grace.

End of Document