Women As Deacons - 1 Tim 3:11

Posted on November 15, 2007 by Brian

Growing up in the CofC as I did, having women in any leadership role other than as an elementary-school teacher was completely verboten. The men were appointed by God to be in charge and the women were to be submissive. In reality, women ended up doing a fair number of things just without any official designation.

Fast-forward a few years and a few theological jumps and skips and I find myself not being real sure of myself when it comes to authority structures in a local assembly. As far as the traditional elder/pastor position, if there should be one at all I’d be forced to say that it should be filled by men. But other than that, my intuition says let men and women serve where they will.

Intuition, however, is not scripture. Which brings me to a question about deacons and whether a woman should be one or not. I realize that there is other scripture which speaks to this issue but the one I’m trying to figure out at the moment is from 1 Tim 3:11. Here’s the context :

(2) Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
(3) not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
(4) He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
(5) for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
(6) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(7) Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
(8) Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
(9) They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
(10) And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
(11) Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
(12) Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
(13) For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The above citation is from the ESV and has verse 11 saying wives. However, the same verse from the NASB reads :

Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

.

Notice how the meaning changes when the word is women instead wives. The ESV reads like Paul is talking about the wives of deacons while the NASB reads as if he is talking about further qualifications of women in the deacon role. Neat, huh?

So, a few thoughts and questions concerning the whole shebang :

  • One word in the Greek is interpreted as both woman and wife. Context determines which one it should be.
  • This is the only section in the NT which so prescriptively talks about deacons. Maybe it just wasn’t that big of a deal. Or maybe it was just common knowledge.
  • If the correct rendering is wives, why isn’t there a section talking about elders wives as well?
  • If the correct rendering is women, why in vs 12 does Paul start out “Let deacons each be the husband of one wife…”.

Now I know that getting this right does not make an airtight case in either direction. There are other passages to consider and even accounts from outside of scripture which can inform our understanding of the whole issue. But wouldn’t it be nice to figure this one out? I think so.

8 Comments »

Comment by Rusty Lopez

November 16, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

From the NetBible, regarding the word translated either as wives or women:

Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaika”) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there). The translation “wives” – referring to the wives of the deacons – is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative.

Sigh. Yes, it would be nice to figure this one out.

Comment by Milly

November 16, 2007 @ 9:32 pm

I can tell you this I’m fed up with men taking authority that they don’t have to the point of leaving the Church of Christ. God given talents are taken away or repressed because of the fact that the men are holding on to tradition. I had no real problem with not having women take those rolls in my church because we are given several different rolls including leading the teens. After they stepped into lives that they have no authority over I see how very wrong it is for the men to turn their backs on women in leadership.

Comment by Lynn

November 17, 2007 @ 1:20 pm

Brian, this is not one of those hard-to-precicely-interpret-texts that troubles me, because of two reasons.

1) Even if the text does NOT mean a formal order of women deaconesses, I can see no reason why having such an order in the church, if people do interpret it to mean such, would be anti-biblical.

2) I can see such order fulfilling a biblical mandate for women to serve and minister, which we all agree they are free to do and called to do as saints.

Comment by Dennis Laing

November 18, 2007 @ 11:37 am

Romans 16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.”

Do a word study on the term Servant here… It may help you.

Comment by Brian

November 19, 2007 @ 12:23 pm

Rusty - Thanks for the NetBible reference. I’ve looked at a few commentaries and most lean that way but a few(Clarke, JF&B) think it makes more sense to translate it “women”. If the experts can’t agree then what are we to do? :) One thing that struck me in the commentary you quote is the last part where he says that this passage “appears to be an overarching principle for church life”. I’d like to know how he came to that conclusion. Have to look it up when I have time.

Milly - I thought of you and the situation you’ve hinted at as I was writing this. I’ll be praying for you as you work through this. I just think that the CofC has some fundamental issues to work through on how it approaches scripture. And until then we’re going to keep seeing issues such as authority, music, women, etc. have real(hurtful) impact on people’s lives.

Lynn - I think I know what you’re getting at. Sounds like you’re saying that even if this passage does not specifically authorize women as deacons it’s still ok to do so because it does not violate scripture as a whole. Is that it? Cause if not I’m not sure what you mean. :)

Dennis - Thanks for dropping by! I’ve been wondering about you since your personal site seems to be down. Hope everything is going ok. Yeah, the next thing I wanted to look at were the individual references to “deaconess” and see where that leads. Thanks for the heads up on a good place to start.

Comment by Lynn

November 19, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

Brian, yes, that is what I meant.

Comment by Milly

November 20, 2007 @ 12:59 am

Brian,
The elders, I no longer call them shepherds, now know where Milly stands on them taking authority that they were never to have. When asked what they could do to improve how they handle the next situation I told them to read Galatians make camp in it.

If you want to know more about a woman’s role in the church do a study on the women of the bible. Women had a huge role in the past. Mary gave birth to Jesus and a woman was the first to see him when he rose from the dead. Look at Martha, Leah, Lydia, and so many others. We are blessed with so many wonderful women to draw examples from too bad they don’t teach us about them, really teach us.

What happened at my church was then delving into my personal life, what hit me hard was the fact that it wasn’t kind and they lied to me. Not only was it none of their business but it isn’t what’s happening. All they had to do was ask. I told them without them asking the first time and set them straight the in second meeting.

Thank you for your prayers. It hit me rather hard today. I’m a bit worn from it all.

Comment by Dennis Laing

November 21, 2007 @ 9:45 am

Brian,

I spend most of my time over at http://www.mayberrychurch.com

I have linked your site there…

Blessings…

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>