Deaconesses and Female Deacons -Michelle Lesley

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------------

As is typical for Ms. Lesley (and many of those we call the Doctrinal Police), she hardly quotes Scripture. We are continually astonished at how these teachers can write thousands of words about the Bible but can barely bring themselves to quote it.

For today's post, we think Ms. Lesley's problem is not necessarily her bad doctrine, but rather, her trust in bad translation. It seems she thinks that we should be just as confident in the translators as Scripture itself. But translators are subject to bias, cultural and political understanding, and tradition.

We do not think translators are dishonest, they are simply products of their environment and training. Generally, they do a difficult job pretty well. But not perfectly. Especially when we consider their work on 1 Timothy 3; what they tell us the Greek means borders on malpractice.

Will will demonstrate below.

Also, we note in passing the redundancy contained in Ms. Lesley's title.

-----------------------

The role of women in the church. It can be a sticky wicket sometimes, you know? Some things are pretty clear. Like, women aren’t to pastor churches. (Pastors shouldn't be pastoring churches, if that means being the head of the congregation. Elders are supposed to lead churches [1Pe. 5:1-3].)

That’s clear in Scripture. Complementarians and egalitarians disagree on this point for various reasons, but none of those reasons include disagreeing on what a pastor is. Both camps pretty much agree that the pastor is the primary undershepherd of the church. (We certainly disagree. And so does the Bible.)

But sometimes, the sticking point is the fact that, even within our own camp, we disagree, or have different perspectives on, the definition of a term. And that can leave doctrinally sound, complementarian, brothers and sisters in Christ in a bit of a quandary. We start off with the same orthodoxy but end up with differing orthopraxies.

Such is the case with the question of women serving as deacons or deaconesses. Different churches define these terms differently. But what does the Bible say?

We find the English word deacon in only two passages in the New Testament: in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, where God spells out the biblical qualifications for deacons, and in Philippians 1:1, Paul’s greeting to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.”. Although the English word “deacon” isn’t used in this passage, a significant sector of Christian thought considers Acts 6:1-6 to be a description of the appointment of the first deacons in the New Testament church. In fact, this idea is so widely accepted that one reliable English translation titles this passage with the section heading “The First Seven Deacons Appointed”.

The Greek word διάκονος (diákonos), “deacon,” used or implied in these passages, simply means “servant” and “a waiter- at table or in other menial duties”. It comes from the root διάκω (diákō), which means “to run on errands,” and involves neither teaching nor authority. (Ms. Lesley carefully picks her definitions to suit her perspective. Diákonos has a much broader meaning, however. It can also mean:

of one who does what promotes the welfare and prosperity of the church, Colossians 1:25; διάκονοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, those through whom God carries on his administration on earth, as magistrates, Romans 13:4; teachers of the Christian religion, 1 Corinthians 3:5...

If the reader would follow our link, he will discover that diákonos is found 29 times in the NT. The reader would also find the word means a whole lot more than waiting on tables or running errands. Ms. Lesley's treatment of the word is superficial and incomplete.)

As you can see, this is a position of humility, anonymity, and servanthood, not power, influence, and rulership. We can see this from the description of the duties of the seven chosen men – presumably the first deacons – in Acts, who “waited on tables” providing food for the church’s widows. (Ms. Lesley certainly seems to have an agenda to diminish deacons. Let's quote the verses, since she seems unwilling:

Ac. 6:3-4 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.

Now with the verses before us, does it seem that the apostles viewed these seven men as of little account or anonymous? The men were known. They had a reputation. They needed to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. Does the reader think that a waiter needs to be these things?

Further, Paul uses the term diákonos applied to himself:

Ep 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister [diákonos], according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Was Paul an anonymous menial laborer? Of course not, Paul was an apostle. 

This is the worst kind of writing, in our view. Ms. Lesley has an agenda, and is working backwards from her conclusion in order to prove her doctrine, rather than honestly examining the biblical record and forming her doctrine from that.)

Most churches would basically be in agreement with all of this (at least “on paper”) up to this point. Where we start to diverge is, how does this flesh itself out in practice in the local church body? Though there are undoubtedly more, I’ve run into five main perspectives on the diaconate in the church (the descriptors that follow are only general touchstones based solely on my own personal experience, they are not universally definitive / applicable. I gotta call them something, folks.) :

• The traditional Southern Baptist perspective: The office of deacon exists and is restricted to men. Deacons must meet the biblical qualifications for the office, and are set apart to the diaconate by way of the ordination process (nomination, examination, voting, and the laying on of hands). There is no category of deaconess. (Ms. Lesley will later try to explain away Ro. 16:1: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea.) All Christians are expected to be servants.

• John MacArthur’s perspective: Because diákonos means “servant,” and all Christians are to be servants, all church members who serve in some way are deacons. There is no office, position, or official title of deacon. (Dr. MacArthur can only make such an assertion if he ignores the standards set forth in 1Ti. 3:8-10.)

• The Baptistic hybrid perspective: Various blendings of the traditional Southern Baptist and John MacArthur perspectives. Some churches have the traditional, ordained male diaconate with a separate, non-ordained, less formal group of women deaconesses who see to the tangible needs of women and children when called upon by the deacons. Some churches have a group of non-ordained deacons and deaconesses a bit more set apart than the “everybody’s a deacon” perspective. The deacons generally minister to men and the deaconesses to women and children, or each deacon or deaconess is attached to a specific ministry in the church (deaconess of media, deacon of benevolence ministry, etc.)

• The progressive – egalitarian perspective: Usually found in “mainstream” (i.e. theologically liberal) Protestant churches. The office of deacon does exist and is open to both men and women who undergo the same ordination process, perform the same duties, hold the same positions of authority (if any), etc. There is no need for a separate category of deaconess.

• The Charismatic – egalitarian perspective: Usually found in Charismatic churches with female “pastors” or co-“pastors”. The formal office or position of both deacon and deaconess exist and may operate somewhat independently from one another. Both deacons and deaconesses seem to function as elders in some ways. Deaconesses often operate in a “ruling elders meets women’s ministry” sort of way.

The two final categories are obviously unbiblical because they are fruit of the poisonous tree (egalitarianism), but what about the first three? (Rather than address the merits of the last two perspectives, Ms. Lesley simply rejects them out of hand.)

The issue of deaconesses and female deacons recently placed itself in my path, (Wait... After summarily dismissing the issue because she doesn't like the people who believe it, she is now going to address it?)

so I wanted to take a fresh look at it to make sure my beliefs and position are as much in line with Scripture as possible. (If only... 

As we mentioned, we think Ms. Lesley is actually looking to confirm her doctrine.)

It never hurts to do that, right? We grow in Christ, we grow in the Word, and we strive to increasingly align with Scripture accordingly. Let me share with you where I currently am on all of this in case it might help as you think through your own beliefs.

I continue to hold to the “traditional Southern Baptist perspective” on the diaconate. I think the Bible more robustly supports this perspective than the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives for the following reasons:

• I have long said on the issue of women pastors and elders that if you will take out the chapter and verse markings and look at 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 as one continuous stream of thought (as it was originally written), (1 Timothy is not "one continuous stream of thought." There are several changes of subject matter throughout. In particular, it is clear that chapter three is pivoting to a new topic, church leadership: 

1Ti. 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,  he desires a noble task.)

the passage starts off by describing who is not qualified for the office of elder (?? There is no mention of "elder" until chapter 4.) 

(women) and why, followed by who is qualified for the office of elder (men) and how. I do not usually extend that passage to include 3:8-13, because what I’m usually asked about is women preaching and pastoring, not women being deacons. But when dealing with the topic of women serving as deacons, there is no reason not to include 3:8-13 in that continuous stream of thought (i.e. women are excluded in 2:11-15, qualified men are described in 3:1-13), and every reason to include it, as the word “likewise” in verse 8 indicates that 8-13 is part of the same thought as 2:11-3:7. (What she includes and doesn't include seems to be pretty fluid, doesn't it?)

• The word “likewise” in 3:8 also indicates the similarity of 3:8-13 to the form and content of 3:1-7. (?? Verse 11 also contains the same phrasing as verse 8: In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect... "In the same way" in verse 11 is hōsautōs, the exact same Greek word as "likewise" in verse 8. Notice, please; the same Greek word used in each place!

Further, "their wives" does not appear in the verse. It literally is not in the Greek. The word is gynaikas, which can be wife, woman, my lady, depending on the context.

Did the reader catch these two significant problems? To reiterate, verse 11 says, In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect...

• the Greek does NOT say "their wives"
• the same Greek word is used for "in the same way" in verse 11 is the same as "likewise" in verse 8.

We think the translators were trying harmonize Paul's writing with how they understand the world in their cultural context. That is problematic, because it leads us to all sorts of false conclusions. Ms. Lesley has just done this herself.)

• There’s no transition or contrast between the two passages indicating that “pastor/elder is a set apart office for qualified men only” in 1-7, but “deacon is not a set apart office for qualified men only” in 8-13. In fact, “likewise” would seem to indicate to the contrary – that they are both set apart offices of the church for qualified men only. (Except that we have another "likewise" for women ["In the same way..."]. And it's not "their wives."

Further, the Greek in verse 8 does not contain the phrase "are to be men." Go ahead, check it. Literally, "Deacons likewise [must be] dignified...")

• Chapter 3, verses 1-2 speak of deacons as husbands with wives, indicating that deacons are men. (?? Those verses do not mention or discuss deacons.)

If Paul meant that women were qualified for the office of deacon, there is a way to make that clear in Greek. He differentiates between “wives” and “women in general” in other passages – why not here? (It's the same Greek word, gynaikas! The Greek does not make such a distinction, it has to be inferred from context.)

 

And if he meant that women could be deacons, why not make that crystal clear in 3:8-13, since he just said basically the same things about elders being the husband of one wife in 3:2-5? (And we certainly use that qualification to help prove that only men can be pastors/elders, don’t we?) (As we mentioned in our introduction, this is not so much a matter of bad doctrine as it is bad translation. Let's render the passage with a little more honesty, without reading into the Greek the presumptions made by the translators:

1Ti. 3:8-11 Deacons in the same way [as elders] must be dignified, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. 

11 Women in the same way [as elders] must be dignified, worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

Notice once again that in this passage, diákonos does not "menial servant." Those who are required to keep hold of the deep truths of the faith are mature, faithful, and steadfast believers.

So we see that Paul tells about overseers, then pivots to deacons, then pivots to women. Now, regarding the final problem found in 1Ti. 3:12:

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 

Doesn't this make deacons men? Well, no. The literal rendering of this verse is 

Deacons let be of one wife husbands...

This is different than verse 2, in that it uses the plural. And, like gynaikas, can mean woman or wife, the word for husband can mean man or husband.  A more English-friendly word order: 

12 Let men deacons be of one wife...

We simply swapped the word "husbands" to appear before diákonos and changed "husbands" to the alternate meaning, "men" [anér]. That is, a married male deacon must be of one wife, managing his household competently.)

• I think the preponderance of evidence points to the seven men of Acts 6 being deacons, or at least the precedent for deacons, regardless of whether this was an impromptu, temporary assemblage of men or whether they served the church on a permanent basis. They were a group of men, set apart to serve. No women were appointed. This was the example later codified and explained in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

• If Phoebe, or any of the other women of Romans 16, were considered “deacons” on par with the seven men in Acts 6 or the parameters of 1 Timothy 3:8-13, why would translators not simply render Romans 16:1 as “deacon” instead of servant? (Ms. Lesley abandons the Bible itself in favor of the way translators render the verses. She seems to think translators are infallible...)

Choosing those two different words in those two different passages seems to draw a distinction between someone who is qualified and set apart to the office of deacon and any random Christian who serves in some way. (Actually, it seems to us that the translators were working in their cultural contexts,  rendering words according to previous translators.)

• To say that all Christians are to serve, therefore all Christians are deacons is imprecise and confusing. All Christians are also to share the gospel. Should we therefore say that all Christians are evangelists in the Ephesians 4:11-12 sense? (Ms. Lesley actually makes a good point for once.)

• Look at the widows of godly character in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. These are godly women who, in addition to having served their families well, have a history of serving the church prior to being widowed. Notice verse 11: “having a reputation for good works: if she…has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” Does this passage – just two chapters after qualifications for deacons – indicate in any way that these women were set apart as, or carried the title of “deacon” or “deaconess”? (No, of course not. Doing "good works" is not the same as being a deacon. Paul is dealing with a completely different subject, which means we are not required to assign widows a title.)

 Does it indicate that women need to be set apart as deacons / deaconesses or bear the title of “deacon” or “deaconess” in order to serve in these ways? No. The women of 1 Timothy 5 took it upon themselves to fill the needs of the saints they were aware of – no office or title needed, just as most Christian women continue to do today. (Just as most Christians continue to do today. Ms. Lesley's assertion does not speak to the idea of deaconesses.)

Now, I say all of that to explain how I arrived at the beliefs and position I hold on this issue. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to be construed to mean that I think those who hold to the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives are wrong, unbiblical, heretical, or false teachers. Not at all. (We have noted in the past that Ms. Lesley tends to micro-analyze and parse doctrines, inevitably resulting in a declaration that all other points of view are heresy. But notice how quickly she is willing to give a pass to Dr. MacArthur? This is only because she agrees with him otherwise. Thus, those she does not agree with are heretics, and those she does agree with are trustworthy.)

I stand shoulder to shoulder, without a second thought about it, with many who hold the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives. I don’t think either of those perspectives, as I’ve described and understand them, are unbiblical. Personally, I would have no problem joining a church that held to either of those perspectives. My main point of divergence with those two perspectives is that calling women who serve “deacons” or “deaconesses” – because of the wide array of definitions that can be attached to those two terms – is confusing and could lead someone to think a church is doing something unbiblical when it actually is not.

Certainly, it is biblically right and good for women – individually or as a set aside group, titled or untitled – to act as servants, care for widows, run errands, wait tables, and carry out menial tasks in service to their brothers and sisters in Christ. We see Paul commending Phoebe and the other women of Romans 16 for doing these very sorts of things. (Let's quote it, since Ms. Lesley doesn't:

Ro. 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. 

Notice that Phoebe is not introduced as a general servant, but rather of the church in Cenchrea. That is, she is a deaconess in the context of a church.

As we read farther we see her importance:

2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. 

Paul asks the Roman church to give her any assistance she needs. Clearly she is an important person, so much so that Paul recognized her ministry and instructed the Roman church to help her. We should therefore not be so quick to dismiss her as simply a general helper.

Nor should we stop at verse two, but continue on:

3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.

"Fellow workers" is sunergos, one who labors with another in furthering the cause of Christ... It's the same word Paul uses to describe Timothy in Ro. 6:21, Titus in 2Co. 8:23, Epaphroditus in Ph. 2:25, and Philemon in Phi. 1. These are people of note, not just general servants. 

Notice also that Paul goes on to mention several women who Paul fondly brings to the attention of the Roman church. They are noted as having worked very hard. The word is

kopiaó: to grow weary, toil
Usage: (a) I grow weary, (b) I toil, work with effort (of bodily and mental labor alike).
from 2873 /kópos, "exhausting labor" – to labor until worn-out, depleted (exhausted).

This is not merely waiting on tables or menial general service, it's an intensive labor on behalf of the Gospel with physical and intellectual labor.

So Phoebe, identified as a diákonos, was one who worked physically and intellectually hard to meet the needs of the Cenchrean church. This is not casual servanthood, or simply a generic service. She was a person of particular note for her noble labor.)

In fact, most Christian women who are faithful church members are already doing things like that. The Bible says “serve one another,” so every Christian ought to be serving the church in some way.

But because of the current confusion and different perspectives in the church over what deacons actually are and who may or may not serve as a deacon, if a church wishes to set aside a group of women as servants, the pastor and other leadership might want to consider call them something other than deacons or deaconesses. Just a thought.

In the end, whatever our position on the finer points of deacons, female deacons, and deaconesses, I think we can all agree that, as brothers and sisters, we are all to serve one another in love and humility.

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.1 PETER 4:11, MARK 10:45, PHILIPPIANS 2:3-4