A friend’s denomination has been considering the possibility of allowing deaconesses to be appointed in local churches. This is an issue that has never impacted me personally so my systematic thinking about it is slightly more than zero.
I am sure there are many angles from which to consider the biblical legitimacy (or otherwise) of deaconesses. There would be historical, theological and cultural data to analyze. Would the ‘office’ be ordained or unordained? Etc.
But let me share with you just a couple of simple, common sense observations. These are certainly not definitive arguments against deaconesses in and of themselves. Just immediate thoughts.
If there ever was a ‘women’s issue’ in the New Testament, it concerned the distribution of food when early church members lived in common. Who were the church members affected by problematic ethnic favoritism? Widows. Women alone. And who was appointed to remedy this problem of distribution? Seven men! To me, that speaks volumes. I derive from it that if the office of deaconess is biblical, it musn’t involve sitting around a table with the elders making basic decisions about how to run the church.
And a second quick thought. Some people cite female prophetesses in the early church era as buttressing the legitimacy of deaconesses. My father-in-law was a judge whose ‘business’ was to understand non-sequiturs. When he heard one (at least in daily living. I can’t imagine this was spoken from the bench!) he would respond with, “What’s that got to do with the price of bread?” Exactly. Being immediately moved by the power of the Holy Spirit to declare something is not the same as authoritative decision- making in the local church.
Quick Friday thoughts!
A simple quick thought, though not substantiated by Scripture- just an observation: women who crave other women in power, often crave power and control generally. I am not sure that installation into office can satiate this thirst, as it is a constant need for more control/power/voice, etc. It can be more a way to prove self, than a way to humbly serve.
Interesting mom!
This is an issue I have thought about and studied a fair amount, due to interest in the topic from some in our church. This is a scenario I think may fit with apostolic teaching: both men and women (Phoebe) could be qualified and recognized for unique service in the early church, and be designated “diákonos”. But only men were qualified to serve in this as leaders (“Let deacons each be the husband of one wife”, verse 12). Deacons weren’t elders, but they were given authority in their sphere by the apostles (they were designated to handle decisions on the arrangements and logistics in feeding the Hellenistic widows, for example).
As for women deacons- 1 Timothy 3:11, translated “their wives” by most translations, could be “women”- “women likewise must[d] be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things”– as if there is the office of deacon, to be held by men, but also a role for women as helpers in this ministry, who must likewise meet qualifications. They would of necessity served under the direction of the men, either the deacons or, ultimately, the elders. Like Phoebe, some may have been be recognized and commended for outstanding service. I know of women who seem to fit that scenario and are quietly serving the church in outstanding ways.
I don’t know in this climate if it would be wise ever to call women deacons, though. The title has come to be synonymous with a leadership role, so best to encourage the women who are qualified and have gifts to serve in this way, without giving them that title, perhaps.
I agree that women who crave power for other women generally (always in my observation) exhibit problematic desires and thinking. There is a “new” “movement” among reformed women that they’re calling a “third wave” of complementarianism; from what I’ve seen and read, it’s really the same old error rearing its head in a new and younger generation of women.