The present discussion in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles about the possibility of opening the office of Deacon to women is even more significant than its immediate occasion. This is because how we answer this question shows how we view the Bible’s teaching about the differing roles of men and women in the human economy. Involved in this, of course, is the basic hermeneutic question of the “cultural-relatedness” of Biblical teaching. Should we see the Bible’s teaching as being modified in its application by the culture to and in which it was given, or should we see that teaching as requiring us to view and shape our culture according to God’s Word?

This matter is important because the Bible’s teaching of quite distinct roles for men and women is very clear and has been consistently followed in orthodox Christianity over most of its history. The real questions raised by the esteemed seminary professor B.B. Warfield’s espousal of women deacons is, ‘“Why has the orthodox Church historically rejected this idea so consistently?” It seems to me that the answer to this question is in the Biblical material on this subject, material which is too much being ignored in the present discussion. If we are going to change our practice. the least we can do as Reformed Christians is look at the evidence on which our fathers based their convictions. That they discussed the question. and that there were proponents then of a different position. makes this all the more reasonable and necessary. “Semper reformanda” (“always reforming”) does not mean. “Everything is up for grabs!”

The Greek Word “Diakonos”

The Greek noun “diakonos” (as well as its related forms) is such a general word for “servant” or “minister” that using its application to Phoebe in Romans 16 as ground for either participation in the office of deacon by women or for a separate order of “deaconesses” is indeed slim—so slim as to be non-existent! Of the 103 times “diakonos” and its relatives appear in the New Testament, the King James translates them “deacon” only four times. Three of these are in I Timothy 3 where the office very clearly is in view; the other is in Philippians 1:1 where the “saints . . . with the bishops and deacons” are addressed. A careful reading of the other 99 uses will show that these are the ONLY ones in which the office is clearly in view. Trying to plug the office into the others simply will not work in all but two or three of those others. Even in them it would be quite arbitrary. Therefore to force a technical and official meaning into a word that is used so generally of all kinds of Christian service throughout the New Testament could hardly be called “EX-egesis,” even if the rest of Scripture contained no explanation at all of the general principles of male and female roles in God’s economy or of the qualifications for the office of deacon.

The fact is that the office of deacon, as well as its qualifications and duties, rests on other ground than that of the use of the word “diakonos” in the New Testament. The office of deacon is so clearly based on the need perceived in the early Church for an AUTHORITATIVE distribution of alms to the needy widows that more comment on this purpose should not be necessary. That this need and the office established to fulfill it was a continuing one in the Church is clear both from Paul’s reference to a “list” of widows in I Timothy 5 and from his giving of the qualifications for that office next to the qualifications for the eldership in I Timothy 3. It is specifically for this authoritative oversight of the alms of the Church that the OFFICE of deacon is established AND for which the qualifications in Acts 6 and I Timothy 3 are laid down. Interestingly, and very much to the point of this discussion. the GENDER of the deacons is mentioned prominently in both lists of qualifications.

Qualifications of Deacons

When we look honestly at the language of Acts 6 and I Timothy 3, it is obvious that being a man is one of the basic qualifications for the office of deacons. Non-official, non-authoritative deaconing is open to every believer regardless of sex or age. EVERY gift is to be used in the service (“deaconing”) of other Christians, no matter in whom that gift resides. Indeed. when we realize this latter point, it becomes perfectly obvious why the official deacons, whose office is next to and in partnership with that of the elders, would require qualifications which parallel those for the eldership. If these were not mentioned, it would be taken for granted that this is an office open to every Christian as a simple exercise of whatever gifts he or she possesses. However, since the official deacons DO exercise authority in the Church, they are required to be men in accordance with the principle of adult male headship discussed below.

If ever there was a time when it might be said (from the viewpoint of typical modern “wisdom”) that female deacons had a place in the Church, it would have been in Acts 6. The problem was one of distribution to widows. Who could better oversee this with sensitivity and love than a group of women, or at least a group with women in it? But NO, the word is, “Brothers, chose from among yourselves seven MEN of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit . . .” The language is indisputably clear, “Brothers, chose . . . men.” Why men? Because they are going to be appointed to be “over this business.” They are going to be ruling officials in Christ’s Church, at least over this business, and therefore they are to be men in order to carry out the Biblical order of authority.

I Timothy 3, at least as clearly, requires the same thing. Paul says, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,” (vs. 12). One could not ask for a more simple and straightforward statement. Futhermore, the reason for this requirement is not long in coming. It is because those who rule well in their own families , where the husband is the head of the wife (or is that up for grabs too?), indicate thereby that they have one of the basic gifts for the office. That women deacons are simply precluded by this qualification is most clear. Those who would argue that this applies “only to male deacons and speaks not of female deacons” not only subtly slip into the camp of Bible interpreters who hold that anything not forbidden is allowed; they establish an office for which the Bible gives NO qualifications whatsoever while its qualifications for male deacons are very strict. It is not without reason that those who admit women to the deaconate soon find it inconvenient to bar them from the eldership.

Some would like to interject the possibility for “deaconesses” into this list by finding possible reference to them in the previous verse (see for example the footnote in the NIV). This is a rather sievelike conjecture. First of all , it would simply contradict the direct statement of verse 12. Secondly, in this one context where the word “diakonos” is obviously being used in a technical sense , the apostle avoids using it in reference to the women mentioned. The word used is “gunaikas” (meaning “women” or “wives”). It is the same word used for wife in the phrase “husband of one wife” in both verses 2 and 12 here in I Timothy 3. It is completely without warrant to suggest, without the slightest hint from the apostle, that it might refer to anything but wives in verse 11, much less to female deacons.

The Principle of Male Headship

Of course, behind this requirement for male deacons stands the creation principle of the headship of the man. The New Testament is abundantly clear that this creation order is the basis and continuing standard for male and female roles in the human economy. Paul specifically applies this principle not only to the relationship of husbands and wives in marriage but also to the roles of men and women in general in the–Church (I Corinthians 11:4–12; I Corinthians 14:34; I Timothy 2:11–13). The principle is simply that in every human situation of authority, the man is the head of the woman (I Corinthians 11:3). Why? “Because the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man” (I Corinthians 11:9, which is an obvious reference to Genesis 2:18). Therefore in situations of teaching (I Timothy 2:12, I Corinthians 14:34), worship (I Corinthians 11:4, 5), office (I Timothy 3;2 ,12), marriage (Ephesians 5:24) and even in cases of a Christian women married to an unbeliever (I Peter 3:1), women are to be subject to men because in these situations authority is expressed. (See note below.)

We need to further understand that this is basically a positive requirement that women be in subjection and not just a negative requirement that they not rule over men. While the latter is certainly implied, it is the former that is the Biblical principle. This is seen already in Genesis not only in the creation of the woman as the “helper fitting” to the man but also in the curse upon Eve and her daughters concerning their relationship to their husbands. As Meredith Kline has pointed out, the best understanding of Genesis 3:16b would be, “and your desire will be to rule your husband, but he ought to rule over you.” Eve willfully led her husband into sin, rather than actively submit herself to him (Cf. also I Timothy 2:14), therefore God declares that part of her corruption will be to chafe under the proper relationship to her husband. This same principle of active submission , rather than just the absence of assertion of authority over men, is at the heart of Paul’s requirement of a covering, either of hair or headgear, for women praying or prophesying, while he forbids the same for men.

Of course, many modern Americans think of these teachings as fit perhaps for the Middle Ages at best and Neanderthal at worst. Nevertheless, I am convinced that light for the world comes from Scripture and not vice-versa. Indeed, at the heart of ALL Christianity is submission. The willing submission of Christ to the Father so beautifully described by the apostle Paul in Philippians 2 is neither foolish nor sinful, but is indeed the necessary work of the second Adam left undone by the first one. Christ is a man “UNDER authority” according to the man whose faith He commends the most highly while on earth. It is enough for the servant that he be AS his master; for us to chafe under the authority of state, church or home which God has placed over us is direct infidelity to our Savior Himself. Paul wants women to honor their husbands, “that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Human authority is properly seen as the expression of God’s own authority (Romans 13); thus we have the responsibility to be subject to that authority AND to operate it in accordance with HIS words. The sad thing today is that sincere Christians do not realize that God’s requirements are FAR better than man’s ideas. Real liberation for women (and men) is to be what God made them to be and to live out the roles GOD designed for them. Eve, seeking liberation for herself and her husband from God’s rule, fell willing victim to the devil’s lie, “Indeed has God said?” Man fell, not by telling a lie, but by believing one. God, who cannot lie, has said that women “must be in submission” (I Corinthians 11:34); do we REALLY believe that?

Hermeneutic Dishonesty

A great and common dishonesty in present day hermeneutics is the setting of one Scripture over another, coming up with an interpretation by which one contradicts the other, and then choosing which we will follow. Such is the methodology of those who look at those Scriptures quoted above and shrug the whole matter of submission off by saying, “Ah yes, but none of that can be true since the Scriptures also clearly say that there is neither male nor female in Christ.” The fact is that there is absolutely no contradiction between Galatians 3:28 and any of the verses quoted above. First of all, Galatians 3:28 declares the “unity” of various kinds of Christians, not their “equality.” Paul could very well have used the Greek word for equality here, but he simply doesn’t. Second, equality of person in creation and of participation in salvation , which men and women do have, simply does NOT mean identity of role or calling—not within the Trinity and not among humans made in the image of the Trinity. There is no more contradiction between the woman being equal to the man in salvation and her being in submission to him than there is in woman being made equally in God’s image with the man and yet being made as a helper fitting to him. Apples are not oranges, though both are equally fruit, and men cannot bear babies no matter how equal they are to women in the image of God and in salvation in Christ. Men and women have different offices in God’s instructions for the economy of this creation. To pretend otherwise is to fail to read either the Scriptures OR nature aright (cf I Corinthians 11:14, 15). At the same time it is to be noted that the God-given authority structures of this world’s economy do NOT hold in the new heaven and earth where “they neither marry nor are given in marriage.”

Christians are called to be the salt of the earth and are to be careful not to allow the leaven of unrighteousness to penetrate the Church. The idea that there is something demeaning or unfair to women in the Biblical teaching of the headship of men is itself unrighteous and demeaning to both man and woman made in the image of God. Just as abortion does NOT give liberty to a woman but only makes her slave to another sin, so the idea of freeing the woman from the God-given authority order of this world demeans rather than liberates her. ALL humans ought to be servants of God, happy in the office HE has given them. The rise of this issue offers a tremendous opportunity for the Church to salt the earth with a “better way.” “But if the salt has lost its flavor . . . ,” what do we have to offer? The fact that this issue of ordination is brought into the Church in imitation of the practices of the unbelieving world around us should itself alert us to be skeptical about it, for “that which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of God.”

NOTE: The REAL dignity and worth of the woman (as of the man) is that she is created in the image of God, not in some supposed governmental authority equal with that of men. The Bible’s requirement for submission on the part of women is LIMITED specifically to the exercise of governmental authority. For example, a woman teaching in church is wrong, not because it is a sin for a man to learn something from a woman, but because in church teaching is to be done with authority under God. Other systems of thought, from Playboy to Islam, subtly or openly treat women as something less than equal to man in all truly essential respects. Thus it was in Israel. compared to the surrounding nations, what woman’s dignity and worth was upheld and it is in BIBLICAL Christianity that the same is true in comparison to the competing philosophies and religions of today. If anyone is of the misconception that “women’s liberation” has improved the dignity of women in our society, let them not forget WHO really suffers from easy divorce and the idea that home-making is not “fulfilling.” This is to say nothing of the license for promiscuous sex and abortion that have come right along with it (yes, these are problems also WITHIN the church). Much of what we have seen since WWII in “women’s rights” has NOT been progress. It is fitting that “You’ve come a long way baby!” appears on a cigarette ad.

Robert Grossman is a professor at Mid–America Reformed Seminary at Orange City, Iowa. and a minister in the Eureka Classis. Reformed Church in the U.S.