1

The Ministry of Women and the Meaning of Deacons in the Church

Abstract: Conservative churches limit ordination to men; this unnecessarily limits women from
contributions specified in the Bible, namely the role of Deacon. The role of Deacon has plausibly
been misunderstood in many churches. In response, both problems can be met by reconsidering
the role of Deacons in the church and by properly restoring women to this role (and qualified
men as well). An expansion of the role of Deacon and renewal of women in this role can address
the critique of complementarianism in conservative churches and restore needed balance for
women to make greater contributions in the local church.

This proposal is to adjust the practice of complementarianism. For churches that regard
an order created by God between men and women, the structural adjustment of re-defining the
office of Deacon can better express complementarianism in the church. This structural change
promotes women to function as Deacons to make contributions that are commonly limited to
men.
The office of Deacon has some ambiguity to it in church practice. This is due in part to
the minimal details provided in the NT. Some churches have no Deacons (e.g., Calvary Chapel),
some have Deacons that actually function as Elders1 (e.g., some Baptist churches), and some
churches have Deacons functioning alongside Elders (e.g., the Reformed Church of America).
For churches with Deacons and Elders, the common practice is to distinguish duties so that
Deacons are responsible for the physical needs of the congregation and the building, while the
Elders focus on the spiritual matters of teaching, supervising staff, and participating in
denominational activities.

1
I will use the term Elders (presbuteroi) to refer to what the NT also calls Pastors/ Shepherds (poimenas)
and Overseers (episkopoi). I am persuaded that these three terms refer to the same office (as in the several
cases of interchangeable usage by Luke, Paul, and Peter), which is my intention by the term Elder
throughout.
 2

The common spiritual-physical distinction of Elder and Deacon functions neatly follows
the difference in the qualifications that Elders must be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2), and be able to
exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it (Tit 1:9) while nothing similar is
stated as a qualification for Deacons. The spiritual-physical distinction also follows the typical
reading of Acts 6:1-6, where seven men take the task of managing the distribution of food for
church widows and relieve the Apostles to focus on the spiritual tasks of prayer and the ministry
of the Word. Since the seven are male, many churches commonly limit the office of Deacon to
men. This paper is a response to the current situation of many complementarian churches in
which capable women and many men are restricted from contributing an array of ministry.
I will argue that a biblical remedy to the current situation is to re-define the office of
Deacon and promote women to function as Deacons. The three steps of this proposal are: first,
that Deacons are not tasked primarily with physical needs, second, the office of Deacon is better
defined as “commissioned agency” than merely as “servant,” and third, the fuller expression of
complementarianism that is possible when women function in the office of Deacon.

I. Deacons Are Not Tasked Primarily with Physical Needs

Alongside our consideration of the office of Deacon for the evangelical church, I observe
that the recent revival of the permanent order of Deacon in the Roman Catholic Church does not
limit the office to physical care. The catechism of 1997 specifies Deacon service “to the People
of God through the ministry of Worship, Word, and Charity in communion with the bishop and
his presbyters.”2 While tradition is helpful, our interest is first in the biblical teaching, and
whether the spiritual-physical distinction is warranted. We will consider both tradition and
Scripture.
First, the evidence from the early church does not support the typical interpretation that
Acts 6:1-6 is the origin for the office of Deacon. At best, the seven men are prototypes of the
office of Deacon, much like the way that the Apostles may be a prototype for the office of
Elder.3 Even if that were true, the historical incident of the prototype should not be taken as the
determination in limiting ways as has been the practice for some churches (such as that Deacons
are only responsible for physical needs of the church, that there must be only seven, and that they
2
William T. Ditewig, “Women Deacons: Present Possibilities,” in Gary Macy, William T. Ditewig,
Phyllis Zagano, Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press: 2011), p. 46.
3
John Ross, “A Reconsideration of the Diaconate,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 12 no. 9 (1959): p. 152.
 3

must be men).4 We have nothing in Acts or the rest of the NT indicating these determinations.
The seven men are not called Deacons, and the cognate verb “to serve” is used alike for ministry
at the table and distribution (Acts 6:1-2) and for ministry of teaching the Word of God (Acts 6:4).
Stephen and Philip are later described in other ministry than physical care: preaching (Acts 6:8—
7:60) and evangelism (Acts 8:4-13, 26-40).5 Luke describes Philip with a title elsewhere as the
Evangelist (Acts 21:8). Extant writings from the early centuries of the church do not show that
those teachers understood Acts 6 as determinative for the office of Deacon. The earliest case of
identifying the seven as Deacons is Irenaeus (c. 185), a view not shared by his contemporary
Clement of Alexandria writing on the same passage.6 Therefore, Acts 6 is questionable as a
starting point for defining the office of Deacon as limited to physical needs.
Second, early church practice did not follow a limitation of Deacons to the physical needs
of the church or a limitation to only male Deacons. In the third and fourth centuries, the office of
Deacon had four kinds of duties: liturgical, educational, charitable, and administrative. Among
these functions, Deacons assisted the Elders in serving the Eucharist, reading the Gospel,
teaching catechumens, preaching in the absence of an Elder, and sometimes attending general
church councils. Sometimes, Deacons were full-time paid positions, similar to church staff of
today. Women Deacons were particularly involved in these liturgical, educational, and charitable
functions with women, assisting in the instruction and baptism of women, visiting the sick, and
providing care for orphans.7 The early church even developed a female form of the term Deacon
(diakonissa) that appears earliest in the canons of the Council of Nicaea (325). Despite the high
regard for female Deacons by Tertullian, Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom, and the ordination of
women Deacons as shown in the canons of a few church councils, the office evaporated from the
church in the West by the sixth century and in the East by the twelfth century.8

4
The church at Rome in 251 had only seven Deacons and forty-six Presbyters, a practice that continued
for several generations in many churches, but not always. Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History
of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), pp. 499–501.
5
Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012),
pp. 241-42.
6
Ross, “A Reconsideration,” p. 152.
7
Ross, “A Reconsideration,” p. 153.
8
Lucy Rider Meyer, Deaconesses: Biblical, Early Church, European, American with the Story of How
the Work Began in the Chicago Training School and the Chicago Deaconess Home, 3rd ed. (Cincinnati:
Cranston & Stow, 1889), p. 21.
 4

What changed to lose both the office of Deacon and the scope of ministry beyond care for
physical needs? The rise of monasticism for men and women has been blamed for having taken
over what were Deacon functions. Also, the reversion to a theology of the New Covenant in
terms of the Old Covenant structures of priesthood and the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice excluded
women.9 Accordingly, the woman’s menstrual cycle, seen as ritual defilement of the altar and
temple in the Old Covenant cult, was again now viewed in the medieval church in the East and
West as defiling for the altar of the Eucharist.10 Such were some of the changes resulting in the
exclusion of women from the diaconate.
The recovery of many things at the time of the Reformation included Deacons, but in a
diminished capacity compared to early church practice. Ross observes that sixteenth century
church leaders established the functions of Elders and Deacons along the lines of spiritual
matters and physical matters. Elders were responsible to maintain godly discipline; Deacons
were responsible to distribute the church’s charity to the poor.11 In a strange development to the
current time, what the early church had as Deacon functions are now what Elders commonly do
in churches to assist the Pastor(s): distributing the elements of the Lord’s Supper, visiting
members, assisting in teaching, attending synods, and sharing the discipline of the church.12 With
awareness of this confusion about the Deacon function in church practice, we can turn from
tradition to the passages in Scripture that directly reveal the office of Deacon.

II. Defining the Office of Deacon

Three passages speak clearly about the office of Deacon. There is no indication that the
office of Deacon is transitional for people aspiring to promotion to Elder. The offices are distinct
and complementary. First, in Philippians 1:1, Paul addresses the Overseers and Deacons (both
terms are plural) as two groups responsible for the care of the church in tandem ministry.
Second, Paul writes the qualifications for Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 without clarifying
the functions. These eight items of qualification tell the trustworthy character of individuals to be

9
Robert L. Saucy, “The Ministry of Women in the Early Church,” in Robert L. Saucy and Judith K.
TenElshof, Women and Men in Ministry: A Complementary Perspective, eds., Saucy and TenElshof
(Chicago: Moody Press, 2001), p. 180.
10
Gary Macy, “Women Deacons: History,” in Gary Macy, William T. Ditewig, Phyllis Zagano, Women
Deacons: Past, Present, Future (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press: 2011), p. 31.
11
Ross, “A Reconsideration,” p. 155.
12
Ross, “A Reconsideration,” p. 156.
 5

installed in this office. Deacons are people in the church who are known by the members to be
admirable in their treatment of others and their family, in their use of wine and money, and their
demonstrated competence in ministry. Many of these character traits are similar to the
qualifications for Elders; the differences indicate the distinction of the offices in function. Elders
must be able to teach and must not be new converts, and Elders are to take care of the church of
God. By contrast, Deacons have no similar requirement of a capacity to teach the Word of God,
or long experience as a Christian. These differences tell that unlike Elders, the Deacons are not
required to be “older” in the faith than many of the others in the church, and are not responsible
for leading the church through teaching.
Moreover, Deacons are twice noted for active service in ministry while nothing similar is
said for Elders. Deacons must first be tested, after which probation they serve as Deacons if they
are beyond reproach. Paul finishes the list by repeating the honor of Deacons who have served
well. The emphasis in these two statements is on the activity of Deacons in ministry alongside
their character. I think we can imagine that a prospective Deacon would have a tryout with tasks
in ministry of the church. More than this we are not told. The list of Deacon qualifications does
not indicate a limitation to or focus upon the physical needs of the church.
Does 1 Timothy 3:11 refer to female Deacons or wives of the male Deacons? The post-
apostolic church maintained an order of female Deacons distinct from the widows and virgins
that were also active groups for ministry in the early church. In some cases, female Deacons
were ordained, assisted the Elders in the rite of baptizing women (instruction and anointing the
body), assisted in the distribution of the Lord’s Supper, and cared for the sick and orphans. There
is no evidence that female Deacons taught in public assembly. The earliest evidence of female
Deacons shows in the Latin ministrae of Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan (c. 112 AD),
describing the torture of two Christian women who were Deacons.13 The Greek masculine term
diakonos appears on funerary inscriptions of women, one being Sophia, called a Deacon and “the
second Phoebe.”14

13
Allison, Sojourners, p. 247 fn 144.
14
Gregory R. Perry, “Phoebe of Cenchreae and “Women” of Ephesus: “Deacons” in the Earliest
Churches,” Presbyterion 36/1 (Spring 2010): p. 16 fn 22. The timeframe for these inscriptions given by
Perry is “well into the Byzantine period.” Important is the way Sophia is called “the Deacon” he diakonos
(using the feminine article with the masculine noun) and linked to Phoebe of Romans 16:1 with the
identical masculine noun, “the second Phoebe.”
 6

The reason for evidence of this institution of women Deacons in the early church is that
this is the best interpretation of the passage. Paul does not identify these women as wives of the
male Deacons. Paul uses none of the methods available to connect these women with the men as
in the meaning of “wives.” After introducing the category of Deacons in verse 8, Paul lists four
character qualifications. When Paul turns to the women, he introduces verse 11 by the same
adverb “likewise” (hōsautōs) that he has used as a pattern in 2:8-9 (men in worship… likewise
women in worship), and 3:8 (following on 3:2, Overseers…likewise Deacons) to indicate a
distinct class people each time. Paul makes clear that he has female Deacons in view by
repeating the same four character traits as qualifications for the women that he has already stated
for the men. Paul heads the list of qualifications with the masculine plural term of Deacons
(diakonous), but this is not to mean that only males are in view. The masculine form was the
only one available, just as Paul used it elsewhere for Phoebe (Rom 16:1). To specify women
alongside men, Paul repeats the same four traits for female Deacons, and then resumes with the
male-specific traits of being husbands and heads of households. Obviously we should take these
last traits as qualifications with an echo for women Deacons since Paul urges women to love
their husbands and children (Tit 2:3-4). Despite the habit of several modern English translations
to insert the possessive “their” and translate gunaikos as “wives,” the intention of Scripture
seems clear that an order of female Deacons alongside male Deacons and male Elders is what we
should read.15
Third, Paul’s use of the masculine term Deacon (diakonos) for Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2
may be important in defining the office of Deacon from the NT.16 The meaning of the passage is
disputed. One interpreter argues that Paul does not title Phoebe as a Deacon, but only as a
representative envoy of the church at Cenchreae17; others identify Phoebe as a servant of the
church with no official capacity.18 Many recent commentators view Phoebe titled as a Deacon

15
For further detail on the argument in favor of woman Deacons, see Allison, Sojourners, pp. 244-46.
English translations that translate gunaikos as “wives” are KJV, NKJV, NIV (1984), NLT, ESV, and
HCSB. Translations that give “women” for gunaikos are NASB, RSV, and NIV (2011).
16
Recall that no feminine form of Deacon was available in Greek until the church invented the term
diakonissa in later centuries. See p. 3 at fn 8.
17
Clarence DeWitt “Jimmy” Agan III, “Deacons, Deaconesses, and Denominational Discussions:
Romans 16:1 As a Test Case,” Presbyterion 34/2 (Fall 2008): p. 106.
18
Agan, “Deacons,” p. 94 fn 2, cites Leander Keck, John Murray, William J. Dumbrell, and James M.
Boice.
 7

corresponding to the office indicated in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.19 This is an ancient interpretation that
repeats the conclusions of Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrus.20 Paul not only selected the
masculine term Deacon to identify Phoebe, but he commends her highly as “sister”21 and “patron”
(prostatis)22. She would have to have been unusually capable, wealthy, and trustworthy to
deserve these honors. That she has traveled to Rome from Cenchreae indicates her wealth and
status, and with the commendation makes her the most likely candidate for delivering the letter
from Paul at Corinth (eight miles from Cenchreae).23 If this is right that Phoebe is a Deacon, she
is the only person in the Bible noted with the office. Further support for this claim is that Paul
uses the feminine participle ousan with diakonon as the predicate accusative in simple apposition
to Phoebe, which construction elsewhere in the NT tells official position or role.24 Accordingly,
her role as the bearer of Paul’s letter, and her description as a “sister” (a spiritual equal in God’s
family) and “patron” (benefactor) who has helped Paul and “many” (likely through financial
support, guidance, and networking) may illuminate our understanding of the office of Deacon.
Paul’s commendation of Phoebe and her (likely) role as the bearer of his letter to Rome
leads us to another set of evidence beyond the NT for understanding the office of Deacon: usage
of the term diakonos in the Greek world. Four domains of meaning are available to us from the
variety of Greek literature and the NT: 1) communication/ delivery of a message or object as an
emissary, 2) agency/ instrumentality to carry out another’s will in some task, 3) domestic
attendance in household chores and service, 4) table attendance to serve food or drink.
Contextual cues typically indicate the distinct intended meanings, such as reference to speaking,

19
Agan, “Deacons,” p. 94 fn 3, cites Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Tom Wright, and Charles H.
Talbert. With some hesitation about the office of Deacon at this stage in the early church, Douglas J. Moo,
The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 913-14, and Leon Morris, Romans,
PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 528, affirm that a title is likely in view.
20
Allison, Sojourners, p. 246 fn 143, also notes that most modern commentators agree that Phoebe is a
Deacon in the sense of office.
21
Among all the relationships in the ancient world, the sibling relationship is the closest and strongest,
greater even than marriage in some cases. Perry, “Phoebe,” p. 18 fn 29.
22
The term is for one who stands in front. Perry, “Phoebe,” p. 15. “…[A] review of inscriptions, papyri,
and other ancient literature of the period reveals clear evidence that prostatis referred in a specific sense
to a woman …who acted as a “patron(ess)” providing material support to her beneficiaries.”
23
Moo, Romans, p. 913, and Morris, Romans, p. 528, both judge it probable that Phoebe carried Paul’s
letter.
24
Perry, “Phoebe of Cenchreae,” p. 16. NT examples of the ousan construction he gives are Caiaphas
(John 11:49), Gallio (Acts 18:12), and Felix (Acts 24:10), and the way Paul identifies himself “being” a
blasphemer (1 Tim 1:13).
 8

a task, the household context, or food and table, respectively.25 Accordingly, the cognates of
diakonos are used for table service in Acts 6, for Jesus’ humble service in the care of His
disciples as what a slave does for a superior (Mark 10:45), for the mediation or agency of
government officials under God (Rom 13:4), and for Phoebe as an agent of the church at
Cenchreae. The idea of a mediator between parties may be the root idea of the extra-biblical use
of the term diakonos,26 as BDAG gives the definition: “service rendered in an intermediary
capacity, mediation, assignment.”27
Paul’s usage seems to bear out the idea of commissioned mediation that encompasses the
first two domains noted above, as in the conclusion of Perry: “Though Paul does not define the
role of “the deacons” specifically, he shows that they are proven men and women (1 Tim. 3:8-
13), who serve as “agents” or “representatives” of their local assembly through their own
“ministries,” “gifts,” and “activities” (1 Cor. 12:4-6), and in specific tasks that the congregation
authorizes….”28 This meaning of agency in ministries on behalf of the Elders and the church
follows closely with Paul’s usage of the term diakonos for himself and others. Paul describes
himself as a diakonos in connection with bearing the message of the gospel (Col 1:23), and he
writes similarly about Onesimus (Phile 1:13). Likewise, Tychicus brought Paul’s letter to
Colossae, being described as a faithful diakonos (Col 4:7). These examples are not statements of
the title of Deacon, but they illuminate Paul’s intended meaning for the office by his usage
elsewhere as the domains of representation and agency. This meaning is in contrast to the
domains of table service and caring for physical needs. When these examples of Paul’s use of
diakonos are connected with Paul’s description of Phoebe as diakonos of the church at
Cenchreae, Cohick’s conclusion is plausible: “Paul is likely stressing her role as go-between for
the Corinthian churches and the Roman congregation, as well as her specific duty to carry Paul’s
letter, with his authority.”29

25
Agan, “Deacons,” pp. 103-4.
26
John N. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1990), 194. Cited by Lynn H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2009), p. 305 fn 66.
27
Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, F. W. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT
and Other Early Christian literature, 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 230. Cited
by Cohick, Women, p. 304 fn 64.
28
Perry, “Phoebe of Cenchreae,” 36.
29
Cohick, Women, p. 305. She discusses the examples of Epaphras, Paul, and Onesimus, in addition to
Stephanas, Timothy, and Tychicus.
 9

We are left with the most likely meaning for the office of Deacon in Philippians 1:1 and 1
Timothy 3:8-13 as leaders to function with “commissioned mediation” for the church, alongside
the Elders, representing and assisting the Elders by leading the various ministries of the church.
This seems to be the way Phoebe functions for the church of Cenchreae, when her description as
“patron” and likely role as emissary with Paul’s letter are considered. This judgment perhaps
turns aside the traditional limitation of Deacon to physical needs, but a further definition of the
office of Deacon is wanting.
Allison argues that the Deacons are to work in a complementary way with the Elders.30
The ambiguity of the Deacon function serves a complementary aspect in this way: Deacons do
what Elders do not by leading and facilitating all other ministry in the church. For example, the
Elders must be able to teach, but the Deacons do not, so we can guess (with details from other
passages) that Elders are responsible for teaching in the church and Deacons are not. This does
not mean that Deacons cannot teach, since teaching is a function of all believers in a variety of
ways (Heb 5:12; 1 Cor 14:26; Col 3:16; Tit 2:3-5). The important thing is that we have some
clarity about the Elder function that helps to demarcate the otherwise unclear Deacon function as
a complement. Broadly defined, Elders are distinctly responsible to teach doctrine and practice,
lead the church, shepherd the church, and pray.31
Deacons are those qualified men and women who assist the Elders by serving the diverse
array of ministries in the church as leaders with appropriate authority. This Deacon leadership
frees up the Elders to focus on teaching, shepherding, leading, and praying. Typically, many
churches today employ several staff that report to the Pastor or the Elders. A better alternative is
to commission these roles as Deacons, qualified by their character and proven competency for
particular ministry leadership roles. This formula can distribute responsibility for a wider range
and involvement in ministry than any group of Elders is capable of managing.
This enlargement of the Deacons’ role beyond caring for physical needs means the
ministry of the church can be greatly extended beyond the common proportion of twenty percent
of the people doing eighty percent of the work. Allison lists, for example, male and female
Deacons as leading or facilitating ministries specific to gender and age groups (men, women,

30
Allison, Sojourners, p. 247.
31
Allison, Sojourners, pp. 219-23. His account of the coordinate responsibilities of Elders and Deacons
suggested to me this analogy in the American political system: Elders are like the federal government;
Deacons are like the state governments.
 10

children, teens, seniors), worship, evangelism, missions, bereavement, sports, fine arts, and
mercy ministries (food, clothing, tutoring, medical aid).32 This leadership is commissioned and
authorized by the Elders, in ongoing coordination between the Elders and the Deacons for the
good of the church.
The definition of Deacon as commissioned mediation to lead ministries under the
auspices of the Elders has at least two further advantages. First, if it is right to promote women in
the function as Deacon, a church that honors gender complementarity can properly promote
women in ministries that they typically excel at (e.g., women’s ministry, counseling, children,
care for the sick, relational connections in the church, various mercy ministries, etc.). This is an
alternative to the awkwardness of other titles that churches sometimes use for women in the
attempt recognize them in ministry roles and avoid calling them “pastors.” If we just call these
women Deacons, the title will affirm the great value of women in the church, while maintaining
the distinction from Elders.
Some people may object that since women are already fulfilling these ministries, why is
there a need of a title? In response, I agree that ministry is not about personal acclaim. Titles
matter for the congregation to recognize individuals functioning in office. This is the reason
churches title male leaders as Pastor and Elder, because the office tells the church to regard that
role of service highly. This is also why churches generate titles of Pastor, Minister, Director, and
Secretary to indicate the person’s role and responsibilities as distinct from the rest of the
congregation. To recognize and title women as Deacons would go a long way to giving proper
honor and support to these worthy women. Woman Deacons dignifies women in the church as a
vital and influential contribution to the leadership of ministry, while maintaining the
complementarity of the genders since women are not Elders. In a time and culture that perceives
conservative churches as patriarchal and wrongly restrictive of women, we have an opportunity
in recognizing women as Deacons to both follow the Bible and practice our theology that women
are spiritual equals with a necessary contribution to the life and ministry of the church.
The second advantage of redefining Deacon as commissioned mediation is that the
commissioning of leading women as Deacons can be especially helpful to the Elders. These
female Deacons can function as valuable agents of the Elders to call upon female members of the
32
Allison, Sojourners, p. 247. Obviously, there is some gender fit for certain ministries, such as men for
leading a men’s ministry, and women for women’s ministry. The point is that these functions are best
understood as Deacon roles, especially in terms of the esteem of women as spiritual equals in the church.
 11

church in regular visitation or for counseling. Women frequently function this way unofficially
in some churches. Usually the wives of the Pastors or Elders are called upon informally to get
involved in a situation with a woman. By contrast, were a church to commission female Deacons
to be available for these missions would both involve more leading women who happen not to be
married to Elders or Pastors, and give more women in the church a share in the leadership of
church ministries for a fuller expression of complementarity between men and women.

III. Women in the Office of Deacon

Promoting women to the office of Deacon is a timely opportunity for complementarian
churches, but some objections are apparent. Complementarianism typically designates certain
functions to Elders (such as teaching and leading the whole church), and promotes only men to
the office of Elder. Normally, complementarianism restricts women from contributing teaching
and leadership in relation to men. Many ministries in the church involve various kinds of
teaching and authority as leaders to organize church members for particular works. We have seen
in the history of the church that women have been excessively limited from contributing ministry
as Deacons in ways that continue today. For example, the Roman Catholic Church currently does
not ordain women as Deacons, and many Protestant churches are the same. In response, Allison
offers this charge: “It seems to me that many churches that hold to [complementarianism] either
ignore the important roles of women or try to protect themselves from violations of the Pauline
ban by erecting hedges around women’s ministries, with the tragic result that women are
illegitimately restricted from participation in ministries that are proper for them.”33 In agreement
with Allison’s critique, I see two objections that are related: first, the ambiguous identification of
certain ministry functions as “pastoral,” and, second, the application of the Pauline ban in 1
Timothy 2:12 as a limitation on women from teaching and leading in church ministries where
men are involved.
The first objection is that where a function in ministry is considered to be “pastoral,” as
in proper to the Elders, women are normally barred from fulfilling that function. This designation
of what is pastoral does not follow the clear teaching of the Bible, but clearly excludes women
from ministry functions simply because of female gender. For example, some churches designate
the role of leading the singing portion of a worship service as pastoral. In complementarian

33
Allison, Sojourners, p. 239.
 12

churches, pastoral usually means only men, so a woman cannot lead worship for the
congregation. But is this really a pastoral function? When the youth band takes a turn to lead the
church in a Sunday worship meeting, I doubt that they are pastoring the congregation. Maybe
worship leaders should be recognized with a title, especially in a large church, but the more
appropriate term is Deacon, as with the leader of the youth ministry, the leader of an outreach
program, and leaders of the men’s and women’s ministries.
The practical effect of a worship service that repeatedly excludes women from leading
the music, public prayer, and voicing the transitional comments of greeting and benediction is
that only male voices and minds are expressed. Sunday morning is actually a men’s ministry
meeting, with women silent except for singing along with the lyrics. This seems not to be
complementary church life, but a de facto patriarchy and masculine monoculture. By comparison
of analogy, imagine a family meal at which only the father is allowed to speak. Other ministry
functions that are typically closed to women without good reason (other than by defining
functions as pastoral) are teaching a class or leading a home group meeting, teaching teens,
speaking at an outreach, assisting in baptism, and distributing the elements for a communion
service. It is noteworthy that the role of female Deacons (and, later, Abbesses in the West)
assisting baptism and the Eucharist were prominent for many centuries in the early church.34
How did Protestants become so honoring of ordained clergy that we leave women and other
church members out of these ministry contributions? Focus the Elders on Elder functions, and
promote other members to the rest of the ministry alongside them.
The second objection is how to apply the Pauline ban in 1 Timothy 2:12 as a limitation
on women teaching and leading in church ministries where men are involved. This passage is the
clearest statement relevant to ministry functions that limit women from functioning as Elders.35
Leaving to the side the arguments that this passage is not relevant for churches today (as if the
statement were limited to a specific situation at Ephesus), I observe, in agreement with Allison’s
charge noted above, that from the early church until the last century, interpretation of this

34
Macy, “Woman Deacons,” p. 29. Macy notes that Peter Abelard championed female Deacons in the
12th c., pointing to Abbesses as the new name for woman Deacons since they were fulfilling what women
did formerly.
35
In addition to 1 Timothy 2:12 are the entirely masculine qualifications for Elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7
and Titus 1:5-9, the absence of any women identified as Elders in the NT, and the early church practice
continuing up to and beyond the Reformation to limit women from teaching in the public assembly of the
church.
 13

passage has led men and women to shrink back from a contribution of women teaching the
public assembly of the church and from making other contributions that may resemble teaching.
In response, I argue that the affirmation of an order between men and women in 1 Timothy 2:12
should not block the promotion of women in the office of Deacon. I will offer four reasons
argued by Saucy to support this claim.36
First, teaching as a ministry of the Word of God is a complicated array of activities and
varying levels of authority in the NT and contemporary church practice. Saucy observes that
many different NT terms indicate the ministry of the Word in the church alongside the term teach
(didaskō) such as: explain (ektithemi), instruct (katecheō), admonish (noutheteō), exhort
(parakaleō), open (dianoigō) and proclaim (kerussō).37 The range of authority among these
ministries from the Word varies depending on who is the communicator, such as Jesus, and what
is the expected response of the hearer, such as when one Christian admonishes another.
Accordingly, the ministry of the Word specified in the Pastoral Epistles has specific
features of communicator, content, and audience focused on the problem at hand of countering
false teaching. Paul charges Timothy and Titus regarding the authoritative, established doctrine
passed on orally from leaders to the next generation. This is teaching of a particular sort with
authority to be obeyed, coming from the office of the Elders. Unlike the teaching expressed
elsewhere in the NT as what Christians share with one another (Col 3:16) or even the
communication by gifted teachers in the churches (Rom 12:7, didaskō), the authoritative
teaching of the Elders is the primary concern in the Pastorals.38 By “authoritative teaching” I
mean that the Elders define the doctrine of the church and shepherd the people according to that
standard in faith and practice (including exhortation and refuting those who contradict it, Tit 1:9).
Authoritative teaching is to be obeyed (Heb 13:17) in the sense of command from the Word. By
contrast, other teaching is informative and explanatory, which may be considered, accepted, or
ignored, as in a lecture, Bible study, or conference paper. This commanding sort of teaching is
what Paul has in view with 1 Timothy 2:12 as specific to the Elders’ responsibility; Paul does not
intend a limitation from all teaching that women or other non-Elders might offer when men are
present (as to the assembled church). For example, I am not an Elder in my church, but I deliver

36
What follows is adapted from the argument given by Robert L. Saucy, “Paul’s Teaching on the
Ministry of Women,” in Women and Men in Ministry, pp. 291-310.
37
Saucy, “Paul’s Teaching on the Ministry of Women,” pp. 300-01.
38
Saucy, “Paul’s Teaching on the Ministry of Women,” pp. 302-04.
 14

sermons occasionally. I do not teach from the authority of the office of Elder; my teaching is
information, explanation, and exhortation for the church.
This structural requirement that the Elders guard and transmit orthodoxy explains why
women are affirmed as Deacons and teach in various ways of information, explanation, and
exhortation, but they are limited from offering “authoritative teaching” that the Elders provide.39
Women are affirmed to teach the Word of God to other women (Tit 2:3-4), their own children
(Prov 1:8; 6:20), to other members in the church (most likely men and women, Col 3:16; 1 Cor
14:26), and in a limited sense to men, as demonstrated by the case of Priscilla teamed up with her
husband to explain the faith to Apollos (ektithemi, Acts 18:24-26). First Timothy 2:12
distinguishes women from functioning in the office of Elder, no matter how gifted a woman
might be as a teacher.40 That Paul forbids women to teach or exercise authority over men must
not be taken as an absolute limitation from teaching men (are wives never to instruct their
husbands in matters of faith and practice?). Paul gives this particular restriction on women (and
other non-Elders) from the authoritative teaching that the Elders are to do. This was also
Chrysostom’s view: “In what sense then does he say, “I suffer not a woman to teach?”… He
means to hinder her from publicly coming forward, and from the seat on the bema, not from the
teaching of the Word.”41 Therefore, we need not set the Pauline ban against other affirmations
and examples of women teaching men throughout the Bible. Women are not to be Elders in the
church; more restriction than this need not be added.
Second, not all teaching in the church is Elder teaching. We may observe that the Bible
pictures churches buzzing with the ministry of the Word by gifted teachers who are not Elders,
by parents teaching children, by many people teaching one another in conversations, by
prophecies, and by women teaching women—all in addition to the teaching done by the Elders. I
cannot imagine that the many statements that Christians are to teach, exhort, comfort, and
admonish one another were intended to have a gender limitation. The typical depictions of
church gatherings entail mutual ministry of the Word in which the content of the faith was shared

39
I am aware that scholars dispute whether there are two functions of teaching and authority, or basically
one thing of authority that is connected with teaching. I do not think that issue of interpretation is the
main point in this discussion.
40
Saucy, “Paul’s Teaching on the Ministry of Women,” p. 304.
41
John Chrysostom, Homily XXXI on Romans, in NPNF, First Series, vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2004 [repr. 1889]), p. 554. Cited by Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann
Arbor: Servant, 1980), p. 305.
 15

and applied commonly and widely (e.g., Col 3:16, 1 Cor 14:26, Heb 5:12). I do not think a
distinction between formal teaching venues and informal teaching venues can rightly be imposed
on these depictions of teaching in the church. In other words, I doubt that the NT proscribes
women from teaching in the public assembly or a class, merely on the grounds that this is formal
teaching. If a non-Elder male can teach a Bible study, class, or deliver a sermon occasionally,
then why not a woman? Obviously, the authority of all teaching from the Word is not the same.
Teaching from the office of Elder has greater authority than teaching done from one member to
another member. The point is that the recognized diversity of teaching allows for a distinction
among ministries of the Word. Women are partitioned from contributing teaching as an Elder
because of headship order between men and women, not because women are morally or
ontologically incapable or because they have nothing to offer men through teaching the Word
(they are capable in these ways, and they do have much to offer men through teaching the Word).
Third, Scripture affirms that women should teach the Word of God to others. This means
that, in principle, there is no violation of Scripture for women to teach the word. Clear cases are
women to teach other women (Tit 2:3-4), their own children (Proverbs, 2 Tim 3:14-15), team-
teaching with men to a man (Acts 18:24-26), and one another teaching that may take place today
in small group Bible studies (Col 3:16; 1 Cor 14:26). The last two of these examples involve
women teaching the Word to men, in the forms of instruction, explanation, exhortation, or
comfort. This is different from Elder teaching that is directing the lives of others in the way a
parent commands children. This is similar to the instruction that wives frequently give to their
own husbands, and even what children may give to parents. My daughter reminded me, “Daddy,
you’re a sinner.” She was three years old, and I think not proscribed by the Pauline ban. Neither
are women proscribed from contributing teaching of the Word to men in these ways that are
below the authority of Elder teaching.
Fourth, Scripture affirms that women should contribute to the church by speaking in, for,
and to the public assembly. Luke identifies women functioning as prophets (fulfilling Joel 2:28-
30), and Paul affirms women prophesying and praying in the public assembly at Corinth (1 Cor
11:3-16; 14:31). Paul’s only limitations are that women maintain the visible marker of their
gender by wearing a head covering, and that women do not participate in the judging and
application of prophecies that they may have shared in delivering (1 Cor 14:34-45). Such judging
is the work of the Elders, and women are not to be Elders in the church. For the early church
 16

before the canon had been developed, prophecy was a necessary ministry of the Word as direct
revelation for the foundation of the church. Since women were used by God and affirmed in the
NT to contribute God’s Word to the church through prophecy, while not functioning as Elders,
then could we not embrace the similar ministry of the Word through gifted women teaching in
the church (to men and women) while not functioning as Elders? Let us not limit women where
God has not told us to do so. The conclusions I have reached here about women teaching men
may go too far for some complementarians, but this argument is just answering an objection to
woman Deacons.

Conclusion
If the office of Deacon were redefined for capable men and women who are
commissioned agents responsible for leading ministries of the church, the second objection in
connection with the Pauline ban should not be applied to restrict women from this function. We
need not fear a violation of the headship order if a woman like Priscilla in the early church or
Beth Moore of today were to teach and lead men in her role as the Deacon of worship, or
outreach, or youth ministry. Women Deacons would do so in a way that is complementary to the
Elders, for the general benefit of men in the church, as sisters to their brothers. Women’s
excellences in nurture, compassion, empathy, communication, and teaching could flourish in the
church for the good of all.
Women are designed by God as ezer to men for the good of the whole and success of the
mission. When men deny women to function in this way by cutting off women from some
teaching and leadership contributions that are not excluded to women by the Bible, the practice
both denies men the help provided them by God through women, and it denies women from
making the good and valuable contributions that God provides uniquely through them. When
women are highly honored for their contribution in the church, this will serve the
complementarian model more adequately so that women make a real impact on men in the
church, instead of merely contributing to other women and children.
I have argued here that a renewal in church structure is possible through redefining the
office of Deacon and promoting women to this office. 42 Prominent women, like those

42
Saucy and TenElshof remind us that gender relations in the church are modeled on the home: “…as no
wise husband would seek to provide directions for his family without seeking the wisdom and perspective
 17

commended by Paul as his co-workers and patrons in ministry, would best fulfill the rich
complementarity of men and women in the church as Deacons leading various ministries in
partnership with the Elders. Such change to follow the NT structure of church leadership by a
team of Elders and Deacons properly promotes women to balance and enrich men who are
Elders. Such change would benefit the whole church in the way that mothers, wives, and sisters
contribute in a family.

of his wife, so the elders in the church cannot fulfill their responsibility of leadership without the
contribution of women in the church. The husband seeks and values his wife’s input, not only to better
understand the situation, but also to hear her complementary perspective on what best can be done for the
good of the family. For the same reasons, the elders need to value and seek the wisdom and perspective of
women in the church. To successfully accomplish this, a purposeful structure would need to be developed
in which women would become part of a church leadership team…Certain issues would still be the
province of elders alone, such as some matters of discipline and perhaps other areas. But like decisions in
the home that most often are made by husband and wife together, the direction of the church body, in
most instances, would be provided by the consensus of this body.” Robert L. Saucy and Judith K.
TenElshof, “The Complementary Model of Church Ministry,” in Women and Men in Ministry, p. 325.