Can Women Serve as Deacons? (Arguments for and Against)

Two Perspectives

The question is perennial and unavoidable. Does Christ call women to the office of deacon? Every church with deacons must, in one way or another, come to a conclusion on it. Sometimes that decision is formal, codified in a church constitution or denominational document; other times it’s less formal, driven largely by custom. Either way, the choice must be made: will the office of deacon in your church be open to women or not?

My aim is to offer what I believe are the strongest arguments for both views, leaving you to decide which is most compelling. (Full disclosure: my own view is that it is biblical to have women deacons. Note my comments in the concluding two paragraphs.)

Arguments Against Women Deacons

Sometimes, those convinced that Scripture limits the diaconate to qualified men are accused of not valuing the ministry of women. But this conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. Women can absolutely flourish in churches without women deacons. Their worth can be valued, their gifts celebrated, their contributions encouraged, their ministry championed.

Now, surely some churches restrict the office to men out of a low view of the ministry of women. Stay out of the way and leave real ministry to us! But the existence of “ministerial chauvinism” in some male-deacon-only churches doesn’t mean it infects every such church. Yes, one church may have pathetic reasons for limiting the office to men, but what if another church’s reasons are different? What if their reasons are carefully thought out? No doubt plenty of churches without women deacons encourage and equip women better than other churches who technically have them but who, when it comes to the “real work” of theology and ministry, continue to keep women at arm’s length.

That said, here is a case for limiting the diaconal office to qualified men.

1) The Jerusalem Church Selected Only Men

Luke is clear about the qualifications for the seven who were appointed to serve the Jerusalem church:

And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.” (Acts 6:2–3)

Not “seven women,” not “a few of each.” Seven men. Now, it’s true that Acts 6 doesn’t technically feature the office of deacon, but surely the passage sets in motion a pattern that soon becomes the position (cf. Phil. 1:1). And besides, it’s not as if we hesitate to draw deacon-related principles from the story. For example: “word ministry” is prioritized, the congregation is involved, character is foregrounded, labor is divided, the seven solve a problem and safeguard church unity, and so on.

It seems arbitrary, then, to omit from our applications this one principle: that deacons today, like the seven who preceded them, should be exclusively male.

2) Paul Referred to Deacons’ Wives, Not Women Deacons

In his list of deacon qualifications, Paul includes four qualifications for their wives:

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives [gynaikas] likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 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. (1 Tim. 3:8–13)

It’s true that the Greek word at the outset of 1 Timothy 3:11, rendered here as “wives” (gynaikas), can also be translated “women.” But in the flow of this section a reference to deacons’ wives is more likely, for several reasons.

First, in the immediate context of chapter 3, the word is twice translated “wife,” not “woman” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). Thus, the natural way to read the chapter’s only other occurrence, in 1 Timothy 3:11, is also as “wives.”

Second, if Paul is referring to women deacons, then why doesn’t he assign them that title, as he’s previously done for both elders (1 Tim. 3:1) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8)? Why use an ambiguous word (gynaikas, “wives” or “women”) rather than a more specific designation like diakonous with the feminine article—whether tas diakonous (“female deacons”) or gynaikas diakonous (“women deacons”)?

Third, Paul stipulates marriage standards for both elders (1 Tim. 3:2) and male deacons (1 Tim. 3:12); why not for these women if they are deacons, too? He also omits any testing requirement, unlike for the elders (1 Tim. 3:6; cf. 1 Tim. 5:22) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:10).

Fourth, it’s difficult to imagine why Paul would discuss male deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–10), then female deacons (1 Tim. 3:11), then male deacons again (1 Tim. 3:12). If he were truly turning his attention from male deacons to female deacons, why suddenly return to male deacons in the next verse? It is better to conclude that Paul is speaking of male deacons throughout, and is here examining one’s family life from two angles: the character of his wife (1 Tim. 3:11) and his own character as both husband and father (1 Tim. 3:12).

Lastly, given the nature of diaconal responsibility, it makes sense that Paul would include some qualifications for their wives. As Guy Waters explains,

“In light of the sensitivities surrounding deacons’ work, and in light of the fact that wives may be called on to assist their husbands—particularly in addressing the needs of the church’s women—one could see why Paul might have desired that the church be satisfied with the character of a candidate and his wife as they assessed his suitability for the diaconate.”¹

3) Phoebe Was a Servant, Not a Deacon

In Romans 16, Paul’s personal greetings begin with a commendation of Phoebe:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [diakonos] of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Rom. 16:1–2)

Though the word here is indeed diakonos, we know from the rest of the New Testament that the word is almost always used informally, in reference to a person we might today describe as “ministry-minded” or “servant-hearted.” This is no exception. And if the usage here has a technical meaning at all, it is more likely “courier” or “envoy” rather than “deacon.”² That is, Phoebe may have been a designated letter-carrier on behalf of the Cenchrean church, a far cry from the formal office of deacon. Moreover, it is misguided to draw any significance from the word’s masculine ending, since the feminine form (diakonissa) hadn’t yet been coined.

In sum, nothing in the context of Romans 16 demands that we view Phoebe as anything more than a dedicated and praiseworthy servant sent, perhaps on some official business, by the Cenchrean church.

4) Diaconal Work Entails a Measure of Authority

The qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 follow closely on the heels of a gender-specific prohibition:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Tim. 2:11–15)

Though believers will doubtless debate applications, from a complementarian perspective this much is clear: women may not exercise formal spiritual authority over men in the church, and therefore may not serve as elders. As the rest of the letter makes clear, elders are distinguished from deacons by their unique calling to both teach and govern the whole church (1 Tim. 3:2; 1 Tim. 5:17), tasks which correspond precisely to these two female-specific prohibitions: “teach” and “exercise authority” (1 Tim. 2:12).

In sum, the prohibitions (1 Tim. 2:12) should inform our reading of the qualifications (1 Tim. 3:11) such that, however we apply the latter passage, we do not practically undermine the former. But avoiding this is difficult, if not impossible, since real influence and leadership and, yes, some measure of authority will naturally accrue to a skilled deacon. It is perhaps noteworthy, too, that a deacon must “manage” (proistamenoi) his household well (1 Tim. 3:12). Might this suggest that, as with elders (1 Tim. 3:4–5), the diaconate involves functions that should be echoes of one’s leadership at home? To open the diaconate to women is therefore not just unbiblical but also unwise, for they will inevitably take on a level of practical authority that Scripture forbids.³

Arguments for Women Deacons

Turning now to arguments for installing women in diaconal positions, an important caveat is in order: this case assumes that the deacons in your church operate like deacons, not elders. If your deacons basically function as a governing elder board, then it seems best to continue limiting the diaconal office to men for now. Your first assignment is to study and implement what God’s word says not about women deacons but about deacons in general.

Now, disclaimer aside, here are some arguments for opening the diaconate to qualified women.

1) Scripture Nowhere Forbids Women Deacons

We’ve already seen Paul’s prohibition regarding the office and function of elder: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). Elders uniquely are charged with teaching and giving spiritual oversight to the whole church. To be sure, deacons will need to make decisions about resources, call upon others for help, and generally manage areas of tangible need, as the seven’s management of the food distribution surely implies (Acts 6:1–7).

But unlike elders, deacons are not charged with shepherding the whole flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Unlike elders, deacons need not stand ready to “give instruction in sound doctrine and . . . rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Unlike elders, deacons will not answer to God for the spiritual welfare of individual souls (Heb. 13:17). Never once do we read a verse like “Be subject to the deacons” (cf. 1 Pet. 5:5), or “Obey your deacons and submit to them” (cf. Heb. 13:17), for such language is exclusively applied to the office of elder.

In short, there is no “1 Timothy 2:12 equivalent” for deacons, since theirs is not an office of spiritual authority and is therefore naturally open to qualified women. Why forbid what the Bible doesn’t?

2) Paul Referred to Women Deacons, Not Deacons’ Wives

Back to the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives [gynaikas] likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 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. (1 Tim. 3:8–13)

Again, gynaikas (1 Tim. 3:11) can mean either “wives” or “women” (e.g., ESV “their wives”; NIV “the women”; NASB “women”), the proper translation depending on context. And 1 Timothy 3:11 is best translated “women”—as in women deacons—for several reasons.

First, Paul uses gynaikas eight other times in 1 Timothy— arguably all of which are best translated “women,” not “wives.” The first five examples (1 Tim. 2:9, 10, 11, 12, 14) are undisputed. But what about the two in the immediate context of 1 Timothy 3:11?

• 1 Timothy 3:2: “husband of one wife” (mias gynaikos andra)
• 1 Timothy 3:12: “husband[s] of one wife” (mias gynaikos andres)

On first glance, this translation (“wife”) may seem the only reasonable option. But, literally rendered, the phrase is just “one-woman man” (1 Tim. 3:2) and “one-woman men” (1 Tim. 3:12). Nothing about this qualification demands the translation “wife”; in fact, the slightly broader focus of “woman” helpfully encompasses more diaconal candidates, such as single men and widowers. The point is that the man’s fidelity—in relationships with women other than his wife—is broadly known and uncontroversial.⁴

On this point it is also worth observing that, out of Paul’s nine uses of gynaikas in 1 Timothy, only one bears the exact same structure as 1 Timothy 3:11:

• “Likewise also . . . women . . .” (1 Tim. 2:9)
• “Women likewise . . .” (1 Tim. 3:11 NASB, ESV mg, cf. NIV)

And since the first (1 Tim. 2:9) is clearly referencing women, not wives, we should default to hearing its later echo (1 Tim. 3:11) in the same way.

Second, the possessive pronoun “their”—as in “their wives” (1 Tim. 3:11)—is not in the text. It is sometimes inserted to support the translation “wives,” but it is not originally present. Paul could easily have included a qualifier—say, “their” (autōn or “their own” (idiōn)—to clearly specify a focus on deacon wives, but he did not.⁵ This hints that his bare use of gynaikas, without the pronoun, means he has women deacons in view.

Third, consider the paragraph’s grammatical structure:

• 1 Timothy 3:8: “Deacons likewise must be dignified . . .” (followed by three qualifications)
• 1 Timothy 3:11: “Wives/women likewise must be dignified . . .” (followed by three qualifications)

These verses stand in exact parallel, each featuring the word “likewise,” followed by “dignified,” followed by three additional qualifications. This use of “likewise” (NIV “in the same way”), echoing 1 Timothy 3:8, suggests that Paul is still discussing deacons. The women serve just as the men do.

Fourth, even more significant is how these verses function identically—and therefore together—in relation to an earlier one:

• 1 Timothy 3:2: “An overseer must be . . .”
• 1 Timothy 3:8: “Deacons likewise [must be] . . .”
• 1 Timothy 3:11: “Wives/women likewise [must be] . . .”

This “zoomed out” view of the whole passage suggests that the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 are not fundamentally distinguished from the deacons, but from the elders. Paul is treating the women and the deacons together, as one office, in parallel relation to the elders, the other office.

Fifth, what about the common objection that seeing women deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11 amounts to linguistic whiplash? It’s a good question: why would Paul discuss deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–10), then jump to women deacons (1 Tim. 3:11), then go right back to (clearly male) deacons (1 Tim. 3:12)? I’m dizzy just writing it!

The answer is actually quite simple: Paul “bookends” the paragraph with general statements pertaining to all deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–10 and 1 Tim. 3:13), inside of which he addresses, with brief specificity, both female (1 Tim. 3:11) and male (1 Tim. 3:12) deacons. Tracing these structural clues helps crystallize the flow of thought:

• qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7)
• general qualifications for deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–10)
• specific qualifications for female deacons (1 Tim. 3:11)⁶
• specific qualifications for male deacons (1 Tim. 3:12)
• summary for all deacons (1 Tim. 3:13)

Sixth, the character traits demanded of these women are also required for both elders and male deacons—which makes sense if an official capacity is intended. The women must be “sober-minded” just as elders are (1 Tim. 3:2) and “dignified” just as deacons are (1 Tim. 3:8). Such qualifications, in context, point to official responsibility.

Finally, why would Paul list qualifications for deacons’ wives but not for elders’ wives? It isn’t as if these two lists— one for elders, one for deacons—are found in separate biblical books, where the discrepancy might be natural. The qualification lists aren’t even found in separate biblical chapters; they are inseparably joined. It makes little sense to conclude that Paul thought the wives of the church’s servants should receive scrutiny but the wives of its leaders should not. As Thomas Schreiner writes,

It would seem the character of the wives of elders would be even more important than the wives of deacons—and thus focusing on the wives of deacons, but not on the wives of elders, is strange. Yet if the reference is to female deacons, we have an elegant explanation for why the wives of elders aren’t mentioned—for the wives of deacons aren’t included either. In other words, Paul isn’t referring to wives at all, but to female deacons.⁷

For these reasons it is most sensible to conclude, from 1 Timothy 3, that women may serve as deacons.

3) Phoebe Was a Deacon, Not Just a Servant

As we saw earlier, Paul begins greeting the Roman church with a specific commendation:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [diakonos] of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Rom. 16:1–2)

Though many interpret diakonos informally (e.g., a servant-hearted person), there are better reasons to believe that the word signals the formal position of deacon.

First, the ending of the word is masculine, not feminine. This would have been an odd way for Paul to refer to a woman—unless, of course, he’s not describing her character but designating her office.⁸

Second, it is significant that Phoebe is called a diakonos of a specific church. Throughout the New Testament this term is often used in a general sense—and rightly translated “servant” or “minister”—since the person’s labor isn’t tied to a specific locale, much less to a specific church. Thus Paul is a diakonos “of the gospel” (Eph. 3:7), Epaphras “of Christ” (Col. 1:7), Tychicus “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:21), and Timothy “of Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 4:6). On first glance it might seem Paul is placing Phoebe into this same “general servant” category, but this overlooks that he describes her as a diakonos “of the church at Cenchreae,” specifying her function as diakonos to that specific church.

This one-church designation is even more striking when we consider the expansiveness of Phoebe’s ministry: she belongs to the church in Cenchreae; she is serving Paul in Corinth; and she will likely carry the letter to Rome. Yet despite this service to churches across the Roman Empire, Paul tethers her diakonos status to a single congregation. The most natural conclusion, then, is that “diakonos of the church at Cenchreae” is not a general description but an official title. There are countless general servants of the church, but Phoebe is also a formal deacon of a church.

Finally, Phoebe is called a “patron” (ESV) or “benefactor” (NIV) in Romans 16:2, indicating that she regularly supported, perhaps financially, those in need. This task, as well as serving as a courier or envoy to Rome, would fit naturally with a diaconal position.

Rich Blessing to the Church

As we have seen, strong arguments exist on both sides of this issue. My personal persuasion after much consideration is that the office of deacon, when properly understood in Scripture, is indeed open to qualified women. I believe this is God’s good intention, designed for the flourishing of everyone—women and men—within the household of faith, and I think that churches who close the diaconal office to qualified sisters are, however unwittingly, impoverishing themselves.

Nevertheless, I do not wish to be dogmatic in this view, and I certainly respect the many godly believers who disagree with me. As we await that time of eternal clarity “when the perfect comes [and] the partial will pass away” (1 Cor. 13:10), there is room for both conclusions in the kingdom of God.

This article is adapted from Deacons: How They Serve and Strengthen the Church by Matt Smethurst.

---

---

Related Articles

---

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.