Against Allowing Women to Be Deacons in the PCA—Jared Nelson

by Jared Nelson

The topic of women serving in the church is a worthy area of reflection. Whether Eunice and Lois bringing up Timothy in the faith on their knees (2 Timothy 1:5), Priscilla with Aquila providing feedback for Apollos on his preaching (Acts 18:26), or Phoebe aiding Paul, likely carrying his letter to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:1-2), women have been essential in the life of the church from the New Testament era to the modern day.

Women serving in the church, however, does not require an egalitarian diaconate, that is, men and women serving on the deacon board together in the same office. Indeed, the idea of an egalitarian diaconate was foreign to historic Christian, and in particular, Reformed, understandings of Scripture and office in the first 1800 years or so of Church History.

We will explore three passages to establish this briefly, in the establishment of the office of deacon in Acts 6, in the qualifications of deacons in 1 Timothy 3, and in the exception claimed in Romans 16:1.

Acts 6 – Establishment of the office of deacon.

The moment we first encounter deacons in the life of the church is in Acts 6. We find the Apostles instructing the congregation to choose seven men to serve the Greek widows and take the responsibility off of the backs of the elders. Males only were selected. The issue of unequal mercy ministry to Greek widows would have been a perfect opportunity to enlist the aid of women. But men were enlisted, not women.

It must be noted that some argue against the idea that the seven men in Acts 6 are selected for the ecclesial office of deacon. The men are called “to deacon/διακονειν” or “serve” tables as a verb, but the noun is not used in Acts 6 descriptively. The vast majority of the church from Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” onward has identified the duties of deacons. Thomas Witherow wrote in his book “The Form of the Christian Temple” that “if the history of the institution of the diaconate is not found in Acts 6, it is found nowhere else in the New Testament.” As we know those appointed to wait tables are waiters, so too we know that those nominated and elected to deacon are deacons. Acts 6 was establishing the office of deacon that Paul goes on to give qualifications for in 1 Timothy 3.

The argument against Acts 6 as the establishment of the first deacons has gained popularity as more have desired to see women occupy the office. We should be cautious. The effect of jettisoning Acts 6 as a selection of officers would greatly undermine the Biblical case for nominating and voting on officers, as this element of Reformed ecclesiology is primarily rooted in this text. In an effort to reinterpret Acts 6, foundations of Reformed and Presbyterian Polity begin to crack, and while aiming for women deacons one could end up with Episcopal hierarchy without congregational consent.

1 Timothy 3 – Qualifications for deacons.

After encountering the establishment of the office in Acts 6, where seven men were explicitly called for to be elected, we turn to their qualifications in 1 Timothy 3. Three observations indicate that Paul does not intend to include women in the offices of elder or deacon.

First, the office of deacon has authority. Paul instructs Timothy on qualifications for the two offices in the church just after Paul clarifies only males may occupy roles of an authoritative office (1 Timothy 2:12-15). Paul will lay out the qualifications of elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7), and likewise give the qualifications for deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13) with no indication of an exemption to the second office from the instructions of 1 Timothy 2:12-15.

Second, Paul uses exclusively male descriptions of the office of deacon. Deacons not only appear here in masculine form, but also deacons are said to be a “man” or more specifically “a man of one woman” (1 Timothy 3:12), often translated as “a husband of one wife.” Some will argue this is a character qualification that could apply to a woman, presumably as a “one man woman” yet without precedent of such a description either being applied to a woman.

Finally, wives are mentioned in 3:11 and then in 3:12. In 1 Timothy 3:11, the ESV and KJV begin “their wives”, but the NASB and NRSV begin “women” - because in Greek the word for woman and wife is the same. While some disagree, this word choice is better read as an argument against women in the diaconate. The vast majority in Church History have read this as “wives” since in context 3:11 flows into verse 12 speaking about deacons being married to only one woman. If these were women deacons in 3:11, their qualifications would be considerably fewer than men (four instead of nine), and would oddly mostly deal with confidentiality, repeating only “dignified.” This, however, makes perfect sense if the wives of deacons (and elders for that matter) needed discretion in how vulnerable people would be cared for by their husbands, and whose work would likely have been supplemented and complemented by their wives in sensitive matters.

Yet, an objection may still remain that a woman is referred to as a deacon in Romans 16:1. So, we must address this final passage to establish that Scripture does not prescribe an egalitarian diaconate:

Romans 16:1 – Phoebe a deacon? Or a deaconess? A widow?

The argument for an egalitarian diaconate in the PCA has cited Phoebe, who is identified as “servant of the church” in Romans 16:1, using a form of the same word used for deacon/servant. Should we conclude in this context that Phoebe was a woman deacon, sharing the same office as the deacons of 1 Timothy 3?

Proper Hermeneutics emphasize context rather than mere word searches, and is helpful to understanding that “deacon” does not always refer to the office of deacon. The Greek word “διάκονος” is used for servants elsewhere, such as in John 2, without any intent to imply an ecclesiastical office to those serving in that context, and especially not implying an egalitarian office of men and women. Both Phoebe and the servants at Cana are engaged in a general serving outside the mercy service in view with the office of deacon in 1 Timothy 3. In the wedding in Cana, we find someone serving wine at a wedding in Cana, as we do Phoebe serving a letter to the Romans. Christ instructed all to be servants/“διάκονος” without implication of the office (Matthew 20:26, 23:11 and Mark 9:35, 10:43, John 12:26, etc.) Romans 16 is thus best read as beginning with Paul praising the efforts of those in the church who have no ordained office for their service to the church well before we get to our first known ordained officer (Timothy in Romans 16:21).

Historical Dissent?

While tasked to write of the Scriptural basis, inevitably historical dissents and minority reports will be cited as interpretations to these passages. Indeed, occasionally in church history there is reference to a “deaconess” occupying some level of official role. And so we should consider if this undercuts my assertion that it is inconsistent with an historic Christian and Reformed understanding of Scripture to admit women to an egalitarian office of deacon.

First, let us consider the early church. We find references by a pagan (Pliny) and some Christian writers (eg. John Chrysostom) to “Deaconess” that could be understood to have some official function. The more illuminating reference we find however is in the work of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The term “deaconess” is found in canon 19 as to receiving a group that had been outside the universal church (a schismatic group coming back into the fold) and when they receive them in, the instruction is how to regard that group’s leaders. The instruction to the church is to receive their “deaconesses” as laity, not officers. This suggests that the orthodox and catholic church did not have such an office, illustrating that the early church in receiving these groups in did not have women ordained as deacons together with men, or even in the time of Nicaea as a separate group of ordained deaconesses. When receiving members from another group of Christians, they should not grandfather their irregular ecclesial office into the church.

Later in church history, however, there is a curious mention of “deaconess” in canon 15 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, which does speak of women as deaconesses, but restricting their inclusion into such a group until after age 40 and that she could not marry after she joined. The details line up less with an egalitarian diaconate, which is not mentioned, and more with a separate group, whose qualifications are more aligned with 1 Timothy 5 and the role of the widows with restrictions on age and marriage aligning with such a role.

Admitting women into official roles in the church here in Chalcedon indicates no egalitarian office of deacon. Rather, a separate group, defined not by 1 Timothy 3, but 1 Timothy 5. The origin of orders of (unordained) nuns growing out of such groups and qualifications fits our historical record of the later Roman church.

Within the Reformed Tradition, the later historical example often cited by advocates of women deacons is the ecclesiology of John Calvin, who does mention deaconesses but not an egalitarian diaconate. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, 3.9-10, Calvin specifically ties his conception of women serving in roles of mercy, many of which sound like nurses in a hospital established during the plagues of the 1500s. These Calvin tied to qualifications in 1 Timothy 5 in the rolls of the widow, and seems to have such a role in mind for Phoebe in Romans 16:1.

Therefore, when Calvin comments on the term “deaconess,” he does not refer to an ordained deacon of 1 Timothy 3 in an egalitarian diaconate, but has in mind a widow of 1 Timothy 5 in another role altogether. Thus, the minority of instances we see of others in history recognizing or advocating “deaconesses” align with a conception of a separate and unordained role, rather than an egalitarian diaconate, at least before the 1800s.

Conclusion

Biblically and Historically, we do not have a compelling biblical warrant for an egalitarian diaconate made up of men and women as outlined by Overture 37 to the 2026 General Assembly of the PCA. In the PCA, we can again affirm the conclusion of the historical heritage we have in the 154^th RPCES General Synod in 1976 when they communicated that: “We affirm in the absence of any compelling biblical evidence to support the ordination of women to the special office of deacon, that this office be limited to qualified men.” Indeed, the RPCES never sanctioned an egalitarian diaconate either, and at the most acknowledged there were some congregations who “have a separate body of unordained women who may be called deaconesses,” though later, the RPCES declined overtures to codify deaconesses into the Form of Government as an official role.

This means that the most formal inclusion of women in roles aiding the deacons is in the PCA BCO 9-7 that provides for “assistants to the deacons” again with the provision that these are not to be ordained, are not officers of the church, and hence are not part of the diaconate. This is the historic and biblically defensible position of the PCA that she should maintain.

There are worthwhile questions of history and biblical application in regards to the service of the women in the church to explore. Even while I believe the Biblical and historical arguments favor a male-only diaconate board, I also acknowledge that other theologians I respect (Edmund Clowney and Thomas Witherow) and denominations in NAPARC (ARP and RPCNA) have affirmed an egalitarian diaconate while remaining complementarian on the office of elder. Yet, I do not find their position or the current proposals to be rooted in solid and compelling exposition of Scripture, or in alignment with either the historical mainstream or the alternative historical approaches which included separate groups of deaconesses before 1800.

Finally, I also respect my brothers who want to discuss this subject and applaud the motivation to bring this forward for consideration at the General Assembly. We ought to discuss this subject and walk in unity and peace, rather than each doing what is right in their own eyes, or leaving (or demanding others leave) the denomination without understanding differences in interpretation and coming to respectful agreement (or respectful disagreement) on the issue. We should all in the PCA honor and utilize the service of women in the church, even among those of us who do not believe such service is in the form of a fairly recent concept of an egalitarian diaconate.

---

Jared has been the pastor of New Life Presbyterian Church of Hopewell Township since 2014. He received a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary in 2010 and has served The Lord as an Assistant Pastor at Providence Presbyterian Church, as a Hospital Chaplain at Methodist Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center in Dallas, TX and as a Pastoral Intern at Park Cities Presbyterian Church.