Communities differ in their use of titles. People would not think of applying the title “king” to anyone but the monarch himself in countries where a king reigns, for there can be only one “king.” In other cultures with a more democratic order, the term “president” can be used quite loosely. Only one person may be “the president.” But many people may be addressed with the title “president:” the president of a university, the president of a ladies’ luncheon club, the president of a young boys’ organization. Under certain circumstances titles have restricted use. At other times, titles may be used quite broadly.
Current discussion in the evangelical community buzzes about titles, especially the use of church officer titles for women. Should a woman be called a “minister?” A “pastor?” An “elder?” A “deacon?” In some ecclesiastical circles these questions have little significance. But in other church communities more strongly committed to the Bible as God's infallible Word, the question of church titles for women can be vigorously debated.
During a recent church meeting, one argument seemed quite persuasive for allowing women to be called deacons, if not pastors and elders. The person framed his statement something like this:
Paul the apostle, refers to Phoebe the “deacon” (Rom. 16:1). Would Paul be welcome today in a church community if he insisted on addressing women with the title “deacon?” Or would the apostle be told that he must not address women as “deacons” anymore?
In this case, the issue is not whether a woman should hold the ordained office of deacon. Instead, it’s simply a matter of addressing a woman with the title “deacon,” meaning “servant,” which is nothing more than what Paul does in the case of Phoebe.
Further analysis of Paul’s example may establish more than a person intends. For only a few verses later in this same chapter of Romans, Paul applies an even higher title to a woman—a very exalted title indeed. Paul warmly greets Andronicus and his wife Junias, for they are “well known among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7).
Now what are you going to do? If Paul models the use of titles for the church, should you not address faithful, godly women as “apostles” as well as “deacons?”
Paul’s phrase could mean “well known to the apostles.” But the more likely understanding is that Paul actually addresses the woman Junias as an apostle. John Calvin reaches that conclusion. Junias is “well known among the apostles.” Then in his discussion, Calvin notes that Paul “does not, however, use this word in its proper and generally accepted sense…” For Paul “restricts the word elsewhere to the principal order which Christ established at the beginning when He chose the twelve disciples” (John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 16:7).
So shall we feel free to apply the title “apostle” to ourselves as well as to women in this lesser sense? Has anyone ever addressed you as “apostle?” I recently received an email that addressed me as “apostle!”
Why do we restrain from applying this title to ourselves, since Scripture itself gives the title of “apostle” to people other than the original twelve? Barnabas, Andronicus, and his wife Junias are all called apostles (Acts 14:14, Romans 16:7). Why not address women today by the title “apostle” or “deacon?” If Paul does it, why do we not feel free to do the same?
First, our cultural context virtually compels us to restrict ourselves in the use of these special titles. Some parts of the Christian world are filled with people who introduce themselves as “apostles.” With this title, they exercise authority over the church in determining its life, its worship style, and its use of the Lord’s funds - all to their own advantage. To protect the special foundational role of the original twelve apostles, we restrict ourselves even though these few early Scriptures could be interpreted as granting the right to make a broader use of this exalted title.
Secondly, the application of the terms “apostle” and “deacon” appears among the earliest grouping of Paul’s letters. In writing to the Romans, Paul is not at this point in his career defining the role of various officers in the church of Jesus Christ. The church as a distinctive entity of the new covenant era is still in the process of taking its distinctive shape. Only in the last phase of apostolic Christianity does Paul define the various leadership structures for the New Covenant church. As the apostolic age is coming to its close, Paul makes provision for the ongoing governance of the church by the continuing offices of “elder” and “deacon,” but not “apostle” (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9). No longer will the church’s governance be invested in apostolic eyewitnesses of the resurrection who have been specifically called and commissioned by Christ as foundational witnesses for the life of the church. In his later letters to pastors Timothy and Titus, Paul lays out the role of elder and deacon for the ongoing church of the Lord Jesus Christ. He makes no mention whatsoever of an ongoing apostolic office. Neither does he use the term “deacon” when referring to the role of women in the church. By the conclusion of the apostolic age, the titles of “apostle,” “elder” and “deacon” were no longer applied to women in Scripture. The distinctive position of ordained elders and deacons, with their appropriate authority, must be maintained so that their effectiveness in providing leadership for the church is not lost.
Thirdly, a determined effort is being made to bring down the role of deacon among men while bringing up the position of women of the congregation who assist the deacons in their ministry.
How is this done?
Simply do not ordain the deacons, and they will be brought down from their role as ordained servants set apart for Christ, to the level of the women who serve in the church.
Formally install women in their role as serving women, address them with the title of “deacon,” and they will be brought up to the level of diaconal men. By this circuitous route, the egalitarian role of men and women among officers of the church will replace the order determined by the original apostolic authority.
These actions can only doubly denigrate the office of deacon. Ordination to the office of elder and deacon represents a critical moment in the life and ministry of Christ’s church. Without this setting apart of church leadership by the solemn laying on of the hands of the elders, essential structure necessary for the health of the church is lost. The chaos marking the period of the Judges in Israel’s history returns, so that “every man (and every church) does that which is right in his (its) own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). The unity of the larger body of believers is decimated by the determination of churches to go their own way rather than willingly accept agreed-upon standards to which all ordained officers have vowed their submission. The authority of Jesus as the only King and Head of his church has been usurped.
The 21st Century western mindset can chafe against a seemingly male chauvinistic authority structure. Many women are capable, and eager to serve Christ in his body the church. But the restriction of the offices of “elder” and “deacon” to appropriately qualified men, in no way implies that women are inferior to men, that they are “less” in any way. In their essential personhood, women are absolutely equal with men, just as treasured and valuable in God’s sight, just as much made in his image. But God has determined an order for every aspect of his creation. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).
It is altogether appropriate to give recognition to women for their faithful service in the church. But bestowing titles such as “deacon,” “elder,” or even "apostle” to women creates expectations for women that are not appropriate according to the order established in Scripture. At the same time, assigning these titles to women minimizes the significance of these offices that belong to recognized leaders in Christ’s church.