PDA

View Full Version : Deaconess - Scriptural or Not?


Alex Mullins
02-22-2002, 11:20 PM
I have asked this question before but did not receive a clear answer. I am hoping for a clearer answer to help me settle this.

Our church is considering appointing Deaconesses and I am really struggling with it. The Pastor is pushing hard, even though it may split the church.

Our church has a Deacon/Elder sytem of government with both being elected by the membership. Elders really lead all areas of the church, spiritaul and otherwise but the deacons assist. In fact, a deacon sits as the chair(man) of each of the committees and reports to an Elder/Liason. As much as we say deacons are "servants" they are , in reality, in leadership roles in that sense.

In light of 1 Timothy 2: 12 and the many biblical qualifications for a deacon I am trying very hard to be discerning about what God wants of me and us as a body of believers, in this issue.

Also, in our church, we have plenty of qualified and willing men, husband of one-wife, etc (which, by the way, is next to impossible for a woman to lay claim to) to serve as deacons so this matter is not being driven by that.

It is my belief that there is a specific and very special role for women in the church, just as there is a special role for women in a marriage. With society changing those roles, as it is today, could it be that the role of women in the church is changing also?

My wife is all for it because the church she was raised in and saved in had deaconesses and she thought it was wonderful. That same church married us while we were unequally yoked so I have always viewed it a "liberal" church. That is really a Pastoral issue though, in my humble opinion. For some reason, many people (church members)are much like sheep and are easily lead down any road a Pastor will lead them.

Can anyone enlighten me and show me where the qualifications for deacons (men) were also meant to be applied to women?

It is my fear that our church, under current leadership, is taking the high road to modernism. It is evident in our music and worship style also. This issue, if adopted, would be just one more indication of that.

Thanks for your help and God Bless.

Alex

(I am not a male chauvinist, by the way! I think women are great and everyone should own at least one.....just kidding!!
Couldn't resist it....really, this is a serious question and I appreciate your help)

Clint Kritzer
02-22-2002, 11:55 PM
Hi Mr. Mullins -

Some folks interpret the reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1 to mean that female deacons are scriptural. I am not sure if there are any other references. This is a hot topic so I suppose you will get a myriad of opinions but I am interested in any other scripture on the matter as well.

May God bless you

- Clint

Dr. Bob
02-23-2002, 12:37 AM
Deacon can mean either an official office or simply a servant of that church. Context will help define which is which.

Can a woman be a deacon"ness" or servant of the church? Of course. And she would have the same authority and power of a male deacon!

NONE. Think about it. What power and authority does a servant have? What decisions does a servant make?

Some churches have elevated the office of "deacon" to some sort of "board of governing" or "ruling", an animal totally unknown in the Bible or early church.

Hope this helps.

SaggyWoman
02-23-2002, 01:22 AM
I am in agreement here with Dr. Bob, and would like to add that any church that has elevated the deacon position to a ruling position might need to reconsider and revise their church's stance in that it is not biblical.

Though I have never been a member of a church where we have had so called women deacons, I have been in churches where women have had more of the deacon spirit and served better that those were called deacon.

The concept of the diakonos is transgendered, in my opinion.

SaggyWoman
02-23-2002, 01:25 AM
Plus, I would dare say that we always get hung up on this qualification rather than the others, which, in my opinion, are just as weighty, if not more so.

Jamal5000
02-23-2002, 02:11 AM
Alex,

In 1 Timothy 3:11 according to my NIV, the wife of a deacon equals a deaconess.

My church which also utilizes deaconesses clings to this understanding of the position: the wife of a deacon automatically stands as a deaconess.

I hope this helps a little.

In Christ, Jamal5000 smile.gif

donnA
02-23-2002, 10:26 AM
Alex the verses you mentioned tell us that a decon is a man, a woman does not have a wife, so the decon is a man. And in Acts when they choose the first decons, they specified that they were to be men.
Women being ordained decons is not biblical, and is modern feminism, which is anti biblical.
Sure a woman can be a servant, like has been mentioned in an earlier post, but ordaining them is not biblical.

Rev. Joshua
02-23-2002, 12:07 PM
Our church holds the guiding principle of gender and race issues to be Galatians 3:28, and makes no distinctions regarding gender or race. Nor do we affirm or support slavery.

Joshua

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

Speedpass
02-23-2002, 12:25 PM
At Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans, a predominantly black SBC congregation, they have deaconessess. They are separate body from the deacons, in that they minister to women and children, and serve as ushers. I know this because I have visited that church twice, the latest time being on Thanksgiving last November.

Dr. Bob
02-24-2002, 01:29 AM
Jimmy, I dare say that MOST Baptist churches have "Deaconnesses" of some sort - ladies who minister to women/children, help with baptisms, set up communion, oversee the nursery, etc. Some times it is simply a part of a Women's Mission or organization, but they "serve" the church.

Not rule. Not make decisions. Not lord over the flock. But serve. Give me a servant's heart, dear Lord!

swaimj
02-24-2002, 10:32 AM
I think Dr. Bob is correct here in that the greek word for deacon may or may not refer to an office and the context determines this. Contextually, I see no place where the word "deacon" is used on women. I was a member of a large Baptist church until recently and they took the I Tim qualifications for deacons wives and applied it as a qualification for the women who were employed by the church. I think that was a good application of the text.

Jonathan
02-25-2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Deacon can mean either an official office or simply a servant of that church. Context will help define which is which.

Can a woman be a deacon"ness" or servant of the church? Of course. And she would have the same authority and power of a male deacon!

Respectfully, Dr. Bob, the weakness in your argument is that there is no Biblical teaching that establishes any authority or power among the diaconate. Removing that argument also removes the argument (on any grounds other than tradition) against ordaining women to servant positions (other than elder/bishop/pastor).

But, being a Baptist all of my years, I understand the hesitation to step aside tradition on this issue.

NONE. Think about it. What power and authority does a servant have? What decisions does a servant make?

Very good point. Of course, your point also goes to the fact that deacons have no biblical authority or power anyway. Therefore, there is no reason, other than tradition, to oppose the ordination of women for servant roles (other than elder/bishop/pastor).

Some churches have elevated the office of "deacon" to some sort of "board of governing" or "ruling", an animal totally unknown in the Bible or early church.

Hope this helps.

[ February 25, 2002, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan ]

TurboMike
02-25-2002, 10:54 AM
I really don't see how anyone could justify a women being a deacon in the church. I understand the servant issue (diakoneo) and how we all are servants, but I think the Bible is clear of the elected "officals" in the church such as the office of Deacon. Especially when in today's church a deacon is more "overseer" than servant.

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

In Acts we see all men were elected:

Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

I do, however, see women playing vital roles within the church. I have stated before and do so now that without women, homes and churches would NOT exsist.

Jonathan
02-25-2002, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by TurboMike:
I really don't see how anyone could justify a women being a deacon in the church. I understand the servant issue (diakoneo) and how we all are servants, but I think the Bible is clear of the elected "officals" in the church such as the office of Deacon. Especially when in today's church a deacon is more "overseer" than servant.

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

In Acts we see all men were elected:

Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

I do, however, see women playing vital roles within the church. I have stated before and do so now that without women, homes and churches would NOT exsist.

Jonathan
02-25-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by TurboMike:
I really don't see how anyone could justify a women being a deacon in the church. I understand the servant issue (diakoneo) and how we all are servants, but I think the Bible is clear of the elected "officals" in the church such as the office of Deacon. Especially when in today's church a deacon is more "overseer" than servant.

This is an issue that cries out for honesty in translation. My question for the board's resident Greek scholars: What word/words are the KJV's "office of a Deacon" translated from in 1 Timothy 3:10,13?

[snip]

In Acts we see all men were elected:

Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

Yes there was an election in Acts 6. However, who was elected to what position? Are you sure that these men were the first "deacons" or were they servants chosen for a specific needed task in the Jerusalem church? Further, is this one instance sufficient proof that women cannot be elected to a church servant position? How about having hands laid on them to set them apart for that service?

I do, however, see women playing vital roles within the church. I have stated before and do so now that without women, homes and churches would NOT exsist.So what is your objection (other than holding to long held tradition) to ordaining them to specific areas of service (with the exception of elder/bishop/pastor) in your church?

Maverick
02-25-2002, 09:04 PM
There was obviously some leadership or authority in the early Church office of deacon.
The office had some sort of dignity or grade/rank.

898 bathmos (bath-mos');
from the same as 899; a step, i.e. (figuratively) grade (of dignity):
KJV-- degree.


They were obviously involved in some sort of public dialogue, preaching, teaching or something that would require great boldness.

3954 parrhesia (par-rhay-see'-ah);
from 3956 and a derivative of 4483; all out-spokenness, i.e. frankness, bluntness, publicity; by implication, assurance:
KJV-- bold (X -ly, -ness, -ness of speech), confidence, X freely, X openly, X plainly (-ness).

These things being in the text would negate a woman since they were to have meek and quiet spirits and not allowed to teach or even ask questions in the Church, but to ask their husbands at home.

Also, one of the requiremnts is thatthe deacon be the husband of one wife as is the pastor. This is a very hard requirement for a woman to fill as is ruling the house when the husband is to be the head of the house.

Now, obviously if the pastor or deacon have a immodest dressing, cussing, drunkard, gossiping wife the man's ministry would be greatly hindered. Hence, even if you found a good man, his wife had to have some standards and charcter as well to fully qualifythe man. Behind every great man is a great woman.

I may be counseling a single woman in the near future and my wife will be present with me during those sessions. Therefore, she has to be quiet about what goes on in the sessions as well as me. So, did the wives assist their husbands or at least support him in the ministry? Yes. Were women made deaconesses? Not in the early church. I believe the first reference to such a positin was after the RCs came into being and basically they prepared women for baptism which is a modesty thing more than a "office."

Since it was widows being taken care of in Acts, why were men selected and not women if the office was to be open to women? It would seem ideal to pick seven women. Instead, men were selected and Paul clearly states men are pastors and deacons. There is no argument or question. It is just that we wish to be politically correct and are bowing to our culture instead of the Word.

As to the one lady that "appears" to be a deacon in Scripture, we must remember that a wife of a prophet was often referred to as a prophetess though she did not have the gift nor execute the office of a prophet. With such clear teaching by the same lad that commends this woman it is more feasible to assume the same practice was used the early church calling the wife of a deacon a deaconess rather than assuming she held the office. It is also possible that the widows who prayed and "served" the church as they were supported by the church may have been called deaconesses but did not execute the office of deacon as outlined in I Tim. It is confusing because the word merely means servant and hence even a secular servant could have been listed on paper as a deacon in the house of Apollos.

I agree that many deacons are really elders or assistant pastors in their functions. In that case, no women would be allowed for sure. Women are called to a great ministry to each other, but many refuse to perform the ministry and many refuse to be ministered to. Older women are to teach the younger how tobe good wives, mothers and have good character. This is sorely needed in the church. If women would do what they are clearly called to do and not not seek ministries they are not called to there would be greater grace, peace and power in the Church as a whole.

If women are taking positions of authority it is not because God has called them to do so. It only means that we are in deep rebellion and in line for God's judgement. Deborah was doingher thing during a time when every man (and obviously woman) was doing what was right in their own eyes. Sounds a lot like today. Note that Barak is mentioned in Heb 11, bit not Deborah. The Bible records things that happened whether God approved of them or not and it does not look like He saw her as a big heroine as the Feminists do. Also, note how amazingly accurate the description in Isa 3:12 fits us so well and this was when Israel was backslidden not in God's blessing.

I have done a whole series on the roles of women in the Bible. Even the feminazi in my study group did not argue with me. Her problem was that she thought women were put down in the Bible and after my study she saw that was not true.

Go to http://home.earthlink.net/~rfbunting/index.html

Hit the See My Sermons button which will take you to sermoncentral.com

I have over 80 sermons there.

Deitrich B
02-25-2002, 09:16 PM
A small snippet of Mavericks ramblings:
I agree that many deacons are really elders or assistant pastors in their functions. In that case, no women would be allowed for sure. Women are called to a great ministry to each other, but many refuse to perform the ministry and many refuse to be ministered to. Older women are to teach the younger how tobe good wives, mothers and have good character. This is sorely needed in the church. If women would do what they are clearly called to do and not not seek ministries they are not called to there would be greater grace, peace and power in the Church as a whole. Are you serious?
DB

[ February 25, 2002, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

Deitrich B
02-25-2002, 09:18 PM
I have over 80 sermons there.Oh great, do you address real issues or is it more female bashing.

TomVols
02-25-2002, 10:35 PM
I do not find NT support for the office of women as deacons. However, many Biblically faithful congregations do ordain women as deacons. If the women are not elders, so be it.

Alex Mullins
02-25-2002, 10:50 PM
I really would like to thank all for your responses and they were all helpful to me. I was looking for more scriptural support for the

It seems to boil down to ones interpretation of scripture , as in most controversial topics.

In our church we have Elders, elected by the membership for up one, two or three year terms up to a total of six years then, following a one year sabbatical, they can be elected for another six years. At present men are the leaders of the church, elected by the mebers, including women. it has been that way for 75 years and now our Pastor is pushing for a change.

Deacons are also nominated by a group (Nominating committee) selected from the general membership and elected by the membership. They are "assistants" to the Elders, which is in a sense, a servant role. However, each Deacon sits as chairman of a church committee so, in a different sense, he is in a leadership role, being servant only to his Elder/ liason.

So it seems to be a logical conclusion, after reading 1 Timothy 2: 12 and 13 and Titus 2: 4 that women should not have authority over men but rather over other women and perhaps children.

It is obvious that, in this present day, striving for equality and even superiority in some cases, women are taking a more authoritative role in all aspects of society, from the corporate boardroom to the bedroom. It is also apparent that this dominant role is spreading in to the evangelical church at an increasing rate.

This is, in no way, intended to say there is not a position in the modern church for women. They have an extremely important and special function in the successful operation of the church, in soul - winning, in teaching other women and children, in supporting their husbands who are in leadership positions, etc, etc.

Just as in a marriage, or a family structure the women has a part to play and the man has a part to play but they cannot both be the final authority. As in a marriage, the man will permit the women to be an integral part of the decision making process, but in a tie decision the man should be the one to decide. God's word clearly spells out what the responsibility roles are for each gender.

Unfortunately we have too many men that are spiritually and physically inferior to their wives and they have been dominated, beaten, downtrodden, defeated at every turn.

Thanks again for your input and scripture references which helped me greatly in helping me decide which way to go on this issue.

God Bless.

Alex

TomVols
02-26-2002, 10:56 AM
Alex,
As for Scriptural support, again I believe the women deacon advocates have little or no support.
This topic was hashed a couple of times over recently and you would find Scriptural argumentation there.

Lorelei
03-02-2002, 09:17 AM
Romans 16:1
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[ 16:1 Or deaconess] of the church in Cenchrea.
(Whole Chapter: Romans 16 In context: Romans 16:1-2)

1 Timothy 3:11
In the same way, their wives[ 3:11 Or way, deaconesses] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
NIV
It all depends on how you interpret these words. If the word is deaconess, not "wives" then women can be deacons.

With that said, I agree with Dr. Bob.


Some churches have elevated the office of "deacon" to some sort of "board of governing" or "ruling", an animal totally unknown in the Bible or early churchThis was not the intent in the NT church. Deacons were to be servants. Look at what they were "called" to do.

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
5This proposal pleased the whole group.Yes, they did choose men specifically here, but what was the duty of a deacon? To help make sure the widows got their daily distribution of food. How does this responsibility go against the instruction for women in Timothy? It doesn't.

We are the ones that added authoritative duties to the role of deacons and thus have made it a position that a woman should not hold. Women could have, and it appears some were, deacons in the NT church, but they didn't have any authority over men in being one.

Another question I would ask you is this. Why is it more important for a deacons wife to have honorable characteristics but an overseer's wife who has no qualifications to hold up to?

The fact that overseer's "wives" are not mentioned, yet deacon's "wives" are, is another reason people believe that the word is "deaconess" not wives.

Can a woman be a deacon according to the NT?

I think the answer is yes

Can a woman be a deacon in the church today?

I think not, because we have added duties and responsibilities to that position that were not there in the NT.

That is my thoughts on the subject anyway.

~Lorelei

Alex Mullins
04-12-2002, 11:24 AM
I wish to thank you all for you broad and diverse views and interpretations of scripture.

In reality, most of our Bible-believing churches have Deaconnesses (servants). Possibly some of them are the husband of one wife. In modern society these things can and do happen.

It seems to me that this issue is, generally, a reflection of what is happening in secular society, that women who have felt downtrodden for one reason or another, coming up through childhood without the benefit of a Godly Father in the home, are striving for equality and recognition in all areas of life. There is really nothing wrong with that aspiration, however, what we have, is more of the the world creeping into the church.

In direct contradiction to our old Baptist traditions, I believe this is a stepping stone. First, Deaconesses. Second, Women elders. Third, Women, Pastors. To avoid becoming a direct contravention of scriptural teaching, the Bible will need to be re written again.

This is well under way now with the new gender-neutral NIV rolling off the presses.

We are witness to this subtle progression, over a 50-60 year period, seeing Women Pastors in our old fundamental, evangelical pulpits and we will be reading Bibles that have been re-written, revised, perverted and watered down....to the point where it will be perfectly acceptable from a scriptural viewpoint to do whatever feels right in ones mind, "having a form of Godliness, ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (2Tim 3: 5-7)

That is, if He doesn't shut us down first. Eventually, soon and very soon, He will say "Enough is enough!"

I believe God, in his Holy, pure and preserved perfect word (you know the one) has a specific leadership role for men and a different, yet equally important, role for women. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we will please Him.

God Bless as you seek the truth.

Alex

Molly
04-12-2002, 11:33 AM
If a church has the unbilical concept that deacons are the leaders of the church,then really you are calling them the wrong term,they should be elders....no woman can lead a church,they can not serve as an elder,but as a deacon in the biblical sense and meaning,I would say it would be okay.

So,does your church have deacons,as servants, or leaders? If they are servants,then it is okay,if they are *called* deacons but are really elders(term is confused),then no,they can not usurp authority over a man.

:confused: Sorry to confuse but I think a lot of churches do not use the terms correctly.

Lorelei
04-12-2002, 12:11 PM
Alex,

You mentioned something about women "striving for equality". If the church "asks" a woman to be a deacon, how was that her own selfish "aspiration"? Deacons don't usually nominate themselves. Don't place the "blame" on the woman who was chosen by a group of men.

~Lorelei

tyndale1946
04-12-2002, 12:23 PM
If you want to appoint Women deacons in your church go ahead even though its not scriptural and neither are Women preachers. Its your church not mine and the Old Line Primitive Baptist have never had either in the church because like I said it's unscriptural! Traditions of men brought this into the church and it never was given the approval of God... Brother Glen :eek:

[ April 12, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

Joy
04-12-2002, 12:35 PM
What I see here is argumentation over terms and titles. With the development of language comes changes in definitions and uses of words. In any language, translation, and interpretation, the roles for men and for women are clear in Scripture. Man is the leader, provider, protector, and woman is the helper, caregiver. God forbids gender swapping and role switching in any situation, including the church.

If your church has deacons that are "leaders," then in context of the Bible, we could also call that "plurality of elders." So long as the church itself is still congregational ruled, I don't see a problem with that.

Likewise, if your church has "deaconesses," who are helpers (servants) and caregivers, it matters not if there title is from middle English translations, or if it is "president" or "director" of Ladies Ministries, or whatever it is. Her skills are used to serve the church and to help keep its ministries organized and efficient, the same as her role in the home.

Just food for thought! ;)

Maverick
04-13-2002, 10:51 AM
Indeed, deacons are really elders in most places and that would disqualify them. I Tim clearly states that deacons are to be men. Now, when they go visit the widows and such their wives can most certainly help them as it is not go for any man to visit a woman alone. Appearance if for nothing else. If their is any authority in the position than the woman cannot hold the office and I Tim shows that authority is in the office of a deacon.

There are many things needed in the church that a woman can do without title or fear of usurping authority. Younger women need older women to teach them more than ever before. There is a host of women that are lonely, hurt, clueless or whatever else you want to call them and they need the love and guidance of an older woman in the faith.

Culture be damned and it will be. You do not abdicate truth for the sake of culture.

Carly33
04-13-2002, 11:51 AM
I have thru study of scripture a deep conviction that women should not hold the office of a deacon or be pastors....

...now that being said...I'll approach the issue from another angle:

If it is an issue of terms or titles...put that aside.
What would be the duties or requirements of the position?
If the women are serving communion, helping the pastor make decisions, helping deal with discipline matters of the church(being the pastors right hand man).....then clearly women are not to have authority over men...

I have often thought...If I were to be a deaconness or pastor, I'm obviously having authority over my husband at church,,,,but he is to be the head, I am to submit to him.....how can the two cooexist without confusion?

God is a God of order....His plan is Christ, man, women, child....how can it be interchangeable?

If however one chooses to give the title deaconness(semantics) to nursery workers, childrens' sunday school teacher or other womens' or childrens' ministries then it's only a title...(a controversial one at best).

We are all servants of the church(each other). But putting it in perspective, usually the OFFICE OF DEACON , is one that very closely helps the pastor shepherd the church......Women very clearly should not be in that position... :D

Molly
04-13-2002, 05:05 PM
I pretty much agree,Carly33.

Molly

Maverick
04-14-2002, 11:18 PM
All of us are to be servants, which is what the word deacon actually means. There is an office of servant that has some authority in it and that is reserved for a man, but his wife must be a good Christian or he cannot fulfill his mission. The same as a pastor's wife. I could be the greatest pastor or deacon on the planet but if my wife came into church dressed immodestly, reeking of booze and cussed out the ushers my ministry would be severely hampered, hence the even their wives qualfications. Also, when a woman is baptized it is best for a woman to help her change and such so my wife if I am either pastor or deacon may be the one called to do that. When the deacons goes to check on the widows indeed it is best that his wife go with him thus she helps him in his ministry, but he has the title and authority (whatever that may really consist of). I would not be opposed to having the wives of the deacons and my wife present at any meeting as non-voting participants but able to give their input. I would even say have a half-time in the meeting where the couples break off to discuss the issues and then the men come back and vote. I have been in a church where onlythe men met at the business meetings andthat went well. I have been in one where the husbands and wives were both called elders and voted and it not only worked poorly, but it was a given that the wives would vote with their husbands and so though we had 12 people on the board the vote would always be easily divisible by 2. So, if we only had the men or did the women visiting the results would have been the same. In some churches though this might not be true as some women dominate their homes and may vote against their husbands and then we have a domestic fight at the deacon's meeting. Talk about confusion!!!

Is it not interesting that none of this stuff has ever been an issue for centuries until we have entered into the age of apostasy that started in 1881? And most of the issues have come from the secular world's concepts creeping into the church. Thousands of scholars far more qualified than anyone we have today had no question about the roles or offices of men and women, but now we know better than they and we twist Scripture to prove our points to appease our culture that is rapidily becoming Amazon matriarchal in some sense and in other areas totally androgynous, which makes the gays happy. Look up for our redemption draweth nigh!

Lorelei
04-15-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Maverick:
All of us are to be servants, which is what the word deacon actually means. There is an office of servant that has some authority in it and that is reserved for a man, but his wife must be a good Christian or he cannot fulfill his mission. The same as a pastor's wife.

Exactly where do you get that the "same goes for a pastor's wife"? It says he must manage his own family, but it gives no direct commands for an overseer's wife.

1 Timothy 3:1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[1] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
However, for deacons it mentions what their "wives" must be like. The word "wives" can actually be interpteted deaconesses.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[Or way, deaconesses] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Originally posted by Maverick:

Is it not interesting that none of this stuff has ever been an issue for centuries until we have entered into the age of apostasy that started in 1881?

I have no idea what you are referring to with what happened in 1881, but I will tell you how my opinion changed. It was because of the times. The times where we now have newer English translations and access to Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and interlinear Bibles. Now that I can see what the original texts said, now that I can read it in my own language and not the language of some very ancient ancestors, I get a greater understanding of the Word.

I am not, however, saying that women can have authority over men. The Bible clearly says she can not. I am just saying that I think that the role of deacon has changed since the NT church. If it has not, please show me where it talks of the "office of servant that has some authority in it that is observed for a man." All I can find is that they were to wait tables and make sure the widows got thier share of food. This role in no way violates a woman's place in the Church. We have changed the role of a deacon and we have made it to where a woman can not be a deacon and be in obedience to scripture. In the Bible women were able to do both.

~Lorelei

Rev. Joshua
04-15-2002, 04:14 PM
It's funny. The baptist circles I travel in are so far removed from this discussion (many of the CBF partner seminaries have more women than men enrolled) that I forget the issue of women as deacons is still debated in some circles. There are some excellent, lengthy books available from the pro-woman side; but last week at the Alliance Convocation I picked up a small pamphlet that some of you might find interesting (although I suspect that folks on both sides have already made up their minds on the issue).

The booklet is [i]Why Women Ministers? - A Biblical Rationale for Women Serving in All Capacities of the Ministry of the Church"[i] by Mike L. McKinney. It's produced by Leawood Baptist Church, Leawood, Kansas (913-649-0100). McKinney offers several reasons why he supports women ministers (these are the section headings - each section offering a few paragraphs of exegesis):

1. Because, in Jesus Christ females are reomved from the rule of males which came about as a result of the Fall of Humanity.

2. Because in Jesus Christ, the barriers come down that separate and cetegorize people into different levels of spirituality and ministry; this includes separation of male and female spirituality.

3. Because the New Covenant in Jesus Christ includes the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. (Joel 2:28-32)

4. Because women are identified as prophesying (preaching) in the early Christian church.

5. Because Jesus in his earthly ministry never limited women to a subordinate role in his kingdom work.

6. Because Jesus called upon women to be the first to proclaim the message of His revelation.

7. Because I Cor 14:34-35, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the ministry of women in the church.

8. Because I Tim 2:8-15, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

9. Because I Tim 2:15, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

10. Because Eph 5:15-33, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

11. Because I Peter 3:1-13, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

I think these points are a safe generalization of the views of those of us whose churches do not make distinctions based on sex. In essence, we believe that not make such distinctions is most consistent with the teachings of Jesus and that the inclusiveness of Jesus' ministry requires that we place the Paul's admonitions in context.

Joshua

All about Grace
04-15-2002, 04:32 PM
Joshua,

Can you point me to that text in the NT that affirms, supports, or defends a woman serving in the capacity of a senior pastor/elder?

Chris Temple
04-16-2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Deacon can mean either an official office or simply a servant of that church. Context will help define which is which.

Can a woman be a deacon"ness" or servant of the church? Of course. And she would have the same authority and power of a male deacon!

NONE. Think about it. What power and authority does a servant have? What decisions does a servant make?

Some churches have elevated the office of "deacon" to some sort of "board of governing" or "ruling", an animal totally unknown in the Bible or early church.

Hope this helps.Dr. Bob is exactly right. The problem is not with women deacons per se, it is with women and men deacons who acts as Elders. Biblical church leadership will prevent unbiblical office appointees.

The only addition I would add is that even elders are to be servant-leaders, and not lording it over the congregation. ;)

Chris Temple
04-16-2002, 02:42 PM
The booklet is Why Women Ministers? - A Biblical Rationale for Women Serving in All Capacities of the Ministry of the Church" by Mike L. McKinney. There is no biblical rationale for women serving in all capacities. Interesting how liberals who deny the authority of God’s word flee to a biblical rationale when their subjective choices need “authority”.
1. Because, in Jesus Christ females are removed from the rule of males which came about as a result of the Fall of Humanity. Wrong. Male headship is not a result of the fall, but was instituted in creation with marriage, which is a type of the believer’s relationship to Christ as bride and Husband.

“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.” (I Cor 11:3-12).
2. Because in Jesus Christ, the barriers come down that separate and categorize people into different levels of spirituality and ministry; this includes separation of male and female spirituality. There has never been a separation into different values for men and women before God; all people have the same creative value; but there is also a creative ordinance of distinction between men and women in function.

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (I Tim 2:11-14)
3. Because the New Covenant in Jesus Christ includes the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. (Joel 2:28-32) The prophecy of Joel has nothing to do with the offices of the local church and the particular call to the pastorate.
4. Because women are identified as prophesying (preaching) in the early Christian church. Again, as above, this has nothing to do with the offices of the local church and the particular call to the pastorate, unless one believes every pastor must be a prophet. However, the appeal to the NT is incomplete, leaving out the clear passages for the sake of the unclear (a reverse protestant hermeneutic):

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” (Titus 1:5-9; cf. 1 Tim 3:2–4; Titus 1:6–8)
5. Because Jesus in his earthly ministry never limited women to a subordinate role in his kingdom work. There is a lot of kingdom work which does not involve the pastorate.
6. Because Jesus called upon women to be the first to proclaim the message of His revelation. Again, does witnessing/evangelism/missions equate with the pastorate, clearly set off for males?
7. Because I Cor 14:34-35, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the ministry of women in the church. As understood in context, and in light of the clear passages in Titus and 1 Tim, this is a poor proof for women elders. AS MacArthur states:

“14:34, 35 women keep silent in the churches. The principle of women not speaking in church services is universal; this applies to all the churches, not just locally, geographically, or culturally. The context in this verse concerns prophecy, but includes the general theme of the chapter, i.e., tongues. Rather than leading, they are to be submissive as God’s Word makes clear (see notes on 11:3–15; Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11–15). It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongues-speaking and claim gifts of healings and miracles also permit women to lead worship, preach, and teach. Women may be gifted teachers, but they are not permitted by God “to speak” in churches. In fact, for them to do so is “shameful,” meaning “disgraceful.” Apparently, certain women were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services.”
8. Because I Tim 2:8-15, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church. Again, poorly exegeted. Other NT passages clearly rule women out of certain positions. And “ministry” in the church is not limited to the pastorate.

points 9. 10 and 11, same as above.

Liberals begin with an a prior, subjective determination that women can be pastors, and then twist the Scriptures to get the answers they desire.

Dr. Bob
04-17-2002, 11:59 PM
Kudos, Chris. Feel like I am not needed in this discussion with your good defence of the Word and the ministries within it.

Keep it up and we'll make your wife a deacon in our church! :rolleyes:

Jeremy The Baptist
04-18-2002, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by katie:
Alex the verses you mentioned tell us that a decon is a man, a woman does not have a wife, so the decon is a man. And in Acts when they choose the first decons, they specified that they were to be men.
Women being ordained decons is not biblical, and is modern feminism, which is anti biblical.
Sure a woman can be a servant, like has been mentioned in an earlier post, but ordaining them is not biblical.Katie: you are so right!

Jeremy The Baptist
04-18-2002, 11:29 PM
It seems like one of the 12 apostles would have been a woman had the Lord called women to preach. It seems like ITim 3:1 would say "If a man or woman desires the office of a bishop, he or she desireth a good work" but it doesn't. God never called a woman to preach.

Molly
04-18-2002, 11:32 PM
No one is saying a woman can or should preach,I don't think they are,except Joshua V.,maybe. That is an unbiblical concept. The deacon thing is what is unclear.

Rev. Joshua
04-19-2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Chris Temple:
There is no biblical rationale for women serving in all capacities. Interesting how liberals who deny the authority of God’s word flee to a biblical rationale when their subjective choices need “authority”. Chris, I know no liberals who deny the authority of the Bible, just its inerrancy.

Wrong. Male headship is not a result of the fall, but was instituted in creation with marriage, which is a type of the believer’s relationship to Christ as bride and Husband.

Citation of I Cor 11:3-12This text, with its emphasis on headcoverings, is one of the best arguments for understanding Paul's instructions here as culturally located. In addition, placed in the larger context of the New Testament writings (particularly Jesus' teachings and Galatians, this text can't be a final rule for all time in the Church - otherwise it would be contradicting those texts.

There has never been a separation into different values for men and women before God; all people have the same creative value; but there is also a creative ordinance of distinction between men and women in function.

Citation of I Tim 2:11-14They're of equal worth but only one can lead? That's doublespeak. Either you're equal or your not. In addition, the Timothy passage is typical rabbinic Midrash, of the kind found throughout Rabbinic literature. In that context, it would be equally acceptable for another rabbi to point out that it took a heavenly being to deceive Eve but no effort to deceive Adam. Reading this kind of exegesis as final and eternal is bad biblical scholarship.

The prophecy of Joel has nothing to do with the offices of the local church and the particular call to the pastorate.This is always a convenient argument. Contemporary fundamentalists argue that they have magically resurrected the New Testament office of pastor, and that any passage that does not specifically say "elder" or "pastor" cannot be used to determine the principles by which we choose that office. In other words, they interpret away the passages where God allows women to speak with authority over men.

Again, as above, this has nothing to do with the offices of the local church and the particular call to the pastorate, unless one believes every pastor must be a prophet. However, the appeal to the NT is incomplete, leaving out the clear passages for the sake of the unclear (a reverse protestant hermeneutic):

Citation of Titus 1:5-9; cf. 1 Tim 3:2–4; Titus 1:6–8And I argue that you leave out the clear passages for the sake of the culturally specific ones.

There is a lot of kingdom work which does not involve the pastorate.Yes, but Jesus included women in all aspects of that kingdom work.

Again, does witnessing/evangelism/missions equate with the pastorate, clearly set off for males?Speaking with authority is speaking with authority.

As understood in context, and in light of the clear passages in Titus and 1 Tim, this is a poor proof for women elders. It is an excellent example, however, of Paul giving instructions that are clearly culturally located. Jus because MacArthur says it's not does not make it so. In fact, MacArthur saying it's not is a fairly persuasive argument for saying it must be.

Liberals begin with an a prior, subjective determination that women can be pastors, and then twist the Scriptures to get the answers they desire.Actually, fundamentalists begine with the a priori understanding that women cannot be pastors, and then consequently ignore the passages (in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament) where women are clearly given authority and then inappropriately elevate the Pauline texts where they are not.

Joshua

[ April 19, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

Rev. Joshua
04-19-2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Molly:
No one is saying a woman can or should preach,I don't think they are,except Joshua V.,maybe. That is an unbiblical concept. The deacon thing is what is unclear.Molly, there are about 2,000 baptist churches in the Alliance of Baptists and the CBF that say women can be pastors. I don't have any resources on women as deacons because I had - quite honestly - forgetten that there were baptist churches that still argued about this sort of thing. I really don't think much about the issue of women as pastors either, but I happened to see this booklet and considered it relevant for anyone who wanted the resource.

Deacons are the servant-ministers of the church. Why, even in an oppressive patriarchal system, that role should be closed to women is beyond me.

Joshua

Lorelei
04-19-2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
They're of equal worth but only one can lead? That's doublespeak. Either you're equal or your not.

Equality has nothing to do with where or how you serve. All of us have different gifts, we are part of one body, but each of us has a different purpose.

1 Corinthians 12:14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
Or are these verses in error? It is convenient to claim that the scripture, though authoritative are also in error. Makes it nice to choose your own doctrines that way.

~Lorelei

Rev. Joshua
04-19-2002, 11:26 AM
Lorelei,

A couple of points here. Yes, all roles are necessary and all gifts are important. Nevertheless, saying that men who are gifted to preach/pastor can use those gifts and women who are likewise gifted cannot is not equality.

Regarding authority, the Constitution is the final, authoritative law for our country. As the makeup of our society and the needs of the citizens change, some aspects of the Constitution and its subordinate laws are interpreted differently to better reflect the core values of the Constitution.

Likewise the Bible. Much of the writing in the epistles involves a pastoral act of exigesis by Paul or other church leaders. 2,000 years later, confusing that pastoral advice with the core of the gospel is bad exegesis.

Joshua

Carly33
04-19-2002, 11:50 AM
I noticed noone directly commented on my last reply here(oops except for Molly...a very wise woman who realizes her worth is not attributed to a title)...God is a God of order...how can my husband lead the home if I have authority over him as a deaconess or a pastor....

...come on folks...even Jesus submitted to the Father(even tho He was equal to God). Why do women want preeminence all the time? You can be a servant without the title. The pecking order is clearly laid out: God, Jesus, Man , Woman, Child....why in this circumstance(office of pastor elder or deacon), would God mix things up.....just to create confusion...?

I THINK NOT! It's time to get real...and realize none of us are our own,,,we are bought with a price...keep yourself above reproach, and realize we don't need to have rights to be a servant of God.

[ April 19, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Carly33 ]

Lorelei
04-19-2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Lorelei,

A couple of points here. Yes, all roles are necessary and all gifts are important. Nevertheless, saying that men who are gifted to preach/pastor can use those gifts and women who are likewise gifted cannot is not equality.

I am talking about "spiritual" gifts, not worldly talents. Just because a woman thinks she is "gifted" enough to preach doesn't mean that she has a spiritual gift from God. He gives His gifts in accordance with His Word.

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Regarding authority, the Constitution is the final, authoritative law for our country. As the makeup of our society and the needs of the citizens change, some aspects of the Constitution and its subordinate laws are interpreted differently to better reflect the core values of the Constitution.

Likewise the Bible. Much of the writing in the epistles involves a pastoral act of exigesis by Paul or other church leaders. 2,000 years later, confusing that pastoral advice with the core of the gospel is bad exegesis.

JoshuaYes, but our constitution was not written by God. You know, the one that is the same yesterday, today and for ever, the one that said His Word will never pass away?

~Lorelei

Lorelei
04-19-2002, 04:55 PM
Carly,

I agree with you about a woman's role. What I am saying is that I don't believe the title of deacon had any authority to go with it. A female deacon wouldn't be in authority over her husband or any man. Not the way I read it in the NT.

We have added the authority to the title, so you are right, in today's church a woman can't be a deacon. Not because the Bible says it's wrong, but because deacons in the Bible had no authority. They were simply Spirit led servants.

It boils down to this: Was Paul talking to Deacon's Wives, or Women Decons? That is what is unclear.

~Lorelei

Carly33
04-20-2002, 12:02 AM
I guess I do differ with you on that...the deacons of NT did have authority ...they were held as leaders of the churches. They were appointed over the business of daily ministrations.

1Timothy 3;10

" And let there also first be proved; then let them use the OFFICE OF A DEACON, being found blameless."

1 Timothy 3:13

" For they that have used the OFFICE OF A DEACON well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

One simple question: Why if a role as deacon or deaconess is simply a servant's role, are there specific requirements for the position? Clearly there has to be a high degree of authority associated with the position. After all it is referred to as an OFFICE.

Maverick
04-20-2002, 12:41 AM
It is only unclear lately. Everyone I have ever known or read teaches that after speaking to the Church about the two office for men in the church, Paul then speaks to the wives of both. Not sure why it is so unclear unless we want it to be unlcear so we can have our own way.

Commands are commands so where the "core" concept comes from is interesting. The core of the Gospel is salvation through the Cross, etc. Still, to maintain decency and order Paul was inspired by God to give commands that are details, if you please, dealing with church government, secular government, labor relations, marriage, child rearing, giving. roles, etc.

If you question all the "details", you have to question the core. If Paul was allowed to be sexist, narrow minded, cultural slave, etc. then maybe his "core" doctrines of justification by faith are his alone as well and we are still dead in trespasses and sins. Maybe he was a Jewish plant to warp out the Gentiles and turn off potential Jewish followers by slapping both cultures and their practices and it just backfired growing out of control by mindless saps that just believed what he said even after searching the Scriptures to see if they were so and for 2000 years, more saps have done the same until the enlightened ones of today rose up to challenge all that and mold Paul's writings to their image rather than renew their mind thus conforming themselves to the moods of their culture.

I interviewed with a church Wednesday night and they gave me 20 questions. 19 of them I flew through with flying colors. Indeed, some were amazed and intriqued by my "abilities". We were only supposed to be there a hour and it went over two. Only the question that dealt with this issue caused excitable responses from the committee. No one had any Scripture, they just pled ends justify the means since they had few men willing to teach or lead so we just had to put women in places of leadership and authority no matter what the Word might say.

I noticed none of my message posted on women drew much attention outside of the Holy Women ARE Beautiful one. I have been rather busy,so I have not been able to respond to some of the other responses on this message or some of the others I have read from time to time. Ladies, y'all should read my series. Until very recent history, my thoughts have been the "orthodox" take on the issues.

For my own self, if God did not clearly lay out the roles of men and women from Genesis to Revelation, I would not give a hoot. I heard a lady addressing other women at a rescue mission the other week and she did better than some male preachers I know. If it were biblical for women to be pastors, I would ordain her in a minute (whoops forget she has been divorced) if all other factors were equal. But they cannot be pastors biblically and I won't do it.

NT:1135 gune (goo-nay'); probably from the base of NT:1096; a woman; specially, a wife:
KJV-wife, woman.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Where do you get deaconess here? He is speaking to wives. Maybe I'll start calling my wife my sweet goonay. Naw, too close to gooney and we would have a few moments of intense fellowship if I did that.

Later it says the same phrase that clinches it for the pastor when it says let the deacons be the husband of one wife. Unless it is a gay union no woman can be a husband.

NT:4291 proistemi (pro-is'-tay-mee); from NT:4253 and NT:2476; to stand before, i.e. (in rank) to preside, or (by implication) to practise:
KJV-maintain, be over, rule.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The deacons must rule over their house well. When someone presides the dictionary says it like a chairman. There is only one chairman so if the man is chairman over the house the woman by default is not. She is the second in command in the household, but not the chairman/person. Note the reference to rank inthe Greek. Submit (huptasso) is a military term with the concept of ranking. You cannot get away from the concept honestly. Scripture stresses it. Personally, I think that man's headship may be part of the curse. Adam certainly did not communicate with Eve because where did she getthe idea of not touching it and why did she not run that by Adam? If she did, why did he not correct her or the both f them go to God for clarification? So, since Adam did not communicate with his wife and be a good head making sure she understood God's Word man is the head and given more responsibility than the woman in many ways. If nothing else, man Adam was first and so has the oldest date of rank. In the military, if two colonels of equal abilities given a task one will be in charge and if they are both bird colonels it will be given to the man with theoldest date of rank. No one is superior or inferior, but as business knows someone has to have the deciding vote in a tied situation. God gave man the tie breaking vote. With that he gets all the responsibilty of blame if he makes the wrong decision. I see far more freedom in the wive's role than I do in the man's.

Wives must support their husbands whether the lads are pastors, deacons, or firemen or they cannot be all they can be. Hence, if a man wants to be a pastor or deacon and his wife is a gossiping wino he will have severe problems even if he is a Paul or Billy Graham and hence should not be given the office until he can get his house in order. It is all so simple that it is mindboggling that it is such a controversary. It is only a controversary because we live in a society that cannot stand any kind of restrictions and has a bogus sense of equality. The Bible does not downgrade a woman, but rather exalts her. I don't get my prayers answered if I do not treat my wife right. It does not specifically say that she won't get hers answered if she treats me wrongly. I have to be willing to die for my wife. She does not have to be willing to die for me. I just have to look at a woman in lust to commit adultery. The converse may be true, but he called down the men, not the ladies. I think women got a pretty good deal there.

The one lass did not know what I meant by 1881. That was the beginning of the age of apostasy that we are now experiencing. That was when the harlot mother of the "modern" translations was birthed. Since that time, we have seen denomination after denomination fall away into apostasy and everything being challenged by the "scholars." Look around, if they have been so right we should be seeing a great revival instead of such a falling away. 3/4 of the SBC churches are static or dying and it is as bad or worse in all of the other denominations while Mormons are in the top 5 groups.

Maybe we need to return to the old paths and dump the pop theologies and bad manuscripts. Update the KJV English but use the Textus Receptus. I have no problem with that. That was all they were supposed to do in 1881, but they went far beyond their scope per their own confession and allowed themselves to be ramrodded by two men and their obviously flawed manuscripts. Age is not necessarily proof of authenticity. There are older versions with all the words and passages left out. Older lectionaries and the writings of the Church Fathers either quote verbatim "the challenged passages" or refer to them. It was not good scholarship in 1881 and it is not now.

The game plan is far more deeper than just changing giveth to give. The One World Church will need a book that pleases everyone as well as popular doctrine to unify folks. All we are seeing are the rough drafts of that book. They have taken out words, passages and now genders as well as having watered down the language so that the New Agers, Wiccans, and Satanists are happy with it. By the time it arrives it will be too late for the ones touting the current new versions of the week to retreat. Indeed, one day it will be Our Mother, who is in Heaven (and in some places that has nearly already happened in the Presbys) or Our Person. Jesus may even become Yeshuaetta. Someone will get a revelation that the truth has been suppressed for 2,000 years and the Messiah was a woman and gay at that since Mary Magdelene hung out with her so closely.

Satan asked, "Yea, hath God said" and we have the same thing today coming out of seminaries that once contended for the faith and now contend if there be anything to have faith in other than the originals. They question the Apostles like atheists or as if they are better than the Apostles and the far greater scholars that came before them. Surely, they are the people and wisdom shall die with them. Yea, right. Truth will stand and be vindicated and those lads and lassies will be found wanting.

Carly33
04-20-2002, 07:37 AM
Amen, amen and amen....I positively agree with you Maverick....

...satan always has to try a different angle to create division....once again he tries to get Eve to usurp authority over Adam.... :(

Lorelei
04-21-2002, 01:00 PM
Maverick and Carly,

Are you both KJV Onlys?

~Lorelei

Carly33
04-22-2002, 01:01 PM
No I am not a KJV only...I do use it, and the NKJV(which is not as good as KJV), but I don't see the relevance....

...in fact even tho now I am in an Indep. Fund. Baptist church, five years ago I was not.I was in a convention Baptist (liberal) church, and even there God convicted me thru the clear literal interpretation of the scriptures that women don't have the same role as men in the church or home.

As you can see I'm an opinionated and intelligent? woman....but it does not mean I must hold positions of authority...God allows me to use these qualities in other areas.....

....Again...God is a GOd of order....and I can't see the logic in a person switching this order and giving it God's approval.

Also...I believe scripture clearly shows that the position of deacon is an OFFICE and clearly does hold authority...(lets assume it doesn't)...in most churches today deacons are given responsibilities...so by any title...these positions of leadership should belong to men if it concerns the whole congregation.

Lorelei
04-22-2002, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Carly33:
No I am not a KJV only...I do use it, and the NKJV(which is not as good as KJV), but I don't see the relevance....

It is only relevant if you are KJV only and therefore refuse to acknowledge that the word in V. 11 could mean female deacons and didn't mean wife at all.

1 Timothy 3:11In the same way, their wives[Or way, deaconesses] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
That is all we are asking. What is meant by this word. The reason we think it might mean deaconesses rather then wife is that there are no attributes listed for the wife of the bishop.

Also, the translation "Office of deacon" is not how it reads in all translations. The NIV reads:

10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
That is why I asked the question.

I am not seeking to find justification for women as leaders. I am asking, what did the Bible really say? How was it worded in the original texts?

If you think this is wrong, then I ask you to please explain these two things:

1. Why do you think that the wives of deacons had regulations placed upon them when the wives of bishops did not?

2. Where does it say that the position of deacon has authority over men.

~Lorelei

Carly33
04-22-2002, 08:42 PM
As I stated before women can and do act as servants of the church, but the OFFICE of deacon implies authority.

I may not be a KJVO but I have very little regard for the NIV translation which I won't cover here as to the reasons. The KJ is a literal translation, so I take it literally.

Now....I think the real problem is arguing over words....what is God's grand design.?....

Take it all in context. Women are not to usurp authority over men....men are to be the head over their wives...God created man first then woman.

I don't personally know many churches that don't give obvious authority over temporal and spiritual things to their deacons.....this in NO way implies that women are inferior in quality or inconsequential to God or men. That's just satanic propaganda....

A womens' role in the church is no less important to the well being of the church.

Let me pose to you a question: If your church had a male pastor, no qualified men to serve as deacons....and you were the only woman....do you think it would be appropriate for you(one lone female deaconess)...to be spending time in meetings and ministering with the male pastor...why , why not?

...and if the office did not entail those duties...just what is the purpose of it?

Lorelei
04-23-2002, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Carly33:
Let me pose to you a question: If your church had a male pastor, no qualified men to serve as deacons....and you were the only woman....do you think it would be appropriate for you(one lone female deaconess)...to be spending time in meetings and ministering with the male pastor...why , why not?

No I would not feel comfortable because I would be in a position that was not intended Biblically. I don't deny that. What I Do deny is that the "office" of deacon had the same authority back then that we have given it. Deacon's didn't minister with the male pastor, he ministered to the widows so that the pastor could do his job and not be encumbered with serving tables.

Originally posted by Carly33:
...and if the office did not entail those duties...just what is the purpose of it? Acts 6:1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them How is waiting tables and making sure the widows get thier fair share of food usurping authority over men?

~Lorelei

Carly33
04-23-2002, 03:20 PM
The original deacons were given responsibility over financial matters(distributing among the widows)...a position of authority in my eyes....but today....the office of a deacon covers many others responsibilities......We have to suit the person to the job biblically ..even if the office has been expanded beyond its original intent...(although I'm quite certain the original deacons did way more to assist the church than wait tables...)

...to allow women to be deaconesses may very well set up an inappropriate scenario. Why can't women be happy to be a servant without the title?

It's just not logical to say it's ok in one circumstance and not another...it's either right or it's wrong.

Lorelei
04-23-2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Carly33:
The original deacons were given responsibility over financial matters(distributing among the widows)

They were distributing food, not money.

Originally posted by Carly33:
but today....the office of a deacon covers many others responsibilitiesExactly, so today women can not be deacons if those other responsibilities are present. We agree there.

I am just not certain those responsibilities were always there.

Originally posted by Carly33:
Why can't women be happy to be a servant without the title?

Like Sunday School teacher, Women's Ministry Co-ordinator? It isn't about the title, it is about the "job description". Why can't you be happy if a woman serves and has a title? What's the difference, as long as her duties don't allow her to violate God's Word.

Originally posted by Carly33:
It's just not logical to say it's ok in one circumstance and not another...it's either right or it's wrong.Then we should take away all the "duties" that we have added to the "Office" of deacon. If deacons only delivered food to widows and waited tables as they did in the NT, then we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

~Lorelei

Clint Kritzer
04-23-2002, 04:51 PM
Regardless of which translation one is using, the word is still "servant." Bringing translations into the argument is a total straw man. The concept of an "office of deacon" is what is the modern concept. Deacons, scripturally are not a "board." Deaconship is a position and one of servitude at that. Loelei's interpretation is quite correct. There are valid arguments against female deacons, but authority is not among them (and certainly modernism and Biblical translation are not either).

[ April 23, 2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

Carly33
04-23-2002, 07:53 PM
Clint, I'm not quite sure what you were saying...is it that women can have authority or not?

The scriptures say "a woman must not usurp authority over man"....

....we need to consider what the office has become and how a majority of people (saved and unsaved view that position), maybe a poll.

We have to be careful we don't leave the impression that we are violating God's order.

Anyhow...I know my conviction and you know yours...its been a good discussion. God Bless.

Maverick
04-26-2002, 08:04 PM
For the record, I am a TR only and the only version that uses the TR without the errors of the non-TR bogus manuscripts is the KJV so until someone can do a better job than the NKJV I will stick with the KJV.

Anyhow, this is one of those eternal messages and since I am in the midst of a move and in the midst of possibly taking a new church I will have to defer on this one. Read my ladies messages I posted and I think you will see that I am not a MCP or have some nasty motive behind my position.

I still contend that plain sense of the Timothy passage teaches that men serve as pastors and deacons, but they have to have wives of high character or they cannot serve because they could not serve effectively. There is nothing that would open the door to deaconesses and especially in the way that the office of deacon functions today,which is more of an eldership.

Should women serve the church? Yes. Can they have authority? In a women's ministry, yes, but not in a place where they are in authority over men. You can argue until He returns and place women in inappropriate roles, but you will be embarassed about it when He does return.