Women Deacons

I think it's a HUUUUGE stretch to jump from the
"husband of one wife" to "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman". But, if you were to apply "says what it means and means what it says", then we must treat lesbianism differently than male homosexuality, since only male-male sex is forbidden. While we're at it we should admit that Catholics are right about the bread, since Jesus says "This is my body". See where that slippery slope can go???

 

I'm in agreement--that's a big jump! Additionally, it would be impossible to justify because of other passages in the Bible. However, even if it were, taking this same pattern in interpreting Romans we're suddenly left with the conclusion that any sex between any couple is an abomination, so on the plus side all of the homosexuals would now be celibate.

My thinking is that this passage is descriptive and not prescriptive. It says "husband of one wife" simply because pretty much all of the deacons at the time were male, but that doesn't mean that they all have to be male.

 

Actually, it would compel a person to conclude that any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I agree with you. However, I also agree that individual Baptist churches and fellowships (in my case, the SBC) have the autonomous right to determine this for themselves. So when the SBC says women may not be SBC pastors, when I'm required to support that interpretation for my own fellowship, even if I personally disagree with that interpretation.

 

Tut-tut, you're reading into it again.

The passage mentions marriage nowhere, and if interpreting "husband of one wife" as "married to one person of the opposite sex" demands expansion to the sexes being universally interchangeable, than Romans 1 forbids sex! True, it does leave us terribly confused about what "natural relations" are, but what can you expect of a blatant misinterpretation. . .

 

This verse is one of the most misapplied, perverted, twisted, and misused verses in scripture. Note the phrase "BECAUSE OF THIS". It's speaking of a specific incident. It's speaking of people who "suppress the truth by their wickedness [who] although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him".

This verse is often used to condemn homosexuality, but the verse was actually written to condemn those who are guilty of "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice... gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless." That is, unfortunately, most of us from time to time. I myself have been guilty of at least one of those on occaision.

 

Whatever the occasion, an implication seems to be that homosexual sex is wrong, wouldn't you agree?

 

Yes. To use this as support for that is wrong, however. There's sufficient scripture elsewhere that clearly addresses sex outside of marriage, includimg same gender sex.

 

Oh, I wasn't using it as support for that. I was just joking about the implications of boundless expansion of gender terms.

 

Are deacons allowed to be single? If we allow deacons to be single, we are straying from the literal interpretaion of the command from scripture. On the other hand, we are not straying from accepting the scripture as teaching that deacons need to confirm to accepted standards of morality - if you marry, marry one person.

It seems to me that using this verse to say women can't be deacons means we must also say single men can't be deacons. On the other hand, I've never heard of any restriction against single men as deacons. Why haven't I?

 

When the office was first instituted, the command was to choose "seven men."

According to John Calvin, the diaconate in the early church had two orders: one that oversaw the properties and monies of the church and their distribution, and one that performed acts of mercy, e.g., visiting the sick, giving aid and comfort, etc. The latter order was the order in which women could serve if they met the requirements of 1 Tim. 5:9-10:

Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

 

LOL I am a newbie Baptist but I never heard of Female decons. All I seen in the Baptist Church is males. I believe that Preachers and Decons and other Clergymen should be Males and men and young men wanting to become a Clergyman. I am a 28 year old woman and I feel we have our own duties in the Church rather then Preach at the church.

 

Yup, thats the best argument there is for only men deacons. We've always done it that way.

 

That is the reason why where early Christinaity began and the practice still exists today they have women deaconesses, and male deacons. The women serve the women and children and the men serve the men and the two do not mix. Cuts down on sexual immorality among clergy and other leaders in churches.

In fact in some countries it is a practice that the men do not sit with the women even their wives.

 

Check out Baptist churches in other countries. Baptist deacons in America are often not deacons but rulers of a building. Often in smaller churches they have the attitude that the pastor is there to serve them and be available 24/7. When it should be the other way around. Too often the pastor is pastor and deacon.

 

Part of that problem is the way church constitution's were crafted in past years.

Deacons are often called the "trustees" of the church, giving them the legal responsibility for the structure of the church.

Check your own church's constitution!
I'll bet if it hasn't been updated in the past decade, then that's the case.

Rob

 

I am a Baptist Deacon. My office is that of a servent to my Pastor. That is scriptural. I am the husband of one wife. That is scriptural. My wife is a "deaconesse" by virtue of the fact that she is a lady married to a deacon. Duh. All we know for sure is what's between the black covers. All the rest is man's wisdom, and worthless as an egg-sucking hound dog! Let God be true and every man a liar. By the way...any deacon who usurps pastoral authority should be ashamed of himself. If you can't line up with your preacher, be a real man, resign and move your family elsewhere! Where is Abashai? Where are the faithful men? May God have mercy on our self-centered carnality!

 

I support Samplewow. Deacons do not mean always the Office "Deacon" but sometimes just serving person or worker. In case of 1 Tim ch 3, the official qualification of deacons are mentioned. If one can modify or ease any part of the Bible, we can modify the whole part of the Bible including "thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not commit adultry" No human being can improve what God said. Deacons required another strict qualification about their wives because they had to work for almsgiving and allocation which often involes Gossips and murmuring and the wives are vulnerable to spreading gossips. This was the reason. I am a Plymouth brethren and we have neither woman deacons nor woman pastors but there have been so many great believers among them during the past short period, because we have been obedient to the Bible.

 

1 Timothy tells us the order of deacons and bishops.

It is plain they are to be men.

 

This is true. Just because Phoebe is called a "deaconess" does not mean she was a deacon as described in 1 Timothy. She may have been doing some of the same servantly things as the deacons, and was merely called a "deaconess". Being titled something does not mean that it is correct. My friend delivered his child at home before the ambulance got there. He is listed as the "delivering physician" on his son's birth certificate. He works in IT. It's clear that he performed the duties of the physician at that time...while not actually being a physician

 

So Weddog - we are inerrantists until the inerrrant word makes us uncomfortable?