Featured Women deacons

Thomas Helwys · Feb 5, 2013

saturneptune said: ↑

This is my first post here. I do not know where you got your degree, but you appear to argue for the sake of argument. This is a clear cut issue, and you are on the wrong side. You have not listened to Ann, Old Regular, Hier or any of the others that give you clear Biblical principles on the matter. Lots of things in Scripture can be debated, but not this.

The miracle of the Baptist faith is that it exists at all with arguments like this one. Do you ever debate someone that the sky is blue?

If Scripture leaves open a difference of opinion, then it is worthy of debate. This is not.
Click to expand...

And there are others who have posted on this thread who agree with me and disagree with the members that you listed, and our disagreement with them, and you, is based on clear Biblical principles on the matter, which have been cited, including quotes from one who is on your side but admits to the true interpretation of Romans 16:1.

I can at least acknowledge that I see where those on your side get your beliefs from, but those on your side can't even be honest enough to admit that there is evidence for our side. Your side tries to squirm out of the clear meaning of Romans 16:1, you try to rationalize it away, but you can't do it.

I find it interesting that your "first post here" focuses on my response to the person who posted filthy insults to me rather than mentioning his filth and lies. Interesting that when someone has their little self-righteous domain threatened that their response is to get down in the gutter with personal insults, but that's all Heir of Salvation and those of his stripe have when they can't debate with intelligence and any modicum of civility.

I am one who likes to see all sides, and although I may have a range of emotions about an issue that I disagree with someone over, I have no desire to get personal. I want to and try to stick with the merits of the issue, but when someone doesn't do that and attacks me in the most sordid manner, I will respond.

I stopped posting in this thread once because I didn't like the direction it was heading with the personal stuff. I came back to post an important link. And now this personal attack from HoS. It's people who are not knowledgeable enough, mature enough, or civil enough to debate an issue who resort to this tactic.

And, by the way, it is also interesting that the first English Baptists affirmed women deacons, so all those who do not are departing from what the first Baptists believed, taught, and practiced. So, according to your logic, it's a miracle that the Baptist faith exists at all since so many have departed from its first beliefs.

HeirofSalvation · Feb 5, 2013

Thomas Helwys said: ↑

HeirofSalvation said: ↑

Okay, I read too quickly through your post, as my attention was being diverted elsewhere. I went back and reread it, and I was wrong, about the lying part, anyway.

But the rest of your post confirms my opinion of you, apart from anything else. You are a total jerk and an unmannerly slob. If I were face-to-face with you, I bet you wouldn't say there what you have said to me here.

You are lying about me, though. I have clearly responded with respect to those I disagree with here, such as Bronc, and others. I respect those who differ with me, and their opinions, when they are respectful in our exchanges. You are not respectful, and that very fact shows your lack of intelligence. And to answer your charge that I am ignorant and your chiding about my not being able to understand grammar, I'll inform you that I have a doctorate in humanities with concentrations in English language and literature and church history. So, before you make ignorant, uninformed, and insulting assumptions and accusations, I suggest you equip yourself with more education and logic if you expect to be able to hold an informed conversation with me.

Now, is that specific and public enough for you? I insist that you answer.

I was right about your MO. You have proven that.

My general rule is not to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Click to expand...

Very Well..now that all of that is out of your system, perhaps you can make sense of the qualifications outlined in I tim 3. I don't know who is interested in a "battle of wits"... but, in a debate (which is what I AM interested in) you need to rejoinder the positive arguments of the opposing posistion. No doubt an individual of such vast knowledge and educational qualifications such as yourself can do that. Thus far, they have simply been ignored.
Click to expand...

12strings · Feb 5, 2013

The following is excerpts from Tim Keller's article defending Female deaconesses, or deacons...found here: http://byfaithonline.com/the-case-for-commissioning-not-ordaining-deaconesses/

I have bolded a few parts to draw attention to them...

A Biblical Basis

1. The woman Phoebe is called a diakonon in Romans 16:1. The word diakonos elsewhere in the New Testament can mean deacon (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8) and also minister (Colossians 1:25;4:7) but it can also be taken in a non-official sense as servant (Mark 10:43). So which meaning fits here? It is interesting that older conservative Bible commentators, such as Charles Hodge and John Calvin, concluded that Phoebe was a deaconess, while more recent conservative commentators, such as Doug Moo and Thomas Schreiner (as well as John Piper), all believe that Phoebe held the office of deacon.

2. In the New Testament, women were recognized for their diaconal work. Besides Phoebe, Tabitha is noted for her work with the poor and widows (Acts 9:36-40). It was women who served Jesus’ disciples as they traveled (Luke 8:2-3), literally “deaconing them out of their own means” (see Dorcas, Acts 9:36). Most interesting of all, 1 Timothy 5:3-16 describes an order of widows who were financially supported and who were “devoted to all kinds of good deeds” and dedicated themselves to “helping those in trouble.”

3. To me, the most compelling biblical case for a recognized body of “deaconing women” is 1 Timothy 3. Paul gives Timothy screening criteria for elder (v.1-7) and deacon (v.8-13) candidates. However, right in the middle of the description of deacons is v.11 that reads, “the gynaikas [wives or women] likewise must be worthy of respect, not speaking evil of others, self-controlled and faithful in all things.” Then, after this statement, Paul goes back to describing deacons.

The first question almost all exegetes ask is who—who are these women? Since the word gynaikas can mean either wives or women, that is a natural question. On one side are those who say that, if this word meant deacons’ wives, the possessive pronoun ‘their’ (auton) would have been used, but it wasn’t. On the other side are those who say that Paul could have made it clear these were women deacons by inserting tas diakonous (so it would have read “the women who are deacons”), but he doesn’t. This debate goes back at least to the Greek fathers—a very important point. If the church as a whole has not been able to settle this conclusively, we should exercise tolerance toward those who disagree with our opinion instead of calling our opponents “crypto-chauvinists” or “proto-feminists” as much of the blog chatter does.

A more revealing line of thinking starts not with the question “who” but “why”—why are these women being screened for their character? One answer is that these are deacons’ wives, and therefore the deacons are being qualified for their jobs by looking at the character of their wives. But why, then, were they singled out for evaluation and the elders’ wives were not? Surely, if anything, the standards for elders and elders’ wives would be higher! If the purpose of the women’s descriptors was to qualify their husbands, why was there no such list for the elders’ wives? Some have suggested that the elder candidates were better known and did not need such scrutiny, but if that was the case, why was the elders’ list of qualifications longer than the deacons’?

By far the most likely conclusion is that the deacons’ wives were being screened with selection criteria because they were going to be appointed to do diaconal work in the congregation alongside their husbands, while the elders’ wives were not sharing in the husbands’ work of discipline and oversight. The key adverb “likewise” (hosautos) further supports this. It precedes the description of elders (v.1,) deacons (v.8,) and women (v.11). This indicates that the evaluation list functioned similarly in each case as a selection criteria for doing work in the congregation.

So here’s the nub of the matter. Whether the word gynaikas is translated “women” or “wives” doesn’t matter. Either way, the text is teaching that women can and should do diaconal work alongside the deacons and in a way recognized by the congregation (after all, they are screened and selected). These may have been female individuals selected to do diaconal work with the deacons or wives appointed to do it together with them. But either way they were doing it. They were doing it either as ordained deacons or as assistants and partners, they were still doing it.

The biblical evidence is strong that a) women were examined for and appointed to do diaconal work in the local church, and b) that this work with the poor, sick, widows, and orphans was publicly recognized and was held in honor among all. Indeed, even the thinkers and commentators who deny the ordained diaconate to women agree on the need for appointed “deaconing women.” So the practice of commissioning “deaconesses” is one good, biblical, and ancient way to follow this biblical pattern. Is the language of BCO 9-7 sufficient to accommodate what the Bible describes? Does it allow PCA sessions to examine and appoint deaconing women who are recognized and honored for their work? For at least 25 years, many presbyteries and sessions in the PCA have judged that it does.

What About Authority?

But is the biblical evidence above enough to make a case for women to be ordained to the diaconate in the PCA? I would say no. I affirm and support the PCA’s belief in male headship in the home and church. I would never want to see our denomination compromise its support of this biblical complementarianism. Along with Ligon Duncan, I have never seen a credible biblical case made for the ordination of women to be elders or pastors. And when I see some of my friends try to make such a biblical case, I find their use of Scripture alarming and disturbing.

Nevertheless, a denomination as conservative as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) has ordained women to the diaconate (though not as elders) since 1888, because it understands the office of deacon to be one of service, not of rule. Our constitution is, I think, ambiguous about this distinction. BCO 9 never refers to the diaconate as exercising ruling authority—indeed it is clear that it always acts under the rule of the session, and cannot act without prior permission of the session or in some cases the whole congregation (9-2). However, in 24-5 the BCO requires that members take a vow of obedience to the deacons. This seems to indicate that BCO conceives ordination as always entailing some kind of ruling authority. That would preclude women.

However, I believe—like the RPCNA—that biblically, deacons are appointed to service, not to juridical authority. So I would be happy to see the PCA reconfigure its description of the office to be more in line with that understanding of it. If, as we’ve seen, Paul was admitting deacons’ wives to diaconal work but not elders’ wives to elders’ work, then, in light of 1 Timothy 2:11,12, doesn’t that mean that the apostle saw the office of deacon as a calling to service, not rule?

A Final Historical Note

Many opponents of deaconesses today are operating out of a “decline narrative.” They claim that having deaconesses is the first step on the way to liberalism. But Jim Boice and John Piper, the RPCNA and the ARP, B.B. Warfield and John Calvin, believed in deaconing women or deaconesses. Are (or were) all these men or churches on the way to liberalism? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, one person put it to me like this recently: “Sure, the RPCNA has had women deacons for over a century. Sure, a biblical case can be made. But in our cultural climate, allowing deaconesses would be disastrous. It’s a slippery slope.”

In other words, the Bible probably allows it, but let’s not do it because of the culture. Isn’t that also responding to the culture rather than to the text? If the PCA is driven either by reaction to or adaptation to the culture, it is being controlled by the culture instead of the Word. Let’s allow presbyteries and sessions to use women in diaconal work with the freedom they have historically had in our communion.

I agree completely with Ligon Duncan when he says that the current debate in the PCA is “to determine what its complementarianism is going to look like in the future.” That’s right. His article and mine represent an intramural debate within a strong commitment to biblical complementarianism. While we argue and discuss this let’s keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

Thomas Helwys · Feb 5, 2013

HeirofSalvation said: ↑

Thomas Helwys said: ↑

Very Well..now that all of that is out of your system, perhaps you can make sense of the qualifications outlined in I tim 3. I don't know who is interested in a "battle of wits"... but, in a debate (which is what I AM interested in) you need to rejoinder the positive arguments of the opposing posistion. No doubt an individual of such vast knowledge and educational qualifications such as yourself can do that. Thus far, they have simply been ignored.
Click to expand...

Well, unlike the first time, I have time to read and reflect on your post. And by doing so, I'll decide if I think you really do want to debate in a civil manner. Considering the part of your post I highlighted, I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

Thomas Helwys · Feb 5, 2013

12strings said: ↑

The following is excerpts from Tim Keller's article defending Female deaconesses, or deacons...found here: http://byfaithonline.com/the-case-for-commissioning-not-ordaining-deaconesses/

I have bolded a few parts to draw attention to them...
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post.

Without commenting on the merits of the arguments, I'll say that this caught my eye, and I agree with it:

"If the church as a whole has not been able to settle this conclusively, we should exercise tolerance toward those who disagree with our opinion instead of calling our opponents “crypto-chauvinists” or “proto-feminists” as much of the blog chatter does."

Jerome · Feb 5, 2013

A Case for Female Deacons by Jamin Hübner (2013)

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Female-Deacons

“Jamin Hübner exposited Romans 1 at our yearly Bible conference a couple of years ago, and we were blessed by his reverent and careful handling of the Word of God. I am pleased to see him continue that same approach with regard to the question of female deacons. I heartily recommend ‘A Case for Female Deacons’ to all Christians who desire a biblically healthy and fully functioning local church.” – Don Fowler (M.A., Westminster Theological Seminary, PA, M.S.M., Multnomah Seminary), Pastor, Mariner’s Reformed Baptist Church

michael-acts17:11 · Feb 5, 2013

12strings, thank you for bringing civil intellectual thought back to the discussion. Once the juvenile name calling & personal attacks came out, I chose not to respond to the foolishness in like kind.

Thomas Helwys · Feb 5, 2013

Jerome said: ↑

A Case for Female Deacons by Jamin Hübner (2013)

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Female-Deacons

“Jamin Hübner exposited Romans 1 at our yearly Bible conference a couple of years ago, and we were blessed by his reverent and careful handling of the Word of God. I am pleased to see him continue that same approach with regard to the question of female deacons. I heartily recommend ‘A Case for Female Deacons’ to all Christians who desire a biblically healthy and fully functioning local church.” – Don Fowler (M.A., Westminster Theological Seminary, PA, M.S.M., Multnomah Seminary), Pastor, Mariner’s Reformed Baptist Church
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.

Lots of good information in this thread, from differing sides, for those who desire to objectively look at the issue at hand.

Bronconagurski · Feb 5, 2013

Thomas Helwys said: ↑

Thank you for this.

Lots of good information in this thread, from differing sides, for those who desire to objectively look at the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

All they have proved is that women are valuable people. No one argues with that. What you can never prove are the qualifications for a deacon or bishop
include women. Brrrrrrrntttt. Sorry, you lose.

Furthermore, one poster had it backwards. The truth is, the other side knows they don't have a leg to stand on, but there is the mention of Phoebe which we can exploit and we can attack the messengers as wanting to keep women under their thumb. Don't say that ploy has not been used, as I can pull up the posts. That is a shame, ad hominem attacks that have no scriptural basis.

michael-acts17:11 · Feb 5, 2013

Bronconagurski said: ↑

Brrrrrrrntttt. Sorry, you lose.
Click to expand...

Here's a prime example of the immaturity that has hijacked this discussion. My 19yr old daughter doesn't talk in that manner. Constant name calling, offensive insults, false accusations & childish retorts reveal what is in the heart.

"out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"

Jerome · Feb 5, 2013

Directory page on the website of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church (some of you may recognize this church as that pastored by your own SBC President Fred Luter):

franklinavenuebaptist/aboutus

MINISTERIAL
“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. . .

DEACONS
"Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children. . .

DEACONESSES
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. . .
Click to expand...

Thomas Helwys · Feb 5, 2013

Bronconagurski said: ↑

All they have proved is that women are valuable people. No one argues with that. What you can never prove are the qualifications for a deacon or bishop
include women. Brrrrrrrntttt. Sorry, you lose.

Furthermore, one poster had it backwards. The truth is, the other side knows they don't have a leg to stand on, but there is the mention of Phoebe which we can exploit and we can attack the messengers as wanting to keep women under their thumb. Don't say that ploy has not been used, as I can pull up the posts. That is a shame, ad hominem attacks that have no scriptural basis.
Click to expand...

I have not lost anything, my friend. We have just as much evidence on our side as you do on yours. I know you and others on your side feel strongly about this, and I do, too. But I have a problem with casting this as a "we win -you lose" situation. I don't think that is helpful or Christlike.

Saying that the verse about Phoebe is something we think we can exploit is rather offensive. Is it difficult for you to consider that we actually believe our position on Phoebe?

Are you saying that no attacks have come from your side? Really?

I wish we could all debate this in good faith. I am not saying I haven't been guilty of failing to do that, but I was wrong whenever and if ever I did it, and I regret it.

Featured Women deacons

Thomas Helwys New Member

HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

12strings Active Member

Thomas Helwys New Member

Thomas Helwys New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

michael-acts17:11 Member
Site Supporter

Thomas Helwys New Member

Bronconagurski New Member

michael-acts17:11 Member
Site Supporter

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Thomas Helwys New Member

Useful Searches

Featured Women deacons

Thomas Helwys New Member

HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member Site Supporter

12strings Active Member

Thomas Helwys New Member

Thomas Helwys New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member Site Supporter

michael-acts17:11 Member Site Supporter

Thomas Helwys New Member

Bronconagurski New Member

michael-acts17:11 Member Site Supporter

Jerome Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Thomas Helwys New Member

HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

michael-acts17:11 Member
Site Supporter

michael-acts17:11 Member
Site Supporter

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter