Your View on Women as Deacons

The Bible did not take its cues from society. That's nonsense. The bible is the only rule of faith and practice, meaning everything we need for governing the Church of God is contained therein. God didn't accomodate a man dominated society by restricting the offices to men, He did things the way He wanted them done in all ages. We have not the right to set aside these qualifications.

The only way to be faithful to the scriptures is to take the clear meaning from them.

 

Why do we have so many divisions, even among Baptists, if the meaning is always that clear? Why do we even need to hear preaching if it's always that obvious? Why are there commentaries on Scripture? To help those of us without vast knowledge of ancient near East customs, Greek and Hebrew, and literary genre faithfully interpret Scripture.

What about men having long hair and women praying with their heads uncovered? The Bible talks about that? What about dietary concerns? Do we take those clear meanings and follow them? Rarely.

And divine accommodation is a theological reality. The Bible is accommodation. Christ is accommodation. God accommodates sinful humanity throughout salvation history to accomplish His purpose.

God accommodated Israel over and over and over again. He did so as well in the early Church. I don't at all doubt the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, but it's just not always that easy. Everyone has to interpret by the knowledge they have and the work of the Spirit.

 

There are truly tough sections of scripture, but not all are tough. The qualifications for elders and deacons is not one of the tough sections. In fact, it is incredibly simple language that anyone can read and understand. The last few chapters of Ezekiel, now that is tough scripture.

We are expected to follow the clear teaching of scripture. Men are supposed to have short hair. It's a shame for a man to have long hair. (by the way, that teaches Jesus didn't have long hair) If a man has long hair he is being disobedient. If we put women into either of the two church offices we are being disobedient. When we fundamentally change the way things are laid out for us to to in the church in scripture we are being disobedient.

 

I take your point about Ezekiel, but it goes further than that.

Do women pray in your church with their heads uncovered?

 

The heads uncovered part is talking about hair.

 

I admire your earnest desire to faithfully interpret Scripture and your desire to be consistent. Most of us, if we try to follow every such letter, will fail somewhere, or we'll draw the line somewhere.

It still seems that with those kinds of pronouncements, Paul is not trying to set a once-for-all mandate toward male-only leadership, particularly since these do not fit with the more salient doctrines that come from Scripture.

But, best wishes to you on your journey, friend. Blessings.

 

There are churches that ordain women both as deacons and pastors based on clear teachings of scripture such as God pouring out His Spirit on both men and women, instructions to women such as how to dress when prophesying, etc.

I don't believe either side can claim the other side ignores the clear teaching of scripture. Obviously, one or the other is wrong, but both can be held to be honestly obeying their best understanding of scripture.

Interestingly, I know both men and women who feel called to do the work of a pastor or of a deacon but who will not be ordained by their churches for various reasons. (Such as not ordaining women, or not having the right education, or having a shady past before conversion, etc.)

But in about all those cases the people are still out there ministering unofficially. Puts me in mind of scripture saying God uses the lowly, the uneducated, those not wise in the eyes of the world.

And reminds me credentials are less important than obedience.

 

Those ordaining women aren't obeying scripture, they are disobeying scripture to suit their own agenda and are denying the clearest teaching of scripture there is. Again, if one cannot understand that God restricted the offices to men, then I worry about that person understanding the harder parts of the bible.

 

Beautifully and fairly stated.

 

And we have people here refusing to follow the scriptures instead doing was feels right. And you have the nerve to claim the bible takes its cues from society.

 

But it did not develop in a vacuum absent the culture, language and issues of the day. The Bible addressed people in a specific time and place for a specific purpose, to miss that original purpose is to me to miss the point of scripture and come to conclusions never intended by the author.

Deacons were always servants, the word is gender neutral applying exactly the same to a man or a woman. Phobe was a deacon just as much as Stephen was, same exact word. Paul uses deacon to refer to servants then goes about making up a word (as deaconess does not have an actual Greek word) to highlight the importance of men and women BOTH serving in the church, even going so far as to give them different "qualifications"

To quote the late John Claypool "We ordain women because we baptized girls"

 

Excellent, friend. Thank you for clarifying this.

 

The one argument I have with Phoebe is the fact that the word used to describe her also describes Paul, Jesus, and the governement. Were they deacons? That's my biggest exegetical problem with using the common-word interpretation. We might be reading too much contextual nuances into the word.

Perhaps the church Timothy was to lead did not have women as deacons but the church at Rome did. That's the other side of the coin.

 

Where did he give women qualifications?

The bible addresses people in all ages, not just in a particular time. It is important to understand the historical context, but it is also important to realize that the bible is not a cultural thing, and instructions given to the church are not cultural in nature but are universal. Paul specifically instructed the Thessalonians, in the context of the latter day deception of the man of sin, to "stand fast, and hold the traditions (ordinances) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." We are today to hold fast to those same things. We are not given right to change the way God is to be worshipped. Men only are to be filling the TWO offices of the church.

I realize that it is neeful for you to classify the bible as only pertaining to a particular people at a particular place and time because the clear teaching is against women holding these two offices. But please, do not tell me you are being faithful to scripture when you do that. Nay, you are denying scripture.

 

Says you. I say the other. We are interpreting under the blanket of sin, which prevents us from coming to consensus on these issues.

Additionally, I will say that most teachings on church practice seem to be given on an ad hoc basis.

 

What prevents us from coming to a consensus on the issue is your refusal to take the clear language of the scripture.

As for the ad hoc comment, I'm not surprised.

 

Women qualifications 1 Timothy 3:11 a strange interruption indeed

Nay (hilarious word choice) I am denying scripture, OK. What do you do with 1 Corinthians 11 when women are given instructions on how to prophesy in church and then women are told to be silent in 1 Timothy? Does Paul contradict himself? Nay, I say! Both are true. Corinth needed order in the "service", Timothy needed the women to quit interrupting the "service"

I am not denying scripture by letting it speak for itself, I am instead celebrating it.

Always remember, the Bible cannot mean today what it never meant when it was originally recorded.

I agree that the emphasis on Phobe is perhaps being overdone. But why does 1 Timothy get elevated and "get" to use deacon, while Romans 16 has to be servant? The only difference I can see is that of gender. That's not even to get into the whole Junia, Junias as an apostle issue. It is of note here that many of the newer translations are using deacon in Romans 16 to be consistent in their word usage.

 

I was hoping you would say that. That verse is not an interruption to give a separate qualification for women. That verse is a continuation of the qualification list given to deacons, these qualifications being those the wives are required to live up to as well. Now I know that Greek know it alls will step up and say, that word doesn't mean wives. Here's where the ability to read clear english and understand the context is key to scripture, not knowledge of original languages. The context clearly shows that is exactly what Paul had in mind. The very next verse after the one you alluded to says this, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." First of all, it doesn't appear that he interrupted himself to give a separate qualification to the office to a separate gender, but it continuing on in the same vein. The wives are expected to be grave, faithful, etc as well. Then you see something that is very difficult for you, the qualifications concerning him being a husband and ruling his house well. Furthermore there is the "likewise" separating the qualifications for elder and deacon. Elder is restricted to men, so is deacon.

Furthermore, Paul told women to be silent in Corinth as well. Uh oh, I thought they had separate problems that Paul was addressing. Then you have Paul giving nearly the same qualifications for elder to Titus as he gave to Timothy. He gave Titus those qualifications because he was to ordain elders in ever city. But Crete has different issues than Timothy or Corinth, for the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. Does every city in Crete have the same problems?

The qualifications for the offices are universal not regional.

 

It was clear direction to that particular church. The question for us is if it's normative for us. I, and many respected evangelicals who pursue a personal relationship with God, study the Bible, and earnestly seek to apply it to our lives through the work of the Spirit, do not.

And check it out, most of the church leadership was set up to deal with a particular local congregation to meet their needs in that time. It was ad hoc. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want, but it means we have the fluidity necessary for ministry in a specific context.

Look, on a personal note, I used to feel just like you and used the same arguments. I understand where you're coming from, but the more I studied the whole of Scripture and the history of the Church, I came to the place where I said, "I prefer we do not have women in leadership, but I cannot get there from the text." I actually remember writing that, with a heavy heart, in a research project. If anything, I approached this issue with the opposite agenda, but I cannot in good conscience hold that point anymore. I have a lot of respect for people who grapple with the issue as I did, but who feel led in the other direction.

 

No it wasn't. Good gracious, it's sad to see Christians rip apart the bible like this. How can you get any rules for the church out of the NT if you are so dishonest with the text?

I've studied that section of scripture a lot. I also know many who have studies and preached on that section of scripture for decades. We take the clear english of the text. I wish you did to.