Your View on Women as Deacons

If you would do your best to listen to what scripture is saying you would take the clear meaning of the text instead of monkeying with it and rendering it null and void to Christians in the 21st century. This is nothing less than dishonoring to God, the great Author of scripture. He set male and female apart and did so in the beginning. He created female from male. He ordained that women through much pain would bring forth children, and that they would teach them. He ordained that women would be subject to their husbands. When the church was established, He ordained that women were not to teach nor usurp authority over a man, but to be in subjection. The two offices were restricted to men.

Modern society views this as wrong. The liberal feminist movement rebels against God. Many societal evils are the offshoot of this rebellion agaisnt the order God set up, such as broken families, abortion, etc. Society is reaping what it has sown in rebellion against God. Sadly, Christians aren't viewing the sad results of this rebellion in society and are following right along in religious matters. Rather than trusting God and His word above all, they bring their views framed by modern society to the word of God. Thus, when they read things like what Paul wrote concerning women in marriage and the church they don't like it. In the end, they write it off as 1st century culture that doesn't apply today. Thus they condone and promote placing women in offices God forbid. This is nothing less than rebellion against God, and it will reap evils in religion, as it already has.

 

What is actually turns out to be dishonoring is that with the end game of your hermeneutic, Paul is a hypocrite. In one chapter he wants women to prophesy and a couple chapters later to be quiet. Which is it? There it is in clear plain English, speak up then be silent. In another according to your interpretation, Paul lays out qualifications for overseers and deacons directed only toward men, but then in the letter to the Romans commends the work of Phobe who he calls a deacon and Junia an apostle. Again Paul is made out to be a hypocrite.

To ignore the contextual and historical situation from which scripture was inspired is to fall into the very trap you claim we have fallen into, that of allowing our present culture to dictate interpretation. Now it may be a conservative trap, but a trap nonetheless.

You may not understand these passages to allow women as overseers or deacons and that is fine, many believe fine Bible believing folks believe as you do. But there are also many fine Bible believing folks who would disagree, not based on some feminist agenda or capitulation to modern society, but because they see in scripture women leading and being encouraged to lead. They see Jesus elevating the status of women as equals within the Kingdom of God. They see the history of 2nd and 3rd century church kept alive in many cases by women.

We believe precisely because we treasure the words of scripture, the life and teachings of Jesus and the example of the early church that women are free to serve as they are led by the very same Holy Spirit that leads you.

 

Junia was not an Apostle. Being noted among Apostles means well thought of not actually being one.

Phoebe was a servant but nothing indicates she held the office of Deacon.

Scripture is clear and it is the liberal position that makes Paul out to be hypocrite. You have to dismiss the clear teaching as invalid. We do not.

And this much we agree on, but the HG will never lead anyone to serve in a way contrary to scripture. All personal leading have to be held up to the standard of scripture.

 

Hello dear friends,

May I share with you my position?

 

This is the problem when people do not believe that the word of God is perfect. There are no contradictions in scripture and Paul is not a hypocrite. Just because you can't reconcile scripture doesn't make a particular scripture invalid.

 

I beg your pardon, but I am not "monkeying" around with the text. I am doing my best to determine the original context, what Paul was saying at that time to those people, and how that fits with us today. I also believe that the bit about abortion and broken families to be a sin problem. Relationships have always been dysfunctional. That's because of sin. It was sin when women were perceived as property in ancient times. This has nothing to do with the current issue.

You're right - Paul was not a hypocrite. He gave varying directions to various churches. Our job is to interpret what they mean for us today.

 

I too agree, there are not contradictions in scripture, problem is you don't see how you hermeneutic actually creates contradictions where there are fairly easy explanations. I can reconcile these texts just fine, it is you who will need to do some backtracking in order to keep you eyes and hands in tact.

You didn't actually deal with the texts I gave, instead choosing to change the topic to a discussion about inerrancy which is actually of no value because it only applies to the originals, which we don't have. But I'm sure I'm the liberal because I can't prove your "doctrine".

 

Well, it appears I was right. You don't have a high view of scripture, which makes it easy to devalue part of it.

 

I do understand that there was not a word for female deacons at the time that is why the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to make himself clear about the office of deacon. Diakonos means servant, there are lots and lots of servants that do not hold the office of deacon in the church. Paul made this clear and logic of the scripture as a whole shows us that All deacons are servants but not all servants are deacons.

This is not intended to punish anyone, it is the way that God wanted His church set up. When I see people twist and massage scripture and ignore other scripture it seems like seeking a title is more important than the service of a believer.

 

Please share your position ! The more the merrier !